|Logical Fallacy of Argument by Demanding Impossible Perfection / Unfalsifiable Claims / Demanding Impossible Evidence|
Logical Fallacy of Argument by Demanding Impossible Perfection / Demanding Impossible Evidence
The logical fallacy of argument by demanding impossible perfection / demanding impossible evidence occurs when a proposition is presented with a claim that it is falsifiable, but the proposition is maintained as true no matter what evidence is presented. Keep in mind that falsifiability cannot prove that something is true. The fact that something is genuinely not falsifiable doesn't prove it to be false, either. For instance, if you tell someone that your toe hurts you, and it does, can the other person cannot test whether you feel pain--yet you do. However, it is a fallacy to claim that something is falsifiable when it is not. This fallacy is a type of argument from ignorance. The fallacy may take the form of stating that a certain thing can only be proved or falsified by some standard that is impossible. Often, the evidence asked for is a form of straw man argument. At the same time, it is not a fallacy to demand absolute proof before believing something absolutely. It is not a fallacy to reject any assumptions or stories as proof--we don't even have to accept hidden assumptions. We can ferret those hidden fallacies out and expose them and reject them. Using fallacies, assumptions, or stories as proof is still always irrational.
Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Argument by Demanding Impossible Perfection / Demanding Impossible Evidence
"We would need evidence that the Universe is not expanding." Bill Nye uses a red herring fallacy. Which young Earth cosmology says that the Universe is not expanding? He probably meant to say that if someone were to absolutely prove that the big bang had not happened by going back in time--and they would have to take Bill Nye with them--and they watched God creating everything just about 6,000 years ago, that would be scientific evidence that he would except. Bill Nye is moving the goal posts, setting up a fictitious test, a kind of straw man, an impossible goal that must be reached in order for him to change his mind.
"We would need evidence that the stars appear to be far away but they’re not." Bill Nye again uses a red herring fallacy. Which young Earth cosmology says that the stars are not really all that far away. Well, there is one, but not a major contender. This is a straw man argument. What Bill Nye probably meant is that someone would have to take Bill Nye back in time with scientific test equipment that has not yet been developed to see that God used some method to get the sunlight to the Earth, either one of the workable cosmologies that are now on the table or something we have not yet thought of. This, of course, is special pleading for molecules-to-man, big bang, and billions-of-years, since Bill Nye is so closed-minded about these three dogmatically-held beliefs that he wants all other ideas silenced and all research on other ideas stopped, but he requires no such absolute physical evidence for Bill's three dogmas. A reasonable man would ask for the same kinds of evidence, without using bare assertions or worldview as proof, for both the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story and the creation-flood account. And a reasonable man would ask for the same kinds of evidence, without using bare assertions or worldview as proof, for naturalism, materialism, uniformitarianism, and any other assumption or story. By the way, the rescuing mechanisms (stories) are numerous for the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man religion.
"We would need evidence that somehow you can reset atomic clocks and keep neutrons from becoming protons." Bill Nye is again using a red herring fallacy, or, perhaps, a straw man fallacy. No one talked about resetting atomic clocks or keeping neutrons from becoming protons. Bill Nye is supposed to be a science guy, so he must have understood when Ken Ham explained the various assumptions that are made in radio carbon dating to get the "extraordinarily" old age estimates. Obviously, Bill Nye must know about these arbitrary assumptions, and he knows that different assumptions could be made. So Bill Nye is not willing to change his mind even though he knows that the dating methods are rigged.
None of these criterion for falsification are necessary or even helpful in falsifying the story. If the Universe is expanding (it may not be), it neither proves the big-bang story nor falsifies God, creation, a young Earth or the flood, but it would be impossible, with what we now know scientifically to disprove that Universe is expanding. The stars are far away, but that fact neither proves the big-bang story nor falsifies God, creation, a young Earth or the flood. The problems with the so-called "atomic clocks" are much deeper that Bill Nye implies by this demand. Bill Nye mentioned two other criterion.
"We would need the fossil that swam from one layer to another." "We would need evidence that rock layers can somehow form in just 4,000 years . . ." Both those criterion have been met, and yet Bill has not changed his mind.
Last updated: Aug, 2014
Toons & Vids
Logical Fallacy of Stacking the Deck / Cherry Picking / Cherry Picking Data / Suppressed Evidence / Fallacy of Incomplete Evidence / Argument from Selective Observation / Argument by Half-Truth / Card Staking / Fallacy of Exclusion
Logical Fallacy of Ambiguity Effect
Head in the Sand / Ostrich Fallacy
Suppression of the Agent Fallacy
Fading Affect Bias / FAB
"What I Don't Know Is Not Important" / Unteachable Fallacy
Logical Fallacy of Argument by Selective Refutation
Logical Fallacy of A-Priorism
Logical Fallacy of Audiatur Et Altera Pars / Failure to State Assumptions
Error of Ignoring Historical Example
Logical Fallacy of Overlooking Secondary Consequences
Uncontrolled Factors Fallacy
Missing Link Fallacy
Logical Fallacy of Moving the Goal Posts / Gravity Game / Raising the Bar
Gravity Game Fallacy
Logical Fallacy of Argument by Demanding Impossible Perfection / Unfalsifiable Claims / Demanding Impossible Evidence
Unfalsifiable Claims Fallacy / Unfalsifiability / Untestibility
The Invincible Ignorance Fallacy
Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance / Ad Ignorantiam / Argument from Ignorance / Argument from a Lack of Evidence
Logical Fallacy of Ad Ignorantiam Question
God of the Gaps Fallacy
Logical Fallacy of Argument from Silence / Argumentum Ex Silentio
Logical Fallacy of No True Scotsman (a type of stacking the deck)
No True Scientist Fallacy
Fallacy of Opposition
Frozen Abstraction Fallacy
Falsified Inductive Generalization Fallacy
Logical Fallacy of Argument from the Negative
Logical Fallacy of a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid / Accident Fallacy
Converse Accident Fallacy / Reverse Accident Fallacy
Abductive Fallacy / Retroduction Fallacy / Retroductive Fallacy
Logical Fallacy of Denialism / Denial
Logical Fallacy of Reductionism / Oversimplification
Persimplex Responsum Fallacy / Very Simple Answer Fallacy / Very Simple Solution Fallacy
Logical Fallacy of Reductionism / Oversimplification
Answer to Critic
Appeal to Possibility
Argument to the Future
Love Between a Man and Woman
Righteousness & Holiness
Proof by Atheism
Scriptures About Marriage
The Reason for Rejecting Truth
Witness on the Internet
Flaky Human Reasoning
How Do You Know?
The Real Purpose of the Church
The Real Purpose of Life
From Glory to Glory
REAL Faith--What it IS & IS NOT
REAL Love--What it IS & IS NOT
How to be Led by God
How to Witness
Wisdom: Righteousness & Reality
Holiness & Mind/Soul
Redemption: Free From Sin
Stories Versus Revelation
Circular Reasoning-Who is Guilty?
How Can We Know Anything?
Mind Designed to Relate to God
Answers for the Confused
Fossil Record Says: "Creation"
Avoid These Pitfalls
Public School's Religion
Public School Failures