| Unverified Evidence |
|
You are here:
Meaning
>
Christian Witness
>
Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies
>
Flawed Evidence
>
Unverified Evidence
|
Logical Fallacy of Unverified EvidenceWhenever 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. Unverified evidence 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. The logical fallacy of unverified evidence occurs when overwhelming evidence for a conclusion is claimed, but the person making the claim has never really looked into the evidence, nor have they ever truly understood the supposed evidence to any degree of depth. Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Unverified EvidenceSome Christians claim that they need to apply post modern deconstruction techniques to the Biblical historical accounts because they say that the scientific evidences for an old Earth is overwhelming, being too numerous and too convincing. Anyone making such a claim is committing the logical fallacy of unverified evidence. They have never personally examined that evidence or been aware of the assumptions and other fallacies behind that evidence. see: Earth's Age: Science or Consensus?
First we should note that there are huge canyons all over the world. So, Bill Nye is inadvertently pointing out a fulfilled prediction, that the creation model makes that was fulfilled. But he apparently is not aware of this fact. We could go around the world and show that the geology that exists is exactly what the Biblical historical account predicts. Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of unverified evidence. His evidence was supposed to be that there should be canyons on every contenent and that there are not. Well, there are canyons, but if they were not there, this would not be evidence that the flood didn't happen--so his is wrong on both counts. Why does Bill Nye think there would be Grand Canyons on every continent? What is the science that shows this to be true? The science that shows that there are huge canyons all over the world. One was formed quickly at Mt. St. Helens, but certain specific things have to happen to form a Grand Canyon type formation. Bill Nye is also using the logical fallacy of omitting evidence. There are many canyons of varying sizes throughout the world. One has to be the biggest, but the Grand Canyon is not the biggest.
That's rationalize faith in the professors and the textbooks. 
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 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 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 |
