To avoid this error, it is important to keep in mind the difference between the two statements: (1) I have no proof for X, and the conclusion (2) so X is true. Conclusion (2) does not follow logically from the premise (1). Philosopher Peter Kreeft points out that « ignorance can never be a premise or a reason. Premises must express knowledge requirements. Nothing flows from anything » (Peter Kreeft, Socratic Logic, p. 86). Since the appeal to ignorance could be used for both sides of this argument, you can be sure that it has the potential to be used as this kind of erroneous reasoning. The allegation here places the opposing party in error on the defense, which is illogical because the original speaker would have to bear the burden of proof. Error ad ignorantiam, or a call to ignorance, occurs when someone argues that something must be true or false because it has not been proven to be true in some way.
In other words, a certain belief is called true because you don`t know it`s not true. The problem usually has to do with something that is unable to prove that it is true or false, or that has not yet been proven true or false. For example, here in the United States, people accused of a crime in court are not tasked with proving their innocence against an indictment that has not been proven. It is the prosecutor who has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused. The prosecutor must prove beyond any doubt that the accused is guilty. It is not the responsibility of the accused to prove his own innocence (Hoover, 79-80). A prosecutor would never try to convince a jury that an accused is guilty simply because he could not provide enough evidence to prove his innocence. This would make the mistake of advertising ignorance. « Your honor, we consider the accused guilty because she could not prove her whereabouts on the night of the victim`s murder! » That conclusion would never stand up in court. In practice, these arguments are often unhealthy and based on the veracity of the supporting premise.
For example, the claim that if I had only sat on a wild porcupine, then I would know, is probably not misleading and depends entirely on the truth of the first premise (the ability to know). The argument of ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as the call to ignorance (in which ignorance represents « a lack of evidence to the contrary »), is a mistake in informal logic. He claims that a statement is true because it has not yet been proven false, or that a statement is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a kind of false dichotomy, as it excludes the possibility that there has not been enough investigation to prove that the statement is true or false. [1] Nor does it allow for the possibility that the answer is unrecognizable, recognizable only in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false. [2] In debates, the call to ignorance is sometimes an attempt to shift the burden of proof. The term was probably coined by philosopher John Locke in the late 17th century. [3] [4] If you are faced with a call to ignorance and have no evidence to refute the speaker, think critically after the conversation (and possibly some research) to learn the other side of the argument. Ignorance or lack of evidence to the contrary is the main premise of the argument, hence the name « recourse to ignorance. » A good example was given by Carl Sagan, a famous American astronomer, in his book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark: As with other imperfect methods of reasoning, a call to ignorance is often used to influence a person`s opinion in the desired direction.
However, it lacks the critical evidence needed to be a « real » argument. So, in this article, we will delve deeper into the definition of this logical error, and then go over seven examples of this flawed reasoning that you may encounter in everyday life. One thing about the call to ignorance that is clear in this example is that the appeal can be used to support opposing conclusions. This alone shows that this type of appeal is due to erroneous reasoning. Think of the opposite argument – ghosts exist/ghosts don`t – and the lack of evidence on both sides. But when this error is used in a complex debate where the logical error is not obvious, the erroneous reasoning can be more difficult to detect. If you`ve been following this blog, you may remember that weak induction errors are logical errors that occur when the premises of an argument provide weak support for the given conclusion. With this type of error, it is not that the premises are logically unrelated to the conclusion, but that the relationship between the premises and the conclusion is not strong enough to convince a reasonable person that the conclusion is true given the premises. This week, we`ll look at another weak induction error called Argumentum ad Ignorantiam or « Call to Ignorance. » As a general rule, a good way to avoid a call to ignorance in an argument is to focus on all available evidence, rather than what suggests a lack of evidence.
Pay attention to the calls to ignorance in your daily life and don`t be afraid to point them out and explain to people why they are irrational. This example also shows how this argument is often used in conjunction with shifting the burden of proof to the other person. The person appealing here mistakenly assumes that the person to whom he is speaking is now obliged to prove that the speaker is wrong. Examples of ignorance`s call to error may include abstractions, the physical impossible, and the supernatural. For example, someone says that there is life in the universe because it has not been proven that it does not exist outside our solar system or that UFOs have visited Earth. Maybe a person postulates that every action people do is fateful because no one has proven that people have free will. Or maybe someone says ghosts exist because you can`t prove they don`t; they are all calls for errors of ignorance. It is also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam (Latin for « argument of ignorance ») and is a kind of informal error. In some countries, such as the Middle East, Asia and Africa, children are recruited into their country`s military at a young age.
While they are enlisted, they are taught to believe that people from other countries are evil and should be killed. Because children have no one to tell them otherwise, and they grow up with these beliefs instilled in them, their ignorance is taken for granted because they are raised in the belief that a very subjective opinion is the truth. .