What is the fallacy here?

Hi, Lynx Ssss!

      This argument’s premises have been ambiguous enough to fuel a lengthy discussion about what fallacy, if any, has been committed. The arguer does not assume that Dynamo’s performance cannot currently be explained. For he currently has an argument that the performance has an explanation (but a supernatural one.)

      But Dr. Bennett and Corhniolio both offer good answers. Dr. Bennett says that it is an argument from ignorance. Corhniolio says it is a disjunctive syllogism. The reason they cannot agree is because of the ambiguity of the sentence “it has no natural explanation”.

An explanation can be understood in two ways.

1. An explanation is the thing out there in the world that provides the adequate conditions of something’s existence or occurrence. For example, rain, sunshine and soil explains the growth of a plant. Rain, sunshine, and soil are the things out there in the world that provide the adequate conditions for the plant to flourish.

2. An explanation is the account of whatever it is that provides the adequate conditions of something’s existence or occurrence. For example, my biology book explains the growth of a plant. My biology book gives an account in clear details of the adequate conditions of a plant’s grow.

      In the first sense, an explanation is the  factors themselves that are behind a phenomenon or existent. In the second sense, an explanation is the detailed description that a person provides of the factors that are behind a phenomenon or existent. Dr. Bennett said that the argument is an argument from ignorance because he read premise 2 as talking about explanations in this second sense. That is, just because no one has provided any naturalistic account of Dynamo's performance, it does not follow that supernatural forces were behind Dynamo’s performance. Corhniolio said that the argument is a disjunctive syllogism because he read premise 2 as talking about explanations in the first sense. That is, there are only two possible kinds of causal factors out there in the world: supernatural or natural. If the causal factor out there in the world that was responsible for Dynamo’s performance was not natural, it had to have been supernatural. (Assuming there were any causal factors responsible at all.)

      Dr. Bennett and Corhniolio both have interesting Answers, just depending on what sense of “explanation” you are using.

      Personally, my focus is on premise 1. “Magic” is also an ambiguous term. If premise 1 really does mean that Dynamo used magical powers to conduct his performances, then the argument is valid because that it what the conclusion basically says. But of course, the argument would thereby be question begging. If premise 1 means that Dynamo was just using magic tricks , then the argument is valid because premise 1 contradicts premise 2, which says that the performance has no tricks. And anything follows from a contradiction (in classical logic.)

I suppose that "magic" could only mean either a supernatural power or a magic trick. As I have argued, the argument is valid on either interpretation, but question begging on the first interpretation. So, the argument is valid and potentially question begging.

Thank you, Lynx Ssss

From, Kaiden

confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable

argument from ignorance

If we accept premise 2 as true, and if we assume "natural" and "supernatural" to be opposites, then what we have is an application of the definition of "natural" and "supernatural" that involves deductive reasoning.

If we question premise 2, then we have one true premise and one false premise leading to a questionable conclusion.

If the statements describe any of the magic shows I've seen, a more accurate rewording of the premises might be:

1) Dynamo performed magic tricks

2) Dynamo did not offer any natural explanation for the tricks

3) I can't figure out any natural explanations for the tricks

4) Therefore ....

I suggest that a better conclusion might be that Dynamo is a pretty good magician, rather than that there's something supernatural going on here.

It is not an Argument From Ignorance.

It's a Disjunctive logical proposition. If it has an explanation, and the explanation is not natural, then the only other option is that the explanation is something other than natural (supernatural).

An Argument from Ignorance would mean there's an unknown possible enumeration, and you're just choosing one, but you lack the knowledge to have done so. Like "Somebody stole my watch, it must be Roger" or "Somebody stole my watch, it must be a ghost", or "Somebody stole my watch, it must be the Russians". Those would all be examples of an Argument from Ignorance (unless you have evidence for one). However, natural/supernatural is too high up on the logical categorization hierarchy, it is either one or the other. If it is not one, then it is the other.

In a true dichotomous  proposition, it is either one or the other. In this case, it is either natural, or it is super-natural. It is not natural, therefore it is super-natural. 

All explanations are natural or supernatural.

Either Dynamos magic has an explanation that is supernatural or natural.

Dynamos magic was not natural

Therefore Dyanamo's magic was sueprnatural. 

Yes, we know: Therefore, god. 

I can see Dr. Bo's answer here......

Assuming Dynamo did indeed perform something, and that something we could not explain.   That is, there may be an explanation, but in our ignorance, we just don't know what the explanation is.   So 2, "it has no natural explanation and tricks"  seems to do two things, it defines 'magic' and also asserts without substantiation that there is no natural explanation.    There may very well be a natural explanation for what Dynamo has performed, but we are ignorant of what exactly Dynamo did.  So to claim it was supernatural because we didn't catch a potential natural explanation exclude the natural explanation.   

This assumes natural and supernatural events are mutually exclusive, which may also be an act of ignorance and/or arrogance.