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."

1. Those unidentified lights are proof of extraterrestrial life, since no other explanation is apparent.
2. 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.

What you are about to read will play a role in determining the future of the world. Yes! No kidding! Hyperbole you say? I'll explain in a moment why not.

Introductions first. Hello, I am MC Pickard, a new community blogger at Lake Country Living.com. I've lurked on these blogs for months now, reading, but never participating. I decided to change that, because there is much that is not being said and much that should be said on this forum. I would like to add my voice.

So just how will my blog at Lake Country Living.com play a part in determining the future of the world? By the pseudeoscholarship that I hope to provide. What is pseudeoscholarship and who are pseudoscholars? Benard M. Patton, in his book, Truth Knowledge or Just Plain Bull, observes that the pseudoscholar "controls the church and state, the educational systems, the press, and the economy." And just who are these psedoscholars? It is us.We are not the specialist. And if you ever attempted to read an abstract in JAMA, you know what I mean. Despite this, concepts do trickle out, like Einstein's Theory of Relativity (ToR). Other than acknowledgment of the iconic equation of E=mc2, do you think the majority of people really understand the wider and deeper implications of the ToR and how it came to eclipse Newtonian physics? Probably not. (I don't pretend to either.)

Likewise, with the public understanding of the Theory of Evolution (ToE), Americans are generally misinformed. In 2005, the school board of Dover, PA lost a definitive ruling to teach Intelligent Design (ID) along side of the ToE in science class as a full-fledged science. This overt redefining of creationism as a science not only had implications as to what we mean when we think or practice religion, but how we think and practice science as well. Reason won the day with a solid defense of the ToE, and by uncovering the motives behind the ID movement, thus reaffirming the separation clause of the First Amendment. Creationism has reformulated its attack however, instead of positioning ID and creationism as science, ironically, as an appeal to academic freedom. One such bill is currently working its way through legislation in South Carolina and elsewhere.

Why do court cases like Dover happen? There are numerous reasons of course, but if I had to pick just one, I would say basic human credulity. Reason is one sure hallmark of our species, but we seem to constantly fail in the practice of it. No more apparent  when cherished beliefs are perceived to be threatened. We tend to accept easy answers that confirm our biases, or that comport to an imparted worldview. While Americans are no more credulous than anyone else and public acceptance for the ToE is at a pathetic all-time low, we are still the world's premier superpower industrial society. (For instance, take a look at this study of high school biology students and teachers attitudes toward the ToE and literal, Biblical creationism in the classroom.)

Although, I do condemn the Dover board for their actions, its hard for me to lay blame solely on them. The Discovery Institute (DI) and likewise partisans are just as complicit. The DI, in the late 90's, issued the Wedge Document (Discovery Institute, 1998; Forrest and Gross) to "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" and to "affirm the reality of God." In order to do, as Barbara Forester explains that the goal of the Wedge Strategy was "to create an opening for the supernatural in the public’s understanding of science—and in the minds of policymakers." This was to be accomplished, not through the scientific method and serious peer review study, but with public relations. Meaning, the alleged controversy over the ToE became a self-fulfilling, well-funded, manufactured public controversy abrogating the magisteria of religion with the magisteria of science while undermining philosophical naturalism that science is predicated upon.

Of course, one could argue what the Dover School Board did was a victimless crime. But our beliefs do inform our actions. No more so than the case of Madeline Neumann of Wausau, who died because her parents ignored a noticeable and non-fatal diabetic condition for faith healing by prayer. Likewise, the honor killings of Jasbir and Sunita in Southern India, or the murder of Rand Abdel-Qader in Southern Iraq for a teenage crush. These are tragic, criminal cases against the basic rights of humanity and freedom of conscious, and a logical consequence of these religious belief systems. I don't want to single out the religious only in this regard, as there just as many examples of secular abuses based upon adherence to political dogmas. It's important to recognize that these crimes are based upon irrational worldviews, even though those beliefs are coherent within their own framework.

Let me reiterate, our beliefs do inform our decisions and our actions, and do have real world implications.

So where does this leave the pseudoscholar? Does this mean, that as a society of pseudoscholars that we can not determine the likely-hood of claims and make reasonable, sound decisions regarding their veracity? Yes, we can. Does this also mean that bona fide scholars always get it right? No. The Sokol Hoax and Piltdown Man, exposes just how fallible we humans can be. We are just as susceptible to confirmation bias, errors in reasoning, pseudeo-science, and woo just like the scientific and academic practitioners of our societies. What is important is the methodology by which we use to ferret out specious arguments and claims, like Piltdown. After all, it was science (a methodology) and not creationism that exposed the Piltdown hoax.

I am a pseudoscholar just like yourself, and now you probably now have some idea about the positions I hold dear. Undoubtedly, the values I advocate for will be of great irritation and polemical to some. Confronting our collective myths always incurs outrage. However, I am prepared for the inevitable denouncements and the numerous Pascal's Wagers that I am sure to be peppered with.

So why bother? I deeply care about reality, that is, holding on to as many true beliefs as opposed to false ones. It is by hard work, self-examination, and by a rational methodology that we can do the right kind of things for our society. Although, we've evolved as an altruistic species, we are still an epistemologically immature one. In time, hopefully, we will transcended superstition, credulity, and cruelty as our knowledge of nature deepens and matures. It is my hope that my contribution, from an entirely under-represented view of American civic life, will add value to this public forum and where it matters most - locally. Therefore, I want to craft this blog to be educational, yet critical of current events, pseudo-science, religion, woo, and that of church and state entanglements.

Otherwise, I'm pretty much like yourself negotiating through the world and trying to get by as best I can. We are the masters of the future - let's try to be coherent as possible and make the future as great as possible.