| Extravagant Hypothesis |
|
You are here:
Meaning
>
Christian Witness
>
Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies
>
Flawed Evidence
>
Extravagant Hypothesis
|
|
Logical Fallacy of Extravagant Hypothesis / Complex Hypothesis Fallacy Complex 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 Extravagant Hypothesis / Complex Hypothesis Fallacy occurs when an explanation that requires more assumptions is chosen over those hypotheses that require less assumptions. 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. This is difficult to analyze, since many, if not most, assumptions are never admitted to be assumptions. They are thought of as facts. They are parts of worldviews that seem more like reality than reality itself. Here, assumption is being defined as a proposition that cannot be absolutely proven to be true. The more complex the hypothesis, the more evidence is required, since more truth claims are being made. Evidence here is actual empirical evidence without interpretation. Interpretation turns into just-so stories very easily and includes assumptions. In science, theology, and politics, it is common to begin to have very complex structures of thought. In the process, problems are covered with just-so stories and assumptions. These just so-stories are ad hoc hypotheses or rescuing mechanisms to save the overall complex hypothesis. As various hypotheses are intertwined and become inter-dependent, they are sometimes presented as if one supports the other. Actually, they have become a single, highly complex, hypothesis. If part of this huge hypothesis falls, the entire thought structure is shaken. Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Extravagant Hypothesis / Complex Hypothesis Fallacy The Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man hypothesis is laden with many assumptions. It falls apart without them. Yet many of those who embrace this hypothesis and give it special privilege over other hypotheses are unaware of these assumptions. On the other hand, the Creation and the Flood are revealed by God as facts. There are no assumptions required so long as we don't go beyond what has been revealed. What has been revealed doesn't violate anything that can be observed or tested using scientific method. 
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 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 |
