|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:12 am
Russell's Teapot This is not a fallacy- rather, it's a definitive analogy demonstrating how Negative Proof is invalid, specifically in the 'does God exist?' debate. It's also fun to say. Bertrand Russell wrote it as a magazine article in 1952: Illustrated magazine If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. Examples: The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, The Invisible Pink Unicorn. Alternate Names: The Celestial Teapot. Related Fallacies: Argument from Silence, Fallacy of Negative Proof, Argument from Ignorance.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 2:35 pm
I find the Pink Unicorn example highly humorous. It states on there site that she is pink and invisible, but how can see be both? Being pink and invisible at the same is impossible. If she is invisible, then light passes through her, and colours can only be defined by how the light appears when it bounces off of object. Also how would people know if she was pink if she was invisible wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:08 pm
Salotus I find the Pink Unicorn example highly humorous. It states on there site that she is pink and invisible, but how can see be both? Being pink and invisible at the same is impossible. If she is invisible, then light passes through her, and colours can only be defined by how the light appears when it bounces off of object. Also how would people know if she was pink if she was invisible wink Well, that's one of the mysteries of Her Holiness. She's so great she's both pink and invisible at the same time. I find the Flying Spaghetti Monster more amusing. The Church of the IPU is much less funny- a lot of it, although logically sound, it unnecessarily petulent or immature. The FSM, by contrast, never gets angry- it just gets funny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:52 am
I hate the Does god exsist topics, all the people just go into flame mode and barely anyone expresses an opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 3:01 pm
Faifey I hate the Does god exsist topics, all the people just go into flame mode and barely anyone expresses an opinion. Everyone expresses an opinion in those topics, is just that no ones opinion ever changes in those topics wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:52 pm
Wishbone Returns Again Salotus I find the Pink Unicorn example highly humorous. It states on there site that she is pink and invisible, but how can see be both? Being pink and invisible at the same is impossible. If she is invisible, then light passes through her, and colours can only be defined by how the light appears when it bounces off of object. Also how would people know if she was pink if she was invisible wink Well, that's one of the mysteries of Her Holiness. She's so great she's both pink and invisible at the same time. I find the Flying Spaghetti Monster more amusing. The Church of the IPU is much less funny- a lot of it, although logically sound, it unnecessarily petulent or immature. The FSM, by contrast, never gets angry- it just gets funny. I based a persuasive essay off of the FSM. I wrote it around the pirates vs. global temperature chart. xp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:41 pm
Wishbone Returns Again This is not a fallacy- rather, it's a definitive analogy demonstrating how Negative Proof is invalid... The example you gave is actually a fallacy. It's known as a "fallacious appeal to ignorance", and it has no essential relationship to proving a negative. A fallacious appeal to ignorance is simply basing an assumption only on the fact that you haven't seen any proof that you are wrong. Proving a negative can be done and it is, in fact, an integral part of proving any positive. For example, if you attempt to prove that some item is round without also proving that it is not square then you haven't proven anything at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 4:48 pm
Wyedg Wishbone Returns Again This is not a fallacy- rather, it's a definitive analogy demonstrating how Negative Proof is invalid... The example you gave is actually a fallacy. Psst...Wyedg...it is a fallacy. He knows that. It's intended to be one, so as to illustrate the fallacy of arguing for god's existence via non-existence. No need to thank me, I'd also tell you if you had lipstick on your teeth. wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 9:50 pm
I see more intelligent people falling into the fallacy behind this then is reasonable when they are in a religious conversation (I'm not going to say which side it is on but I heavily hint with the word 'faith').
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 10:34 pm
I've noticed in some of the 'Does God Exsist?' threads, that if you even mention the IPU or FSM followings, a rage filled christian back lash ensues.
I still love using them, because, it makes an amazing point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TECHNICOLORED RISK-FACTOR
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
