When somebody proposes a theory so blatantly stupid but hides behind the “you can’t actually prove/you don’t know whether or not it is false” when the theory is completely absurd. Like if somebody claims that the government is secretly ran by extraterrestrial lizard people, you can’t actually definitively claim this is false but the claim is so absurd that it doesn’t even warrant a discussion. By this logic you can’t claim objectivity for anything.
My mom tends to do this when it comes to many conspiracy theories such as the flat earth theory and I want to know if there is a label for it.
Comments
> “you can’t actually prove/you don’t know whether or not it is false”
Russell’s teapot.
Maybe the burden of proof fallacy, where they try to make you disprove their statement instead of them proving it.
Or even appeal to ignorance. Something hasn’t been proven false so they’re claiming it must be true.
Argument from Ignorance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Technically there isn’t a formal fallacy here because technically the person hasn’t made an argument. They’ve just asserted a “fact”.
Informally, it’s the Argument from Ignorance.
Watch David Ike, he makes a good case for the lizard people
Not the question, but an ok response to this is to ask someone to define what qualifies as evidence and then what evidence they would need to see to prove they were being manipulated – like what’s their threshold for being disproven.
Flat Earth was always interesting to me but not for the common reasons associated with it. I believe, and know for an absolute fact, that a 3 dimensional world can’t be accurately depicted in 2 dimensions. The dimensions of the Earth become warped when you look at a map. The Mercator Projection isn’t an accurate way to think of the Earth’s landmass. I believe it is used for propaganda so that certain continents and countries are shown to be much bigger than they actually are. Even the North and South poles are arbitrary and used as a propaganda tool that “our” country is above “yours”. It’s a very real conspiracy I believe in.
It’s called, “no common sense” as far as I’m concerned
It’s the burden of proof fallacy. They are making a positive claim so they bear the burden of proving their claim, but they shift the burden of proof responsibility to you to disprove the claim.
Russel’s Teapot. “You can’t prove it isn’t true, therefore I can say it is true.”
You may be thinking of the fallacy of unfalsifiability. Stating an argument in such a way that one can’t prove it wrong.
https://leanlogic.online/glossary/unfalsifiability/
One of my favorite websites:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
You can’t prove a negative
Dang, I guess everyone here knows about Russell and their teapot
Guess my help is not needed here
Have a great day everyone!
Remember folks, evidence against a conspiracy is evidence for a conspiracy!
It’s like telling people you are a great singer. But since you never sing no one will ever know… but, they just need to take your word for it. The burden of proof is on the story teller.
Religion?
Burden of proof logical fallacy is the actual name though
These are the types that say philosophy or logic courses are a waste of time in school or university.
Yeah that’s called shifting the burden of proof mixed with a sprinkle of appeal to ignorance. basically if you say something wild, you gotta prove it, not the other way around.