Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
John Locke (1632–1704), the likely originator of the term.. Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance, [a] is an informal fallacy where something is claimed to be true or false because of a lack of evidence to the contrary.
The person making the argument expects that the listener will accept the provided definition, making the argument difficult to refute. [19] Divine fallacy (argument from incredulity) – arguing that, because something is so phenomenal or amazing, it must be the result of superior, divine, alien or paranormal agency. [20]
One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true. [8] [9]
Only arguments can constitute a fallacy. Various erroneous expressions do not count as fallacies because no argument is made, e.g. because no reasons are cited or no assertion is made. [5] The core idea of arguments is that the premises support the conclusion or that the conclusion follows from the premises.
Using an argument's connections to other concepts or people to support or refute it, also called "guilt by association" (association fallacy) Claiming that a lack of proof counts as proof (appeal to ignorance) In humor, errors of reasoning are used for comical purposes.
Argument from ignorance can be stated in a very informal way as, "if it were true, I would know it". [17]: 112 Walton gives the following example of an argument from ignorance: "The posted train schedule says that train 12 to Amsterdam stops at Haarlem and Amsterdam Central Station. We want to determine whether the train stops at Schipol.
Proof by assertion can also occur when the evidence cited is actually no different than the assertion itself. An argument that actually contains premises that are all the same as the assertion is thus proof by assertion. This fallacy is sometimes used as a form of rhetoric by politicians, or during a debate as a filibuster.
The invincible ignorance fallacy, [1] also known as argument by pigheadedness, [2] is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word. The method used ...