Jump to content

Invincible ignorance fallacy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Theinvincible ignorance fallacy,[1]also known asargument by pigheadedness,[2]is adeductive fallacyofcircularitywhere 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 toarguein 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, anecdotal, etc. or saying that they are proof of nothing, all without actually demonstrating how the objections fit these terms. It is similar to thead lapidemfallacy,in which the person rejects all the evidence and logic presented, without providing any evidence or logic that could lead to a different conclusion.

History[edit]

The terminvincible ignorancehas its roots inCatholic theology,as the opposite of the termvincible ignorance;it is used to refer to the state of persons (such as pagans and infants) who are ignorant of theChristianmessage because they have not yet had an opportunity to hear it. The first Pope to use the term officially seems to have beenPope Pius IXin theallocutionSingulari Quadam(9 December 1854) and theencyclicalsSingulari Quidem(17 March 1856) andQuanto Conficiamur Moerore(10 August 1863). The term, however, is far older than that.Aquinas,for instance, uses it in hisSumma Theologica(written 1265–1274),[3]and discussion of the concept can be found as far back asOrigen(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 bookFallacy: The Counterfeit of Argumentby W. Ward Fearnside and William B. Holther[4]in 1959.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^"Invincible Ignorance" by Bruce Thompson, Department of Humanities (Philosophy), Cuyamaca College
  2. ^"Argument by Pigheadedness".www.logicallyfallacious.com.Retrieved2021-11-19.
  3. ^Aquinas,Summa TheologicaIa IIae q.76 a.2Archived2012-03-20 at theWayback Machine
  4. ^Fearnside, W. Ward and William B. Holther,Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument,1959.ISBN978-0-13-301770-0.

External links[edit]