IronChariots.org

[clippo]

I wish we had a better name for this fallacy. The word "ignorance" is such a pejorative that it usually ends any discussion. If you tell someone they are using an argument from ignorance, they interpret that to mean that you are saying they are stupid, end of discourse.

The AFI is very common, and is not at all limited to discussions of religion and the like. I run into it frequently and wish there was a gentle way to introduce this idea without seeming to insult. Once people see the point, they understand. But that word "ignorance" gets in the way. Any suggestions.

[Mythman]

Well, if Wikipedia's any indication (and the tag at the top of the page makes things a bit shaky) there are two things.

The first is to distinguish an argument from ignorance from an argument from personal incredulity, because there are differences and the latter sounds a lot less insulting.

But when you do get a simple "you can't prove I'm wrong" you're kind of in a bind. If you name the fallacy in English, you sound like a name-caller. If you say it in Latin, you could easily come off as a high-and-mighty atheist talking down to the lowly, feeble-minded theist. So what I think might work better is to walk through the fallacy and save the name for last. It might go something like this:

"Well, you can't prove God doesn't exist!"
"So, you're saying that because I can't disprove God, it means that your belief that he exists is automatically given weight?"
"Yes."
"But can you disprove the existence of intangible polka-dotted rabbits from Mars?"
"No."
"So since we can't disprove intangible polka-dotted rabbits from Mars, does that give weight to the claim that they exist?"
"No."
"Do you see the double standard there? This is actually a common logical fallacy called an Argument from Ignorance. Don't ask me why they call it that, but that's its name."

I haven't tried it, though, and what's worse I tend to assume people will just look the term up if they're not familiar with it. I need to break that habit.

[eimerian]

"Ignorance" is not pejorative at all! Only very ignorant people would think that.

Yes colloquially "You are ignorant." means "You are a moron." but literally it just means not-knowing something and that's exactly how it is used in the context of this fallacy. Every argument from ignorance basically follows the pattern of "I don't know. Therefore I know.". You arrive at a conclusion from the position of not-knowing something.

So why not say argument from not-knowing or argument from nescience if you prefer fancy Latin words?
_________________
Jesus saves.
Do not remove memory card, controller, or reset/switch off the console.

[clippo]

[GodBeLess]

You could always say "Thats an arugment from ignorance" and then immediately follow it up with pointing out that you don't mean "Ignorance" in the colloquial way, but in the technical way.

Then you describe what "Ignorance" actually means, if its relevant separate it from "Wilful ignorance" and then show how you are "Ignorant" of many things yourself. Like, being "Ignorant" of Calligraphy or Marine Biology or Plumbing etc etc etc. It might help them accept that you're not being insulting, but being factual, if they can understand that everyone is ignorant of something because no one is omniscient.

"Ignorance" only becomes an inherently bad thing when it turns into "Wilful Ignorance" so that belief can be preserved.
_________________
www.splittingoftheadam.blogspot.com

My Heathenish Atheist Blog, Go have fun there.

[LtCmd.Lore]

Why bother mentioning the argument from ignorance at all?
If you are talking to a person who is familiar with logical fallacies, then he won't be offended if you say: "that's an argument from ignorance"

If you're talking to someone who is NOT familiar with logical fallacies, then you're gonna have to take 10 minutes to explain what you're talking about anyway, so why risk offending them by telling them: "that's an argument from ignorance" when that won't add anything to the discussion anyway...

[clippo]

[Mythman]

[donnyton]

I've found that it's easier to discuss burdens of proof than anything else. This removes the argument from being personal for both parties--do atheists have burden of proof, or do Christians? It doesn't concern whether your particular Christian is ignorant or not.
_________________
"To say that it's not okay to believe in something that may or may not be true is ridiculous. Some people like to have that mystical fantasy in the world. It adds flavor."

[Singring]

I've found that the best way to deal with most of these tyoes of fallacies is simply to ask a question of the other side that highlights the point you are trying to make. For example, in the case of an argument form ignorance you could ask something like this:

'Do you know what dark matter is made up of?'

The reply most likely will be 'no'.

You then simply make any insane claim you wish. Such as:

'Therefore, pink trolls from the nth dimension created dark matter and the universe.'

...and insist that they accept this notion and convert to the Church of the Pink Trolls (blessed be their snot). Most will not get the point immediately and just dismiss your claims as ridiculous - which is of course exactly what you can then turn around on them to demonstrate that if they are not obliged to accept your insane claim form ignorance, neither are you obliged to accept theirs.

The penny will drop in some cases, but not all.

This method works better for othe rfallacies, especially when trying to demonstrate who carries the burden of proof, but it ought to do the trick in thses instances as well.

Another idea would be to make an outrageous claim about the person you are arguing with. Simply say:

'I don't know what you look like naked, therefore you must have three nipples and six toes.'

If the other side protests, bingo - you've made your point.