Fallacy or not?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Person A claims that how do you know indonesia exists? And Person B claims the I have visited. Then person A claims that how do you know it exists? person B claims Because I have experienced it. And then person A claims that if you have experienced indonesia exists therefore ghost exists because I have experienced it.
Comments on Question
Answers
1This is a question of epistemology . The argument is strong... if one claims we know Indonesia exists because they "experienced it", then it is reasonable to accept that one knows ghosts exist for the same reason. Now, any reasonable person wouldn't accept one's personal experience as proof of ghosts' existing, so we can conclude that there is a problem with "experience" as a way to know something exists—which is the point of this argument.
"Experience" is a vague term that often embodies one or more senses, but sometimes none. For example, we can experience bliss just from imagination (i.e., dream, meditation, prayer, etc.). This feeling (experience) in no way verifies the existence of what is being imagined, which is why experience is not a reasonable way to claim to know something exists or not.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
Here is your story in my own words.
Person A (PA) asks how Person B (PB) knows that Indonesia exists. PB says that he has empirical knowledge of Indonesia; he experienced Indonesia. PA does not think PB has empirical knowledge that Indonesia exists. PA is in fact skeptical about empirical knowledge in general. Here is why he is skeptical of this kind of knowledge. He has had ghost-like experiences. But he knows that ghosts do not exist. So, experience is not enough to determine that something exists. In this case, experience is not enough, PA claims, to tell PB that Indonesia exists.
Did I understand your example correctly?