Talk:Argumentum ad ignorantiam

From Religions Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Is the argument from ignorance distinct from argument from personal incredulity?[edit]

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)