Talk:Argument from ignorance

Definition
This edit introduced a level of abstraction that made the intro more difficult to read. The previous version was simpler and more direct, not broken, and hence not in need of repair. I have now twice returned it to status quo ante. Please discuss here instead of edit warring. Just plain Bill (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Violation of Laws of Logic
Claiming "This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false." is a clear violation of the Law of the Excluded Middle.

In other words, the possibilities can only be true or false. Insufficient information is not one of them.Magnetic Flux (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * That is exactly right. You are abosolutely correct to point that out. Thats the reason I removed it but someone just reverted my edit without understanding the concept and when I am asking them for reasons they claim there are grammatical mistakes. And that become a valid reason to remove everything I wrote, can you believe that? Man if there is grammatical error then just fix it why remove every single thing? Adityaverma8998 (talk) 06:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not how Wikipedia works. See WP:BRD.
 * Also, there is nothing wrong with the text as it was. There may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false is short for There may have been an insufficient investigation to either prove that the proposition is true or prove that the proposition is false. To assume that the meaning is There may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is (either true or false) and that the proposition is a strictly boolean one with no fuzzy borders in the words is to assume that the writer is an idiot. Don't do that. And don't edit-war. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually if there are borderline cases then that is because the concepts within the propostion were not defined properly enough. Example - "The king of France has blue hair" now in this propostion what constitutes as "blue"? There are many shades of blue, so one might be tempted to think that this proposition is a case where borderlines occur and therefore propositions can be fuzzy to some degree. But the problem here is that the concept "blue" or the idea "blue" is not properly defined here. That is what is causing the problem here. A proposition can be either true or false and if there is some case where its truth value is hard to determine, then its becuase the concepts within that proposition are not well defined. But if thats the case, then it is no longer a proposition. So the point I made seems to me that it still holds.
 * And a propositions truth value being unknowable still doesnt change the fact that it either is true or its false, its merely stating that we cannot access its truth value but we "not being able to access the truth value" doesnt mean that the proposition can have any third truth value. So repeating myself its either true or false. Adityaverma8998 (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You will not stop edit-warring, so I am done with you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

"Lack of imagination" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lack_of_imagination&redirect=no Lack of imagination] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)