Inawezekana wewe ndio umeshindwa kulielewa swali kwa utashi japo swali lineulizwa kiufasaha
Nimekwambia nguvu zaidi ya hilo jua, sijui hujaelewa nini
Halafu mtu kushindwa kuthibitisha jambo flani lipo haimaanishi halipo. Mfano miaka ya nyuma, kabla ya kuthibitisha, hakuna aliyethibitisha kwamba kuna sayari nyingine zinazolizunguka jua.
Jambo lingine, huwezi kuthibitisha uwepo wa roho kwa kutumia mbinu za kimwili (ambazo wewe ndio unaziamini kama mbinu pekee za kuthibitisha jambo). Mshana alitangulia kusema hapo awali.
Ni kweli. Emperical Science na Spritual Science haziwezi kutumia tools zilezle katika kutafuta solutions, kwa sababu hizi ni sayansi mbili tofauti mno, japo naweza kukiri kuwa baadhi ya solutions zinazopatikana kutokkana na sayansi hizi zinaweza zikafanana. Tatizo letu sisi wabongo tukisahasoma, tunataka kila kitu kitumie emperoicism approach, kitu ambacho siyo kweli.
Zaidi ni kuwa hata Emperical Sayansi haijawahi kulazimisha kwamba Sayansi zingine zote ambazo hazina base kwenye empericism, lazima zitumie emperical approach, hapana haijasema hivyo ila ni sisi tukisahasoma sayansi, basi tunalazimisha hata ziile zingine ambazo siyo emperical Science ziwe emperical Sayansi. Sasa sielewi kama huu ni usomi au ni fujo. Basi watengeneze Kamera ya kuchukua video ya roho ya mtu inapokuwa inatoka wakati wa kufa!
Ongeze na article hii hapa:
argument to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
The argument to ignorance is a logical fallacy of irrelevance occurring when one claims that something is true only because it hasn't been proved false, or that something is false only because it has not been proved true. A claim's truth or falsity depends on supporting or refuting evidence to the claim, not the lack of support for a
contrary or
contradictory claim. (
Contrary claims can't both be true but both can be false, unlike
contradictory claims. "Jones was in Chicago at the time of the robbery" and "Jones was in Miami at the time of the robbery" are
contrary claims--assuming there is no equivocation with 'Jones' or 'robbery'. "Jones was in Chicago at the time of the robbery" and "Jones was not in Chicago at the time of the robbery" are contradictory. A claim
is proved true if its contradictory is proved false, and vice-versa.)
The fact that it cannot be proved that the universe
is not designed by an intelligent creator does not prove that it is. Nor does the fact that it cannot be proved that the universe
is designed by an intelligent creator prove that it isn't.
The argument to ignorance seems to be more seductive when it can prey on
wishful thinking. People who want to believe in immortality, for example, may be more prone to think that the lack of proof to the contrary of their desired belief is somehow relevant to supporting it.
Using this fallacy is a tactic sometimes used to discredit people who can't disprove your claim. For example, when CBS News anchor Dan Rather was challenged about the authenticity of documents that indicated that George W. Bush had not fulfilled his National Guard duty as an honorable man, Rather was accused of using forged documents to discredit the president. Rather couldn't prove the documents weren't forgeries, but that doesn't prove that they were.
* To argue this way is to make an argument to ignorance. Likewise, not being able to prove a document is a forgery doesn't mean it isn't, but given the sophisticated methods of document examiners these days it would go a long way toward establishing the probability that the document is genuine.
Your belief is not provided with any support by the fact that others can't prove to a high degree of probability that what you saw was a spacecraft from an alien world, or what you heard was the voice of your long-dead mother, or that only psychic ability can explain what you've witnessed. Lack of proof that your interpretation of perceptions is
incorrect doesn't affect the probability that they're correct.
Source:
argument to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com