Saying you "don't know" does not absolve you of the risks you incur from not knowing.
The burden of proof lies with the person taking the risk not the person providing the warning.
You have to decide what negative assurances you need to walk out into the Serengeti having been warned that the opposite of what you hope is true.
You require 100% proof on the warning side but 0% proof on the assurance side.
If we were trying to formulate a formal proof, then your logical fallacy arguments may have merit. But the four points are self-evident in practical situations. Truths can be communicated in many ways. Logical proofs are merely one way, if the domain of discourse is suitably crisp and noise free. Another way useful in teaching hard concepts is allegories and parables which sometimes cut through to the heart of the matter.
I have extracted a message from the signal in the noise of much ancient literature and judged it critical to share. Unless others are willing to put in that much effort, they will keep seeking simple one-liner, noise-free proofs instead. That I cannot give them. I merely hope to motivate them to put in the necessary effort for themselves, since that's the only way they will ever be convinced as I have.
If the Agnostic Nudists on the Serengeti parable I published a few days ago doesn't communicate anything to you as it stands, then subjecting it to logical fallacy analysis won't either.
I'm happy to leave it at that. Jesus spoke in parables and left it to those willing to hear. He didn't do logical proofs and did not go running after anyone who didn't want to understand. I will follow His example:
They said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?" Jesus answered them, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says, ‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive; For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.’ But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear. For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it" (Matthew 13:10-17).
Recapping my main points:
If we were trying to formulate a formal proof, then your logical fallacy arguments may have merit. But the four points are self-evident in practical situations. Truths can be communicated in many ways. Logical proofs are merely one way, if the domain of discourse is suitably crisp and noise free. Another way useful in teaching hard concepts is allegories and parables which sometimes cut through to the heart of the matter.
I have extracted a message from the signal in the noise of much ancient literature and judged it critical to share. Unless others are willing to put in that much effort, they will keep seeking simple one-liner, noise-free proofs instead. That I cannot give them. I merely hope to motivate them to put in the necessary effort for themselves, since that's the only way they will ever be convinced as I have.
If the Agnostic Nudists on the Serengeti parable I published a few days ago doesn't communicate anything to you as it stands, then subjecting it to logical fallacy analysis won't either.
I'm happy to leave it at that. Jesus spoke in parables and left it to those willing to hear. He didn't do logical proofs and did not go running after anyone who didn't want to understand. I will follow His example: