Re: Definition of God

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> >
> >
> > > the churchmen, did not commit themselves on the issue.
> >
> > If that were true, then what would the following passage mean?
> >
> > " ... as theology had long taught ..."
> >
>
> if it had been the churchmen

There's no doubt about it, that is why it says, " ... as theology had long
taught ..."
Theology => theologs.

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary to
the facts in evidence:

> The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.

Would Copi clearly explain that the argument, 'And this hypothesis Galileo
could not prove false' is argument _ad ignorantiam_ if, as you insist,
'Argument from ignorance is not about hypotheses'?

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary to
the facts in evidence:

> The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.

According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ you are mistaken.
See the term, 'hypothesis' in the following explanation of famous theist
argument _ad ingorantiam_?

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

See where it says, 'Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, put
forward the
equally probable hypothesis...'?

<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.]

 

[Virgil]

In article <9o2dnaJdafncP4vYnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "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

Did the astronomers say that it is a hypothesis or did they say that it
is a fact?

If does not matter whether the claim is hypothetical or factual, what is
important is that it is a claim of certainty supported by a claim that
it has not been disproven. That makes the argument fallacious even if
the original claim is true.

The argument "The Gregorian calendar has a 12 month year because no one
has proved otherwise" is an argumentum ad ignorantiam because of the "no
one has proved otherwise", despite the truth of "The Gregorian calendar
has a 12 month year."

So Septic is WRONG! AGAIN! AS USUAL!!!

 

[Virgil]

In article <z9idnS_FqroeP4vYnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> > >
> > >
> > > > the churchmen, did not commit themselves on the issue.
> > >
> > > If that were true, then what would the following passage mean?
> > >
> > > " ... as theology had long taught ..."
> > >
> >
> > if it had been the churchmen
>
> There's no doubt about it

Then why did Copi not specifically mention churchmen along with
scientists?

Because the churchmen were not parties to the dispute.

And as far as the whole bruhaha, the only one deliberately to indulge in
an argumentum ad ignorantiam was Galileo himself.

 

[Virgil]

In article <j5mdnQrzTIUTN4vYnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@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:
>
> > The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.
>
> Would Copi clearly explain that the argument, 'And this hypothesis Galileo
> could not prove false' is argument _ad ignorantiam_ if, as you insist,
> 'Argument from ignorance is not about hypotheses'?

Unless the Astronomers specifically claimed their theory was true
because it had not been proved false, which Copi does not say, they were
not guilty of the particular fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam.

On the Other hand Galileo's counter argument was a deliberate and
conscious argumentum ad ignorantiam.

 

[Virgil]

In article <oY-dnYqw46aXMYvYnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@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:
>
> > The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.
>
> According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ you are mistaken.

Oh that Septic would finally learn to read what is actually there and
not what he merely wants to see.

ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM occurs when any claim of fact, whether true,
false, or of unknown verity, is justified by saying that it has not been
proved false.


And in the Copi example, the only one guilty of it was Galileo, at least
according to Copi's account.

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:j5mdnQrzTIUTN4vYnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@comcast.com...

>> The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.
>
> Would Copi clearly explain

Sure.

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?

 

[Gandalf Grey]

"Needs a Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote in message
newsY-dnYqw46aXMYvYnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@comcast.com...

>> The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.
>
> According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ you are mistaken.

According to that textbook, you are mistaken.

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?

 

[Goober]

Sheikh Yapeter wrote:
>
> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:eeqqed$7to$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca
>
>> ... When your interlocutor claimed that scores of academics and
>> scientists think that there is a mind - body problem, you said that
>> that was "fallacious".
>
> It IS logical fallacy.
>
> Argument from Popularity:
>
> P is believed by millions of people worldwide
>
> It is a fallacy because millions or billions of people can all believe
> in something that is wrong. Large numbers believing P does not make P true.

The claim : "scores of academics and scientists think that there is a
mind - body problem" is NOT a fallacy, it is a fact. I can give you
numerous references to establish its truth, if you are at all interested.

FYI, an argument from popularity occurs when one argues that P is true
merely because P is believed to be true.

You are confusing the claim (which is neither fallacious nor a fallacy):

P: "scores of academics and scientists think that there is a mind - body
problem"

with the argument :

Q: "P, therefore, there is a mind-body problem".

In the case of Q, the issue of ad populum arguments might arise, but I
am not addressing the fallaciousness or otherwise of argument Q, only
the truth of P.

So, whilst your claim that "large numbers of people believing P does not
P true" is, in general, entirely correct (the exceptions concern certain
subjectively or intersubjectively determined facts, such as those that
arise from conventions), it is all beside the point that I am making.

The point that I am making is this:

Skeptic said of claim P that it was "fallacious" - he's dead wrong, it
is a fact that scores of scientists and academics believe that there is
a mind-body problem.

Whether or not that fact can be used to argue that there is a
mind-body problem is completely beside the point that I was making,
which is that the claim P itself is true and Skeptic was mistaken to say
it is fallacious. He's since implicitly conceded that the claim P is not
fallacious.

Goober

>
>
>
>> Obviously YOU and Wood and others
>>> believe there is a mind - body problem in that there might be
>>> consciousness
>>> dwelling (living, existing)outside the body. But does your belief prove
>>> anything? I don't agree that it does.
>>>
>>> So I am not making any claims, all I am doing is asking you a fair
>>> question:
>>>
>>> The question remains, so what if lots and lots of people believe
>>> there might
>>> be a mind - body problem, does that prove that there is, or is that
>>> just a
>>> fallacious appeal to popularity? Lots of people think there might be
>>> a god,
>>> too; does that prove that there is?
>>>
>>> Isn't it actually the case that there really is
>>> no such thing as a mind - body problem
>>> any more than there is a digestion - gut problem,
>>> that is just argument from ignorance from your side?
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> (And why do you keep trying to change the subject, Richard? Is it
>>> that you
>>> do not have the courage of your convictions?)
>>>

 

[Goober]

Sheikh Yapeter wrote:
>
> "Goober" <goaway@nowhere.com> wrote
>> By not challenging my claim
>
> You are challenged, and everybody knows it. 8^)
>
> Argument from popularity is logical fallacy.
> Know what logical fallacy is?
>
> Argument from Popularity:
>
> P is believed by millions of people worldwide
>
> It is a fallacy because millions or billions of people can all believe
> in something that is wrong. Large numbers believing P does not make P true.
>
>
>

You implicitly conceded that scores of scientists and academics think
there is a mind-body problem.

Goober

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:virgil-E188EE.11030624092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <z9idnS_FqroeP4vYnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > the churchmen, did not commit themselves on the issue.
> > > >
> > > > If that were true, then what would the following passage mean?
> > > >
> > > > " ... as theology had long taught ..."
> > > >
> > >
> > > if it had been the churchmen
> >
> > There's no doubt about it
>
> Then why did ...

Then why did you snip the following?

[unnsnip]

There's no doubt about it, that is why it says, " ... as theology had long
taught ..."
Theology => theologs.

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> > > "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 ['might be' conjecture]
>
> Did they say that it is a hypothesis?

Well let's just look at it and see, shall we? Oh yes, there it is right
there where it says, "And this hypothesis (this 'might be' conjecture)
Galileo could not prove false!" And where it says, "To expose the argument
_ad ignorantium_, Galileo put forward the equally probable hypothesis ..."

Is it that you have a little reading comprehension problem, old 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.]

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

 

[Goober]

Your Logic Tutor wrote:
> Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps on trying to argue contrary
> to
> the facts in evidence:
>
>> Copi does not include the notion of might be ...
>
> Are you blind? You are overlooking the term, 'hypothesis' ['might be'
> conjecture] in the following example of the fallacy of arguing _ad
> ignorantiam_ that there is no proof the hypothesis is false, logical fallacy
> for which theists are FAMOUS, as Copi explains:
>
> <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.]

What 'hypothesis' means in this case is that P (i.e. the hypothesis)
is the case.

That the famous astronomers meant by 'hypothesis' "IS" and not "might
be" is completely obvious from the fact that they are quoted by Copi as
putting forward the hypothesis that:

"the moon IS IN FACT a perfect sphere" [emphasis added]

Notice, also, that Galileo's caricature of their argument is also
expressed as a hypothesis about what IS the case, not as a hypothesis
about what MIGHT BE the case:

"[Galileo] put forward the equally probable hypothesis that THERE WERE,
rearing up from the invisible crystalline envelope on the moon, even
greater mountain peaks".

Hence, the word 'hypothesis' is manifestly NOT to be interpreted as the
claim that P (the hypothesis) might be the case. If the famous
astronomers had meant only to claim that the Moon might be a perfect
crystalline sphere, Copi would have quoted them as putting forward the
hypothesis that:

"the moon MIGHT BE a perfect sphere"

But Copi didn't, because to do so would be to misrepresent them as
hypothesising only that the Moon might be a perfect crystalline sphere.

And the simple reason why their hypothesis was about what IS, not merely
about what might be, is that what might be - mere possibilities - cannot
explain anything actual.

The famous astronomers were interested in explaining away the actual
evidence whilst retaining their claim that the Moon IS (not "might be")
a perfect sphere. But the possibility of the Moon's valleys being
filled with a transparent crystalline substance could not explain why
the Moon actually appears to have mountains and valleys and at the
same time actually be a perfect sphere. Hence, they were forced to
argue that the valleys on the Moon IS filled with a transparent
crystalline substance. Only if the valleys of the Moon were actually
filled with such a substance could they hope to explain Galileo's
observations whilst maintaining that the Moon IS a perfect sphere.

In this case, 'hypothesis' does not mean "might be" - it means "is".

Goober.

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

Richard Hanson <http://tinyurl.com/6gwnd> keeps trying to argue contrary to
the facts in evidence:

> The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.

According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ you are mistaken.
See the term, 'hypothesis' in the following explanation of famous theist
argument _ad ingorantiam_?

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

See where it says, 'Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, put
forward the equally probable hypothesis...'?

<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 do you keep trying to argue contrary to the facts in evidence, old
son?

 

[Virgil]

In article <HOudnd45E60qmYrYnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Septicr" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:virgil-E188EE.11030624092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

> > Then why did ...
>
> Then why did you snip

You are hardly in a position to bitch about snipping, Septic, when you
have so obviously gutted my statement.

 

[Virgil]

In article <3ZWdnWng6LymlYrYnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> > > > "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
> >
> > Did they say that it is a hypothesis?
>
> Well let's just look at it and see, shall we? Oh yes, there it is right
> there where it says, "And this hypothesis Galileo could not prove false!"

Who says it, the astronomers or Copi?
If Copi, it doesn't count as any part of the astronomers statement.

And who says that any argumentum ad ignorantiam must include any
hypothesis?

 

[Virgil]

In article <3ZWdnWjg6LyglYrYnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@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:
>
> > The Argument from Ignorance is not about hypotheses.
>
> According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ you are mistaken.

According to the logic textbook, _Introduction to Logic_ Septic is
mistaken.

Accordng to Copi and every other logic textbook an argumentum ad
ignorantiam is about the way in which a claim is being supported.


It is totally irrelevant whether the claim is true or false, it is only
the nature of the argument used to support the claim that is relevant.
If the supporting argument is by way of saying the claim must be true
because there is no evidence against it, then the argument is an
argumentum ad ignorantiam.

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
>
> > > Then why did ...
> >
> > Then why did you snip
>
> You are hardly in a position

I am in perfect position to restore that which you are trying to ignore:

[unnsnip]

There's no doubt about it, that is why it says, " ... as theology had long
taught ..."
Theology => theologs.

Now don't just snip this again, face up to the fact that it proves you
wrong.

 

[Your Logic Tutor]

"Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:virgil-59705F.17045724092006@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <3ZWdnWng6LymlYrYnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> > > "Your Logic Tutor" <ylt...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > > "Virgil" <virgil@comcast.net> wrote
> > > > > "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
> > >
> > > Did they say that it is a hypothesis?
> >
> > Well let's just look at it and see, shall we? Oh yes, there it is right
> > there where it says, "And this hypothesis Galileo could not prove
false!"
>
> Who says it, the astronomers?

Of course. do you have a little reading comprehension problem? It is those
theologs. It is they who have provided the excellent example of arguing _ad
ignorantiam_ for their hypothesis (their 'might be' conjecture) based on
there not being any proof it is false, logical fallacy for which you theists
are FAMOUS, as Copi explains:

<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.]