Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument

Thank you shalamabobbi, So Otto Tellick and I are not alone in seeing this.Thus, in addition to the logical fallacy of hasty generalization, it is the logical fallacy of ad hominem attack and ridicule (ad lapidem)?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) • • •

It's not an ad hominem. Calling your oppenent an idiot directly isn't even an ad hominem. An ad hominem requires that you accuse your opponent of being wrong because of (insert personal attack here.)In other words, saying "You're an idiot, therefore you are wrong" is an ad hominem.Saying "You're wrong, for x, y and z reasons, you idiot," is not an ad hominem.Ridicule of an opponent is bad manners, but unless the ridicule is the basis of your argument, it's not an ad hominem.Making the IPU argument does not include the assertion that belief in dieties is wrong because theists are stupid. It's an attempt at applying theistic reasoning to a made-up and purposefully ridiculous entity to show that the theist's reasoning, when applied universally, is absurd. Its intent is to point out the special pleading of the theist, where some unevidenced and unfalsifiable claims are okay, and all others are not.A better tactic may well be to replace the IPU with an actual deity, preferably a totally ridiculous one that actually had followers in the past - something like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, except where the believers were serious. In reality, the IPU argument is no different from an identical argument using Thor or Zeus or any other unfalsifiable, unevidenced entity. You simply don't like it because it paints all theism as unreasonable and ridiculous. Personally, I don' much care about how offensive an argument may or may not be to an opponent - emotion is irrelevant, and only the argument matters. In the case of the IPU, it frequently makes theists extremely angry, but also makes a valid point.The IPU argument is this:"Belief in a deity can be described as a belief in an entity for which there is not objective evidence. Frequently these beliefs have no contradicting evidence either, and are in fact completely unfalsifiable. Such beliefs make an unfounded assertion, and when applied to other unfalsifiable entities for which there is no evidence, special pleading is invoked. For example, believing in "god" when no evidence for such an entity exists and whose existence cannot be tested is similar to belief in an Invisible Pink Unicorn - neither have evidence to suggest that they actually exist, neither are falsifiable, and neither are contradicted by evidence. Therefore the same reasoning used to justify belief in "god" also applies to the IPU. The IPU is a completely made-up entity, and there is nothing that distinguishes "god" from the IPU. This means that, if the theist believes in "god" and not in the IPU, the theist invokes special pleading. Because the IPU sounds utterly ridiculous, most theists will fall into the trap of denying its existence and exposing their special pleading, revealing their fallacious reasoning for the existence of deities."The IPU argument does not insist that, because the IPU is ridiculous, all deities are also ridiclous. It does not make the arguemnt that the opponent is stupid and therefore his reasoning is false.It is a valid argument that baits the theist into rejecting the existence of one entity while embracing the existence of another, both of which are not supported by evidence and are unfalsifiable, thus revealing that the theist is using special pleading.An ad lapidem fallacy involves accusations of absurdity without demonstrating that the argument is absurd, effectively ignoring the argument. It's possible that some debaters would fail to use the IPU argument correctly and thus commit an ad lapidem, but the actual argument is not about an accusation of absurdity without demonstrating the absurdity of the opponent's position. It's about revealing special pleading by comparing deities to something ridiculous - it's a trap. One that most theists fall for, because they're unwilling to compare their belief in one unevidenced and unfalsifiable entity with another if the second "sounds funny." If the IPU is replaced by other popular deities like the Muslim god, the argument remains exactly the same and yet theists will not reject it so quickly - the assertion of a different, widely accepted unevidenced and unfalsifiable entity is not as offensive.The IPU argument inspires cognitive dissonance - a feeling of discomfort caused by conflicting internal beliefs (that is, belief in entity "x" is okay because there is no contradictory evidence, but belief in the IPU is not okay even though there is no contradictory evidence). This typically results in accusations of ad hominem fallacies (and others) as the theist attempts to dismiss the argument while retaining their belief and ignoring the special pleading.Even the hasty generalization fallacy does not apply; a hasty generalization is an argument from limited or inadequate information. This is not similar to the IPU argument, where one unevidenced and unfalsifiable entity is compared to another.Granted, some debaters may use the IPU in a hasty generalization, like saying "deity x does not exists, therefore deity y does not exist," or make an ad lapidem by saying "The IPU is utterly ridiculous, therefore belief in deity x is also ridiculous." However, these are misapplications of the IPU argument. I will agree that these should not be used. The correct form of the IPU argument however, where a ridiculous entity (or any other entity, really) is used to demonstrate the special pleading of the theistic position, is not fallacious.

The number of planets in the universe is neither a product of world view nor a subjective conclusion.If you have genuinely concluded that the number of planets (i.e. the number of possible hosts for extraterrestrial life) in the universe has no bearing on the probability of extraterretrial life actually existing elsewhere in the universe then I fear that there is no hope for you.Your relentless refusal to factor in indirect objective evidence that affects relative likelihood and your relentless insistence that we consider every directly unevidenced claim in such a vacuum of ALL evidence is both baffling and making you look quite silly.Are you sure that you and ICANT have not swapped logins...or brains....or something?

Yes. Such as your conclusion that world view is the only relevant factor in assessing the probability of any directly unevidenced claim.Cognitive dissonance, with respect to your unbending assertion that world view is the only factor in such considerations, appears to be the only explanation for your mathematically inaccurate conclusion that the number of planets in the universe has no effect on the probability of life existing on other planets. Yes. Which is why there really is no excuse in your case.

Nicely put. Since a picture is said to be worth a thousand words, let me add some words of my own and a picture (together we have written approx. 1400 words)In set A we have a set of entities that may or may not exist. We have established a set of rules for discriminating between those entities that we think do exist (X) and those we think don't exist (Y). The methods for doing this can and do vary, but most people agree that the most successful method is something akin to the scientific one. We gather independent lines of evidence and we apply reason to judge in which direction they point (to existence or non existence). For this reason, entities in set A must be verifiable and falsifiable.Sometimes there will be debate over whether something in set A belongs in subset X or subset Y. RAZD puts this down to 'world view', but I disagree. A world view is a large beast to tackle when really all we are talking about here is epistemology, a subset of 'world views'. We are trying to determine what is true and what is false, what we know from what we do not.What separates someone who is confident in the strength of their argument as to why their epistemological framework is defensible is that they will try and defend it. Those that do not have confidence in their epistemological framework will tend to get post-modern or reliativistic and talk about the subjectivity of worldviews, imply that knowledge is little more than opinion etc. More intelligent people may even try and throw in a pile of Latin terms to dismiss close scrutiny of their epistemology.So let us look at set β - this set is composed of those things which are unfalsifiable and/or unverifiable. We have the subsets φ (the things we think exist) and θ (the things we don't think exist).On what grounds to we put an entity into one set or another? One could develop criteria - but it becomes really difficult to do it without clearly getting involved in special pleading. I'm not suggesting it is impossible, but the IPU and its kin do show to the world whether or not a person really has any idea why they have put some entities into φ but not others. Those that don't really know might get defensive or accuse their opponents of ridiculing them and missing the point and so on.Many come to the conclusion that the really is no arguable and consistent way to discriminate between the two subsets and that one has to shrug one's shoulders and say 'Faith is special pleading[/i].' Others try and come up with criteria to do the discrimination.We could get into an interesting discussion about scientific realism versus constructivism and that might well be an interesting debate, but when there are such stumbling blocks as straightforward as the IPU between here and there - that doesn't seem likely. Well that's not true - Straggler's The Axioms Of Scientific Investigation is a good step in that direction, I should probably get back to that at some point.

You whole world view flies in the face of the scientific method.On what basis do we search for dark matter, the Higgs Boson or the existence of extraterrestrial life?Are these simply the products of world view plucked from our subjective arses?Or are these the highly possible but directly unevidenced products of the logical extrapoloation of the objective evidence that we do have?The whole scientific basis of discovery and verification relies on this concept. The formation of testable hypotheses would be impossible without such considerations.By denying that these considerations exist or are relevant you are dismissing a large and fundamental part of the scientific method. You are doing exactly the same sort of thing that the creationists are so evidently guilty of.Namely denying evidence.We have objective evidence that suggests that life on other planets is highly possible.We have objective evidence that humans are capable of inventing demonstrably false concepts for the purposes of argument.To claim that we have no evidence relevant to the respective qustions of life on other planets or the actual existence of the IPU is just false.It denies the evidence that we do have.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling

Thanks Rahvin, I'll answer some other people too, to save multiple posts saying the same thing. The implication of the typical IPU argument is that you are an idiot, because you can't see that C is just like B, not that you are wrong.So far we've gone from
B is an example of A
C is an example of A
∴ B = CWhich is accepted as a logically flawed argument to
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.This is evident in people redefining A to be something other than the class of things that consists of "concepts without evidence," which is refined to be:(1) all concepts for which we currently have no validating evidence and
(2) that also have no contradictory evidenceNow maybe I am uneducated in the matter, but it seems to me that this includes a LOT of concepts that don't involve deities in any way, and that range across a spectrum of believability. Again, the logical position is that "we don't know" and yet we see all kinds of people believing in several of these concepts. 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, from Mark to Ned to Straggler, and what it comes down to is how well the concepts fit into the jigsaw puzzle that is your personal world view (your collective opinions and deductions you've made based on evidence, experience, education, training and knowledge). Is it a virus infecting a cell (to be battled) or is it nourishing sustenance for part of the cell (to be welcomed), or is it a sperm fertilizing an egg (causing a growth of the cell into a new form)?To answer Straggler's persistent tangential question - the believability is related to how much we think we know about the question, when we think we know a lot, we have a high confidence in our conclusion, and when we think we know little we have a low confidence in our conclusion, no matter what that conclusion is. This is part of the world view, not independent of it. Different people have different world views (their collective opinions and deductions they've made based on evidence, experience, education, training and knowledge) and will come to different (and necessarily) subjective conclusions. Once you have moved away from the area of scientific knowledge where concepts can be tested against reality, all you have are subjective conclusions. Actually the implication is that belief in anything where we have no evidence one way or the other (A), is silly at best, clinically delusional at worst. This, of course, also applies to any conclusion other than "we don't know" so if this is a reductio ad absurdum argument, it applies equally to belief (+) as well as any belief (-) for any item in the class A, where A consists of:(1) all concepts for which we currently have no validating evidence and
(2) that also have no contradictory evidenceSo if you reach a conclusion on the issue of alien life in the universe, pro or con, you are "guilty as charged" of the IPU belief to the same degree that deists\theists are guilty, or do we hear special pleading here? As does, or so it appears, pointing out the logical fallacies of people making these arguments make them angry. The evidence is the people wanting to turn this into deism/theism bashing instead of discussing whether or not we have a logical fallacy here at the start.So we started with
B is an example of A
C is an example of A
∴ B = CWhere A is the class of things\concepts which are defined by:(1) all concepts for which we currently have no validating evidence and
(2) that also have no contradictory evidenceIf the IPU argument is self-contradictory then it would not be a class A concept and should be discarded when discussing class A concepts. Which also includes the issue of alien life in the universe.It's an attempt at applying a straw man of theistic reasoning. Faith is based on belief without evidence, pro or con, it is non-reasonable\rational, neither reasonable\rational nor unreasonable\irrational. Faith is non-reasonable\rational: it is belief without evidence. Faith does not make conclusions based on evidence, it makes conclusions about evidence based on faith. This same kind of faith applies to many concepts for which we have no evidence, such as the existence of alien life in the universe. If you have (+) faith, you will conclude (as many have) that the existence of life is between possible and highly probable. If you have (-) faith, you will conclude (as some have) that the existence of life is between impossible and highly improbable.The fact that nobody seems to be able to deal with the topic issue without drawing deism\theism into it, means they are not really considering the class of concepts involved, or think that it is limited to only deism\theism.The class of concepts is "things we don't have evidence for" and this consists of:(1) all concepts for which we currently have no validating evidence and
(2) that also have no contradictory evidenceWhich also includes the issue of alien life in the universe. Which is false because faith is non-reasonable\rational, neither reasonable\rational nor unreasonable\irrational. It is belief without evidence. Again the logical answer is "we don't know" and some people go with "there are (maybe) no gods" and some people go with "there are (maybe) gods" and BOTH of these positions are based on something other than evidence while neither is reasonable\rational.You may think that it is unreasonable and ridiculous, but that is your opinion, based on a lack of evidence pro or con. How do you reconcile that you are asking me to agree to your opinion (based on a lack of evidence pro or con) while criticizing me for believing something (based on a lack of evidence pro or con)? And yet you just generalized them as being the same class or silly and ridiculous beliefs, with emphasis on a silly and ridiculous over-extended self-contradictory straw man, while not considering all the other concepts that belong to the class of concepts for which there is no evidence, pro or con, and the class of concepts that are "things we don't have evidence for" consists of:(1) all concepts for which we currently have no validating evidence and
(2) that also have no contradictory evidenceWhich also includes the issue of alien life in the universe.Thus the issue of the validity of the IPU argument comes down to whether or not it can be logically applied in a logically consistent manner to the issue of alien life in the universe.I say it can't, and that the reason it can't is that it doesn't represent all members of the class "things we don't have evidence for" and that any attempt to use it guilty of making the logically flawed argument thatB 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/sEnjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : ending Edited by RAZD, : missing ∴ added

---

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) • • •

In other words Straggler, the SETI project / excitement over the possibility of water on Mars / etc.. presume life arose naturalistically on Earth. That presumption, the product of a world view - isn't science - it's the religion called Scientism.

Or the accelerated expansion of the universe.

Bollocks. Evidence, not world view, is the reason that the claims under discussion are not considered equally plausible.There is no such thing as a complete absence of all evidence. You have yet again done absolutely nothing to refute this other than assert that it is not so.1) Does the number of planets in the universe have any effect on the objectively derived probability that life has arisen on other planets?2) If scientific hypotheses are not based on the logical extrapolation of the objective evidence available then on what basis are they derived according to you? World view?3) If it can be demonstrated that humans are capable of (and even prone to) wilfully inventing demonstrably false concepts how can you claim that this has no relevance when considering the veracity of inherently unfalsifiable claims (e.g. the actual existence of the IPU) made by the same means under the same circumstances?Your complete failure to directly answer any of my posts making these same points in two threads now can only be attributed to being off topic, irrelevant or tangential for so long.The fact is that you are wrong. It is also a fact that you are showing sure signs of the 'cognitive dissonance' that you are all too eager to point out in others.If you really think that the number of planets in the universe has no bearing at all on the likelihood of life existing on other planets then you are truly lost to reason.Go figure.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

It doesn't matter how likely or unlikely I, or you, might think abiogenesis to be.If we accept that abiogenesis is physically possible then no matter how absolutely unlikely it may be the more planets there are in the universe the greater the probability of it actually occurring. This is mathematically indisputable.RAZD's strict logical argument + irrational "world view" assertion is incapable of taking this relative probability into account.Thus it is deeply and inherently flawed. He continues to evade and deny this flaw but it remains apparent for all to see.Only if you assume that we are God's unique special creation and that abiogenesis is physically impossible anywhere else in the universe does your argument come into play.And I see no reason to believe that is true, and I doubt RAZD does either.EnjoyEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.

RAZD, Im severely disappointed.Your entire line of reasoning requires that the proposition "life may exist elsewhere in teh Universe" be based on no evidence in the same way that belief in a deity is based on no evidence. It also requires that your opponent assert that alien life actually exists, as opposed to being merely possible.This is not true. At all. And its so obviously not true that I'm disappointed that you've used the same argument multiple times.1) The proposition that life may exist elsewhere in teh Universe does not exist in a vacuum of evidence. We know that life exists in the Universe (us), ergo there is evidence that it is possible that life may exist elsewhere.This is different from the proposition that deities exist - we do not have an example of a deity to show that deities can exist. Similarly, we do not have an example of an Invisible Pink Unicorn to show that IPUs are possible.2) Your application of the IPU argument to alien life requires that your opponent agree that there is reason to be confident that life does actually exist elsewhere in the Universe, in the same way that theists are confident that deities exist. You assume this agreement, but without it your comparison falls apart. As we all know, stating that something is possible is different from having confidence that it is.So in reality, your IPU attempt looks like this:A) The IPU is an entity for which there is no supporting evidence.
B) There is no evidence supporting the existence of alien life.
C) Therefore, belief in alien life is as silly as the IPU.And my response would be:A) I agree, there is no evidence supporting the evidence of the IPU.
B) I agree, there is no evidence suggesting that alien life does actually exist. However, there is ample evidence that alien life is possible, because we know that life can exist in the Universe. This is more than we can say for the IPU.
C) I agree that confidence in the actual existence of alien life is irrational until such evidence is presented. This is different from acknowledging that alien life is a possibility.I have a reason to think that alien lifemay exist elsewhere because life exists here. I do not have a reason to think that an IPU exists anywhere becasue I have absolutely no evidence from which to base such an assertion.Similarly, I have no reason to think deities exist. We have no example of a deity (except those we know to be made-up) suggesting that deities are even possible.I can lack belief in a deity exactly as I lack belief in the IPU without special pleading. I can also acknowledge that alien life is a possibility and has at least some supporting evidence without special pleading.Your argument falls on its face. Implications are irrelevant. The argument itself does not use a personal attack to dismiss an argument. It attempts to reveal special pleading. That you feel belittled by the argument is irrelevant. It's a subjective, personal emotional response to a valid logical argument. You have not shown how the IPU argument is an ad hominem attack, only that it has the tangential effect of being insulting. You know these are two different things. The "implication" is the emotional reaction used by the IPU argument as bait to reveal special pleading in one unevidenced claim over others. The absurdity is not the argument, it's the bait.As I have described above, your example of alien life does not follow - it is not a claim in an absence of all evidence, and further it is not a belief necessarily held with any confidence by your opponent. I would need to state that I believe alien life exists in order to engage in special pleading - I claim no such thing, so your argument fall flat. ...if there is apositive belief in the actual existence of extraterrestrial life, and if such a belief exists in a total vacuum of evidence as with the IPU. These are not the case, and so your argument does not follow.Frankly RAZD, Im tired of seeing you make the same irrelevant points over and over, even when its been described how you are wrong. You're acting just as the Creationists do - making false accusations of logical fallacies to defend your own personal view. I'm disappointed, because unlike most of the Creationists, you actually know what logical fallacies really are, and yet you continue to misuse them.

Abiogenesis doesnt even come into play. We know that life can exist in the Universe, because we have an example here on Earth. Therefore it is possible that life exists elsewhere in the Universe, regardless of the source of that life.Iano is simply wrong.

Ignoring any disputes about what is or isn't reasonable or non-reasonable. irrational etc (which would devolve into definitional issues I'd wager), you are essentially conceding the entire point of the IPU argument right here. The point being to show in a stark and obvious as a way as possible, to people who are often having cognitive dissonance issues, that they are engaging in special pleading when they pick and choose entity x to believe in whilst disbelieving in entities a-w inclusive.And that's fine - I don't care, special plead away, as long as you do so knowing that is what you are doing and knowing the associated problems then I have no problem with that. Most of the known world engages in this particular branch of special pleading, it might be said to be an empirical fact that it is, broadly speaking, part of the human condition to do it.Now - wouldn't it be interesting to have some kind of thread where we can have philosophical duke out between Fideism and Evidentialism, so that all these kinds of issues can be laid bear and be indisputably on topic?Fideism:

quote:

---

Alvin Plantinga defines "fideism" as "the exclusive or basic reliance upon faith alone, accompanied by a consequent disparagement of reason and utilized especially in the pursuit of philosophical or religious truth." The fideist therefore "urges reliance on faith rather than reason, in matters philosophical and religious," and therefore may go on to disparage the claims of reason. The fideist seeks truth, above all: and affirms that reason cannot achieve certain kinds of truth, which must instead be accepted only by faith. Plantinga's definition might be revised to say that what the fideist objects to is not so much "reason" per se it seems excessive to call Blaise Pascal anti-rational but evidentialism: the notion that no belief should be held unless it is supported by evidence.

---

That sounds like a good topic. Well this seems to be axactly what RAZD is doing by ignoring indirect but relevant objective evidence which can be used to assess the relative probability of a claim which is itself lacking in any direct evidence.The only cause of contention appears to be that he is unaware that this is what he is doing and he is thus in denial.