Talk:Russell's teapot/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Russell's teapot. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Criticism section needs re-work

The current criticism section is verbosely filled with comparision of teapot with god and it's criticism with religious POV from non-notable sources.

The whole point of 'Russell's teapots' analogy is that "Claims should be falsifiable". This analogy is applied in many scenarios. It just so happens that this analogy is applied against God many times. All the criticism being mentioned here is the criticism of that application of analogy against god. The criticism should be of this falsifiability point. It is NOT criticism of the original 'Russell's teapot' analogy. This is absurd as this article is about the 'Russell's teapot' analogy and NOT application of it. We can probably mention a para or two about criticism against application of this analogy against god. Only because this analogy is commonly used against god/religions.

I suggest we should rename the section accordingly Abhishikt (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is the Garvey stuff still in this section? That "journal" article relates to Dawkins' use of the analogy (which apart from being blatantly obvious upon reading it, is reflected quite succinctly by the fact that Dawkins' name appears 17 times, while Russell's appears only 6 times, and only in reference to how his analogy is used by Dawkins). The current page is about Russell's analogy, and how it is applied. Twisting it into a page where the analogy is briefly stated and then devoting a disproportionate amount of space to the criticism of how it is applied is wholly inappropriate. I see many editors have shared this sentiment, and yet one user has continued to put in the same content with little consideration for the opinions of others.137.111.13.200 (talk) 03:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The current version is by no means as verbose and repetitive as it was a few hours ago, but the criticism section still needs to keep its focus on Russell and the teapot, and must avoid becoming yet another broad-brush attack on atheism in general. It must also avoid saying things like "Philosophers ... have noted that it is a poor analogy", as if that opinion was an undisputed fact. I have no problem with including what Garvey says - surely the reliability of the source depends on the publication, not the notability of the individual who writes in it - as long as he is actually saying something about the teapot. And I think he is. Although Garvey mentions Dawkins a lot, he does keep coming back to the teapot, and even mentions it in his title. I'd retain Garvey, but slimmed down as at present (or perhaps further slimmed). SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Snalwibma has done an admirable editing job, not the least of which was abridging what was formerly an admittedly verbose contribution. Further slimming down the section might make the points contained in it obscure and less comprehensible. I would object to it. It now seems to have appropriate weight and is both succinctly stated and understandable. Mamalujo (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Mamalujo, Please reply to above thread, if you want to oppose removal of your added content related to 'Garvey'. I think all the references needs to be removed. Abhishikt (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the whole criticism section until it's properly reworked into the article. These stand-alone criticism sections are known to be a serious problem on Wikipedia.

Content was as follows:

Criticism

Brian Garvey criticises Russell's teapot analogy as a poor analogy on the grounds that belief in God is unlike belief in a celestial teapot as there are rational reasons for belief in a deity but none for the teapot.(ref name="garvey" Garvey, Brian (2010). "Absence of evidence, evidence of absence, and the atheist's teapot" (PDF). Ars Disputandi. 10: 9–22.)

It is argued that the analogy fails because the believer and non-believer with regard to the teapot are simply disagreeing about one item in the universe and may hold in common all other beliefs about the universe, which is not true of the atheist and the theist.(ref name="garvey"). Philosopher Brian Garvey argues that it is not a matter of the theist propounding existence of a thing and the atheist simply denying it - each is asserting an alternative explanation of why the cosmos exists and is the way it is: "the atheist is not just denying an existence that the theist affirms – the atheist is in addition committed to the view that the universe is not the way it is because of God. It is either the way it is because of something other than God, or there is no reason it is the way it is."(ref name="garvey") Garvey however does not find credible the attack on the analogy that exploits the directly observable aspect of the teapot. He writes:

"For, even if the concession is made that in denying that there’s evidence for God’s existence one is not just denying that we can see God, the atheist will simply restore the analogy, and hence the teapot argument, by arguing that we have no indirect evidence for God’s existence either. Thus the argument would run: we have no evidence, direct or indirect, either for the teapot or for God, and everybody admits that it would be unreasonable to suspend judgement regarding the existence of the teapot." (ref name="garvey")

Literary critic and novelist James Wood, without believing in God, says that belief in God "is a good deal more reasonable than belief in a teapot" because God is a "grand and big idea" which "is not analogically disproved by reference to celestial teapots or vacuum cleaners, which lack the necessary bigness and grandeur" and "because God cannot be reified, cannot be turned into a mere thing".(ref Wood, James (18 December 2006). "The Celestial Teapot". The New Republic (27).)

Philosopher Paul Chamberlain argues that it is logically erroneous to assert that positive truth claims bear a burden of proof while negative truth claims do not. (ref name="chamberlain" Chamberlain. Paul, Why People Don't Believe: Confronting Seven Challenges to Christian Faith, pp. 82-83, Baker Books 2011) He notes that all truth claims bear a burden of proof, and that the teapot and spaghetti monster bear the greater burden not because of their negativity but because of their triviality, arguing that "When we substitute normal, serious characters such as Plato, Nero, Winston Churchill, or George Washington in place of these fictional characters, it becomes clear that anyone denying the existence of these figures has a burden of proof equal to, or in some cases greater than, the person claiming they do exist." (ref name="chamberlain")

Another counter-argument, advanced by Oklahoma State University philosophy professor Eric Reitan,(ref http://www.religiondispatches.org/contributors/ericreitan/) is that belief in God is different from belief in a teapot because teapots are physical and therefore in principle verifiable, and that given what we know about the physical world we have no good reason to think that belief in Russell's teapot is justified and at least some reason to think it not. Reitan goes on to argue that "what makes God relevantly different from the celestial teapot" is that God "refers to a being whose existence would fulfill our ethico-religious hope – that is, our hope that the universe is fundamentally on the side of goodness. But the fulfillment of that hope is not found within the empirical world studied by science." (ref name=Reitan Eric Reitan. Is God a Delusion?. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 78–80. ISBN 1-4051-8361-6. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |media_type= (help); Unknown parameter |release_date= ignored (help))

I'm not saying this doesn't belong, it's just that we shouldn't lump it all together into this one section. If it's relevant we should try to work it into the history of the idea, or some other exegesis. --TS 00:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Do not delete the section on the premise that criticism should be integrated into the entire entry. This entry is about a philosophical argument. It is much more practical, in such entries, to present the argument and then to present any notable refutations of the argument afterwards. In fact it is how such entries ought to be written. If the section needs work then improve it instead. I've restored it.Griswaldo (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The first line of the counter-arguments section is both wrongly attributed and misrepresents the analogy. I have removed it once, it was reverted. "Brian Garvey criticises Russell's teapot analogy on the notion that belief in God is unlike belief in a celestial teapot as there are reasons for belief in a deity but none for the teapot." First, it was Eric Reitan who advanced the concept of a teapot being tangible and therefore in essence open to verifiability while an intangible deity is not. This was mistaken logic, nonetheless. However, both Reitan and Garvey misrepresent the analogy in a way which is inappropriate for this page. I am sure they hoped everyone had not noticed that Russell had included this in the analogy- "If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time". Selectively ignoring this part of the analogy is in my view somewhat dishonest. This "counter-argument" is something of a straw-man, and misrepresents not just the details of the analogy, but ignores Russell's contrast of belief in a teapot to belief in deities within the context of cultural and societal norms. The point is indeed that claims with no evidence can be readily dismissed, unless they are ingrained in a culture or society. 137.111.13.200 (talk) 06:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again I have removed the assertion that Garvey makes a point about evidence, in the cited paper he does no such thing. He specifically addresses the concept of evidence and states it is not the basis of his criticism of the analogy. His criticisms relate to the implications on either a belief/disbelief in a teapot and God, stating that these are not equivalent and therefore the analogy fails. Whoever reverted my last attempt to clear this up might like to discuss why they did so, and whether they consulted the source before they did so.137.111.13.200 (talk) 02:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Russell's Fedora

I am transferring this from the lede:

“

Russell's Fedora{{Citation needed|date=December 2011}}

”

Even a cursory search for a reliable source yields not one reference that would support this claim. If and when a reliable source can be found, then we can return this to the lede. – PIE ( CLIMAX )  21:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Bertrand's teapot

Also, I could find no reliable source to support the nickname Bertrand's teapot, so I removed it from the lede until a RS can be found. – PIE ( CLIMAX )  22:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Teapot image

The teapot bag image is completely inappropriate here. It's an image of a bag printed with "Teach the Controversy", the slogan of a creationist movement whose goals are exactly opposite to those of Russell. They actively promote discussion of their teapot controversy, saying no side is more right and both sides need to be heard. The bag image should be removed, and the link moved to a section about unfalsifiable beliefs. Thomas. Thomasonline (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The bag is making the point that if you want to treat unsubstantiated beliefs as being equal to that of science then you have to do this for every crack-pot belief, so if you "teach the controversy" of creationism, you have to do this for everything else, astrology and teapots included.137.111.13.200 (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the teapot image. It felt flippant and sarcastic and did not lend itself to a what is supposed to be a serious article. 109.153.10.240 (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Denying the argument from ignorance as a logical fallacy

To put it simply, when someone states that "negative truth claims bear a burden of proof" (without any further clarification) - he's rejecting the argument from ignorance as a logical fallacy. Or in other words, he/she is talking nonsense. For example, why don't you prove that I'm not currently standing, invisible and untouchable, two feet to your right?

I will also add that the other fellow in the "Counterarguments" section completely missed the point of the analogy. And is also talking nonsense. Whether the teapot is physical or not is completely besides the point, its an example of something the existence of which cannot be proven (physical or not). To actually go bashing the teapot itself is completely futile. -- Director (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Your additions amounted to original research. It may or may not be the case, but we should have a source that explicitly states this. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the bit that was originally removed was a bit much, but the sentence removed by the IP is simply a statement of plain obvious fact. -- Director (talk) 10:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

If no source says that it is a denial of the argument from ignorance as a logical fallacy we should not, else we are making a deductive step. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that's taking WP:V just a bit too far. -- Director (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The claim that Paul Chamberlain's argument is a denial of the fallacy needs to be cited otherwise it's original research (also note the BLP issue), we can't evaluate the strength of an individuals argument ourselves, we must always defer to reliable sources. You can ask in WP:ORN if you like. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I concur with IRWolfie. We can't use OR to question a RS. Also, I don't agree with Direktor's characterization of Chamberlain's argument either (of course, both Direktor's and my opinions are beside the point). Mamalujo (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok. -- Director (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Counter-arguments

User Mamalujo replaced parts of this section which were removed last year following discussions on the talk page. I will leave it to others to work out why such a long time has elapsed since that removal, but if material is added it should at least represent the sources properly (if the source is valid). I have removed the opening line, which completely misrepresents the source. I will again leave it to others to discuss Garvey and the validity of that inclusion, even though this already happened a while ago. 137.111.13.167 (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I was the preceding IP, in case that is unclear. Mamalujo, you have edited on a section that was discussed and resolved last year. Why have you waited such a long time to then re-insert material that other editors had removed? And again, why did you revert my recent edit without commenting here to address the issues raised? Garvey did not make the assertion that there are reasons to believe in a god and none for believing in the teapot. That was Reitan's assertion, which is already in the article. Have you even read Garvey's paper? We can go through the whole paper if you wish, but he makes it clear in his conclusion- "Leaving aside the fact that some theists think there is evidence for God’s existence, what I have been trying to argue here is that even if we accept the atheists’ assumptions – if we play on their home ground as it were – and accept that there is no evidence either way, the atheist does not win." Do you see? His argument rests not on a matter of evidence or reasons for belief, for he specifically states that the question of the existence of a deity is beyond the realm of science, meaning beyond the terms of evidence. Thus, he suggests, an atheist's demand for evidence for god is misguided. His precise point is that it is a flawed analogy in that the ramifications of asserting the existence of the teapot is different than that of asserting the existence of a god (that created the universe).

I'm inclined to remove the Garvey bit, it is a waste of space on the page, but if you can make a case for its inclusion (which isn't a rehash of the resolved points from last year) then fair enough.Ninahexan (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The very title of the section, "Counterarguments", grants WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to the statements therein. Russell's simple analogy is based on the most fundamental logic, and, insofar as we accept logic itself - it simply cannot really be refuted (i.e., the atheist does, in fact, "win").

• Garvey may reject the argument by rejecting a god who's existence can be discussed through logic. That, however, is simply an "escape" from Russell's argument into the "Realm Beyond the Realm of Science", not a "counter-argument". The quoted statements are merely his own non-sequiturs with no real bearing on the matter at hand (why are they quoted?).
• Wood simply doesn't appear to understand the concept of an analogy, and can't seem to get beyond the deliberately trivial aspects of this one.
• Reitan = Garvey, in essence. Reitan escapes from the analogy into the "Realm Beyond". God is "beyond the physical"...
• Chamberlain's position is in essence a rejection of the most fundamental laws of logic. It inescapably follows from said rejection that, according to him, arguments from ignorance are valid, and that anything at all can be proven simply by demanding it be disproven (I am, in fact, a koala bear writing on Wikipedia - can you prove otherwise?). It bolis down to patent nonsense.

The section should be renamed. -- Director (talk) 10:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Would "criticism" be a better word? The difficulty is that if someone publishes a criticism of the analogy which misrepresents the nature of the analogy (Reitan, for instance), then what are we supposed to do? If we take it upon ourselves to state that the author was wrong, is that original research? Similar issue with Garvey, where the criticism of the analogy actually ends up amplifying the point that Russell was making: the burden of proof for claims rests on the proponents of those assertions relating to the evidence that such an assertion predicts. The difference between a teapot and a deity that created the universe is the magnitude of predictions that come from the assertion, rather than a difference in the principles underlying the burden of proof, which leaves a lot more to be explained by the assertion that a deity exists. The fact that other (real) philosophers don't care enough to refute the counter-arguments that litter this page is indeed annoying, but understandable, and we are left with only OR.137.111.13.200 (talk) 06:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the term counter-arguments is fine. It should be clear at least to most readers that the people making those arguments are confused. There will always be readers who aren't able to understand an argument like this one, and there isn't really anything we wikipedia editors can do to help them, it would require intensive one-on-one discussion over a long period of time. Other (real) philosophers would be unlikely to bother refuting what is clearly flawed, if they did, they'd never get time to do any other work. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

SYN/OR from History of Freedom of Thought

There is some SYN/OR from History of Freedom of Thought (1913) which was added to the article. The source mentions neither Russell nor his idea. It is original research by the editor because the source predates Russell's teapot by nearly half a century. The editor is connecting this subject to earlier ideas. While his synthesis may be valid, it is not appropriate here. I am removing the material. Mamalujo (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that this material is inappropriate. It involves a very minimal amount of original thought, and a certain amount of that is necessary to build an encyclopedia. However, I have trimmed the text a little so that it is a bald statement that similar analogies were made earlier. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

If similar analogies were made earlier, we need a source that says so. If an editor finds a similar analogy and puts his gloss on the material, i.e. that it is similar to Russell's teapot, then it is OR and SYN. There probably are sources which discuss precursors to this idea. This source however does not even mention Russell's teapot as it predates Russell postulation of the idea. Please see WP:SYN; it specifically states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The disputed material combines sources on Russell and the source in dispute to say something neither of the sources say, that the quoted idea is like Russell's idea. It clearly involves OR and SYN. Mamalujo (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Finding someone who says that the analogies are similar would only mean that that person holds the opinion that they are similar. From what is on this page we have "to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others" and "But the burden of proof does not lie upon the rejecter". A wikipedia reader should be able to judge for themselves how similar those statements are. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Literary critic and novelist

A "literary critic and novelist" isn't a philosopher. Russell's teapot is a philosophical thought experiment, not a literary trope. I've removed a counterargument that was apparently proposed by such a person. --TS 08:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I am unsure that the article is restricted, or should be restricted, only to opinions of official "philosophers". On another note, I reverted your insertion of "agrees with Russell ... but argues" into the sentence on Chamberlain as being less NPOV than the prior wording. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I changed it because the original wording implies an opinion as fact, as follows:

He notes that all truth claims bear a burden of proof, and that like Mother Goose and the tooth fairy, the teapot bears the greater burden not because of its negativity but because of its triviality

"I am unsure that the article is restricted, or should be restricted, only to opinions of official "philosophers". " Perhaps not, but perhaps their presentation as philosophers perhaps should be restricted. You can proclaim yourself an expert on anything, but peers and general consensus might not agree. What has he done that makes him a philosopher?

Quote: A generally accepted interpretation in academia is that a philosopher is one who has attained a Ph.D. in philosophy, teaches philosophy, and has published literature in a field of philosophy or is widely accepted by other philosophers as a philosopher. - wikipedia 130.243.215.197 (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

These aren't facts to be noted or stipulated, but philosophical arguments. Russell's initial argument (all truth claims bear a burden or proof) and Chamberlain's argument (that certain statements are "trivial" and this implies a higher burden of proof than "non-trivial" statements). I'm open to a new form of words that makes clear that these are not stipulated facts but philosophical lines of argument. --TS 11:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed to "says" which is kinda obvious - all philosophy is, is "opinion". Collect (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Burden of proof

Seems like claims that "god is beyond the physical and cannot be proven" are unproven. 130.243.215.197 (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Criticism

Is it just me, or do all of the criticisms of Russel's Teapot seem really, really dumb? Are these really the best criticisms of the teapot? Are they even notable? Several of these are outright bizarre - we know that Washington and Churchill exist because there are enormous amounts of contemporary evidence for their existence, including documents that they wrote, photographs, portraits, attestations from thousands of sources, ect. Likewise, the complaint about it being trivial is pretty much the opposite of the general point as far as such things go, which is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not just you. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

No, OTHER dumb people like Sminthopsis think they're perfectly reasonable but they are, in fact, really dumb. I don't even know why they're included on this page. If Paul Chamberlain wants to refute Russel's teapot, he can do it on his own wikipedia 65.27.230.140 (talk)Ubiquitousnewt — Preceding undated comment added 06:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; the assertions quoted in the current Objections (criticisms) section commit the very logic errors that Russell tried to illuminate and that generally are highlighted earlier in the article. These problems either should be expounded on, as a contribution to illustrating the principles of the article, or if not annotated in that way, should be struck entirely as muddled, trivial, and confusing rather than elucidating. Either way, I agree that they do not seem notable and therefore should be removed.

For clarity, here are the various logic errors in the current Objections section, as I understand them:

• 'Philosopher Brian Garvey argues' that the teapot believer and non-believer disagree about one claim "and may hold in common all other beliefs about the universe, which is not true of an atheist and a theist."'

This is irrelevant; the truth value of a proposition has to be considered independent of its source. To argue otherwise is to commit the Genetic fallacy: the idea that the source (or genesis) of an idea has any bearing on its truth or falsehood.

• 'Garvey argues that [...] each is asserting an alternative explanation of why the cosmos exists and is the way it is [...]'

To say that the two positions are "alternatives" fails because they are not like things - they are not claims of the same type - and therefore they cannot be grouped as alternatives to each other. They are not substitutable claims. (It's the same as claiming that evidence-based theories of biology or engineering are "alternatives" to magical thinking or random guessing about those subjects. They aren't "alternatives" because they are different kinds of things: They derive from completely different methods of formulating knowledge about the universe. Take an example: One can simply guess how much weight a bridge will withstand before collapsing, or one can measure the properties of the bridge to arrive at an answer. These two systems of arriving at an answer are too different to be comparable.) (I'm sure there's a formal logic term for this fallacy, but it escapes me at the moment.)

• '"the atheist is not just denying an existence that the theist affirms – the atheist is in addition committed to the view that the universe is not the way it is because of God. It is either the way it is because of something other than God, or there is no reason it is the way it is."'

This commits the Straw Man and Many Questions (or Complex Question) fallacies. First, the atheist position is misrepresented: The atheist is not committed to a position of negating the theist's conclusion; rather, the theist and atheist disagree about one of the assumptions underlying the premise. The "two different systems" factor is here as in the previous note. Second, the phrase "because of God" presupposes the truth value of the very thing whose truth is in question; this is the fallacy of Many Questions.

• 'The literary critic James Wood, without believing in God, says that belief in God "is a good deal more reasonable than belief in a teapot" because God is a "grand and big idea" which "is not analogically disproved by reference to celestial teapots or vacuum cleaners, which lack the necessary bigness and grandeur" and "because God cannot be reified, cannot be turned into a mere thing".'

This one appears to commit the Non-Sequitur fallacy: factors such as "bigness and grandeur" are irrelevant criteria in determining whether a proposition is true or not. The latter part of the last sentence, '"because God cannot be reified, cannot be turned into a mere thing"', may also be considered "Protecting the Hypothesis," establishing criteria by which the proposition cannot be tested and therefore neither falsified nor verified. Sagan discusses this error in reasoning in "The Dragon in My Garage" (Chapter 10 of The Demon-Haunted World). It might also be deemed a Red Herring: whether or not the god can or cannot be reduced to '"a mere thing"' is a separate issue, a distraction from determining the truth of the current claim, and also a question that to have any meaning first requires an affirmative resolution of the theist's proposition.

• 'Philosopher Paul Chamberlain says it is logically erroneous to assert that positive truth claims bear a burden of proof while negative truth claims do not [...] like Mother Goose and the tooth fairy, the teapot bears the greater burden not because of its negativity, but because of its triviality, arguing that "When we substitute normal, serious characters such as Plato, Nero, Winston Churchill, or George Washington in place of these fictional characters, it becomes clear that anyone denying the existence of these figures has a burden of proof equal to, or in some cases greater than, the person claiming they do exist."'

The primary error here is a misunderstanding of how truth claims are supported or are refuted. Scientists typically do not assert that "there is no X," because such unqualified claims generally are not defensible or are trivially refuted, depending on the claim. Rather, they assert that "no evidence has been found to support the conclusion that there is an X". The implicit argument offered here is that if one cannot disprove the existence of a god, it must exist - but this commits the Fallacy of Ignorance, the idea that we can conclude something from what we don't know. However, what we don't know can't be used as support for (or against) any conclusion; as Sagan says, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (or presence). The reasoning offered here goes on to note people who did exist and suggesting that denying their existence would also require proof of their non-existence. On the contrary, such a claim would require refuting the existing body of evidence in support of their existence: in other words, removing evidence of the affirmative, which is the opposite of establishing evidence of the negative.

In sum: I vote that the section be deleted. In fact, I think we've provided enough evidence here of why the section should be removed, so I'll be bold and remove it for now. Consequently, anyone who wants to restore the section should first provide more, better evidence as to why it should be restored. Memetics (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Origins of the analogy

How did this WP:SYNTH section header come to replace the long-standing version of "Russell's argument". I can see this being changed to "Russell's analogy", but origins in the plural form? While I understand that there is a 1958 elaboration on the theory, 'origins' suggests an ongoing evolution which, unless Russell is still adding to, simply exists as a singular theory qualified further by Russell once.

Added to that, an SPA tacked on more speculation in the form of "Perhaps Russell developed the analogy from his friend..." According to whom? Even of there is a WP:RS for this, it's WP:UNDUE in the section examining Russell's theory.

I see no discussion on this talk page as regards either issue, an note that the change to the header was the result of an undiscussed edit war beginning here. I've gone WP:BRD and have deleted the OR addition. Other editors are welcome to pull me up on this if they wish. I also propose restoring the subheader with "Russell's analogy" (which is in line with the WP:TITLE). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2016

This edit request to Russell's teapot has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Argument from ignorance|arguentum ad ignorantiam

-> argumentum ad ignorantiam

(small typO 93.62.234.107 (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done - thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Illustration question

Why isn't File:Russell's teapot.svg used on this page, in a similar manner as it is on other language versions of this article? -- 155.95.90.244 (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

because it adds nothing. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 11:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

or rather it adds a bit too much? It's another parody of the fish, and that's a bit distracting?--345Kai (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2016

This edit request to Russell's teapot has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add this image to the article to provide a visual representation of the concept.

File:Russell's Teapot.jpg

Russell's Teapot

It's a common layout choice as seen in the pages for The Flying Spaghetti Monster & Invisible Pink Unicorn which are analogous concepts.

Mlazear (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how that image would help a reader understand the subject. VQuakr (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

William Lane Craig Analysis?

Is there any point or sense to this analysis from William Lane Craig? First, if an astronaut had put the Teapot there then it wouldn't be causally isolated since the astronaut caused the teapot to be there. In fact reference 10, admits as much when WLC writes "an object which is (for the most part) causally isolated". Prior to that, WLC states that the teapot is causally isolated which contradicts his later statement. According to WLC the teapot is both causally isolated and kind of causally isolated, which is it WLC? Secondly, in the reference WLC claims to have disproven the existence of Santa Claus, Leprechauns and the Tooth Fairy based solely on his subjective expectations. He proceeds to disprove his own contrary claims by essentially concluding because there is no evidence that this is evidence of absence.

- Why is a wiki article on philosophy linking to a Christian apologist website? This website in particular is deceptive and dishonest throughout. Why not just start linking to conspiracy websites on the wiki page for the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York City, Washington and Summerset? Sevenpatch (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I guess it is not actually WLC that wrote the contradictory misinformed article in reference 10, it was some nameless faith volunteer. Sevenpatch (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph in question. For now I'll put it here on the Talk page for discussion, until it can be demonstrated to add valuable analysis. Sevenpatch (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

________________________________________________________

William Lane Craig argues that for objects which are causally isolated from us, it is not the absence of evidence which makes an analogy such as Russell's teapot irrelevant, but rather the presence of contrary evidence: It could be inferred the non-existence of the tea pot from the knowledge that no Russian or American astronaut put it there.^[1]

− ^[2] _________________________________________________________

I thought Alvin Plantinga argued that? Anyway I think it's undue weight to include the illogical opinions of Creationist crackpots cause they are fringe views. At the very least include a rebuttal from a logical person. The argument that no astronauts from earth put the teapot there is a strawman. Aliens could have put it there, or it could have always existed or whatever. 79.103.251.8 (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Facts vs. opinions

"Alvin Plantinga points out that a falsehood lies at the heart of Russell's argument." This statement says, in Wikipedia's voice, that Plantinga is correct and Russell is wrong.

I am completely uninterested in who you think is right or any arguments you may wish to advance to support your opinion.

Instead, the article should say "Alvin Plantinga stated that a falsehood lies at the heart of Russell's argument."

Similarly, "Thus, to simply reject the existence of God, out of hand, seems unjustified." Oh? It objectively "seems"? No, it "seems unjustified according to Gutting."

Comments? - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. Such flaws are rife. For instance, it's at best manipulative to splodge out unfounded claims such as A number of philosophers have found Russell's Teapot argument unconvincing—zero being a perfectly fine number, and no citation saying the number is larger. Overall, the "countercases" seem to be an attempt to match the prestigious Russell name—not to mention Dawkins—with sheer number of lesser lights, all carefully tagged PHILOSOPHER of course, and not a single one seemingly worthy of his own WP article.

(Okay, so Gutting has a stub, almost entirely a list of his publishing credits. Van Inwagen fares better. Plantinga has argued that God is axiomatic, existing because people WANT God to exist… which, if I interpret correctly, means Plantinga supports teapotism. Anyway, some Authorised Editor ought to have fixed those links long ago.)

The existence of God does not deny the potential existence of the teapot, and in fact could be said to support it. Maybe that damned teapot predates God's creation of Earth. And being all-powerful, who of us mere humans can claim that God did NOT put it there?

It is not the article's place to definitively support OR deny this analogy, but to explain it fully. Three critics is either a feeble attempt at "balance" or far too few given the simplicity of the analogy as well as the weakness of the rebuttals—better ought to be located. Meantime, please ensure that prejudice isn't presented here as fact.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2017

This edit request to Russell's teapot has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I'm a newby, sorry if I don't do this right, but... Under the "Similar Analogies" heading, I propose a good and relevant example would be as follows:

Astrophysicist Carl Sagan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan), in his 1995 book The Demon-Haunted World (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World) offered a similar non-disprovable analogy called the Dragon in the Garage as an example of skeptical thinking. His dragon was invisible, floating, and breathed heatless fire, making it impossible to detect. Because there is no distinction between the existence of this dragon and no dragon at all, there is no ability to prove or disprove its existence. Sagan pointed out that the inability to invalidate the dragon's existence in no way supported the argument that it exists.

Rmeisner66 (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC) Rmeisner66 (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)