![]() |
![]() |
Logical Fallacy of Ad Ignorantiam Question |
Logical Fallacy of Ad Ignorantiam QuestionThe logical fallacy of ad ignorantiam question occurs when an question (sometimes unanswerable such as a request to prove a universal negative) is used as proof of a claim rather than giving a reason to believe the claim. The logical fallacy of ad ignorantiam question claims that something is either true or false based on another person's ability or lack of ability to answer a certain question. If someone makes a statement that is a universal negative or other statement cannot be proven, there is no fallacy in asking for proof of any claim. It is also not a fallacy to ask a question that points out that a dogmatic belief cannot be defended. This fallacy occurs only when a question (that can't be answered, at least not at the moment) is taken as proof that a claim is true (or false). This is a very common form of ad ignorantiam argument, so it gets its own definition. Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Ad Ignorantiam Question
Of course no one can prove that God doesn't exist, but that is not why we believe. We believe because we know Him personally.
(Bill Nye probably meant to ask how the trees could have survived the global flood of Genesis, and there is an answer to that question.) So Bill Nye's argument is that he doesn't know how this happened, and he is betting that you can’t explain how it happened, so he asserts that based on this lack of knowledge, he knows that the Bible has an error. However, your knowledge, or Bill Nye’s knowledge or lack thereof has no effect at all on reality. Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance. All of these questions that Bill Nye is asking would fall into the class of fallacies known as ad ignorantiam. This is a common tactic of asking a question, or, in this case, a long series of questions, then claiming that if the other person can't answer them (or doesn't have enough time to answer them in this case), then that proves something or some things (in this case that a young Earth, a global flood, and creation) are impossible. These fallacies can sound very convincing, however, they are irrational. Just because Bill Nye the science guy doesn’t know some things about science doesn’t mean that those things are impossible. "It will not survive in general, nor will its seeds." “Many terrestrial seeds can survive long periods of soaking in various concentrations of salt water (Howe, 1968, CRSQ:105-112). Others could have survived in floating masses. Many could have survived as accidental and planned food stores on the ark.” There are explanations for these things as the links below document. Again, Bill resorts to the logical fallacy of hysteron proteron, stating what has not been proven as if it were a fact. However, this is a bit of a red herring as well. The Ark would almost certainly have carried seeds as one of the main food. There is evidence that there were floating islands, huge mats of vegetation during the flood. These would have had many seeds floating above the water. Most importantly, Bill is assuming Naturalism and basing his whole argument on that. It is the unspoken basis for his premises, his proof. This is a form of hysteron proteron, using the unproven assumption of naturalism as proof. Bill Nye is claiming that the trees could not have survived a flood, therefore that flood didn't happen. However, his claim that the trees could not have survived is based on poor logic and assumptions. So, this is an argument by Bill Nye that pits his poor logic and arbitrary assumptions against Divine revelation. Assumptions are not real and cannot be verified. Divine revelation is real and can be verified, since every single person who comes to Christ will find Christ. Whoever seeks Him finds Him. Anyone can verify this. Of course, they must come in submission and deep respect desiring to do God's will. Once they know Christ, the Holy Spirit will teach them that the Bible is God's Word without error. From that point it is an unfolding revelation pressing toward the mark of the high calling, the manifestation of the sons of God.
Author/Compiler Last updated: Sep, 2014 ![]() Bread Crumbs Main Foundations Home Meaning Bible Dictionary History Toons & Vids Quotations Similar
Logical Fallacy of Stacking the Deck / Cherry Picking / Cherry Picking Data / Suppressed Evidence / Fallacy of Incomplete Evidence / Argument from Selective Observation / Argument by Half-Truth / Card Staking / Fallacy of Exclusion Logical Fallacy of Ambiguity Effect McNamara Fallacy Head in the Sand / Ostrich Fallacy Suppression of the Agent Fallacy Fading Affect Bias / FAB "What I Don't Know Is Not Important" / Unteachable Fallacy Logical Fallacy of Argument by Selective Refutation Logical Fallacy of A-Priorism Logical Fallacy of Audiatur Et Altera Pars / Failure to State Assumptions Error of Ignoring Historical Example Logical Fallacy of Overlooking Secondary Consequences Uncontrolled Factors Fallacy Missing Link Fallacy Logical Fallacy of Moving the Goal Posts / Gravity Game / Raising the Bar Gravity Game Fallacy Logical Fallacy of Argument by Demanding Impossible Perfection / Unfalsifiable Claims / Demanding Impossible Evidence Unfalsifiable Claims Fallacy / Unfalsifiability / Untestibility The Invincible Ignorance Fallacy Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance / Ad Ignorantiam / Argument from Ignorance / Argument from a Lack of Evidence Logical Fallacy of Ad Ignorantiam Question God of the Gaps Fallacy Logical Fallacy of Argument from Silence / Argumentum Ex Silentio Logical Fallacy of No True Scotsman (a type of stacking the deck) No True Scientist Fallacy Fallacy of Opposition Frozen Abstraction Fallacy Falsified Inductive Generalization Fallacy Logical Fallacy of Argument from the Negative Logical Fallacy of a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid / Accident Fallacy Converse Accident Fallacy / Reverse Accident Fallacy Best-in-Field Fallacy Abductive Fallacy / Retroduction Fallacy / Retroductive Fallacy Logical Fallacy of Denialism / Denial Logical Fallacy of Reductionism / Oversimplification Persimplex Responsum Fallacy / Very Simple Answer Fallacy / Very Simple Solution Fallacy Logical Fallacy of Reductionism / Oversimplification Taboo Fallacy Recent
Home Answer to Critic Appeal to Possibility Circular Reasoning Argument to the Future Insignificant Cause Word Magic Love Between a Man and Woman Author/Compiler Colossians 2 Righteousness & Holiness Don't Compromise Sin Proof by Atheism Scriptures About Marriage Genuine Authority The Reason for Rejecting Truth Witness on the Internet Flaky Human Reasoning How Do You Know? Featured
The Real Purpose of the Church The Real Purpose of Life From Glory to Glory REAL Faith--What it IS & IS NOT REAL Love--What it IS & IS NOT How to be Led by God How to Witness Wisdom: Righteousness & Reality Holiness & Mind/Soul Redemption: Free From Sin Real Reality Stories Versus Revelation Understanding Logic Logical Fallacies Circular Reasoning-Who is Guilty? How Can We Know Anything? God's Word God's Process God's Pattern Mind Designed to Relate to God Answers for the Confused Fossil Record Says: "Creation" Avoid These Pitfalls Public School's Religion Twisting Science Evolutionism Public School Failures Twisting History |
![]() |
![]() |