Invincible ignorance fallacy

Short description: Deductive fallacy of circularity where the person refuses to believe the argument

The invincible ignorance fallacy,[1] also known as argument by pigheadedness,[2] is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word. The method used in this fallacy is either to make assertions with no consideration of objections or to simply dismiss objections by calling them excuses, conjecture, etc. or saying that they are proof of nothing, all without actually demonstrating how the objection fit these terms. It is similar to the ad lapidem fallacy, in which the person rejects all the evidence and logic presented, without providing any evidence or logic that could lead to a different conclusion.

## Contents

* 1 History
* 2 See also
* 3 References
* 4 External links

## History

The term invincible ignorance has its roots in Catholic theology, whereas the opposite of the term vincible ignorance; it is used to refer to the state of persons (such as pagans and infants) who are ignorant of the Christian message because they have not yet had an opportunity to hear it. The first Pope to use the term officially seems to have been Pope Pius IX in the allocution Singulari Quadam (9 December 1854) and the encyclicals Singulari Quidem (17 March 1856) and Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (10 August 1863). The term, however, is far older than that. Aquinas, for instance, uses it in his Summa Theologica (written 1265–1274),[3] and discussion of the concept can be found as far back as Origen (3rd century).

When and how the term was taken by logicians to refer to the very different state of persons who deliberately refuse to attend to evidence remains unclear, but one of its first uses was in the book Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument  by W. Ward Fearnside and William B. Holther[4] in 1959.

## See also

* A posteriori
* A priori
* Future probation

## References

1. ↑ "Invincible Ignorance" by Bruce Thompson, Department of Humanities (Philosophy), Cuyamaca College
2. ↑ "Argument by Pigheadedness" (in en). https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Argument-by-Pigheadedness.
3. ↑ Aquinas, Summa Theologica Ia IIae q.76 a.2
4. ↑ Fearnside, W. Ward and William B. Holther, Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument, 1959. ISBN 978-0-13-301770-0.

## External links

* Listing of the fallacy on philosophicalsociety.com
* Discovery.org article: "Naturalism's Argument from Invincible Ignorance"
* Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (On Promotion Of False Doctrines), 10 August 1863

* v
* t
* e

Fallacies (list)

Formal|

| In propositional logic|

* Affirming a disjunct
* Affirming the consequent
* Denying the antecedent
* Argument from fallacy

|

In quantificational logic|

* Existential
* Illicit conversion
* Proof by example
* Quantifier shift

Syllogistic fallacy|

* Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise
* Exclusive premises
* Existential
* Necessity
* Four terms
* Illicit major
* Illicit minor
* Negative conclusion from affirmative premises
* Undistributed middle

* Masked man
* Mathematical fallacy

Informal|

| Equivocation|

* Equivocation
* False equivalence
* False attribution
* Quoting out of context
* Loki's Wager
* No true Scotsman
* Reification

|

Question-begging fallacies|

* Circular reasoning / Begging the question
* Loaded language
* Leading question
* Compound question / Loaded question / Complex question
* No true Scotsman

Correlative-based fallacies|

* False dilemma
* Perfect solution
* Denying the correlative
* Suppressed correlative

Illicit transference|

* Composition
* Division
* Ecological

Secundum quid
(ignoring qualifications)|

* Accident
* Converse accident

Faulty generalization|

* Anecdotal evidence
* Sampling bias
* Cherry picking
* McNamara
* Base rate / Conjunction
* Double counting
* False analogy
* Slothful induction
* Overwhelming exception

Vagueness / Ambiguity|

* Accent
* Syntactic ambiguity
* Continuum
* Sorites paradox
* False precision
* Moving the goalposts
* Slippery slope
* Quoting out of context

Questionable cause|

* Animistic
* Furtive
* Correlation implies causation
* Cum hoc
* Post hoc
* Gambler's
* Inverse
* Regression
* Single cause
* Slippery slope
* Texas sharpshooter

Fallacies of relevance|

| Appeals to emotion|

* Fear
* Flattery
* Novelty
* Pity
* Ridicule
* Think of the children
* In-group favoritism
* Invented here / Not invented here
* Island mentality
* Loyalty
* Parade of horribles
* Spite
* Stirring symbols
* Wisdom of repugnance

|

Genetic fallacies|

| Ad hominem|

* Abusive
* Association
* Reductio ad Hitlerum
* Godwin's law
* Reductio ad Stalinum
* Circumstantial
* Appeal to motive
* Bulverism
* Poisoning the well
* Tone
* Tu quoque
* Whataboutism

|

* Authority
* Accomplishment
* Ipse dixit
* Poverty / Wealth
* Etymology
* Nature
* Tradition / Novelty
* Chronological snobbery

Appeals to consequences|

* Argumentum ad baculum
* Wishful thinking

* Ad nauseam
* Argument to moderation
* Argumentum ad populum
* Appeal to the stone / Proof by assertion
* Ignoratio elenchi
* Argument from silence
* Invincible ignorance
* Moralistic / Naturalistic
* Motte-and-bailey fallacy
* Rationalization
* Red herring
* Appeal to worse problems
* Two wrongs make a right
* Special pleading
* Straw man
* Cliché
* I'm entitled to my opinion

* Categories
* Fallacies
* Formal fallacies
* Informal fallacies
* List
* Philosophy portal

0.00

(0 votes)

Original source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible ignorance fallacy. Read more

|

Retrieved from "https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Philosophy:Invincible_ignorance_fallacy&oldid=2620084"
*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template