Talk:Argumentum ad ignorantiam
Is the argument from ignorance distinct from argument from personal incredulity?
One argument is "I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false.". The other is "assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa".--Tim Sheerman-Chase 04:25, 23 February 2014 (CST)
- I think they're fairly distinctive, though I'd describe "assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa" as shifting the burden of proof.
- Shifting the burden of proof - "I'm starting with assertion A as true, and will stick with that until you disprove it"
- Argument from Ignorance - "We don't know how life started, so it was probably God"
- Argument from Personal Incredulity - "I can't believe that natural processes could spawn life, so it couldn't have"
- There's probably some conceptual overlap, but the mechanisms are unique
- jt 09:55, 23 February 2014 (CST)