Talk:Invincible ignorance fallacy

Philosophy: Logic / Religion Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic
	Philosophy of religion

History of the term[edit]

The current dating of the term (of not the concept) to 1863 appears to me to be totally wrong. I'll provide as a reference Edward Stillingfleet's 'A Rational Account of the Grounds of the Protestant Religion', p. 613, since I happen to be reading it right now, but the term is pretty common in 17th century discourse:

'You expressly grant a possiblity of salvation to those who joyn with the Protestant Church in case of invincible ignorance ....'

Since I have no idea who actually first used thew term, I shan't edit it right now, but someone should. Otherwise, I shall simply delete in a few days. 94.173.127.83 (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be split[edit]

Invincible Ignorance, the theological idea, and the "fallacy of invincible ignorance" are two completely different things. If both are notable (and I think the former is, I have no idea about the fallacy), we need to split the article, perhaps having header links to the different article at top. Gabrielthursday (talk) 09:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does this term even exist?[edit]

Is there any usage of the term "invincible ignorance fallacy" (IIF) outside of a theological context of "invincible ignorance"? Could we have an example?

I accept there is a well-defined fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam ("arguing from ignorance") - i.e. You haven't proven UFO's don't exist, therefore they exist. But IIF is a different fallacy. I read the definition for IIF on the http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/ site, and I can't accept that as authoritative. In spite of its name, it's a personal web site - and it may just have been copied from here and becomes a circular reference. I agree with anon from 2010. I will look for a non-theological example or reference and if I fail to find one will suggest deletion of the article. patsw (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Defining term[edit]

I know that it is forbidden to use "original" thinking on sites such as this, which makes no sense at all; however, I would like to offer the following for discussion.

Invincible ignorance -

in·vin·ci·ble /inˈvinsəb(ə)l/ adjective

1. too powerful to be defeated or overcome: "an invincible warrior" Word Origin late Middle English (earlier than vincible): via Old French from Latin invincibilis, from in- ‘not’ + vincibilis (see vincible). Powered by Oxford Dictionaries

ig·no·rance /ˈiɡnərəns/ noun

1. lack of knowledge or information: "he acted in ignorance of basic procedures" Similar incomprehension, unawareness, unconsciousness, inexperience, innocence, ... moreOpposite knowledge, education, knowledge, education Word Origin Middle English: via Old French from Latin ignorantia, from ignorant- ‘not knowing’ (see ignorant). Powered by Oxford Dictionaries

Therefore, I would suggest that the theory of "invincible ignorance" be defined as follows - "ignorance that is too powerful to be defeated or overcome due to pride." In other words, if you are trying to explain a concept to someone and they refuse to even consider the matter because that person refuses to take the material and study it, that would be an example of invincible ignorance. It is an unwillingness to consider something to be true because of your own biases against the source of the material presented. For example, conspiracy theorists are an example of invincible ignorance. Nosehair2200 (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]