Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    The fallacy label assumes future physical explanation is ... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The inference from 'natural reason has so far failed to explain X' to 'X requires transcending the physical realm' commits the argument from ignorance fallacy.

    The fallacy label assumes future physical explanation is possible; but some phenomena might genuinely require non-physical explanation—mere ignorance ≠ fallacy if conclusion could be true.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Key Terms

    Conclusion (in logic)(as used in logic and argumentation)
    The claim or statement that you're trying to prove or that follows from your reasoning.
    Ignorance (philosophical)(as used in epistemology (the study of knowledge))
    Simply not knowing or not having information about something yet—which is different from something being impossible or illogical.
    Non-physical explanation(as used in metaphysics and philosophy of mind)
    An explanation that appeals to something that isn't made of matter or energy, like consciousness, the soul, or immaterial forces.
    Physical explanation(as used in philosophy of mind and metaphysics)
    An explanation of something based entirely on physical things and forces—matter, energy, the laws of nature—rather than anything non-material.
    fallacy

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Explore a random proposition
    Start fresh with something unrelated.
    (Whately's definition, Elements of Logic, Bk. III, intro.)
    Any unsound mode of arguing which appears to demand conviction and to be decisive of the question at hand, when in fairness it is not

    Connections

    1 linked claim

    The inference from 'natural reason has so far failed to explain X' to 'X require...

    Related

    The inference from 'natural reason has so far failed to explain X' to 'X require...

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective