I took great pains on Sunday to explain for the Nth time why the "argument from ignorance" is false, manipulative, and arrogant. It involves circular reasoning, proof-burden shifting, self-deception, and using the presence of uncertainty--*to assert other unjustified certainty.*

I then got a response that was a most *beautiful* boiler-plate, texbook restatement of the same argument that I had just debunked! And you've heard it all before. Here goes:

//Science's ability to document the 'how' does not necessarily explain it, and partially explaining it doesn't illuminate the 'why.'//

This is "we can't explain" all over again, the classic core of the argument from ignorance. It usually means "I can't explain, because I haven't studied the subject in depth, and I have no idea what I'm talking about."

What makes anyone think that there IS a "why" to the universe? Everything that happens has a cause, but not necessarily a purpose. Saying we don't know something's "purpose" is a straw man through and through. We *can't* know purpose because purpose implies a mind we can't read, and represents a not-so-subtle argument for a "creator."

Take the question "Why does the Sun exist?" This demonstrates this absurdity of intent. Unless "gawd" directly *willed* the Sun into existence with a wave of their hand, it's there for the same reason as any other star. Why does any star in the universe exist? Because gravity coalesced gas and ignited a fusion reaction. Why did that happen? For the same reason you might climb a mountain--because it was there.

//there are notable gaps in the historical record//

So, what? Another core reference to ignorance. If there's a gap, that means a GAP. You don't get to fill it with whatever you want, or assert that the absence of knowledge somehow supports other knowledge we don't have. This is the blind leading the blind.

//the record is being rewritten constantly as new evidence comes to light//

Which is it? Are there gaps, or is the entire record suspect? You see how this is used to undermine the totality of science? Not only are we missing data, in this view, but the data we do have is supposedly suspect. And it's not suspect because of some specific error in a given experiment or paper this person discovered. That would take work. According to these buffoons, all scientific data is suspect--IN GENERAL.

Constant revision is *science functioning as designed.* Revisions to science ONLY happen when someone shoulders an extremely heavy burden of proof. It's not enough merely to question existing evidence. When challenging an existing theory, you have to provide *better* evidence, along with a new theory to explain it--and that's the tough part. That's why gaps in our knowledge persist, because probing those gaps is difficult.

And it's also why evidence that has stood the test of time will usually continue to do so. The way science advances usually has to do with discovering data that requires refinements of earlier theories, such as how Einstein's Relativity modified Newtonian mechanics. Nothing Newton discovered was overturned. His laws remain an excellent approximation for how matter behaves, except at near-light (relativistic) speeds.

//any scientist that does not accept the possibility of missing evidence cannot claim they understand the limits of possible knowledge.//

It's far worse than that: Any "scientist" who does not accept the possibility of missing evidence IS NOT A SCIENTIST.

//Absent evidence of intent....we are likely not going to get closer to the truth, because it's ineffable.//

There it is again, the insistence on knowing intent, or the "why." What makes anyone think that there is a "why" to the universe at all? (This is getting repetitive). "Ineffable" is one of the worst words in the English language. (Someone used to run a blog called "Effing the Ineffable." HA) The problem with the word is that it's obscurantist. It means "can't be known, described, or expressed." Once again this is a reference to the core of the argument from ignorance. "We can't know THIS--therefore we know THAT (which I just made up)."

//I simply am not going to accept that because [evidence of] something is missing means it isn't possible.//

Of course an infinite number of things are possible. The question is, WHICH THINGS are true or likely to be true??? And that's why evidence is all-important. Science doesn't rule things out, it rules them IN. With evidence! Once again this takes the form "We don't know that _______ is NOT true, so that means it's possibly true."

According to the argument from ignorance, you can fill in the blank with anything you want! Purple Chupacabras? Can't prove they don't exist. If they don't exist on Earth, they could exist on some other planet, right? Folks, this is unforgivable self-dishonesty. Until you find the purple Chupacabra, there's nothing to talk about. Then you could shift the criteria to orange Chupacabras we "can't prove don't exist," and on it goes.

Bertrand Russell's famous teapot thought experiment demonstrated the absurdity of this tactic.

//I know that many believe they know the limits of what is true. I do not.//

This is frankly the most arrogant form of the argument from ignorance. Because if you finish the thought what it really means is "I refuse to be held accountable to the body of work produced by the scientific method, or for any standards of evidence or burden of proof it imposes."

//The history of scientific investigation is one of the frequent need to reset and recalibrate what "truth" actually is.//

Yes, that's abundantly clear as previously stipulated. And that recalibration is done according to the strictest rules of evidence--not according to personal doubt. Doubt is effortless. Proof is difficult.

I'm sad to say that I've found that the "argument from ignorance" forms the core of the most stubborn and widely-held popular epistemology. You've heard all this from ignorant peopple, but also from so-called educated people who aren't trained in the probabilistic methods of the hard sciences.

The reason it's so popular is because it allows people to feel that their opinion "might" someday be proven true, even if it contradicts every single bit of current knowledge (pointy-headed, know-it-all) scientists spent centuries accumulating.

It's a total intellectual "get ouf of jail free" card.

This is the apocalypse Carl Sagan warned us about. It's all happening just like he said. Because of this mental rot, we're losing our ability to sustain a technological civilization. Because we forgot the rigor and mental discipline that got us here in the first place.

Do better, hoomons!