argument from ignorance
please note:
- the text and code below is from The Pseudopedia
- it has been imported raw for GetWiki
{{Refimprove|date=November 2009}}{{Mergefrom|Evidence of absence|date=March 2009}}The
argument from ignorance,
(1) also known as
argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance"
(2)), or
negative evidence,
is a
logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a
premise is
true only because it has not been proven false, or is
false only because it has not been proven true.The
argument from personal incredulity, also known as
argument from personal belief{{Citation needed|date=November 2009}} or
argument from personal conviction{{Citation needed|date=November 2009}}, refers to an assertion that because one
personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed to be false, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.Both
arguments commonly share this structure{{Citation needed|date=November 2009}}: a person regards the lack of evidence for one view as constituting proof that another view is true. The types of fallacies discussed in this article should not be confused with the
reductio ad absurdum method of argument, in which a valid logical
contradiction of the form "A and not A" is used to disprove a
premise.
Overview
Commonly in an
argument from personal incredulity or
argument from ignorance, the speaker
considers or
asserts that something is false, implausible, or not obvious to them
personally and attempts to use this gap in knowledge as "evidence" in favor of an alternative view of his or her choice. Examples of these fallacies are often found in statements of opinion which begin: "It is hard to see how...," "I cannot understand how...," or "it is obvious that..." (if "obvious" is being used to introduce a conclusion rather than specific evidence in support of a particular view).
Argument from ignorance
The two most common forms of the argument from ignorance, both
fallacious, can be reduced to the following form:
- Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true.
- Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.
Irving Copi writes that:
The argumentum ad ignorantiam [fallacy] is committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proven false, or that it is false because it has not been proven true.[...] A qualification should be made at this point. In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence despite searching, as positive evidence towards its non-occurrence.'' (Copi 1953)
Argument from personal incredulity
The common version of the argument from personal incredulity are:
- "I can't believe this is possible, so it can't be true." (The person is asserting that a proposition must be wrong because he or she is incapable of accepting that it may be true.)
This terminology was introduced by
Richard Dawkins[BOOK
], Richard Dawkins
, The God Delusion
,
, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
, 2006
, 128
,
weblink,
,
, 0618680004, 9780618680009,
[BOOK
], April M. S. McMahon
, Change, chance, and optimality
,
, Oxford University Press
, 2000
, 159
,
weblink,
,
, 0198241259, 9780198241256, , who used it to describe the
Argument from Design. He summarizes this argument thus:
I personally cannot imagine a natural sequence of events whereby X could have come about. Therefore, it must have come about by supernatural means.[BOOK
], Richard Dawkins, Yan Wong
, The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution
, The Rhizobium's Tale
, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
, 2005
, 549
,
weblink,
,
, 061861916X, 9780618619160,
Burden of proof
An important aspect of the ad ignorantiam argument is establishing the burden of proof. While this concept is discussed in the law section of this page, it is important to realize that establishing the burden of proof is important in other arenas as well.Inductive usage
Inductive usage refers to the extension of an argument to support a wider generalization of a hypothesis, principle, scientific theory, or universal law. Many such uses of the Argument from Ignorance are considered fallacious, especially in academic papers which are expected to be rigorous about their key premises and empirical foundations. However, in some cases (such as that which the noted author Irving Copi describes above) where affirmative evidence could reasonably be expected to be found, but following careful unbiased examination, this evidence has still not been found, then it might become expedient, and sometimes even prudent, to infer that this might suggest (though it does not prove, deductively, it suggests inductively) that the evidence does not exist. Or, where the speaker can reasonably assume that all sane people will agree with a premise (e.g. "The sky is blue"), then he might decide it is unnecessary to provide evidence supporting that assertion; however, these issues (to which epistemological foundationalism is closely related, and with which it is also closely intertwined) are still debated. Exception in law
In American jurisprudence and the British common law system, argument from ignorance is appropriate. This reasonable double standard has been re-affirmed by Justice William Brennan in his writing of a 1970 case.(3) In most modern criminal legal systems there is a presumption of innocence, and it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove (usually "beyond reasonable doubt") that a defendant has in fact committed a particular crime. It is a logical fallacy to presume that mere lack of evidence of innocence of a crime is instead evidence of guilt. Similarly, mere lack of evidence of guilt cannot be taken as evidence of innocence. For this reason (among others), Western legal systems err on the side of caution{{Citation needed|date=November 2009}}. Simply the act of taking a defendant before a court is not adequate evidence to presume anything. Courts require evidence of guilt to be presented first, adequate for the court to find that the charge has been substantiated—i.e., that the prosecution's evidential burden has been met—and only after this burden is met is the defense obliged to present counter-evidence of innocence. If the burden of proof is not met, that does not imply that the defendant is innocent. Hence, in such a case, the defendant is found "not guilty", except in Scotland, where the jury also has the option to return a verdict of not proven{{Citation needed|date=November 2009}}.Also, as a hypothetical example of an "argument from personal incredulity," defined above, suppose someone were to argue:
- I cannot imagine any way for Person P to have executed action X without committing a crime Y
- Therefore, Person P must be guilty of crime Y.
Merely because the person making the argument cannot imagine how scenario "A" might have happened does not necessarily mean that the person's preferred conclusion (scenario "B") is correct. As with other forms of the argument from ignorance, the arguer in this instance has arrived at a conclusion without any evidence supporting the preferred hypothesis, merely for lack of being able to imagine the alternative.The same principles of logic apply to the civil law, although the required burdens of proof generally are different. As well, these principles of logic apply to the introduction of a given component of a legal case by either a complainant or a defendant. That is, the mere lack of evidence in favor of a proposition put forth by a party in a legal proceeding (e.g., the assertion "she couldn't have left the house and returned in time to do X..." is offered without evidence in support) would not properly be taken as evidence in favor of an alternative explanation (e.g., "she did leave the house and return in time to do X..."). Science
Unexplained phenomena are an indication that a particular scientific theory does not provide a satisfactory model sufficient to explain or predict all outcomes. For example, the wave theory of light does not explain photon anti-correlation experiments,(4) though it successfully predicts the results of the double-slit experiment. However, later theories based around quantum mechanics provide an adequate explanatory model of both.It is a logical mistake to assert that because a phenomenon is unpredictable by current scientific theories, that a better scientific theory cannot be found that provides an adequate natural explanatory model for the phenomenon in question; and that therefore, one must assert that the only viable explanation of the unexplained phenomena is the supernatural action of God. This variant, known as the God of the gaps, is rejected by most theologians because it tries to limit God to the unknown aspects of human knowledge.(5)However, it is also logically incorrect to assume that because a theory does explain all known relevant phenomena, it must be correct. The fact that no counter-examples are known to exist is not in itself proof of a given theory, since there is always the possibility of some yet-to-be-observed counter-example. For example, there are no known phenomena that are inconsistent with the Big Bang theory,{{Citation needed|date=October 2009}} but this by no means constitutes definitive proof that the universe is developing according to said theory.See also
References
-
[BOOK, Walton, Douglas, Arguments From Ignorance, The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996, 1,weblink 0271014741, ]
-
[WEB, Argumentum ad Ignorantiam,weblink Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic, Lander University, 2004, 2009-04-29, ]
-
[Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 1970]
-
[people.whitman.edu/~beckmk/QM/grangier/Thorn_ajp.pdf]
-
[Charles Alfred Coulson (1955) Science and Christian Belief, p 20.]
- BOOK, Introduction to Logic, Copi, Irving M, Irving Copi, Cohen, Carl, Carl Cohen, 1998, 10th, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 9780132425872, 36060013,
External links
{{Red Herring Fallacy}}Argument ad ignorantiamArgumentum ad ignorantiamΠροσφυγή στην άγνοιαArgumento ad ignorantiamمغالطه توسل به جهلArgumentum ad ignorantiamאד איגנורנטיוםArgumentas iš nežinojimoArgumentum ad ignorantiamArgumentum ad ignorantiam無知に訴える論証Argumentum ad ignorantiamArgumentum ad ignorantiamArgumentul ignoranţeiArgumentum ad ignorantiamArgumentum ad ignorantiamArgumentum ad ignorantiamArgumentum ad Ignorantiam(zh-yue:訴諸無知)訴諸無知
- content above as imported from The Pseudopedia
- "argument from ignorance" does not exist on GetWiki
- time: 6:35am EST - Thu, Mar 11 2010
