Ad Ignorantiam Question |
You are here:
Meaning
>
Christian Witness
>
Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies
>
Fallacies of Omission
>
Ad Ignorantiam Question
|
Logical Fallacy of Ad Ignorantiam QuestionThe logical fallacy of ad ignorantiam question occurs when an question (sometimes unanswerable such as a request to prove a universal negative) is used as proof of a claim rather than giving a reason to believe the claim. The logical fallacy of ad ignorantiam question claims that something is either true or false based on another person's ability or lack of ability to answer a certain question. If someone makes a statement that is a universal negative or other statement cannot be proven, there is no fallacy in asking for proof of any claim. It is also not a fallacy to ask a question that points out that a dogmatic belief cannot be defended. This fallacy occurs only when a question (that can't be answered, at least not at the moment) is taken as proof that a claim is true (or false). This is a very common form of ad ignorantiam argument, so it gets its own definition. Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Ad Ignorantiam Question
Of course no one can prove that God doesn't exist, but that is not why we believe. We believe because we know Him personally.
(Bill Nye probably meant to ask how the trees could have survived the global flood of Genesis, and there is an answer to that question.) So Bill Nye's argument is that he doesn't know how this happened, and he is betting that you can’t explain how it happened, so he asserts that based on this lack of knowledge, he knows that the Bible has an error. However, your knowledge, or Bill Nye’s knowledge or lack thereof has no effect at all on reality. Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance. All of these questions that Bill Nye is asking would fall into the class of fallacies known as ad ignorantiam. This is a common tactic of asking a question, or, in this case, a long series of questions, then claiming that if the other person can't answer them (or doesn't have enough time to answer them in this case), then that proves something or some things (in this case that a young Earth, a global flood, and creation) are impossible. These fallacies can sound very convincing, however, they are irrational. Just because Bill Nye the science guy doesn’t know some things about science doesn’t mean that those things are impossible. "It will not survive in general, nor will its seeds." “Many terrestrial seeds can survive long periods of soaking in various concentrations of salt water (Howe, 1968, CRSQ:105-112). Others could have survived in floating masses. Many could have survived as accidental and planned food stores on the ark.” There are explanations for these things as the links below document. Again, Bill resorts to the logical fallacy of hysteron proteron, stating what has not been proven as if it were a fact. However, this is a bit of a red herring as well. The Ark would almost certainly have carried seeds as one of the main food. There is evidence that there were floating islands, huge mats of vegetation during the flood. These would have had many seeds floating above the water. Most importantly, Bill is assuming Naturalism and basing his whole argument on that. It is the unspoken basis for his premises, his proof. This is a form of hysteron proteron, using the unproven assumption of naturalism as proof. Bill Nye is claiming that the trees could not have survived a flood, therefore that flood didn't happen. However, his claim that the trees could not have survived is based on poor logic and assumptions. So, this is an argument by Bill Nye that pits his poor logic and arbitrary assumptions against Divine revelation. Assumptions are not real and cannot be verified. Divine revelation is real and can be verified, since every single person who comes to Christ will find Christ. Whoever seeks Him finds Him. Anyone can verify this. Of course, they must come in submission and deep respect desiring to do God's will. Once they know Christ, the Holy Spirit will teach them that the Bible is God's Word without error. From that point it is an unfolding revelation pressing toward the mark of the high calling, the manifestation of the sons of God.
![]()
How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question |
Other Pages in this sectionStacking the Deck Ambiguity Effect McNamara Fallacy Head in the Sand Suppression of the Agent Fading Affect Bias Unteachable Selective Refutation A-Priorism Audiatur Et Altera Pars Ignoring Historical Example Overlooking Secondary Consequences Uncontrolled Factors Missing Link Moving the Goal Posts Gravity Game Demanding Impossible Evidence Unfalsifiability / Untestibility Invincible Ignorance Argument from Ignorance God of the Gaps Argument from Silence No True Scotsman No True Scientist Fallacy of Opposition Frozen Abstraction Falsified Inductive Generalization Argument from the Negative Accident Fallacy Reverse Accident Best-in-Field Abductive Fallacy Denialism Logical Fallacy of Reductionism / Oversimplification Very Simple Answer Reductionism Taboo Fallacy Recently Viewed |