Some of these are
assumed from ignorance: science might not yet have any workable and tested theory or model to deal with that class of phenomena.
Not exact matches
I can only
assume from such
ignorance that you simply don't know many atheists.
One last bone I'd like to pick and a particularly gnarly bone that might take my entire career and more to address, is that when infants are transferred
from home to hospital, it is far too frequent that the NICU team
assumes homebirth - based midwives could not possibly provide adequate care and that our report must be tainted with lies and
ignorance.
I found it came mostly
from their
ignorance of the subject,
assuming cloth diapers were like ours Mother's.
Assuming your comment survives moderation, as it may well be considered sloganeering, your argument
from ignorance (that is, lack of knowledge) is not universalizable.
These studies have another basic flaw: the analyses usually involve an «argument
from ignorance» (i.e. «we can only explain this if we
assume...»), where unknown factors are simply ignored and the assumption is that all factors can be accounted for.
«Rigorous processes» may help avoid a hockey - stick fiasco, but there are still two very basic problems: a) the proxy data themselves are often dicey, especially when the time scale is large, and b) the interpretation of the data is based on an «argument
from ignorance» (i.e. «we can only explain this if we
assume...»), where unknown factors are simply ignored and it is falsely
assumed that we have the knowledge of all factors that could possibly have been involved; if these studies are used to provide evidence for a preconceived hypothesis, I think they are next to worthless.
Fred, your comments once again show that you are simply
assuming CO2 drives temperature without strong evidence and dismissing natural variability
from ignorance.
Likewise, every attorney that complains about a piece of technology would be
assumed to not be speaking
from a place of
ignorance, but rather to be giving an informed analysis of a tool.
These common mis - diagnoses stem
from an
ignorance among professionals about specific social and emotional characteristics of gifted children which are then mistakenly
assumed by these professionals to be signs of pathology.