Sentences with phrase «argument from ignorance does»

Not exact matches

But, the fact that we don't know does not mean we must suddenly come to the conclusion that is MUST be god — that's a logical fallacy — the argument from ignorance.

(Argument from Ignorance) Simply saying they don't exist is even less «proof» than I offered.

@ 0G - No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls You do realize that your moniker» 0G - No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls» is an argument from ignorance?

«There is no evidence of God, and therefore, God does not exist» appeals to an argument from ignorance.

don't point them to bertrand russels teapot analogy... it just confuses them more — and you stand the chance of them actually understanding it — thus depriving others the comedy they provide when they raise such arguments from ignorance.

You do risk just falling into an argument from ignorance, by claiming God fills the Gaps we don't know yet.

Your blatant denial of this verifiable evidence proves that either you do not know that this is fact, which makes your position an argument from ignorance, or you do know that this is fact, which makes your position an argument from dishonesty.

The big bang does not state that something comes from nothing, and the rest of your argument is ludicrous.This is why Bill Nye is right - a lack of scientific understanding results in a nation full of ignorance and lack of critical thinking; not good for a nation that is basically making money by being on the cutting edge of technology.

They have no viable theory of their own other than «god did it»... an argument from ignorance.

That is, unless you do not understand logic, which makes your attempt an argument from ignorance.

what you've done is asserted an argumentum ad ignorantiam... or an argument from ignorance — and that's a fallacy in informal logic... not surprising — as you're obviously an ignorant shithead...

The «argument from ignorance» (we do nt» know what else is causing it, so it must be us) is not even slightly compelling (besides being fallacious).

I'll grudgingly admit that he didn't actually say that because argument from ignorance has been used to justify the reality of AGW, absent any other reason, our course of action should be status quo.

Please note: saying that we don't know and an argument from ignorance are completely different things.

The leading counter argument for (1) is that we do not understand natural variability, but we know it occurs, so (1) is an unfounded argument from ignorance.

Now compare the logical standard above with that of Vincentrj, who is trying to make Argument from ignorance in order to confuse us, and he didn't even explain how his troll relates to the topic at hand.

It can also be achieved by understanding that the argument relies on ignoring factors that matter as known by people who do understand the complexities of the system (in other words, that the argument springs from too far into the confident incompetent state described by Dunning & Kruger), although I find it's rare that people exhibiting the characteristics of denial rather than mere ignorance who start out there will admit to themselves that that's where they were - perhaps because I don't follow the incremental approach Jonathan recommends?

What the scholars of rhetoric mean by an argument from ignorance is not that the argument is particularly ignorant; nor does it necessarily mean that the speaker does not know a more substantial argument, though that may certainly be true.