Re: Definition of God

[Gandalf Grey]

"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12h8k8n7k6sah14@corp.supernews.com...
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
>
> Nixon was evil, American christians did not care.

That's a lie.

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12h8kcii152or58@corp.supernews.com...

> Nixon was evil, American christians in the majority did not care.

That's a lie.

 

[wcb]

stoney wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 17:38:09 +0100, Lizz Holmans
> <dillo@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>>On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 08:59:07 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Christianity; corruption, murder, deception, ignorance, prejudice,
>>>hypocrisy, greed, pride, theft, lies, torture, enslavement, and more.
>>
>>Stoney, Stoney, Stoney, thee knows better than this. All these things
>>existed before Christ and exist where no one has ever heard the name
>>of Jesus, and if thee is honest with thyself, thee will admit it.
>
> I never indicated otherwise, Liz. However, many Christians prattle
> their religion is based on; honesty, empathy, justice, compassion,
> kindness, and humanity. Such is not the case.
>
>>>Morality like that isn't something to be proud of.
>>
>>Most of human history isn't very pretty.
>
> Of which Christianity was a hefty driver for the last millenia to a
> millenia and a half.
>
>>Christianity can be misused
>>as well as any other ideal----like, oh, Homeland Security, or
>>Communism, or bicycle riding (1).
>
> Misused? The Bible glorifies; genocide, rapine, theft, greed, torture,
> prejudice, infantcide, bigotry, and more.
>
>>>In my newsgroup it's mostly Christian crap.
>>
>>At least it's Friendly crap.
>
> From you it's friendly and not crap as you consider your religion to be
> the private treasure it should be.
>
>>Lizz 'the Yakult of sci.skeptic' Holmans
>>
>>(1) who can tell me the joke that goes with this reference? There's a
>>dime riding on it.
>
> Hmmmm.....
> /mother superior
> Ladies, quit moaning and groaning or I'll have your bicycle seats put
> back on.
>
>

Basically, if you scan the gospels and the sayings of Jesus, you will be
surprised how little there really is that could be called moral commands
from Jesus.

And most of it Christians refuse to act on.

No, public prayer, no divorce? Nahhhhhh!

Matthew 5, all the laws of Moses are in force.
few Christians follow jesus.

Mathew 25 is ignored by many, especially our
politicians pandering to christian far right hater and louts.

Sell all you have and sell to the poor. Luke 12.

No, they won't follow that one. Acts 4, god wants us to live in
holy communism.
Nope, not that one for sure!

Some day I will go back to my project of listing all
commands of Jesus and grouping them together for commentary.



--

You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.

Cheerful Charlie

 

[Al Smith]

> Nixon was evil, American christians did not care.
>
> Nixon, Vietnam lies. Secret bombing of Cambodia.
> Support for evil Greek Junta. Torture and imprisonments
> do not bother Nixon.
> Support for Argentinian Generals and the Dirty War.
> Support for Brazilian Generals and their dictatorship.
> Evil. Torture and murder.
> Support for illegal overthrow of Allende goverment
> and support for murderous, torturing Pinochet regime.
> Ghastly murderous CIA Phoenix program.
> Support for murderous Indonesian government.
> Take over of Papua and East Timur in 1969.
> Mass murders ignored.
>
> American Christians yawn languidly, see nothing wrong with
> any of this and give Nixon, an evil man a 60% vote in his
> re-election.
>
> No matter how much support for evil, torture, mass murder
> and illegal acts Nixon does, Christian America approves
> and votes their approval.
>
> It is not about Vietnam alone but a long series of shows of
> support for evil, far right, genocidal, torturing, murdering
> thugs around the globe.
>
> Under Nixon, christians did not care and decades later still
> did not care enough to use their vast numbers, 100 + million
> in main stream denominations to decisively end such horrors.
>
> To this day they still are not prepared to do so if this should
> happen again.


What you have to bear in mind is that Nixon was maybe the most
intelligent president America's ever had, and a brilliant diplomat
and strategist. Bush on the other hand ...

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Emmanual Kann" <kann@keinspam.de> wrote in message
newsan.2006.09.20.05.24.21.395112@keinspam.de...
> An Mon, 18 Sep 2006 00:02:51 -0600, Virgil hat geschreibt:
>
> > In article <Sr2dnahoo7HzDpDYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> >>
> >>
> >> > But there has to be a declaration of certainty in order to have an
> >> > argumentum ad ignorantiam.
> >>
> >> Not according to Copi's explanation.
> >
> > Then how does Septic declare that "THE MOON IS IN FACT A PERFECT SPHERE"
> > is somehow a declaration of uncertainty?
>
> He's not. He's claiming that the hypothesis offered to prove the
> assertion is an argument from ignorance as is Galelleo's counter
> hypothesis. Both arguments are ad ignorantiam. I suppose this makes
> there be a crystalline substance - moon problem.

Isn't it actually the case that there really is no such thing as a mind -
body problem or a crystaline substance - moon problem any more than there is
a digestion - gut problem, that is just argument from ignorance from some
theists?

Here is how Wood phrases the not-too-cleverly-disguised argument _ad
ignorantiam_:

"Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one knows for
certain." -- Dan Wood

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:450d9ec1$0$24196$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:Sr2dnahoo7HzDpDYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> >
> >
> >> But there has to be a declaration of certainty in order to have an
> >> argumentum ad ignorantiam.
> >
> > Not according to Copi's explanation.
>
> I doubt that's true and I KNOW that you're ignoring every other Logic
> textbook put out in the last fifty years.

Can you show ANY logic textbook that says it is okay to argue _ad
ignorantiam_ as you want to do, to argue that there might be X because there
is no proof the hypothesis (the 'might be' conjecture) is false.

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:virgil-6765A3.11514119092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <4_-dnVF2WrYsE5LYnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> > > "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue
> > contrary to
> > > > the facts in evidence:
> > > >
> > > > > >> >> You are completely ignorant on the subject of argumentum
> > > > > >> >> ad
> > > > > > ignorantiam
> > > > > >> >> We know this because you can't discuss the subject on
> > > > > >> >> your own,
> > > > being
> > > > > >> >> reduced to pasting one author's out of context comment on
> > > > > >> >> the
> > > > subject.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > This is in no way out of context
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Of course it is.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of course it is not. What do you want me to do, reproduce the
> > > > > > whole
> > book
> > > > here so you won't say I am taking something out of context?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Acting like you actually know the definition of an argument
> > > > > from
> > ignorance
> > > >
> > > > Evidently I know it better than YOU do seeing as how you don't
> > > > seem to grasp the fact that these theists of Galileo's time
> > > > arguing _ad ignorantiam_
> > >
> > > It was equally a theist of Galileo's time who opposed
> >
> > The term is 'exposed'.
>
> Whatever the term is, it was a theist versus theist argument.

Scientist (Galileo) versus theolog. See the part where it says "Famous in
the history of science"??

> The only ones who might have been "more" theist, the churchmen, did not
> get themselves involved in the issue of whether the moon was or was not
> IN FACT A PERFECT SPHERE.

You mean hypothetically ('might be' conjecture) a perfect sphere, "as
theology had long taught."

You are ignoring the use of the term, 'hypothesis' (meaning 'might be'
conjecture), and you are ignoring the part where it says, 'as theology had
long taught'.

Galileo is acting as a scientist in this case, questioning the theologs'
argument _ad ignorantiam_, which is logical fallacy for which theologs are
FAMOUS, as Copi explains. Get it now, son?

<quote>
FAMOUS in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!

Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made
of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not
prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)

[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might
be' imagining with no basis in fact.]

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Rq-dnSy12_Q8x4jYnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:450d9ec1$0$24196$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>
>> "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:Sr2dnahoo7HzDpDYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> >
>> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>> >
>> >
>> >> But there has to be a declaration of certainty in order to have an
>> >> argumentum ad ignorantiam.
>> >
>> > Not according to Copi's explanation.
>>
>> I doubt that's true and I KNOW that you're ignoring every other Logic
>> textbook put out in the last fifty years.
>
> Can you show ANY logic textbook that says it is okay to argue _ad
> ignorantiam_ as you want to do, to argue that there might be X because
> there
> is no proof the hypothesis (the 'might be' conjecture) is false.

1. I reject the premise of your question. Your asserting that I'm employing
an Argument from ignorance, when in fact I'm not making an argument at all.
Your question therefore contains an unsupported assertion.

2. I have personal access to about a dozen texts on logic. Not ONE of them,
including Copi, accepts a 'might be/might not be' case for the argumentum
ad ignorantiam Each one of them defines the Argument from Ignorance at the
argument that X MUST be false because it has not been proven to be true or X
MUST be true because it has not been proven to be false.

A summary of definitions from John Locke to the present day is provided in
Walton's "Arguments from Ignorance" 1996. Again, no logician cited by
Walton ever suggested that the argument was to be used in matters of 'might
be' conjecture.
>
>
>

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:e-adnbNBcopJxYjYnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@comcast.com...

> Here is how Wood phrases the not-too-cleverly-disguised argument _ad
> ignorantiam_:
>
> "Does consciousness dwell exclusively in the brain? No one knows for
> certain." -- Dan Wood

1. The argument from ignorance is a fallacious form of logical argument.

2. In order to be an argument from ignorance, an actual argument is
required.

3. Wood's comments above do not constitute a logical argument.

4. Therefore, there is no argumentum ad ignorantiam quoted above.

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:-4ednQmFEbEVwIjYnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@comcast.com...

> You mean hypothetically ('might be' conjecture) a perfect sphere, "as
> theology had long taught."

Sorry, wrong.

Copi [1953, 56] "Introduction to Logic"

"The fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam is illustrated by the argument
that there must be ghosts because no one has ever been able to prove that
there aren't any. The argumentum ad ignorantiam is committed whenever it
is argued that a propostion is true simply on the basis that it has not been
proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true."

Several important points here that illustrate how off the beam your
viewpoint has been.

Note the use of the term "must" "...there MUST be ghosts because no one
has ever been able to prove that there aren't any." Copi is talking about
definitive conclusions of proof based on ignorance or lack of proof to the
contrary.

Copi does not include the notion of "might be/might not be" in his
definition. And he wisely notes that the Argument from ignorance must be an
ARGUMENT. It is not a statement, it is not a question. It is an argument.

Since your entire spew is based on the idea of "maybe's and might be's" and
since you presume that even a question or a statement can be an Argument
from ignorance, you're clearly WRONG.

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:-4ednQmFEbEVwIjYnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@comcast.com...

> You are ignoring the use of the term, 'hypothesis' (meaning 'might be'
> conjecture),

Which is NOT a part of the definition of The Argument from Ignorance.

 

[Virgil]

In article <e-adnbNBcopJxYjYnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Emmanual Kann" <kann@keinspam.de> wrote in message
> newsan.2006.09.20.05.24.21.395112@keinspam.de...
> > An Mon, 18 Sep 2006 00:02:51 -0600, Virgil hat geschreibt:
> >
> > > In article <Sr2dnahoo7HzDpDYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > But there has to be a declaration of certainty in order to have an
> > >> > argumentum ad ignorantiam.
> > >>
> > >> Not according to Copi's explanation.
> > >
> > > Then how does Septic declare that "THE MOON IS IN FACT A PERFECT SPHERE"
> > > is somehow a declaration of uncertainty?
> >
> > He's not. He's claiming that the hypothesis offered to prove the
> > assertion is an argument from ignorance as is Galelleo's counter
> > hypothesis. Both arguments are ad ignorantiam. I suppose this makes
> > there be a crystalline substance - moon problem.
>
> Isn't it actually the case

Whenever Septic asks this, he is only leading into another fallacy.

 

[Virgil]

In article <e-adnbNBcopJxYjYnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Emmanual Kann" <kann@keinspam.de> wrote in message
> newsan.2006.09.20.05.24.21.395112@keinspam.de...
> > An Mon, 18 Sep 2006 00:02:51 -0600, Virgil hat geschreibt:
> >
> > > In article <Sr2dnahoo7HzDpDYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > But there has to be a declaration of certainty in order to have an
> > >> > argumentum ad ignorantiam.
> > >>
> > >> Not according to Copi's explanation.
> > >
> > > Then how does Septic declare that "THE MOON IS IN FACT A PERFECT SPHERE"
> > > is somehow a declaration of uncertainty?
> >
> > He's not. He's claiming that the hypothesis offered to prove the
> > assertion is an argument from ignorance as is Galelleo's counter
> > hypothesis. Both arguments are ad ignorantiam. I suppose this makes
> > there be a crystalline substance - moon problem.
>
> Isn't it actually the case
That Septic is a liar and a cheat?

 

[Virgil]

In article <Rq-dnSy12_Q8x4jYnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:450d9ec1$0$24196$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> >
> > "Needs Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:Sr2dnahoo7HzDpDYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> > >
> > >
> > >> But there has to be a declaration of certainty in order to have an
> > >> argumentum ad ignorantiam.
> > >
> > > Not according to Copi's explanation.
> >
> > I doubt that's true and I KNOW that you're ignoring every other Logic
> > textbook put out in the last fifty years.
>
> Can you show ANY logic textbook that says it is okay to
> argue that there might be X because there is no proof the hypothesis
> is false.

Septic cannot show any logic text book which says otherwise, since logic
text books do not bar legitimate arguments.

On the other hand, almost all logic texts point out that it is improper
to argue that there MUST be an X because there is no proof to the
contrary.

 

[Virgil]

In article <-4ednQmFEbEVwIjYnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:virgil-6765A3.11514119092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <4_-dnVF2WrYsE5LYnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> > > > "Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue
> > > contrary to
> > > > > the facts in evidence:
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> You are completely ignorant on the subject of argumentum
> > > > > > >> >> ad
> > > > > > > ignorantiam
> > > > > > >> >> We know this because you can't discuss the subject on
> > > > > > >> >> your own,
> > > > > being
> > > > > > >> >> reduced to pasting one author's out of context comment on
> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > subject.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > This is in no way out of context
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Of course it is.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course it is not. What do you want me to do, reproduce the
> > > > > > > whole
> > > book
> > > > > here so you won't say I am taking something out of context?
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Acting like you actually know the definition of an argument
> > > > > > from
> > > ignorance
> > > > >
> > > > > Evidently I know it better than YOU do seeing as how you don't
> > > > > seem to grasp the fact that these theists of Galileo's time
> > > > > arguing _ad ignorantiam_
> > > >
> > > > It was equally a theist of Galileo's time who opposed those astronomers
> > >
> > > The term is 'exposed'.

Does Septic claim that Galileo did NOT oppose the astronomer's claim?
> >
> > Whatever the term is, it was a theist versus theist argument.
>
> Scientist (Galileo) versus theolog.

Theist(Galileo) versus theists(astronomers).

Does Septic claim an argument against theism by a theist?
The dispute was between relying on observation versus authority.



See the part where it says "Famous in
> the history of science"??

That means it was a dispute on how science works.
>
> > The only ones who might have been "more" theist, the churchmen, did not
> > get themselves involved in the issue of whether the moon was or was not
> > IN FACT A PERFECT SPHERE.
>
> You mean hypothetically

The astronomers did not say "hypothetically", they said "IS IN FACT".
>
> You are ignoring the use of the term, 'hypothesis'

Septic is being irrelevant again. When those astronomers said "is in
fact", they were NOT saying "might be", they were saying "is in fact".
>

>
> <quote>
> the moon is in fact a perfect sphere
> </quote>
> (Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary to
the facts in evidence:
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:X9GdnZER8efzQ4zYnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> >> The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.
> >
> > According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ you are
mistaken.
>
> Not ...

You definitely are, old son, otherwise Copi would never have used the term,
'hypothesis' [TWICE!!] in connection with his explanation of argument _ad
ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which theists are FAMOUS, as Copi clearly
explains.

See where it says, "And this hypothesis [this 'might be' conjecture] Galileo
could not prove false!"

<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!

Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made
of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not
prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)

[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might
be' imagining with no basis in fact.]

Now why are you still trying to argue contrary to the facts in evidence, old
son?

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ZOWdnW5Cy9M5d4jYnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com...

> You definitely are, old

Old enough to recognize a liar and a conman, sonny.

Copi [1953, 56] "Introduction to Logic"

"The fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam is illustrated by the argument
that there must be ghosts because no one has ever been able to prove that
there aren't any. The argumentum ad ignorantiam is committed whenever it
is argued that a propostion is true simply on the basis that it has not been
proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true."

Several important points here that illustrate how off the beam your
viewpoint has been.

1. Note the use of the term "must" "...there MUST be ghosts because no one
has ever been able to prove that there aren't any." Copi is talking about
definitive conclusions of proof based on ignorance or lack of proof to the
contrary.

2. Note the use of the term "argued." "....The argumentum ad ignorantiam
is committed whenever it is ARGUED that a proposition is true simply on the
basis that it has not been proved false..."

Copi does not include the notion of "might be/might not be" in his
definition. And he wisely notes that the Argument from ignorance must be an
ARGUMENT. It is not a statement, it is not a question. It is an argument.

Since your entire spew is based on the idea of "maybe's and might be's" and
since you presume that even a question or a statement can be an Argument
from ignorance, you're clearly WRONG.

Now, don't you feel better?

 

[Virgil]

In article <ZOWdnW5Cy9M5d4jYnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Silly Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue
> the facts in evidence:
> > "Silly Septic" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:X9GdnZER8efzQ4zYnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> > >> The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.
> > >
> > > According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_
It is about supporting "it is a fact that" claims by arguing that the
contrary has not been proved.

> <quote>
> Some scholars argued the moon is in fact a perfect sphere

 

[Virgil]

In article <ZOWdnW5Cy9M5d4jYnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary to
> the facts in evidence:
> > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:X9GdnZER8efzQ4zYnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> > >> The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.
> > >
> > > According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ you are
> mistaken.
> >
> > Not ...
>
> You definitely are, old son

Not about hypotheses in vacuo but about hypotheses(claims) of a certain
type being supported by arguments of a certain type.

For an argumentum ad ignorantiam to exist that claim is necessarily of
form "it is a fact that" and that argument is necessarily of the form
"because there is no contrary evidence".


> <quote>
....the moon is in fact a perfect sphere...
> </quote>
> (Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:virgil-3836B8.00025118092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <Sr2dnahoo7HzDpDYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> >
> >
> > > But there has to be a declaration of certainty in order to have an
> > > argumentum ad ignorantiam.
> >
> > Not according to Copi's explanation.
>
> Then how does Septic declare that "THE MOON IS IN FACT A PERFECT SPHERE"
> is somehow a declaration of uncertainty?

That is part of the HYPOTHESIS (the 'might be' conjecture), old son, and the
argument _ad ignorantiam_ is in arguing that there is no proof the
hypothesis (the conjecture) is false. Get it now? Look again for the term,
'hypothesis' ('might be' conjecture). You might see it this time.

<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!

Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of the
same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the invisible
crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain peaks -- but made
of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis his critics could not
prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_)

[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means conjecture, a speculative, 'might
be' imagining with no basis in fact.]