| Canceling Hypotheses |
|
You are here:
Meaning
>
Christian Witness
>
Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies
>
Flawed Evidence
>
Canceling Hypotheses
|
Logical Fallacy of Canceling HypothesisCanceling hypothesis 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 Canceling Hypothesis occurs when a hypothesis that should have certain consequences but does not is defended by introducing a new hypothesis that cancels the effect of the first hypothesis. This is a form of ad hoc rescue. 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 Canceling Hypothesis
Livescience.com was more honest the talkorigins.org. Talkorigins.org, in a very wordy article, just denied that the blood exists as it attacked AIG as a source. Livescience.com, on the other hand, committed the logical fallacy of canceling hypotheses. The iron would have a preservation value, but to claim that blood and soft tissue could last millions of years with iron as a preservative is a stretch.
There is always a cover story, a canceling hypothesis, for sacred cow stories such as the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story. The Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story would predict that there would be millions of intermediate fossils with minor changes between them showing clear lines of decent. There are no transitional fossils. (That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils) (The links are missing) 
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 Bizarre Hypothesis Least Plausible Hypothesis Extravagant Hypothesis Privileging the Hypothesis 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 |
