Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Arguments from Ignorance
An argument from ignorance happens when we argue that something is not the case because we do not have evidence for it, or argue that something is the case because we do not have evidence against it. Arguments from ignorance are fallacious often enough that the term “argument from ignorance,” or argumentum ad ignorantiam, is often given as the name of an informal fallacy.
That’s not quite right. “Argument from ignorance” is the name of a pattern of argument, or a way of reasoning about things. But there are few–probably not any–patterns of argument that are inherently fallacious. It depends on what the argument is supposed to accomplish and on what we’re reasoning about–not always and only on the way we reason about it. Most of what we call the “informal fallacies” are just argument patterns that have the misfortune to be used fallaciously fairly often. (For more information, see my earlier commentaries on logic and informal fallacies here and here.)
There’s some ignorance out there about arguments from ignorance. Let’s talk about that:
Arguments from ignorance are not all fallacious; some arguments about G-d or the soul that are labeled “arguments from ignorance” are nothing of the sort; and not every argument that relies on ignorance is an argument from ignorance. But it’s still a reasonable question what exactly some of these arguments are, and in particular whether certain of them can be classified as scientific arguments.
They’re Not All Fallacious!
Arguments from ignorance are not necessarily bad:
I have no evidence that there are any elephants in my living room.
Therefore, there are probably no elephants in my living room.
But it’s easy to see how the same pattern of argument can also be used fallaciously:
I have no evidence that there are any spiders in my living room.
Therefore, there are probably no spiders in my living room.
This argument reasons in the same way, and it’s bad because it’s reasoning about something different, something that yields a different answer to the following question:
If the thing were there, would we probably have good evidence for it by now?
That’s an important question, and an affirmative answer to it should usually make for an ok argument from ignorance; a negative answer should usually make for a fallacious one.
Arguments from ignorance, even if they aren’t fallacious, tend to have this disadvantage: If we learn just the right thing in the future, the argument will turn out to have been wrong. That doesn’t, in itself, make an argument from ignorance fallacious; but it does mean that, like nearly everything else, it’s fallible.
Once in a while, an elephant may even turn up in the living room, as Gary Larson illustrates.
And why should we care about arguments from ignorance? Well, we can talk about that too.
Some Interesting Arguments from Ignorance
Here’s an interesting argument from ignorance:
If G-d existed, He would have made His existence obvious.
He hasn’t.
So He probably doesn’t exist.
And this:
If there were WMD in Iraq, we would have found them by now.
We haven’t.
So there probably weren’t any.
And this:
If extraterrestrials existed, I would probably have seen some better evidence for it by now.
I haven’t.
So they probably don’t exist.
Let no one say that all arguments from ignorance are fallacious and useless!
Of course, we can quibble these particular arguments. Would G-d make it obvious? Would the aliens? And not every argument from ignorance, even if its premises do a decent job supporting its conclusion, has true premises. Evidence for the existence of G-d is a real thing, and do you need me to give you the three Google search terms I keep in my head about those WMD? (Ok, we’ll just skip to the third and best one; it’s “NYT five thousand WMD”. Look up the 2014 article, not the 2002 one.)
But what about the really interesting arguments from ignorance–you know, the arguments that G-d or an immaterial soul must exist because we have no idea how else to explain things otherwise?
Yeah, we should talk about that.
About Those Arguments for G-d or the Soul
People talk about arguments from ignorance for the existence of G-d a lot, but I don’t believe I’ve ever even seen one.
I’ve studied plenty of arguments for the existence of G-d–arguments cosmological, teleological, moral, ontological cosmontological, Platonic, empirical, and maybe a few others. Certainly there is no argument from ignorance among the many with which I have some familiarity from Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Descartes, William James, Allama Iqbal, C. S. Lewis, Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, Robert Adams, William Lane Craig, and Andrew Loke. These are arguments from things we know, not from ignorance.
Not even William Paley‘s argument was an argument from ignorance. (It was an argument from analogy.)
But here is an interesting argument.
If matter could produce consciousness, we’d have probably figured out how by now.
We have no idea how matter might produce consciousness.
So the mind is probably not the body.
One thing that interests me about this argument is that I think it might actually be pretty good. But only pretty good, and always vulnerable to the possibility that tomorrow will see the crucial discovery that bridges matter and mind.
But what really interests me is that I don’t really care about this argument, and I don’t even know whoever made such an argument. It certainly wasn’t Descartes. Nor was it anyone else I can remember ever looking at who talked about mind and matter. The arguments that the mind is not matter are arguments from knowledge of what mind and matter are.
Of course, everyone thinks that “G-d of the gaps” is the way people argue for G-d before science fills in the gaps, and that the “soul of the gaps” is the traditional way to argue for a non-physical soul. But I don’t know why people think this since I can’t remember ever seeing any such arguments. (Here’s Brandon Rickabaugh’s fine article on how arguments for non-physical souls are not soul-of-the-gaps arguments; a quick skim of page 203 should get the point across.)
Of course, most books are books I have never read; if there’s something out there, there’s a good chance I haven’t read it. I’m not arguing from my ignorance of anyone making these kinds of arguments that no one ever has. My main point is a bit simpler:
The prominence of such arguments is greatly exaggerated.
But what about this one?
Stephen Meyer’s argument, as reported in this blog post:
Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information.
Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information.
Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for information in the cell.
(See also this Ricochet post from Henry Racette, and there have been other Ricochet conversations on this matter.)
Ok–it’s an interesting argument. And ok–it relies on ignorance. Premise One there is a huge statement about our ignorance.
But that doesn’t make it an argument from ignorance. Let’s talk about that.
Not Every Argument Relying on Ignorance Is an Argument from Ignorance
Meyer’s argument relies on ignorance, but that does not make it an argument from ignorance. Here’s a similar argument:
There is no known explanation for the mess in the living room other than that the kids did it.
This is the sort of thing the kids normally do.
Therefore, the kids probably made the mess in the living room.
Or this one:
We don’t know of any reason to think Mark’s symptoms are caused by something other than a sinus infection.
Mark’s symptoms correspond to a sinus infection.
So Mark probably has a sinus infection.
And this last one illustrates an important point about ignorance and science: Every argument that draws some conclusion about the efficient causes of some physical phenomenon relies on our ignorance of any other cause.
In this way, scientific reasoning often relies on ignorance. But that doesn’t mean it’s also arguing from ignorance. In the example above, the argument argues from knowledge of Mark’s symptoms, knowledge of sinus infections, and an understanding of the fact that the two fit.
So what’s the ignorance doing in there? Not much; it’s just making sure we don’t know of any good competing explanation.
But Are They Scientific?
I like the Intelligent Design Arguments, but there is at least one reasonable concern with them. One can argue that Meyer’s religious conclusions are not falsifiable and are therefore unscientific.
I like that objection; it draws from Karl Popper’s philosophy of science, and Popper is the man!
The worst I can say about this objection to Meyer is that Popper’s philosophy of science is not the only game in town, and that I think Thomas Kuhn is also awesome. (He may even be right!)
Actually, I’m not even sure I care. I want to know if the premises support the conclusion. I don’t care all that much whether the premises are learned from science or not, whether the conclusion is theological or not, and whether or not the argument can technically be classified as scientific. I just care about the logic.
Published in Religion & Philosophy
I know what I think/believe but I’m not sure I can convey the same. For me, science doesn’t have much of any bearing on faith. Nothing science has ever done has had any impact on my faith in G-d. Science probably has had an influence on the things I understand about how the worlds came into being. This is more or less history and there is a lot of mystery concerning history regardless of the historical record one references. The biblical record is not very well understood and is often misread. The natural record is not very well understood and is often misread.
I think if a person wants to have the greatest insights into the mysteries of our existence, they need to have a mind filled with all the reference material they can handle. I can know of things I don’t put much stock in but then maybe having that info allows me to see something I would otherwise miss or dismiss. The greatest minds are filled with a lot of stuff.
I kind of agree that the religious community and the scientific community shouldn’t try to dismiss or limit each other. In the grand scheme, they are in the same boat and would do well to listen to each other.
If G-d exists and He is the G-d of all things, then He is the G-d of nature and science also. While the bible is a written record, nature and science are part of His record also. Understanding something new about nature and science is understanding something new about G-d.
This is all for me, my view and may or may not be useful for anyone else.
That sounds coherent and sensible to me.
I think there is a moral hazard that arises when people attempt to blend the domains. Those who approach theology from the science perspective are tempted to make arguments science can’t defend — the disproof of God stuff. People approaching science from the theology side tend to over-simplify, and hence misrepresent, the state of the science — the science can have no answer for xyz stuff.
I think both instances harm both sides.
I agree with every statement.
You introduced the question, ‘are these statements useful for anyone else?’
That seems easy enough to answer.
If they are true then yes, they are not just useful knowledge but essentially important knowledge.
If they are false, then they are worse than useless. They will lead whoever is convinced to accept them as true into profound error.
Just a few random thoughts about the universe that I find absurd. I don’t mean to start a 500 comment conversation and I may not contribute to it much because I am busy right now.
1. I find it totally bizarre that our universe is made up of gazillions of tiny specks separated by insurmountable distances in the realm of light years apart. A few objects are closer, such as in our solar system, but even these are monstrously far away from each other. The Universe is made up of 99.99999999999% empty space.
2. Life itself seems to contradict the principle of entropy. life organisms have gradually become more and more complex over billions and billions of years (thank you Carl S.) to the point of ridiculousness. The workings of the human brain is the most complex thing we know of in the universe, still surpassing all the super computers we have been able to build. Yet everything else in the Universe has either not changed much or is slowing down it’s activity and becoming less complex due to entropy.
3. There is life, which is stupendously complex and organized, and there is non-life matter which is by comparison stupendously simple and unorganized, random. There is absolutely nothing in-between, no transitional forms.
4. No matter how hard I’ve tried, I cannot find a single iota of quality in the music of Bruce Springstein.
“The heavens declare the glory of God”.
I think your attempts at dividing the two will fail for Christians, especially as technology allows you to expand what is covered by science.
God is God of the universe. His creation testifies to his existence. You telling me I can’t marvel at the natural world and hold it as evidence of God’s existence is silliness.
This could be another post for certain or maybe 4 posts.
5. And Epstine didn’t kill himself.
Telling you that would be worse than silliness, Stina, and I certainly never will.
I think everyone should marvel at the world. If you believe God created it, you should marvel at His wisdom and power as well. If you don’t believe that, you can just marvel at it’s magnitude and complexity and beauty and mystery.
What I do say is that I think it’s counter-productive for people of faith to attempt to defend their faith through science. Christian apologists who do that tend, in my opinion, to misrepresent the science and the methods of science, and they leave themselves vulnerable to legitimate claims that they’re doing so. I think that ultimately undermines the faith in those who were persuaded by the pseudo-scientific apologists. Better, in my view, that the two domains not be mixed in that way, so that people aren’t tempted to predicate their own faith on this or that claim about science.
Similarly, those on the other side of the fence, those who wish to make scientific arguments against religious belief, are misusing science in a different way. They’re claiming that science can answer questions about domains that are beyond the scope of the scientific method.
The claim of the existence of God (as God is typically conceived) is not falsifiable. No amount of “science” can disprove it. That means that the standards and methods of science — the things that define science — don’t work when the question at hand is “does God exist?” That doesn’t make it a meaningless question, merely a question science can not and should not try to answer.
The universe truly is amazing. It’s surprising how little we knew about its structure and fundamental nature as recently as a century ago. It’s hard not to suspect that we will look back a century from now and think much the same.
Was there really a “big bang?” Did the inflationary phase really occur? Did the universe grow from a spec smaller than an atom to something many lightyears across in far less than a billionth of a second, as the evidence seems to suggest? Is it really true that the trillions of galaxies and billions of trillions of stars represent a small fraction of all the matter and energy in the universe — that most of it is “dark” in the sense that we simply can’t detect it except by the effects it has on the parts of the universe we can see?
Regarding entropy: it can be reversed locally, but at the cost of greater entropy elsewhere. Life doesn’t contradict that.
We were aware.
But it raises the question: is there no limit on that?
There are a couple of ways to read that, Mark.
On the one hand, and assuming the total mass/energy of the universe is finite (which we don’t actually know), then yes, there’s a limit, so long as it’s true that entropy always increases globally. Localized order can only constitute an ever-diminishing portion of the total energy in the universe.
But if you’re asking if there’s a limit to the degree of orderedness, to the contrast between order and disorder — roughly, between the living and the nonliving — then I suspect the answer is… yes in principle, but practically speaking no.
I would speculate (wildly, irresponsibly) that for any amount of energy and matter there is a minimal entropy that can be achieved. This is because there are only a finite* number of configurations of that energy and matter, and so one or more of them must be at the state of least disorder.
* Or maybe not finite. Maybe there are no smallest increments, Planck be damned, and it’s all continuous. Even so, it could be finite, but I don’t know how you could rule out arbitrarily great local minima and maxima over the finite range.
Wow, look at the time. I have to go walk the dog.