Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Rowe's assumption (1) that no good we know of justifies permitting certain suffering commits the informal fallacy of inference from ignorance.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Not all inferences from ignorance are fallacious; they're valid when the absence itself is evidence (e.g., absence of footprints suggests no one passed).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Rowe's claim relies on reasonable background assumptions about God's omniscience and transparency, not mere lack of knowledge.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The fallacy charge conflates acknowledging epistemic limits with committing a logical error in structured reasoning.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
An argument commits the fallacy of ignorance only if it infers something's falsity from our mere lack of knowledge of its truth.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Rowe argues from the absence of known justifying goods to the absence of any justifying goods—a leap beyond what ignorance warrants.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Our cognitive limitations mean we regularly fail to know goods that actually exist, making this inference epistemically unreliable.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.