Appeal to ignorance

Part 4.2 of the Critical Thinking Series (CTS): The Fallacies

Appeal to ignorance. AKA argumentum ad ignorantiam

Definition:

Because we don’t know or can’t know with complete certainty that this argument is wrong, it must be true/ or is likely to be true. In other words, there is no evidence to refute the claim; thus, it is true, good, viable, etc.  This fallacy is sometimes invoked because of personal preference for some other answer, especially if that answer is incorporated into one’s identity/worldview (a cognitive bias known as confirmation bias). As such, you may see it often used alongside APPEAL TO INCREDULITY. Also, this is often used alongside SHIFTING THE BURDEN THE PROOF by asking the opponent to provide evidence for a negative.

Caveats:

This is not the same thing as pointing out that the current evidence is too weak, nor is it the same as showing the limits of understanding. Granted, what constitutes a reasonable level of strength and understanding is arbitrary. We may not always agree on the precise level, but this conceptual threshold still has meaningful utility.

Example 1:

Dinah Soares: Lightning is caused by a discharge of static electricity.

Duane Pipe: Can you disprove the possibility that interdimensional farts manifest themselves as intense illuminations through the butt-cheek fissures of our dimension’s space-time fabric, making it merely look like static electricity? This could also explain thunder too.   

Dinah Soares: …Technically, I cannot disprove this. But how high are you?

Duane Pipe: Well then, I don’t know if I can agree with you. And I’ve eaten only one mushroom, thank you.

It’s clear Duane has access to high-quality psychedelics. Get it? High? Whatever. That was a knee-slapper. Anyways, just because we can concoct an infinite number of explanations for things is no reason to disregard well-supported explanations.

Example 2:

Joe King: Nobody in the board meeting praised my idea, but because nobody objected to it, it must be a great idea!

Joe uses the lack of feedback as evidence of it being a great idea.

Example 3:

A. LuAnne: Sure, many UFO claims were debunked, but there is no conclusive evidence that aliens are not visiting Earth…so, it is reasonable to believe aliens secretly visiting us.

LuAnne used appeal to ignorance to support her claim. This is used alongside shifting the burden of proof. It is unreasonable to prove a negative (that no aliens are anywhere on Earth or in its vicinity). Instead, evidence of such aliens is needed to support that claim. Until then, doubt is warranted, especially when so many people have faked pictures and videos.

Historical Example

One historical example from Senator McCarthy during the Red Scare. It was essentially a political witch hunt, where people who were merely accused of being communists would face punishment. Anyway, when the senator was asked about one name on a list of 81 names of alleged communists in the State Department, he said the following:

‘I do not have much information on this except the general statement of the agency that there is nothing in the files to disprove his communist connections.

Nonexample:

Tad Pohl: Did you hear that senator Rhea Curran sexually assaulted her intern?

Sal A. Mander: I heard the intern accused Curran of this, and I hope the intern is given professional counseling. In the meantime, I’m reserving judgment until more information comes to light.

Sal didn’t make an argument from ignorance, nor did Sal really make an argument. In this case, Sal is responsibly suspending belief until more evidence comes to light while simultaneously showing support for the victim.

How to avoid committing this:

Tips for how to respond:

Teambuilding. Is the person using this because they do not want their worldview to collapse? If that’s the case, then you’re fighting against the psychological will of that person to preserve their identity. If that’s the case, try framing a counter-argument that marries the logic of the evidence with a way for that person to retain their identity. Do not attack their worldview or else you might cause them to entrench even further. Moreover, accept that you will only get so far. Personal identity is a powerful thing.

Teach. Is the person using this because they are just frustrated at the complexity and (ironically) do not want to seem dumb? Try to empathize with this position and try to walk them through the basics of the evidence. If possible, try using questions that lead them to the answer. People respond well if they can “discover” the answer rather than being “told” the answer.

Address the tactic. Point out that the purpose of the debate should be to build understanding, not promoting ignorance.

Burden of Proof. If they are trying to advance a position that “X is true” because they do not understand the evidence for “not X” then ask them to provide evidence for X. This is not the fallacy shifting the burden of proof.

Step back, reengage: After showing how the argument doesn’t logically support the conclusion, ask if they have another line of reasoning they would like to explain. Maybe point out that you are avoiding the FALLACY-FALLACY: they just because an argument is fallacious/inaccurate does not necessarily mean the conclusion is wrong.

Be sure to like comment and share!

Did you love it and want to help support Sgt Scholar? Click here to support Sgt Scholar:  https://www.patreon.com/sgtscholar