We don't know exactly what happened...

[bilby]

There is a mode of discussion that is so common that, given time, it comes up in almost every debate. I am not taking about the well known Godwin's Law, which has become so well known as to be (in many cases) self correcting - indeed people who have arguments where comparison to Hitler or Nazism are completely justified now often shy away from such comparisons to avoid the accusation of Godwin.

The debating technique I am talking about I think of as the 'Blank Slate Argument'; However as it is very common, no doubt those who (unlike me) have made a study of logical fallacies and debating errors, will recognise it as something that already has it's own name, and if so, I would be grateful if they could let me know.

The Blank Slate Argument uses a couple of fallacies to arrive at an erroneous conclusion; Usually it is presented wrapped in a cloud of obfuscation, in an apparent attempt to make it less obvious that the speaker is presenting a totally unsupported claim.

In essence, it is structured like this:

1) You agree that we do not have perfect knowledge of the subject, situation or events.
2) We therefore do not know anything useful about the subject, situation or events. (Fallacy of composition)
3) As nothing is known, any assertion made is equally likely to be true as any other assertion. (False equivalence)
4) I am making an assertion
5) Therefore what I say is true, or is at least as reasonable and plausible as anything anyone else might say.

I see this argument used all over the place; Creationists use it a lot, and in an abbreviated form, it can be expressed in just three words: "We you there?"; I have also seen it used by lawyers seeking to establish doubt as to the facts of a case.

Another abbreviated form, which serves to highlight (rather than conceal) the erroneous nature of the argument, would be "Nobody knows, therefore I know".

Do others here share my frustration with the frequency with which this form of argument is used, where a debater sweeps away all evidence as valueless, to create a blank slate upon which he can write his opinion and declare it to be fact? Can anyone tell me the formal name of this type of error (if it has one)?

 

[Kharakov]

Argument from ignorance.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Argument from ignorance.

Obviously you don't know that.
EB

 

[Kharakov]

Argument from ignorance.

Obviously you don't know that.
EB

None of us do, which is why what I say is true, or is at least as reasonable and plausible as anything anyone else might say.

 

[Shadowy Man]

In essence, it is structured like this:

1) You agree that we do not have perfect knowledge of the subject, situation or events.
2) We therefore do not know anything useful about the subject, situation or events. (Fallacy of composition)
3) As nothing is known, any assertion made is equally likely to be true as any other assertion. (False equivalence)
4) I am making an assertion
5) Therefore what I say is true, or is at least as reasonable and plausible as anything anyone else might say.

This is beautiful and perfectly describes a situation I've been going through at work.

 

[bilby]

Argument from ignorance.

Well it's certainly one form of argument from ignorance; but I am looking for something more specific than that.

 

[Kharakov]

Argument from ignorance.

Well it's certainly one form of argument from ignorance; but I am looking for something more specific than that.

Argument from ambiguity. I could be bullshitting.

 

[Valjean]

Palpable Poppycock (poppycockus palporum)

 

[Togo]

Formal syllogistic fallacies

Syllogistic fallacies – logical fallacies that occur in syllogisms.

Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise (illicit negative) – when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but at least one negative premise

We do not have (perfect knowledge), therefore we know (nothing useful).


The idea that we know nothing does not follow from the premise. It's disguised by using one negative in the first line, but a different kind of negative in the second.

And yes, it occurs all the time in the politics board, where people assert that because a given source is potentially unreliable, we can assert anything as truth.

 

[fast]

Argumentum ad crack smoke-em

 

[Kharakov]

Argumentum ad crack smoke-em

Obviously you've never seen a crackhead argue over who gets the next hit. They make the US senate look like a bunch of three year olds. Wait... three year olds do that. Nevermind, I lose this argument, but I wouldn't if I were a crack head.

 

[Malintent]

"We do not have perfect knowledge, therefore we know nothing"

The conclusion does not follow the premise.

The correct conclusion is as follows:

"We do not have perfect knowledge, therefore what we know is not perfect"

I would respond, "I agree we do not posses perfect knowledge of anything at all. This means that there exists some degree of knowledge on the subject, somewhere between 'none at all' and 'almost every possible detail'. Imperfection does not imply useless.. nothing is perfect yet nothing is completely useless. This statement is an attempt to justify any claim as being equivalent to any other... such as "the sky is expansive and blue" is equivalent to "snowmen run congress with their corncob pipes". When you have no way to win an argument, destroy the conversation.

 

[Shadowy Man]

"We do not have perfect knowledge, therefore we know nothing"

The conclusion does not follow the premise.

And yet I've been dealing with people in control of my project's progress who are presenting that very argument.

 

[fromderinside]

There is a mode of discussion that is so common that, given time, it comes up in almost every debate. I am not taking about the well known Godwin's Law, which has become so well known as to be (in many cases) self correcting - indeed people who have arguments where comparison to Hitler or Nazism are completely justified now often shy away from such comparisons to avoid the accusation of Godwin.

The debating technique I am talking about I think of as the 'Blank Slate Argument'; However as it is very common, no doubt those who (unlike me) have made a study of logical fallacies and debating errors, will recognise it as something that already has it's own name, and if so, I would be grateful if they could let me know.

The Blank Slate Argument uses a couple of fallacies to arrive at an erroneous conclusion; Usually it is presented wrapped in a cloud of obfuscation, in an apparent attempt to make it less obvious that the speaker is presenting a totally unsupported claim.

In essence, it is structured like this:

1) You agree that we do not have perfect knowledge of the subject, situation or events.
2) We therefore do not know anything useful about the subject, situation or events. (Fallacy of composition)
3) As nothing is known, any assertion made is equally likely to be true as any other assertion. (False equivalence)
4) I am making an assertion
5) Therefore what I say is true, or is at least as reasonable and plausible as anything anyone else might say.

I think the following is remarkably similar.

All I can say is that the idea that one knows something about the kind of material world we seem to believe in is self-contradictory. This is not a psychological fact about people having this idea, it's a logical point."
EB

If we believe we perceive the material world through our organs of perception and as mental representations of it somehow processed within our brains then whatever we come to be aware of is mediated by this process. There is this process between whatever fact is to be perceived and the actual perception of it we come to be aware of. So, what we know is the percept produced by our brain not the fact perceived. This follows from our basic belief about the material world that we perceive it through our body and from our belief about the process of perception. Maybe these beliefs are wrong but we have no other that I know of.
EB

Yes? All I can say is that the idea that one knows something about the kind of material world we seem to believe in is self-contradictory. This is not a psychological fact about people having this idea, it's a logical point.


Oops, I realise I'm just repeating myself! Silly me!

Still, I can't see anything you just said that should change an iota of it.
EB

 

[Underseer]

I usually identify it as an argument from ignorance, but depending on how it's presented there can also be elements of false equivalence and/or false dichotomy in the argument. Variants that I've seen:

• I don't understand how the universe came to be.
• Therefore, I know how the universe came to be: a magic man created it with magic.

• I don't understand how love came to be.
• Therefore, I know how love came into existence: a magic man created it with magic.

• I don't understand how the pyramids were built.
• Therefore, I know how the pyramids were built: aliens built them with advanced alien technology.

• I don't understand how life came to be.
• Therefore, I know how life came to be: a magic man created it with magic.

• I don't know what that thing in the sky is.
• Therefore, I know what that thing in the sky is: it's an alien space ship.

• I don't understand where morality comes from.
• Therefore, I know where morality comes from: a magic man created it.

• I don't understand how contrails are formed.
• Therefore, I know how contrails are formed: it's part of a vast government plot to poison us. All airplanes are crop dusters and we are the vermin being exterminated!

• I don't understand where lightning comes from.
• Therefore, I know where lightning comes from: lightning proves Zeus. How else do you explain lightning?

• I don't understand where thunder comes from.
• Therefore, I know where thunder comes from. Thunder proves Thor. How else can you explain thunder?

I don't know, therefore I know. Isn't that the essence of an argument from ignorance fallacy? The argument is of course fallacious because it hinges on the assumption that no other possible explanation exists, but it is always possible that another explanation exists, and we are too stupid, too ignorant, or too lacking in imagination to think of it. After all, the ancient Greeks could not possibly have known that lightning is just electricity because they didn't know about electricity. How could they? Ben Franklin was thousands of years in their future. Thus, the only honest answer would have been "I don't know where lightning comes from," but all too often we humans use "I don't know" as a handy excuse for making up answers.

Unfortunately, getting people to admit that they have used an argument from ignorance is very difficult. Generally, the conclusion supported by the argument from ignorance becomes the premise for many other arguments and many other conclusions, so admitting that the original conclusion is bad requires abandoning a large number of conclusions, and most humans are reticent to do that.

 

[Malintent]

"We do not have perfect knowledge, therefore we know nothing"

The conclusion does not follow the premise.

And yet I've been dealing with people in control of my project's progress who are presenting that very argument.

A very easy argument to address with mirroring. Tell them that if they do not posses perfect knowledge of any particular flaw, the plan should then be considered flawless.

 

[Shadowy Man]

And yet I've been dealing with people in control of my project's progress who are presenting that very argument.

A very easy argument to address with mirroring. Tell them that if they do not posses perfect knowledge of any particular flaw, the plan should then be considered flawless.

One should never have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

 

[Malintent]

A very easy argument to address with mirroring. Tell them that if they do not posses perfect knowledge of any particular flaw, the plan should then be considered flawless.

One should never have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

.. or with a Sicilian, when guess in on the line... HAHAHAHAHAHhahaheh...<thump>

 

[DBT]

''Science does not have all the answers to the nature and origin of Creation, therefore the principles and beliefs of science rest upon faith''

''Because we do not have complete knowledge about the world and its origin and nature, 'my' belief in an almighty creator is just as valid as your belief in your belief in the teachings of science.''

'As my faith in the existence of the almighty creator is strong and true, my belief is real and true, while your belief in science is false, misplaced and misguided.'

 

[Starman]

When you have no way to win an argument, destroy the conversation.

"People who believe in a make-believe god are delusional. There is no god."

Like that?

"You cannot prove (to my satisfaction) that god exists."

Or that?

"Fundies are so stupid."

"Brights are smart, and moral, and everything."

"God is wicked and evil."

"Shut up and get out of here. Nobody is on your side."

"The Flying Spaghetti Monster - ha, ha, ha, ha, ha".

These are a few of the countless ways atheists destroy the conversation.