Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument

I would say that your foundational statement is in error. What you seem to be saying in your example is that:B !-> A
C !-> A
Therefore, C = B.That isn't true. Squares are not circles. Triangles are not circles. But squares are not triangles, either.But that isn't what is being put forward. That is, the issue is not "if you believe in something without evidence, then you should believe in any other thing without evidence." Instead, the argument is:A -> B
C is an example of A.
Therefore, C -> B.All circles are ellipses. x² + y² = 1 is a circle. Therefore, it is an ellipse.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

I would say that your foundational statement is in error. What you seem to be saying in your example is that:

​

B !-> A
C !-> A
Therefore, C = B.

​

That isn't true. Squares are not circles. Triangles are not circles. But squares are not triangles, either.

---

​

A triangle is a multi-sided geometric forms
All rectangles are multi-sided geometric forms
Therefore, a triangle is a square.

---

That isn't the example I gave. My example used negation and you cannot simply delete that. Your example didn't. "B -> A" is not the same kind of statement as "B !-> A." "A square is a rectangle" is not the same kind of statement as "A square is not a circle."The fact that your example isn't true and my example isn't true doesn't mean they're the same thing. In fact, by pointing out this second fallacy, you're proving my point:B !-> A
C !-> A
Therefore, C = B.That isn't true. My statement wasn't true; your statement wasn't true; that doesn't mean you and I said the same thing.

quote:

---

But the real comparison is that

​

C is an example of A
D is an example of A
Therefore C = D

​

And you cannot logically say that C = D or C D because you don't know. Thanks.

---

Don't confuse equality with identity. C and D are equal because they are both A. They may have traits that distinguish them, but those traits are not related to what makes them A. In essence, they are "equal in the eyes of A," but they are not identical.Indeed, circles of different radii are not the same circle, but they are both circles and as such, behave as all circles do. Anything that would affect the general circle would affect all specific circles.Thus, it would seem that your defining characteristic (the "A") is not "is a circle." Instead, it is something like "is a circle of radius 4."It seems to me that your hesitation in treating "god" and "the IPU (BBHH)" the same is that there is some quality about "god" that is not part of "the IPU (BBHH)" but which you haven't mentioned. That is, those who are equating them are talking about "circles" while you're talking about "circles of radius 4" but haven't mentioned that extra trait.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

It seems you agree that this is a reasonable position, even though there is no convincing evidence of alien life, and that it is reasonable even though we may never see convincing evidence of alien life.

---

You're missing an important point though: If an event can happen once, then that is evidence that it can happen. In and of itself, it is not evidence that it has happened more than once (the conditions that resulted in the event may not have occurred again), but it is evidence that it is capable of happening.This is different from saying that something is conceivable even though we have no examples of it ever happening.That is, the former is working backwards: Event X happened, therefore there must be some set of circumstances A, B, and C (which we may not know what they are) that resulted in X happening. Given the vast size and, for lack of a better term, "possibility space" of the universe, it is conceivable that X has happened a second time.Your position seems to be working forwards: It is conceivable that circumstances A, B, and C (which we may not know what they are) occurred and thus event X happened.Those are not the same processes and the latter is not supportable. That something is conceivable is not sufficient to draw a conclusion off of.It's one of the caveats of proof by induction. There are two steps in an inductive proof: You have to prove it for a specific n and you also have to prove that if it is true for n, then it is true for n + 1. You must do both steps. It does us no good to show that if it is true for n then it is also true for n + 1 if we can never find an n for which it is true in the first place.

quote:

---

The question oncerns whether they had evidence when the hypothesis was first formed, not whether or not we have evidence now.

---

You're ascribing too much to what the hypothesis was, though. That is, clearly the rotations of the galaxies were not what would be expected from gravitational action given the amount of visible matter in the galaxy. That's simply observation. With no evidence that gravity is at fault, then we must conclude that there is something else in the galaxy. Since we do not have that telepathy thing worked out yet, we have to use words and the word that was coined for the something was "dark matter." At that point, the only definition of it was, "Whatever it is that makes the galaxies spin the way they do."That's it. Not very impressive of a definition, but clearly something is making the galaxies spin. The claim of "dark matter" didn't come before the observation. It came after. We already had the evidence for its existence which is why we came up with a term for it.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

C is an example of A
D is an (intentionally absurd unbelievable) example of A
E is a (believable) example of A
Therefore C = D but not E

---

No, not quite. The point is that A is absurd in and of itself. Therefore, anything that is A is absurd. It doesn't matter that C, D, and E are not identical. The fact that they are all A means they share all the traits of A, including absurdity. The claim that E is not absurd is the logical error of "special pleading."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

The argument is

​

C is an example of A
D is an example of A
Therefore C = D

​

And this is a logically flawed argument.

---

Huh? A = B and B = C, therefore A != C? Equality is transitive. If C and D are both examples of A, then they are equivalent in the sense that they share the same traits defined by A.Again, you are trying to impose identity when we're only talking about equality.I know you don't want to go with the specifics, but I think it is helpful so that you can see where the issue lies.You are saying that deism is a "without evidence" trait that is "believable" while others are pointing out that "without evidence" necessarily includes "unbelievable" as a trait. Thus, if both deism and the IPU (BBHH) both require "without evidence" steps, then deism necessarily becomes "unbelievable."In short, you are trying to engage in the logical error of "special pleading."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

... and we can both agree that "E is a (believable) example of A" ...

---

No, we can't. A includes as one of its traits the property of being unbelievable. Therefore, if E is A, then E is unbelievable.You are engaging in the logical error of "special pleading."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

lyx2no responds to me:

quote:

---

Do you have a site where I can see what "B!->A" Means. I can figure out half of it myself but only half. Thanks.

---

It's standard mathematical logic. "->" means "implies." Thus, "A -> B" mean "A implies B."All squares are rectangles. If an object is a square, then that implies that it is a rectangle. Thus, if we have "A" being "an object is a square" and "B" being "an object is a rectangle," then we can say, "A -> B.""!" is computer science notation for negation (at least in the programming language known as "C"). In formal logic, "~" is more commonly used (and "" is even more "correct" but that isn't on the keyboard so "~" is fairly common), but "~->" is more difficult to visually distinguish as "does not imply" than "!->" so I used "!" instead.Thus, "B !-> A" means "B does not imply A."If an object is a square, it does not imply that it is a circle.Implication is one of the many actions of logic and is one way to symbolically describe the "if/then" relationship. "If A, then B" is the same as saying "A implies B." Some common statements regarding implication:A -> B
~B -> ~AThis is a true statement. Being a square implies being a rectangle. But not being a rectangle implies not being a square. This is the logical concept of the "contrapositive." The contrapositive is where you take an implication, reverse the terms, and negate both. The contrapositive of a true statement is a true statement.Thus, if B doesn't imply A ("B !-> A") and C doesn't imply A ("C !-> A"), then it doesn't necessarily follow that B and C are equal. Being a triangle doesn't imply being a circle and being a square doesn't imply being a circle, but the fact that neither implies being a circle doesn't mean a square and a triangle are the same. The only thing they share is the property of not being a circle.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

shalamabobbi responds to me:

quote:

---

The IPU is an actual religion and I'd thank everybody not to take the name of my God in vain.

---

What makes you think I don't have a personal connection to the IPU (BBHH)?

quote:

---

On a slightly more serious note, the problem with the IPU argument is that it is a thinly veiled ad hominum attack.

---

Why? I certainly admit that the grand hoopla that has sprung up around the IPU (BBHH) has ulterior motives, but the entire point behind it is very serious. To dismiss it as "ad hominem" justifies the entire reason for her existence: To demonstrate that there are people who are incapable of analyzing their theology dispassionately.In short, to claim the IPU is ad hominem is to engage in the logical error of special pleading: We're supposed to take this set of fantastical claims seriously but these others are to be sneered at.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

B is an example of A
C is an absurd example of A
D is a believable example of A

---

But all A are absurd, therefore D does not exist.

quote:

---

Yes, he redefined A (from unknown to absurd, unbelievable) to suit his argument, thus resulting in an a priori conclusion that the B argument was absurd or unbelievable first in order to be classed as A.

---

Incorrect. The point behind examples such as the IPU is to demonstrate that all A are absurd. If B is absurd and C shares all the traits of B, then C is necessarily absurd, too. To claim otherwise is to engage in the logical error of special pleading. Somehow one set of fantastical claims is to be taken seriously while the other is derided as "ad hominem" despite being identical to the "serious" claims.You don't get to have it both ways.And by the way, I wasn't the one that came up with the term "absurd" or did any sort of "redefinition." That term is yours, RAZD. You used it in your opening post, Message 1: If you didn't mean to call the IPU (BBHH) "absurd," then why did you do so right off the bat?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

it seems the only argument people are making is to redefine A (your "C") to being absurd or unbelievable or contradictory first.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?From your own post, the very first post of the entire thread, Message 1: Who is this phantom person "redefining" anything? Who is this other person who brought up the term "absurd"? This is all your doing, RAZD. We're just following your lead. You're the one saying that the IPU (BBHH) is "absurd." We're just pointing out that she was designed specifically to match the traits of those deities that are considered "serious." Therefore, if the IPU (BBHH) is "absurd," how can it's equal be anything but "absurd" without invoking the logical error of special pleading?That's the entire point.

quote:

---

I've also change IPU to immaterial pink unicorn) for Taz.

---

I think you've completely missed Taz's point.Hint: Does the word "schism" mean anything to you?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

B is an example of A
C is an example of A
C is wrong, silly, idiotic, delusional, etc.
A is the class of things that are wrong, silly, idiotic, delusional, etc.
and B is wrong, silly, idiotic, delusional, etc.

---

Incorrect. Instead:B is constructed to be equivalent to A.
B is considered "absurd."
Because B necessarily copies A, then A is also "absurd."
With no example of A that is not equivalent to B, all A are thus "absurd."Anything else is special pleading. You need to explain why your example is different from the one that was deliberately designed to mimic it and yet is considered "absurd."

quote:

---

Thus it seems to me that we should be able to discuss this without involving religion/s.

​

We've seen a range of responses on the issue of alien life in the universe

---

Do you truly not understand the difference between god and life with respect to whether or not there is evidence of such? As I mentioned before: The existence of life guarantees that it is possible for life to exist. Thus, since it happened once, it is conceivable that it could happen again. Is there anybody who seriously doubts that life exists? Do you truly not understand how that puts the question of life elsewhere into a different class from the question of the existence of god?

quote:

---

Which also includes the issue of alien life in the universe.

---

Incorrect. There is evidence of life in the universe. Do you not see how that is different from the claims of evidence of god?

quote:

---

B is an example of A
C is an example of A
B is like C

​

Belief in alien life in the universe is like belief in the IPU/s

---

Incorrect. B is not an example of A.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

---

OK, you do realize that there is a problem with this picture, yes? One's education and experiences, philosophies and deductions, beliefs and opinions, are not necessarily part of reality. Even our "valid theories" might be without foundation. That's the entire point behind scientific inquiry: Everything we think we know about everything just might be wrong.Now, please answer the direct question that was put to you:Do you or do you not think that the number of planets in the universe has an effect on the probability of life existing somewhere else in the universe?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

shalamabobbi responds to me:

quote:

---

But in a situation where some degree of evidence is claimed I would conclude the IPU as being improperly applied by definition, and the proper course of debate to be against the claimed evidence instead.

---

But the IPU (BBHH) was specifically created to match the claims of those who proclaim some other deity. Therefore, if the IPU (BBHH) is to be rejected as "absurd" (RAZD's word), then why does the other deity get to be taken seriously?Answer: Special pleading.In direct contrast to RAZD's claim of special pleading, nobody claims that life doesn't exist. Therefore, there is some evidence to support the possibility that life, which happened once, just might have happened twice.Have you not noticed that there is no universal agreement regarding the existence of god? Have you not noticed that the people who do claim there is a god are incapable of agreeing on which one exists? RAZD's attempt to claim "subjectivity" fails on its face.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

But the IPU is C, not A

---

So? C is an example of A. Therefore, because C was designed to be like all B you might care to name, also examples of A, it is done to show that all A are absurd. To claim otherwise is the logical error of special pleading.

quote:

---

You were the first to refer to A as being absurd.

---

Huh? Message 1: That's in message 1, RAZD. Are you claiming there's a zeroth post? I started your thread before you did?I was the first respondant to your thread once it was released, but I never used the term "absurd" in it. I never used the word "absurd" until Message 38 in direct response to you: You were the one who brought up the term "absurd" and started throwing it around. And now you're complaining that people are responding to it?

quote:

---

Thus you are arguing that A is absurd because C is absurd.

---

That's because C is specifically designed to match any example of A you care to name. Thus, since C is equivalent to all A, then if C is absurd, so are all A. To claim otherwise is special pleading.

quote:

---

Then don't redefine A.

---

Who is redefining it? We're simply pointing out that this example that you call absurd is equivalent to A. Thus, if C is absurd, so is A. To claim otherwise is special pleading.

quote:

---

But claiming that A is necessarily "absurd" from the start is begging the question.

---

And you might have a point if anybody was doing that other than you. I am not claiming A is absurd from the start. I am concluding that A is abusrd by pointing out that its equivalent, B, is absurd. For crying out loud, RAZD, you quoted me. Didn't you read it before you quoted it? Where is the "redefinition" of A as absurd? This is the first statement. Are you claiming that there's some super-secret hidden writing there that only you can see and I didn't actually write? Where in that statement do I claim A is absurd?It is only after work that we conclude that A is absurd.And again, the only reason we're talking about absurdities is because you brought it up in Message 1. Are you claiming there is a zeroth post? I started your thread before you did?

quote:

---

A is the class of things where we don't have evidence pro or con.

​

No evidence for
No evidence against

​

There are many examples of A, including the concept of alien life in the universe.

---

But "alien life in the universe" is not an example of A.Do you deny that you are alive? That is a very serious question. I do not ask it for my health. I want you to give me a yes or no answer.Why is it that whenever I go out of my way to point out specific questions that I want answered, concretely saying that an individual question is the only one I'm really interested in, that question is always ignored? Please don't let this be yet another one of those times, RAZD. I really only want an answer to that question:Are you or are you not alive?

quote:

---

So your education and experiences, philosophies and deductions, beliefs and opinions, are not part of reality the reality that is Rrhain?

---

If they're bogus, no. I've been taught lots of things that weren't true, had experiences that were naught but hallucination, held philosophies that had no connection to reality, deduced things that weren't true, believed six impossible things before breakfast, and had numerous opinions that I've had to be disabused of.Surely you aren't saying that you've never been absolutely sure of something that wasn't true, are you?And let's not play dumb and claim that your picture was talking about the belief itself, not the object that was believed in.

quote:

---

It should be obvious that I've answered this several times.

---

Then humor me and answer it again because apparently I missed it.

quote:

---

The perception of the number of planets is part of the information you process when deciding on the likelihood of life on another planet, as is your knowledge and the evidence of life on earth.

---

Do you not see that you just contradicted yourself? Did you or did you not just say: But if the number of planets in the universe is information to be taken into account, then it turns out that we DO have evidence. Thus, we get back to my question:Are you alive or not?

quote:

---

we have a range of people with different responses to the question from highly unlikely to almost a foregone conclusion

---

So? The defining point isn't about how confident we are in the results of our analysis of the evidence. Instead, the point is whether or not we have any evidence to analyze in the first place.Are you alive or not?

quote:

---

so the conclusion is that the resulting opinion is more a function of individual world views, not on the concrete objective reality of planets.

---

Nice distraction. Again, the question isn't how confident we are in our analysis of the evidence. It's whether or not there is any evidence to analyze in the first place.Congratulations, RAZD. You just demolished your own argument. Since there is evidence regarding the existence of life elsewhere in the universe, then that means it is not a member of A.I seem to recall saying just that.

quote:

---

Thus the worldview trumps the issue of how many planets exist in forming an opinion.

---

Huh? You mean the complete non-existence of planets wouldn't have any effect on the results of the analysis? Don't you think that the absence of any place for life to exist would have some bearing on the question of whether or not life existed elsewhere?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

shalamabobbi responds to me:

quote:

---

Usually there is some conversion event/process that amounts to the evidence that the belief is based upon

---

How many people do you know restrict their claims of god to, "This is only my opinion because I was the only one who had the experience"?Personal experience is one thing, but we are talking about external realities that are supposedly achievable by all people.

quote:

---

whereas the IPU has no evidence whatsoever in contradistinction.

---

Says who? You? Why should we believe you? How do you know nobody has had some "conversion event/process" with regard to the IPU (BBHH)? Tales of her manifestations are myriad.Now you're mixing in a "True Scotsman" fallacy in with the special pleading. Only "true" theists are allowed...that "fake" religion is discarded out of hand even though it is functionally identical to the "true" one we're all supposed to take seriously.

quote:

---

If one were to say 'I believe in deity X' and when pressed with 'why' says 'no reason, I just assert that X exists', then the IPU fits that situation and special pleading applies.

---

But that isn't the IPU (BBHH). There are people who will give you plenty of reasons why. So now what? Again, the IPU (BBHH) was specifically designed to mimic the claims of others. So if you're going to dismiss the IPU (BBHH), why do the others get to be taken seriously? That's right, special pleading.

quote:

---

Here there is evidence that is claimed as the basis for the belief.

---

The problem is that it is evidence that nobody else can see. To everybody else, it's invisible but to you, it's pink. Do you now see the point in the construction of the IPU (BBHH)? Nobody else can contradict the fact that you are seeing pink. You're the only one who can say what you see. But just because you see it doesn't mean anybody else does.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.