Lack of Evidence and Argument from Ignorance

[StJoseph8]

Hypothetical:

Person 1: I say that x is true, but I have very little to no evidence of it.

Person 2: So, you have very little to no evidence to back up your claim that x is true. Therefore, I do not believe that x is true.

Is person 2 making an argument from ignorance? Is person 2 being fallacious?

 

[Rhubarb]

Believing something, and it being true, are different things.

Not having enough evidence for X doesn’t mean ~X. (The negation of X) That would be fallacious yes. However just because X is true doesn’t mean we have enough evidence to believe it.

In other words if Person 2 says “No, you have no evidence so X is false” then s/he is committing a fallacy. But if they just say “well you have poor evidence, so I don’t believe that” they aren’t being fallacious.

 

[paduard]

Believing something, and it being true, are different things.

Not having enough evidence for X doesn’t mean ~X. (The negation of X) That would be fallacious yes. However just because X is true doesn’t mean we have enough evidence to believe it.

In other words if Person 2 says “No, you have no evidence so X is false” then s/he is committing a fallacy. But if they just say “well you have poor evidence, so I don’t believe that” they aren’t being fallacious.

I agree i.e. committing a fallacy.
paduard

 

[Bradski]

Hypothetical:

Person 1: I say that x is true, but I have very little to no evidence of it.

Person 2: So, you have very little to no evidence to back up your claim that x is true. Therefore, I do not believe that x is true.

Is person 2 making an argument from ignorance? Is person 2 being fallacious?

He’s not making an argument. He’s just saying that there’s insufficient evidence for him to make a statement ‘It is true’. If he said that it wasn’t true, as opposed to saying that he did not believe it to be true, then that would be different.

This assumes that X needs evidence to support it. If X is ‘I have a pet dragon’ it would be a different matter than saying ‘I have a pet cat’.

 

[inocente]

Hypothetical:

Person 1: I say that x is true, but I have very little to no evidence of it.

Person 2: So, you have very little to no evidence to back up your claim that x is true. Therefore, I do not believe that x is true.

Is person 2 making an argument from ignorance? Is person 2 being fallacious?

No, person 2 is merely stating a fact (if person 1 claims that cars are pushed by invisible little green men then it’s reasonable for person 2 to be skeptical).

It would be a fallacy if person 1 claimed x is true because it hasn’t been disproved, or if person 2 claimed x is false because it hasn’t been proved, since that ignores a third option, that there’s not enough evidence to decide either way.

 

[puzzledtoo]

So it could be said that person 2 is agnostic on the matter?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Hypothetical:
Person 2: So, you have very little to no evidence to back up your claim that x is true. Therefore, I do not believe that x is true.

Is person 2 making an argument from ignorance? Is person 2 being fallacious?

Person’s 2 is drawing a conclusion based on an implied syllogism which goes as follows:

I should not believe as true anything for which there is little-to-no evidence.
There is little-to-no evidence to back up your claim that x is true.
Therefore I should not believe that x is true.

The major premise contains a statement that is problematic.

There is no obligation to disqualify as true anything for which there is little-to-no evidence.

For example, many atheists believe in a multiverse with little-to-no evidence. They might be happy to believe in a multiverse because that is theoretically or emotionally preferable to believing in God.

Some theists might believe there is little to no evidence that God exists. They might be happy to believe in God because it is theoretically and emotionally preferable to believing in a purposeless universe that somehow just popped into existence.

 

[Bradski]

For example, many atheists believe in a multiverse with little-to-no evidence. They might be happy to believe in a multiverse because that is theoretically or emotionally preferable to believing in God.

How does a multiverse discount God?

I can see you back a few centuries ago saying something along the lines of: ‘They may be happy to believe that we do not orbit the sun/that there are ‘stars’ and ‘planets’ somewhere out there/that there are other galaxies/that we descended from a common ancestor because that is theoretically or emotionally preferable to believing in God’.

None of those things preclude God. So why would it if there were other universes? Couldn’t God have created them as well?

You sell Him short, Charles.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

How does a multiverse discount God?

It doesn’t discount God. Some atheists think it makes God irrelevant, just as some dumb biologists think evolution makes atheism respectable.