(Latin: argumentum ad
ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance
stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a
proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).
This represents a type of false dichotomy in
that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient
investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition
satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that
the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,
true
false
false
unknown between true or false
being unknowable (among the first three).[1]
In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to
shift the burden of proof. The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one
can never possess good reasons for thinking
that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china
teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall
more duly under the arena of pragmatism[vague],
wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and
therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent.[citation needed]
See also Occam's razor
("prefer the explanation with the fewest assumptions").....Read More...
Taxonomy of Logical Fallacies
Taxonomy of Logical Fallacies
Formal Fallacies
-A formal fallacy is an error
in logic that can be seen in the argument's form.[1]All formal fallacies are specific types
of non sequiturs.
Informal
Fallacies are Informal fallacies – arguments that
are fallacious for reasons other than structural (formal) flaws and usually
require examination of the argument's content.[12]
My List
No comments:
Post a Comment