2 minutes ago. Wew. 3:43 Neil DeGrasse Tyson said that "God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance". I think that phrase describes the God of the gaps perfectly.
I thought the joke was that people in the comments would commit the fallacy the video is about... You're doing it wrong. That's an argument from incredulity; not ignorance. :P
+Martymer81 You can't prove I _didn't_ make an argument from incredulity! (I actually planned for this objection from some random person hoping for exactly this kind of eventuality, knowing no-one would believe me when I said so, but my sense of humor is weird like that.)
Kristi Winters actually told me that if I cannot come up with a better theory than patriarchy to explain certain social institutions, then patriarchy gets to win by default.
I see it often when the person NEEDS to be "right", but doesn't have the necessary support to make it incontrovertable, so they shift the burden.....and far too many people fall into jumping on it....
I get why people often have a lot view of philosophers. A lot of them are nothing but ignorant people who have not studied enough of the field they claim to be experts in. Oh they may have read parts philosophy and picked up some fancy words and arguments. But they have not truly studied it. Generally keep it simple. Do not go in to deep end until you understand the basic concepts. This is the sort of basic stuff you should know. You need to know how to add and subtract first before you start toying around with multiplication.
And a lot of people claiming not to be philosophers happen to know quite a bit about the subject. I am far from a expert my self but I at least try to learn as much as I can to avoid getting fooled by someone that knows a bit of the jargon. And it is often channels like this that helps be get a better apparition for philosophy. Tack Marty!
They'll surely CLAIM to know about philosophy, typically by using the appeal to authority fallacy and saying whatever statement they are claiming is true because it is parallel to a quote by someone like Plato or Aristotle
As there is often disagreement as to who has to bear the burden of proof, I think a separate video to adress the null hypothesis would be very welcome.
it's almost kind of like an inverted argument from authority, where the explanation the claimant provides is offered as valid based solely on the claimant's ability to generate it.
a variant of this would be "do some research" and "educate yourself" when you ask a simple question or ask that a claim be backed up, especially if they don't give you any indication of where to "research" and reject everything outside their conspiracy websites.
Zift Ylrhavic Resfear: Exactly. Most people have an IQ below 120. Hell, half of all people have an IQ below 100! These people are more likely to be convinced by rhetorical trickery than sound arguments.
Can you look into a YT video called "RETHINKING DARWIN, Interview with Leif Asmark Jensen" . A new book for anti-propaganda on Darwinism by Hare Krsna movement. Also, another YT video called "Richard Dawkins vs chicken" by hrvoje marjanovic, also a Hare Krsna. A little different approach of theirs...from Vedic stand point of view. (Finally not Christians). Thanks.
I still don't exactly know what is meant by "naturalistic" there. I've never understood that. Why not just "Ruling out all known explanations leaves you with all unknown explanations"? Wouldn't that be the most logical form? Why is "naturalistic" inserted in there? What does it actually limit, besides what is unknown? All "supernatural" essentially seems to mean is an umbrella term for imagined explanations for unexplained happenings. I'm sure there was a time when fire and electricity were considered supernatural. Wouldn't a naturalistic limitation, back then, have reasonlessly excluded those explanations to things they later turned out to actually apply to? So why would it (or indeed, its opposite) even be relevant? I must be missing something.
At 3:35 you have "Science can't explain X; therefore God did it." - Well I don't think that science can explain my Ex (I know I can't), so can I blame her on god?
I totally agree. Its takes a special type of demographic to display an argument from ignorance. It is truly astounding that some people can treat such an argument as good evidence, because "logically" the opposition is shut up.
Is this that whole "I'm not going to do your research for you" thing that people say when you ask them to prove their assertions, or is that something else?
That's more of an argument from assertion. "Do your research" is just another way of saying "because I said so," unless of course it's followed up with references.
+Martymer 81 Interesting. The issue I have is that many creationists are ignorant and do need to educate themselves on the basics before posting. The times I have given heaps of references (and videos explaining the arguments and how these can explain the evidence), only to have them ignored, is in the thousands. The brute fact is that many creationists are not only ignorant, but, more to the point, are not at all interested in pursuing an intellectually honest answer or be honest enough to educate themselves on the actual scientific basics, instead of quoting the scientific clap trap (lies) that is creation wiki and answers in genesis, etc.
Well as these videos show there can be valid exceptions, true. Sounds like a good example, plus I feel sometimes like people on the internet tend to be more likely to be disingenous like that. That's just my personal experience, I've never had to worry about having an argument with multiple people in real life and having them turn out to be the same person.
I agree. In real life anyone who deny reason and evidence would receive short shrift from most reasonable people as these people are clearly incorrigible and so beyond reach. About the issue of people with sock accounts, I was occasionally tempted to believe this in the past, such is the monotonous regularity with which stupid and refuted arguments keep resurfacing in more or less identical forms by apparently different people. However, sometimes there are 'tells' in the text that show it is in fact different individuals posting cut and pasted clap trap from answers in genesis or creation wiki. Further, given that 60% of people in the USA are self proclaimed YECs, it is hardly surprising that they call upon the same refuted arguments from the same limited number of resources, to support their views, often unaware that they are just one in a long line of people to post identical arguments and have them outright refuted. The stupidest thing is that they don't seem to have the intelligence to think that their opponents can read the same nonsense they are reading and so they (their opponents) know exactly what fallacies have been invoked and what evidence ignored or cherry picked to give a false impression. As another poster wryly commented it is sad fact that a 50% of the population have an IQ of less than 100. Factor in an education system that has the net effect of crippling a persons critical thinking faculties, and you practically guarantee mass stupidity on a national scale.
not completely an argument from ignorance, shifting the burden of proof yes. It would have been a better example had you asserted that since you can't find your favorite left sock, a sock gnome exists. Then asking us to disprove the conclusion.
Hello, do you think that "space" and "time", "force", "power", "mass" and "energy" do exist, outside the brain that is, and how will you demonstrate it rather than resorting to "everybody knows that" which is just another Argument from ignorance?
Your sock drawer gnomes point out another issue that gets absorbed into these discussions, namely disproportionate burdens. For instance, while someone claiming the gnomes don't exist takes on a burden, it isn't the same as that of a person making the positive claim. And the burden of the first doesn't grow if gnomes are somehow defined as being beyond detection. Theists try to pull this when implying (or stating outright) that god's lack of falsifiability means both belief and disbelief stand on equal grounding.
Martymer has made a separate video for that as it does not always include the attempt to shift the burden of proof... Ignorance is "if you can't explain it I'm right", Incredulity is "I can't imagine any other reason". They are close but not identical.
LukeSumIpsePatremTe Actually it does follow that I have absolute knowledge because I read a book once and it makes me feel good. But besides that the great thing about this argument is that it allows me to move the discussion into a field where I can move the goalpost wherever I want. But you'll never know that because you don't believe in absolute knowledge. Does that seem dishonest? Too bad! Because you don't have absolute knowledge.
My trolls. Piss enough people off and you'll have loyal viewers who watch everything you make just to give you a down vote. Just hope they don't use Adblock. :)
My favorite phrasing of this was in my. Backwoods he'd non denominational church was," If not why not?". Idk you said it waa the thou in my 9-10 year old nead. If I heard it once it was 3000 times. I never believed that Noah fit all of the animals in the world in the ark despite a horrible science education at that point in the old days. I noticed God couldn't talk to people but could dine with them and they could see him, bit not talk w him, Moses cou!d...and could not see god face to face within about 9 verses apart. Amd much, much worse that Children Protective Services would remove me from that house I grew up in. No, I don't think my parents lied per se, they believed it. It was better to beat a child into submission than to literally let them burn in hell. I was just a kid..and not a bad kid. I was kind. I hated chores bc I was a kid. I was the dam mermaid bc that was women's work and when forced to a somehow accredited YEC college and there was one less person in the house they got a maid. Ugh! Now they are old, dad has dementia and mom has some brain issue bc of salt for years. I don't want to take care of them but they are so gu!Like I watched people take advantage of them for my entire life...and they have Master's degrees in teaching!
I've taken a bit of epistemology as part of courses related to teaching. Other than that, my understanding of logic comes from mathematics. This is why I sometimes goof on things like terminology.
No problem, I've had a growing interest in science-compatible philosophy and your videos have done a great job helping me understand the connection between pro-science philo and science itself. Logic and mathematics are derived from such philos. I've always been interested in science but preferred it from a more philosophical angle, as I'm finding. I'm finding that the terms themselves are not as important as the concept you're trying to illustrate, at least from my experiences. Your videos are very concise and great at explaining logical concepts.
Great points, minus "the god of the gaps." It is not used by Christians to prove god when science fails. It is the argument used by the atheist (agnostic) when Christians attempt to answer the question with reason.
Excellent video. Reminds me of the political Left. Trump is a stooge of the Russians: Nationalists: Got proof or evidence? The Left: No.......prove us wrong! Trump: Can't do that. Left: We win......Trump is Russian Nationalist. Nah, nah, nah, nah nah nah. Lol.
I really don't want to get into a political discussion, but don't single out the left as the side that commits fallacies. On that issue, both sides are just as bad.
Fagan: Why? The existence of "sides" immediately tells us that there is _more than one angle to consider._ Why not tell people they can only make right-hand or left-hand turns from now on until the end of time?
Having there being evidence implied and not having it isn't having evidence in any way what so ever. If it was you would be saying no evidence is having evidence. You're #2 at 3:20 is an Argument from Ignorance. By the way knowing, believing, or defaulting to there isn't a god because you have not been shown there to be one is based out of ignorance also. So join Agnosticism! It's like Atheism but without the logical fallacies and with a bit more honesty.
While I enjoyed your video and agree with a lot of it. Your assumption that GOD did not creat it or do it. Is faulse. GOD created, scince just found out how he did it.
Where ever there is an argument from ignorance a strawman is sure to follow eating a red herring.
yep
2 minutes ago. Wew.
3:43 Neil DeGrasse Tyson said that "God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance". I think that phrase describes the God of the gaps perfectly.
the 'god of the gaps' arguments is Niel's favourite, don't forget. It is well said though.
BUT MARTYMAR! Sock drawer gnomes are a longstanding, proven phenomenon. Why I have a sock drawer gnome, his name is Gerald, and we are good friends.
kratoselric suzumiya Mine live in the washing machine. I feel a bit sorry for them everytime it runs the spin cycle.
Don't, they really love that
Gerald? My sock drawer gnome is named Gerald, too. Is Gerald branching out?
there is a long running war between the sock drawer gnomes and the underpants gnomes..... (it's a foundational territory dispute)
"Mister Jones, if you didn't kill Mr Smith, who did?"
"God did it! You can't prove me wrong, so it must be true!"
I really don't see how this is a logical fallacy, so it can't be one.
I thought the joke was that people in the comments would commit the fallacy the video is about... You're doing it wrong. That's an argument from incredulity; not ignorance. :P
+Martymer81 You can't prove I _didn't_ make an argument from incredulity!
(I actually planned for this objection from some random person hoping for exactly this kind of eventuality, knowing no-one would believe me when I said so, but my sense of humor is weird like that.)
I remember an episode of Arthur where DW uses this fallacy when Arthur debunks her so "experiments." This episode is aptly titled "Prove It."
Kristi Winters actually told me that if I cannot come up with a better theory than patriarchy to explain certain social institutions, then patriarchy gets to win by default.
then she got it wrong.
This one is most prevalent from what I've seen (with the exception of the many many versions of the red herring).
Its funny that this is the most committed fallacy in apologetics.
P.S. Thank you theists, for giving me something to laugh about every single day.
Meusana I actually just realized that to be honest
I see it often when the person NEEDS to be "right", but doesn't have the necessary support to make it incontrovertable, so they shift the burden.....and far too many people fall into jumping on it....
If you don't have the proof then don't argue that point.. Pretty simple *cough* *cough* theists *cough*
As a Christian you are right I've made this argument in the past and I am now ashamed for it.
Interestingly, when you try to explain this simple concept to some internet "philosophers", they go nuts.
I know what you mean.
I get why people often have a lot view of philosophers. A lot of them are nothing but ignorant people who have not studied enough of the field they claim to be experts in. Oh they may have read parts philosophy and picked up some fancy words and arguments. But they have not truly studied it.
Generally keep it simple. Do not go in to deep end until you understand the basic concepts. This is the sort of basic stuff you should know. You need to know how to add and subtract first before you start toying around with multiplication.
The sad thing is that a lot of "Internet philosophers" don't really know jack shit about philosophy.
And a lot of people claiming not to be philosophers happen to know quite a bit about the subject. I am far from a expert my self but I at least try to learn as much as I can to avoid getting fooled by someone that knows a bit of the jargon. And it is often channels like this that helps be get a better apparition for philosophy.
Tack Marty!
They'll surely CLAIM to know about philosophy, typically by using the appeal to authority fallacy and saying whatever statement they are claiming is true because it is parallel to a quote by someone like Plato or Aristotle
As there is often disagreement as to who has to bear the burden of proof, I think a separate video to adress the null hypothesis would be very welcome.
it's almost kind of like an inverted argument from authority, where the explanation the claimant provides is offered as valid based solely on the claimant's ability to generate it.
a variant of this would be "do some research" and "educate yourself" when you ask a simple question or ask that a claim be backed up, especially if they don't give you any indication of where to "research" and reject everything outside their conspiracy websites.
It's like a homework fallacy.
2:42 is how trials in Ace Attorney work!
Intelligent Design arguments do this all the time, by the assertion that random, undirected natural processes can't possibly explain evolution.
This is the most common fallacy I come across when talking to creationists, especially young Earthers, and flat Earthers. God of the gaps included.
claims should only be accepted by evidence equal to the depth and breadth of the claim. the default position is always "demonstrate it please"
Bah, it was the invisible pink unicorns, its always the invisible pink unicorns.
Absolutely love your work; quoting the late, great Hitchens just makes it even better.
My dryer has been given the name "Sock Gnome" now.
"Fallacy of the week" starts being an awesome series! keep it up!
Starts? Implying it wasn't always
Living in France. Currently it's election time. The amount of logical fallacies currently being used is just insane.
politician is just a fancy word for liar, haven't yopu heard yet
Sadly, most convincing rhetorics are also logically fallacious, and elections are about convincing people to vote for you, not being logically sound.
Zift Ylrhavic Resfear: Exactly. Most people have an IQ below 120. Hell, half of all people have an IQ below 100! These people are more likely to be convinced by rhetorical trickery than sound arguments.
95% are below 120, 98 below 130.
I really hope, through some series of unlikely events, that Winston Wu comes across this series.
Can you look into a YT video called "RETHINKING DARWIN, Interview with Leif Asmark Jensen" . A new book for anti-propaganda on Darwinism by Hare Krsna movement. Also, another YT video called "Richard Dawkins vs chicken" by hrvoje marjanovic, also a Hare Krsna. A little different approach of theirs...from Vedic stand point of view. (Finally not Christians).
Thanks.
well said, Mart.
I still don't exactly know what is meant by "naturalistic" there. I've never understood that. Why not just "Ruling out all known explanations leaves you with all unknown explanations"? Wouldn't that be the most logical form? Why is "naturalistic" inserted in there? What does it actually limit, besides what is unknown? All "supernatural" essentially seems to mean is an umbrella term for imagined explanations for unexplained happenings. I'm sure there was a time when fire and electricity were considered supernatural. Wouldn't a naturalistic limitation, back then, have reasonlessly excluded those explanations to things they later turned out to actually apply to? So why would it (or indeed, its opposite) even be relevant? I must be missing something.
At 3:35 you have "Science can't explain X; therefore God did it." - Well I don't think that science can explain my Ex (I know I can't), so can I blame her on god?
I totally agree. Its takes a special type of demographic to display an argument from ignorance. It is truly astounding that some people can treat such an argument as good evidence, because "logically" the opposition is shut up.
I have a description for this. Its called being speechless at total and utter incompetence.
Meusana what amazes me is they really think it's like a "gotcha" point. Lol.
Hi Martymir do you have any trouble with your ad revenue like so many other content creators after the reasent TH-cam-pocolypse?
Is this that whole "I'm not going to do your research for you" thing that people say when you ask them to prove their assertions, or is that something else?
That's more of an argument from assertion. "Do your research" is just another way of saying "because I said so," unless of course it's followed up with references.
+Martymer 81 Interesting. The issue I have is that many creationists are ignorant and do need to educate themselves on the basics before posting. The times I have given heaps of references (and videos explaining the arguments and how these can explain the evidence), only to have them ignored, is in the thousands. The brute fact is that many creationists are not only ignorant, but, more to the point, are not at all interested in pursuing an intellectually honest answer or be honest enough to educate themselves on the actual scientific basics, instead of quoting the scientific clap trap (lies) that is creation wiki and answers in genesis, etc.
Well as these videos show there can be valid exceptions, true. Sounds like a good example, plus I feel sometimes like people on the internet tend to be more likely to be disingenous like that.
That's just my personal experience, I've never had to worry about having an argument with multiple people in real life and having them turn out to be the same person.
I agree. In real life anyone who deny reason and evidence would receive short shrift from most reasonable people as these people are clearly incorrigible and so beyond reach.
About the issue of people with sock accounts, I was occasionally tempted to believe this in the past, such is the monotonous regularity with which stupid and refuted arguments keep resurfacing in more or less identical forms by apparently different people. However, sometimes there are 'tells' in the text that show it is in fact different individuals posting cut and pasted clap trap from answers in genesis or creation wiki.
Further, given that 60% of people in the USA are self proclaimed YECs, it is hardly surprising that they call upon the same refuted arguments from the same limited number of resources, to support their views, often unaware that they are just one in a long line of people to post identical arguments and have them outright refuted.
The stupidest thing is that they don't seem to have the intelligence to think that their opponents can read the same nonsense they are reading and so they (their opponents) know exactly what fallacies have been invoked and what evidence ignored or cherry picked to give a false impression.
As another poster wryly commented it is sad fact that a 50% of the population have an IQ of less than 100. Factor in an education system that has the net effect of crippling a persons critical thinking faculties, and you practically guarantee mass stupidity on a national scale.
I saw a sock drawer gnome yesterday.
Prove that I didn't.
not completely an argument from ignorance, shifting the burden of proof yes. It would have been a better example had you asserted that since you can't find your favorite left sock, a sock gnome exists. Then asking us to disprove the conclusion.
I understand.... but I still saw a gnome.
thumbs up mate. I have video footage tho. ur fucked
Got that gnome on cam dude
I get warm feelings, when I think about sock drawer gnomes.
A better example: I can't find a sock, and I can't think of any other possible explanations; therefore, drawer gnomes exist. Disprove my conclusion.
Hello, do you think that "space" and "time", "force", "power", "mass" and "energy" do exist, outside the brain that is, and how will you demonstrate it rather than resorting to "everybody knows that" which is just another Argument from ignorance?
But Marten, sock drawer gnomes DO exist. I've seen them. The males have orange stripes and the females have purple polka dots. XD
this is what make all conclusions extremely tentative right?
Best to watch at 1.5 speed.
Your sock drawer gnomes point out another issue that gets absorbed into these discussions, namely disproportionate burdens.
For instance, while someone claiming the gnomes don't exist takes on a burden, it isn't the same as that of a person making the positive claim. And the burden of the first doesn't grow if gnomes are somehow defined as being beyond detection.
Theists try to pull this when implying (or stating outright) that god's lack of falsifiability means both belief and disbelief stand on equal grounding.
Isn't the argument for incredulity a type of argument from ignorance also?
Martymer has made a separate video for that as it does not always include the attempt to shift the burden of proof... Ignorance is "if you can't explain it I'm right", Incredulity is "I can't imagine any other reason". They are close but not identical.
I definitely kinda miss typed some of that btw. but I'll let you correct me if you can..
Yeah well how do you know that if you don't believe in absolute knowledge?
Shut up, Sye. :P
Even if you believe in absolute knowledge, it doesn't follow, that *YOU* have any absolute knowledge, or that absolute knowgledge even exists.
LukeSumIpsePatremTe Actually it does follow that I have absolute knowledge because I read a book once and it makes me feel good. But besides that the great thing about this argument is that it allows me to move the discussion into a field where I can move the goalpost wherever I want. But you'll never know that because you don't believe in absolute knowledge. Does that seem dishonest? Too bad! Because you don't have absolute knowledge.
Nor do you, Tarl X, unless you demonstrate proof.
EDIT: Yes, I know that comment is supposed to be sarcastic.
Hey man, spirit science has made some new videos. Would be hilarious if you could debunk them as well.
And a lot of actual pseudoscientists do this all the time.
Mr. Jones is now God's favourite son, goodbye Jesus.
Looks like I found my new favorite toolkit for debunking flattards here in your channel. Good show.
Spirit Science 34_1 ~ The Backster Effect
5 = 5 =/= 5, so...5 is the answer
Who down voted this? It's an example of arguing from ignorance, WTH?
Who got triggered by that?
Winston Wu?
My trolls. Piss enough people off and you'll have loyal viewers who watch everything you make just to give you a down vote. Just hope they don't use Adblock. :)
Congratulations! Finally a video I can like. and your price, +1 like :-)
Yay, WU (woo) Time!!!
I love WU time.
I don't know where you're getting these fallacies from so I think you're just making them up. Prove me wrong!
My favorite phrasing of this was in my. Backwoods he'd non denominational church was," If not why not?". Idk you said it waa the thou in my 9-10 year old nead. If I heard it once it was 3000 times. I never believed that Noah fit all of the animals in the world in the ark despite a horrible science education at that point in the old days. I noticed God couldn't talk to people but could dine with them and they could see him, bit not talk w him, Moses cou!d...and could not see god face to face within about 9 verses apart. Amd much, much worse that Children Protective Services would remove me from that house I grew up in. No, I don't think my parents lied per se, they believed it. It was better to beat a child into submission than to literally let them burn in hell. I was just a kid..and not a bad kid. I was kind. I hated chores bc I was a kid. I was the dam mermaid bc that was women's work and when forced to a somehow accredited YEC college and there was one less person in the house they got a maid. Ugh! Now they are old, dad has dementia and mom has some brain issue bc of salt for years. I don't want to take care of them but they are so gu!Like I watched people take advantage of them for my entire life...and they have Master's degrees in teaching!
Martymer, what is your experience with philosophy? Well, not shit philosophy.
I've taken a bit of epistemology as part of courses related to teaching. Other than that, my understanding of logic comes from mathematics. This is why I sometimes goof on things like terminology.
No problem, I've had a growing interest in science-compatible philosophy and your videos have done a great job helping me understand the connection between pro-science philo and science itself. Logic and mathematics are derived from such philos.
I've always been interested in science but preferred it from a more philosophical angle, as I'm finding.
I'm finding that the terms themselves are not as important as the concept you're trying to illustrate, at least from my experiences. Your videos are very concise and great at explaining logical concepts.
Also I got that ad again that I told you about on patreon while watching this video. They must be really targeting me :|
Great points, minus "the god of the gaps." It is not used by Christians to prove god when science fails. It is the argument used by the atheist (agnostic) when Christians attempt to answer the question with reason.
Hey guys, I have a funny joke.
*Read More*
Excellent video. Reminds me of the political Left. Trump is a stooge of the Russians: Nationalists: Got proof or evidence? The Left: No.......prove us wrong! Trump: Can't do that. Left: We win......Trump is Russian Nationalist. Nah, nah, nah, nah nah nah. Lol.
I really don't want to get into a political discussion, but don't single out the left as the side that commits fallacies. On that issue, both sides are just as bad.
Thank you, Martymer81! That is why there is no progress. These imaginary "teams" that people allow themselves to be divided into.
Martymer 81 Be a man. Take a side.
Horatio Trismegistus Take a side to reality.
Fagan: Why? The existence of "sides" immediately tells us that there is _more than one angle to consider._ Why not tell people they can only make right-hand or left-hand turns from now on until the
end of time?
Having there being evidence implied and not having it isn't having evidence in any way what so ever. If it was you would be saying no evidence is having evidence. You're #2 at 3:20 is an Argument from Ignorance.
By the way knowing, believing, or defaulting to there isn't a god because you have not been shown there to be one is based out of ignorance also.
So join Agnosticism! It's like Atheism but without the logical fallacies and with a bit more honesty.
Prove that this comment is not the first
I can send you comments that were written a few days ago, therefore your comment isn't the first comment on youtube! checkmate!
once again. not really the correct example here.
nah I can go further. Prove that I havnt proved it allready
First
While I enjoyed your video and agree with a lot of it. Your assumption that GOD did not creat it or do it. Is faulse. GOD created, scince just found out how he did it.
When did I make that assumption? Not accepting an unfounded claim does not imply accepting its negation.