Humans are quite naturally uncomfortable with ignorance. We are curious
animals, evolved with an ability to reason and to discover insight into
the phenomena that we find ourselves perplexed and enveloped in. Nature does not willingly yield her secrets to us.
And while science can penetrate into some of nature's deepest
mysterious, the theories it provides – like evolution for instance, can
rival our otherwise conventional (or religious) wisdom.
Not all explanations are equal. Explanations that can not
be falsified do not have a reliable attachment to reality. Scientific
theories are testable. At any time, a theory can be overturned in light
of new evidence or understanding. Explanations that can not be tested,
are not science, but wishful thinking that relies on the authority of
its dogma. (For a quick review of the scientific method, click here.)
As always, the following analysis is not meant to be complete.
Defined
This fallacy is not about a one's ignorance per se, but is committed when the petitioner asserts that a substitute
explanation is more reliable if there are no apparent alternative explanations. Just because an explanation fails, does not
necessarily make a competing explanation more plausible.
The Skeptics Dictionary supplies us with an accurate definition:
"The argument to
ignorance is a logical fallacy of irrelevance occurring when one claims
that something is true only because it hasn't been proved false, or
that something is false only because it has not been proved true. A
claim's truth or falsity depends upon supporting or refuting evidence
to the claim, not the lack of support for a contrary or contradictory
claim."
Examples
- Those unidentified lights are proof of extraterrestrial life, since no other explanation is apparent.
- If evolution is false, then creationism is true. A truncated example from the blogs, states: "Evolution according to Charles Darwin simply cannot be the truth.
The only remaining popular theory is Creationism, or Intelligent Design. There is no scientific proof that it didn't happen essentially as the Book of Genesis describes.
Creationism thus remains standing as the only plausible explanation for
the existence of life on earth. Consequently, it is completely
scientific, simply because it is the only "truth" left standing."
Example 1:
To presume that a light
in the sky is substantial proof of alien life is not sufficient
evidence.The lights in the sky could have been anything. An unnecessary assumption is being attributed without
demonstrating that the lights are, in fact, extraterrestrial life.
Example 2: Evolution may one day demonstrated to be false, it does not
necessarily make the Genesis account
necessarily true. Also notice, that in this example the creationist invokes a special plead. There are countless
other creation
stories from a multiple of other religious traditions, yet the writer automatically disqualifies these creation
stories because of his prior commitment to Biblical creationism. Simply, the creationist is stating because he believes creationism to
be true, it automagically is. This is nothing but wishful thinking.
Sound scientific theories propose how a theory can be falsified. In
fact, a favorite tactic of creationists is to "quote mine" Darwin himself. Darwin proposes: "The case at present (problems
presented by the fossil record) must remain inexplicable; and may be
truly urged as a valid argument against the views (the Theory of Natural Selection) here entertained." (Read full the context of the quote, here.)
At the time, Darwin had to inductively reason from the evidence
presently known which the Theory of Natural Selection is predicated on. Creationist like to falsely state that Darwin knew that evolution
was false. Not so.
Scientific theories make predictions that
can be tested. Darwin was supplying his critics with the conditions
that could overturn the Theory of Natural Selection. That is sound
science. Sound scientific theories rests not only a preponderance
of evidence, but by independent verification.
Also, I should mention that Darwin was proposing a theory for the
origin of species, not an origin of life. Creationist like to muddle the
two. (Strawmen are easier to defeat after all.)
What
the creationist fails to tell you that after a 150 years of collecting
fossils that demonstrate benchmark evolutionary developments that
species have undertaken (transitory fossils) and research into
genetics, the evidence against evolution has ceased to be inexplicable. Darwin's
theories have proven their accuracy. From geology to biology, to other
independent fields, the Theory of Evolution is as much as a fact
as anything you will find. (Read more about evolution, here.) In fact, Darwinian evolution is the meta-theory that governs modern, biological sciences.
The most damning of all, of course, is that the creationist argues that
no evidence can falsify creationism. If no evidence can overturn creationism, what evidence can? The
other curious aspect of the creationist's argument, is while he argues
that there is not "scientific proof" (proof meaning evidence) in favor of Biblical Creationism,
he simultaneously claims that creationism is " completely scientific" by fiat. Which is it? Does science prove creationism or
not?
And that is weakness of creationism. Creationism can
not provide criteria in how the "design theory" may be discredited. All
design arguments invoke a much larger question which must be
surmounted: "Since the designer is necessarily more complex than his creation – like the watchmaker to his watch, how was the designer designed?"
An argument from ignorance is not an answer to the design argument, nor does it provide satisfactory evidence of the claim.
In Conclusion
There is nothing wrong with the answer, "We do not know." Only by a sound methodology that remains open to
new evidence and understanding, we can hope to resolve some of our
natural ignorance.