| Bizarre Hypothesis |
|
You are here:
Meaning
>
Christian Witness
>
Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies
>
Flawed Evidence
>
Bizarre Hypothesis
|
Logical Fallacy of Bizarre Hypothesis/Theory / Far-Fetched Hypothesis/TheoryBizarre theory is one of the many smokescreens that are used to cover the fact that the reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. Whenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regression, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. Without Divine revelation, neither logic nor math can be known. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma. The logical fallacy of bizarre hypothesis/Theory / far-fetched hypothesis/theory occurs when a bizarre, far-fetched hypothesis is advanced as the correct explanation of what can be observed. Note that a hypothesis is a story without evidence. A hypothesis/theory is often thought to be supported by what can be observed, but it is not. The hypothesis/theory is a story told separately from what can be observed in an attempt to explain what can be observed. It is a fallacy to say that the observations are evidence for the hypothesis/theory. The evidence is the starting point for the story that is called a hypothesis or a theory. If there were evidence for the hypothesis/theory, it would be an observation, not a hypothesis/theory. The fact that hypotheses or theories go beyond what can be known means that all hypotheses and theories are problematic. It is very important to remember Agrippa's Trilemma. In secularist thinking the only three options are to make any conclusions based on infinite regression, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. Axiomatic thinking is a kind way of saying "making assumptions." Making assumptions is a kind way of saying "making things up" or "lying." For a person to put any weight on a hypotheses or a theory that involves assumptions is irrational because a chain of thought is only as strong as its weakest link. Made up stories and assumptions have no strength at all. On the other hand, for those who follow Christ, it is not necessary to have all reason destroyed by Agrippa's Trilemma, since you have another option. That option is Divine revelation. Going beyond what God reveals to you is unnecessary. For many things, it's OK to admit that you don't know. Don't make up stories and deceive yourself into thinking that fabrications are part of reality. Evidence that is brought from a secularist presupposition is always some form of hypotheses because of Agrippa's Trilemma. Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Bizarre Hypothesis/Theory / Far-Fetched Hypothesis/Theory
Note that this is really far-fetched in that this complex story involves explaining away several known laws of science and creating many just-so stories including making up invisible, undetectable matter and energy. If it were the only story available, it would not be a fallacy. However, we know, by revelation, that what God has revealed about the creation explains the observations much better than the naturalistic/atheistic explanation of big bang, abiogenesis, and evolution combination. Stephanie Pappas, Live Science, Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained, Nov. 26, 2013: “Dinosaurs’ iron-rich blood, combined with a good environment for fossilization, may explain the amazing existence of soft tissue from the Cretaceous (a period that lasted from about 65.5 million to 145.5 million years ago) and even earlier.” Not only is this a far-fetch hypothesis, but it doesn’t even explain this observation. The reason that this is a bizarre hypothesis is that there is a better explanation. We know, by revelation, that God sent a worldwide flood about 4,000 years ago. That flood and an age of the Earth of only thousands of years is consistent with both scientific observation (not every theory/story that is flying around) and with what God is revealing to us. Therefore, this statement constitutes an example of the logical fallacy of bizarre hypothesis/theory. We are not dogmatically claiming to know that the Earth is 6,000 years old. We know that God created the Heavens and the Earth in six days and we know the number of generations between Adam and Christ. That's about it. Even though a plain reading of Scripture seems to indicate a young Earth; even though there is zero observed evidence and only circular reasoning and speculations that support old Earth stories, we can't even deny the possibility that God could have done something that Scripture doesn't hint at and that has left no scientific evidence. It is possible. It just is not worth the time to think about it. Fallacy Abuse
Sandy got going with some fallacy abuse by asserting that a fallacy had been committed without thinking it through. 
How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question |
Other Pages in this sectionProof by Fallacy Evidence Surrogate Error in Observation Misrepresenting the Facts Distorted Evidence Unverified Evidence Hysteron Proteron Unsubstantiated Inference Assuming Facts Not In Evidence Wishful Thinking Appeal to Worldview Slippery Slope Limited Scope Mind Reading Shoehorning Confirmation Bias Sacred Cow Fantasy Projection Group Think Context Imposition Psychologist\'s Fallacy Amazing Familiarity Stolen Concept Weak Inference Proof by Theoretical Stories Anecdotal Evidence Dismissing All Personal Testimony Rewriting History Proof by Model Proof by Assumption Personal Incredulity Argument by Lack of Imagination Argument by Imagination Capturing the Naive Argument from Personal Astonishment Special Pleading Variant Imagization Self-Exclusion Unintended Self-Inclusion Ad Personam Proof by Repeated Assertion Cherishing the Zombie Argumentum Ad Lapidem Understatement Tautology Declaring Victory Assumption Correction Assumption Questionable Criteria Summary Dismissal Thought-Terminating Cliche Truism Perfectionist Fallacy Worst Case Scenario Fallacy Unwarranted Extrapolation Untestability Subjectivist Fallacy Least Plausible Hypothesis Extravagant Hypothesis Privileging the Hypothesis Canceling Hypotheses Appeal to False Faith False Appeal to Heaven Inaccurate Models Hedging Politician\'s \"We\" Appeal to Nature Experimenter Bias Crucial Experiment Hearsay Ad Hoc Rescue Hindsight Bias Fallacy of the Beard Argument from Fallacy Inflation of Conflict Infinite Regress Reification Personification Slothful Induction Superstitious Thinking Meaningless Question Proving Non-Existence Argumentum ad Imaginibus Statement of Conversion Outdated Information Argument by Laziness Alien Fallacy Quantum Physics Fallacy Fallacious Abstraction Appeal to the Unknown Grasping at Straws Pragmatism Fake Hope Appeal to Intuition Appeal to Mystery Argument from Design Untestability Imaginary Evidence Monopolizing the Question Fallacy of Antecedent Faulty Predictor Pretentious Antecedent Pretentious Premise Recently Viewed |
