| Privileging the Hypothesis |
|
You are here:
Meaning
>
Christian Witness
>
Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies
>
Flawed Evidence
>
Privileging the Hypothesis
|
Logical Fallacy of Privileging the HypothesisPrivileging the 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 Privileging the Hypothesis occurs when more than one hypothesis is possible yet one of the possible hypotheses is granted a privileged position and assumed to be true when there is no rational reason to give the hypothesis this status. Keep in mind that it is always a fallacy to use a hypothesis as proof. It is impossible to know anything by creating a hypothesis. If a hypothesis is deductively proven, it is a fact, not a hypothesis or theory. If the proof includes anything that is based on infinite regression, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking (assumptions) it cannot be deductively proven. It is very important to remember Agrippa's Trilemma. In secularistic 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 proof surrogate because of Agrippa's Trilemma. Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Privileging the Hypothesis
Both Naturalism (which is another word for Atheism) and the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man hypothesis are given privileged position without reason. Yes, Naturalism is given as the reason for the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man hypothesis, but then you must have a reason for Naturalism, which is an unsupported assertion. We know, by revelation, that the Creation-Flood hypothesis is actually the correct one.
This really doesn't commit the fallacy of privileging the hypothesis, but it comes close. The real problem is that the ID Scientist isn't giving the real reason that we can know that the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man hypothesis is false and the Creation-Flood hypothesis is true. That reason is Divine revelation. Of course, a person who refuses to acknowledge God would deny Divine revelation, using unsupported assertion, appeal to ridicule, or some other fallacy as proof against it. 
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 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 |
