Question

...
alex

What logical fallacy’s are these

Person 1: Astrology is provable by science!

Person 2: How can that be true as it would violate the 4 fundamental forces of physics. And vast parts of Quantum physics and General relativity to boot. There has been no proposed particle or any kind of mechanism to explain astrologies claims. 
Person 1: So just because  we can’t explain Astrology yet doesn’t mean it’s been disproven. So you don’t know then! Science has been wrong before. 
Person 2: You just said it was provable? Any hypothetical remaining particles can’t have any effect on our personalities. All testable claims astrology makes have not been supported by empirical data and has been debunked for decades . 
Person 1: Well maybe astrology is True we just don’t know yet . 

asked on Friday, Oct 01, 2021 04:36:14 PM by alex

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
Mchasewalker
5

Person 1 is arguing from ignorance in both the classic form of argumentum ad ignorantium and complete ignorance of the history of astrology. 

Humans have been charting, studying, developing, and constructing astrological concepts for tens of thousands of years - very likely going back to Neanderthalian dream culture.  Even our modern words for man, woman, moon, menstrual, and month derive from the same early Sanskrit ( Dravidian, Hindu) root. Our original construct of a daily, monthly, and yearly calendar of 365 days aligns with the moon's phases and female menstrual (monthly) cycles.  Moreover, where else did humans witness in spectacular display the monthly transformation of cow horns into a full human face every month without fail? They carefully noted the moon's impact on planting and harvest seasons (as well as the littoral tides). So, there was a widespread belief and burgeoning astrological belief system that developed over thousands of years through Sumerian, Babylonian, Egyptian, Chaldean, Dravidian, Indo-Aryan, Greek, Roman, and Meso American civilizations.  (See The Dream Culture of the Neanderthals by Dr. Stanley Gooch). 

One thing for certain is we do know a great deal about astrology and of all the things we do know (which is a lot) we know it is a completely false epistemology on the same level with haruspicy, alchemy, phrenology, palm reading, and, if we're totally being honest, theology, mythology, and religion itself. 

answered on Friday, Oct 01, 2021 06:51:58 PM by Mchasewalker

Mchasewalker Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
richard smith
0

 Person 2 simply disprove person 1 argument.

"Person 1: So just because  we can’t explain Astrology yet doesn’t mean it’s been disproven. So you don’t know then! Science has been wrong before. " . At most it would be unproven but consider what was the first statement I would call it biases.

"Person 1: Well maybe astrology is True we just don’t know yet . " would be an opinion.

 

answered on Saturday, Oct 02, 2021 09:51:08 AM by richard smith

richard smith Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
Dr. Richard
0

Beyond the other correct comments on this one, it is also the attempt to prove a negative fallacy.

answered on Saturday, Oct 02, 2021 11:43:41 AM by Dr. Richard

Dr. Richard Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
0
skips777 writes:

"attempt to prove a negative fallacy."...huh? You know an actual law of logic is a negative, the law of non-contradiction. I.e. you can prove a negative. I can prove that I'm not nonexistent..that's a negative. So what's the attempt to prove a negative fallacy?.

posted on Sunday, Oct 03, 2021 03:48:21 PM
...
0
Dr. Richard writes:
[To skips777]

Perhaps I was too laconic. Let me explain in more detail.

It is impossible to prove a negative and irrational to demand it. Proving a negative means a person asking for proof of the non-existence of something for which no evidence of any kind exists. 

Technically, this is a form of the Argument from Ignorance fallacy (argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents “a lack of contrary evidence”), is a common fallacy in informal logic. The proposition asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). 

This also represents a false dichotomy because it excludes other options, such as insufficient investigation and insufficient information to prove the proposition is either true or false. 

Carl Sagan, in Chapter 12 of his book “The Demon-Haunted World,” explains this well:

“Appeal to ignorance: the claim that whatever has not been proven false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Unfortunately, arguments from ignorance easily find their way into discussions concerning the existence of a supernatural god. It is a fallacy to draw conclusions based on ignorance since this does not satisfactorily address the philosophic burden of proof. The most basic of which is: He who makes a proposition bears the burden of proof that the proposition is true. 

 

[ login to reply ] posted on Sunday, Oct 03, 2021 04:39:08 PM
...
0
skips777 writes:

"It is impossible to prove a negative and irrational to demand it."........BWHAHAHAHAHA

Imagine what degree you must have to be so wrong and quite frankly, to be schooled by someone who graduated HS at 15 but doesn't have more than a year of college.... I'll refer you to a logician since you're obviously not a Dr. of philosophy. If you don't mind. I'll listen to the learned. Hagd

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articles/proveanegative.html

 

posted on Monday, Oct 04, 2021 01:15:58 AM
...
0
Dr. Richard writes:
[To skips777]

Thank you for those kind words. 

[ login to reply ] posted on Monday, Oct 04, 2021 11:31:13 AM