Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument

The purpose of this thread is to deal with a common logical fallacy that is used to argue against faith. The argument usually goes something like this:

1. If you believe in something without evidence, then you should believe in any other thing without evidence.
2. There is no evidence for immaterial pink unicorns.
   ​
   ∴ therefore, you should believe in immaterial unicorns or admit that you cannot believe in something without evidence.

As a counter example we can propose alien life in the universe:

1. If you believe in something without evidence, then you should believe in any other thing without evidence.
2. There is no evidence for alien life elsewhere in the universe.
   ​
   ∴ therefore, you should believe in alien life elsewhere in the universe or admit that you cannot believe in something without evidence.

Curiously, this does not seem as absurd as the belief in immaterial pink unicorns, in fact it seems quite possible - even if it may never be possible to prove that alien life exists.Then we can discuss the roll scientific hypothesis before there is evidence to test the hypothesis. For instance when it was first discovered that the rotation of distant galaxies did not match the theoretical rotation rates, one hypothetical solution was to propose dark matter: something invisible that caused more gravity than the current calculations used. Then when they ran the calculations it appeared that there has to be waaay more dark matter than all the kinds of matter that we know about. Somewhere around 80% of matter needs to be dark matter to make the equations work. This seems like a pretty silly concept to believe without any evidence.Today it seems very rational to believe in dark matter, even though there is still no "smoking gun" evidence of an invisible mass, and this is because it matches the current scientific theories.So there is a spectrum of concepts that are not based on known objective evidence, and they run from silly to likely to serious, and the reason there is this spectrum of different results when they all should be as silly as the immaterial pink unicorn if the argument was valid is because the argument is flawed.The fallacy is one of :

quote:

---

Definition:
The size of the sample is too small to support the conclusion.

​

Examples:
1. Fred, the Australian, stole my wallet. Thus, all Australians are thieves. (Of course, we shouldn't judge all Australians on the basis of one example.)
2. I asked six of my friends what they thought of the new spending restraints and they agreed it is a good idea. The new restraints are therefore generally popular.

​

Proof:
Identify the size of the sample and the size of the population, then show that the sample size is too small. Note: a formal proof would require a mathematical calculation. This is the subject of probability theory. For now, you must rely on common sense.

---

And of course "common sense" means referral to your world view, your subjective opinion of the "rightness" of concepts.As we have seen there are similar samples that do not have the same degree of improbability as the ad hoc invention of immaterial pink unicorns, so this sufficiently demonstrates that comparing this concept to other concepts of belief without evidence is indeed a hasty generalization.Consider this analogy:

1. If you believe you can see light waves of one wavelength, then you should believe you can see light waves of any wavelength.
2. You cannot see infrared lightwaves.
   ​
   ∴ therefore, you should believe you can see infrared light or admit that you cannot believe that you can see light of one wavelength.

This is patently false, and yet this is the same form of argument as the one that uses immaterial pink unicorns (or whatever ad hoc fantasy comes to mind).QEDEnjoy.Edited by RAZD, : formatEdited by RAZD, : see Taz, Message 55

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thank you Rrhain for replying to the issue, A triangle is a multi-sided geometric forms
All rectangles are multi-sided geometric forms
Therefore, a triangle is a square. But the real comparison is thatC is an example of A
D is an example of A
Therefore C = DAnd you cannot logically say that C = D or C ≠ D because you don't know. Thanks.Nor does one circle necessarily = another circle.Enjoy.ps I use "C = D" to mean C is like D rather than C is identical to D, as in All A is B (All A = B) does not mean that A is identical to B (A==B)Edited by RAZD, : ps

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Message 1
Thanks

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thanks Mod, Message 1It 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. The question oncerns whether they had evidence when the hypothesis was first formed, not whether or not we have evidence now.It seems you agree that this was a reasonable position, even though at the time there was no convincing evidence of dark matter.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Straggler, 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. Message 1The issue is that what you are saying is: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 EThis is still a logically flawed argument, and all you have is your preconceived ideas of what is reasonable to believe, and what is not, within the bounds of (all A).Enjoy.ps I use "C = D" to mean C is like D rather than C is identical to D, as in All A is B (All A = B) does not mean that A is identical to B (A==B)Edited by RAZD, : ps

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thanks Mr Jack And thusly we form our world view of how things work. Different people have different world views. Opinions on the credibility of different concepts is relative to how well they conform to your world view.This is a side issue to the logical validity of the argument though, and one I have explored on the Perceptions of Reality thread and they are off topic here. Message 1The argument isC is an example of A
D is an example of A
Therefore C = DAnd this is a logically flawed argument.Enjoy.ps I use "C = D" to mean C is like D rather than C is identical to D, as in All A is B (All A = B) does not mean that A is identical to B (A==B)Edited by RAZD, : ps

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thanks Straggler, Thus the difference between "C is an example of A" and "D is an example of A" is based on what we consider reasonable extrapolation of what evidence we do have to support "C" or "D" and not on the form of the argument:C is an example of A
D is an example of A
Therefore C = DThis difference is subjective opinion based on our world view, so while we can both agree that "D is an (intentionally absurd unbelievable) example of A" ...... and we can both agree that "E is a (believable) example of A" ...... we can disagree on whether "C is an example of A" is believable or unbelievable, and the relative position of either of us is not based on the argument:C is an example of A
D is an example of A
Therefore C = DEnjoy.ps I use "C = D" to mean C is like D rather than C is identical to D, as in All A is B (All A = B) does not mean that A is identical to B (A==B)Edited by RAZD, : ps

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Except that I am not trying to prove anything on this thread other than thatC is an example of A
D is an example of A
Therefore C = DIs a logically flawed argument. I believe this has been done.We now haveC is an example of A
D is an (intentionally absurd unbelievable) example of A
E is a (believable) example of AAnd the problem is that you cannot tell whether C is more similar to D or E from the logic. Message 1The logical extrapolation of a flawed argument is still a flawed argument. Thus the first issue, the one this thread is designed to answer, is whether or not you can show that:C is an example of A
D is an example of A
Therefore C = DIs not a logically flawed argument.Enjoy.ps I use "C = D" to mean C is like D rather than C is identical to D, as in All A is B (All A = B) does not mean that A is identical to B (A==B)Edited by RAZD, : ps

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thanks mark24 Curiously, I am not concerned with what their subjective opinions are on various different examples of the arguments, but on the issue of the logic. But then you say If you accept B that is an example of A, then you should accept C that is an example of A. Message 1

quote:

---

1. If you believe in something without evidence, then you should believe in any other thing without evidence.
2. There is no evidence for invisible pink unicorns.
   ​
   ∴ therefore, you should believe in invisible unicorns or admit that you cannot believe in something without evidence.

---

If you believe C, which is an example of A
Then you should believe any D, which is an example of ABecause
C is an example of A
D is an example of A
you believe C so you should also believe D because ...?D = something you should believe (= A), because C = something you believe (= A) ... which is only true if C == D, which has not be demonstrated for all (x) that are examples of A. Rather it has been demonstrated that there are several cases of "E is an example of A" where E &no; D and therefore being an example of A does not mean C=D.The only difference pointed out so far, is based on what is subjectively considered supporting rational extrapolation, a matter of subjective opinion based on one's world view. One could consider each of these cases as special pleading ... that E is not A because of subjective supporting rational extrapolations. Interestingly, I am not talking about the logical validity of any belief in C, but whether or not it can logically be compared to D solely on the basis of both being examples of A: that is (still) a side issue.The real issue remains that this is still an argument of the formC is an example of A
D is an example of A
Therefore C = DAnd you cannot logically say that C = D or C ≠ D because you just don't know. You can assume it, but that doesn't make C = D. Thanks.Enjoy.ps I use "C = D" to mean C is like D rather than C is identical to D, as in All A is B (All A = B) does not mean that A is identical to B (A==B)Edited by RAZD, : clarityEdited by RAZD, : ps

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thanks Ned, So E is an example of A, and E ≠ D, therefore we cannot conclude - logically - whether C = D or C = E. ... if we assume the development a new system\technique to find it.In other words this is special pleading that this is different because we can make rational assumptions and extrapolations to support it.That still does not remove it from the class "E is an example of A" - so what you are saying is:C is an example of A
E is a (believable) example of A
Therefore C ≠ E?Thanks.The argument of the relatively believability of C, D or E is based on what we each consider a reasonable extrapolation of what evidence we do have to support "C" or "D" or "E" - and this is subjective opinion - and it is independent of their being examples of A - things believed without (convincing) evidence.Enjoyps I use "C = D" to mean C is like D rather than C is identical to D, as in All A is B (All A = B) does not mean that A is identical to B (A==B)Edited by RAZD, : ps

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

General reply: Does not mean that the argument is logically valid, it just means you are seeing confirmation in it.The logical extrapolation of a flawed argument is still a flawed argument. Thus the first issue, the one this thread is designed to answer, is whether or not you can show that:C is an example of A
D is an example of A
Therefore C = DIs not a logically flawed argument.Any discussion of deism, theism or atheism without resolving this question is off topic.The purpose of this thread is to deal with a common logical fallacy that is used to argue against faith. Enjoy.ps I use "C = D" to mean C is like D rather than C is identical to D, as in All A is B (All A = B) does not mean that A is identical to B (A==B)Edited by RAZD, : ps

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thanks Mark I'll leave the discussion of what are "evidentially vacuous positions" for another thread.So, if I understand you, one argument (D) cannot be logically used to argue against the other (C), purely on the basis of both being an example of A, where A is the list of all possible concepts for which there is no (current) evidence pro or con to the concept.Thanks. I do agree with that.Enjoy.ps - went back and read your edit of your previous post. What I see is change to a position of uncertainty on the possibility of alien life, with a slight bias towards alien life being highly unlikely. Edited by RAZD, : ps

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thanks Rrhain, That's what I thought, however then it does not represent what I said. Correct, identity would technically be 3 bars, ≡, (all A is B and all B is A ∴ A≡B), where I often use == for simplicity.Enjoy.ps I use "C = D" to mean C is like D rather than C is identical to D, as in All A is B (All A = B) does not mean that A is identical to B (A==B)Edited by RAZD, : ps

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thanks CosmicChimp Let's say that A represents the class of things for which there is insufficient or unconvincing evidence, pro or con, including those things for which there is no present evidence.Thus the logical conclusion is "we don't know" and any other conclusion is made due to subjective comparison to ones world view.B is an example of A
C is an absurd example of A
D is a believable example of AWe cannot conclude that B is like C or that B is like D, because we don't have sufficient or convincing evidence, pro or con, and thus any comparison of B to C is logically invalid. 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. For me the second issue is what we consider sufficient or convincing evidence, pro or con, and what we regard as insufficient or unconvincing evidence, pro or con, and this can well be the topic of another thread, as it involves all the elements of confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, consilience with world views and delusions.I just want to point out that we have a spectrum of replies on the believability of alien life in the universe, and I suggest to you that the difference is in what people consider sufficient or convincing evidence, vs insufficient or unconvincing evidence, and not on the logic of the conclusion.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thanks Alyssa, One of the results of cognitive dissonance is to (or attempt to) reframe the issue in familiar terms, ones that fit your world view (your collective opinions and deductions you've made based on evidence, experience, education, training and knowledge). If you can reframe it to match your world view then cognitive dissonance is resolved.Remember, these are all seasoned members of this forum, people who have had to deal with the cognitive dissonance of other posters (YEC for instance, John 10:10 as an example).Thanks.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •