Argument from ignorance

Argument from Ignorance

The argument from ignorance, also known as *argumentum ad ignorantiam*, is a logical fallacy that occurs when it is claimed that a proposition is true simply because it has not been proven false, or vice versa. This fallacy exploits a lack of evidence as a basis for asserting a conclusion, rather than relying on substantive proof or reasoning.

Overview

The argument from ignorance is a common error in reasoning that can be found in various forms of discourse, including scientific, philosophical, and everyday discussions. It is important to recognize this fallacy to avoid drawing incorrect conclusions based on insufficient evidence.

In formal terms, the argument from ignorance can be expressed as follows:

- P1: There is no evidence against proposition X. - C: Therefore, proposition X is true.

Or conversely:

- P1: There is no evidence for proposition X. - C: Therefore, proposition X is false.

This type of reasoning is fallacious because the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because something has not been proven false does not mean it is true, and vice versa.

Examples

Scientific Context

In scientific discussions, an argument from ignorance might occur when someone claims that a particular hypothesis is true simply because it has not been disproven. For example, "No one has proven that extraterrestrial life does not exist, so it must exist." This statement is fallacious because the lack of disproof is not sufficient to establish the truth of the claim.

Philosophical Context

In philosophy, the argument from ignorance can be seen in debates about the existence of deities. For instance, "You cannot prove that God does not exist, therefore God exists." This argument is fallacious because it relies on the absence of evidence as proof of existence.

Everyday Context

In everyday life, people might use an argument from ignorance when they say, "I have never seen a ghost, so ghosts must not exist." This reasoning is flawed because personal experience is not a comprehensive measure of reality.

Criticism and Counterarguments

Critics of the argument from ignorance point out that it shifts the burden of proof away from the person making the claim. In rational discourse, the burden of proof lies with the individual asserting a proposition. Without sufficient evidence, a claim should not be accepted as true or false.

To counter an argument from ignorance, one can:

- Request evidence: Ask for positive evidence supporting the claim. - Highlight the fallacy: Point out that the lack of evidence is not a valid basis for the conclusion. - Provide alternative explanations: Suggest other possibilities that account for the lack of evidence.

Also see

- Burden of proof (philosophy) - False dilemma - Circular reasoning - Appeal to authority - Logical fallacy

Argument from ignorance

• 

  John Locke by John Greenhill