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.
In Sagan's words, the expression is a critique of the "impatience with ambiguity" exhibited by appeals to ignorance. [2] Despite what the expression may seem to imply, a lack of evidence can be informative. For example, when testing a new drug, if no harmful effects are observed then this suggests that the drug is safe. [3]
Prevalent proof fallacy – Using consensus or majority vote as evidence of truthfulness, often without regard for expert opinion. Proof by assertion – a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction; sometimes confused with argument from repetition (argumentum ad infinitum, argumentum ad nauseam).
Proving a negative or negative proof may refer to: Proving a negative, in the philosophic burden of proof; Evidence of absence in general, such as evidence that there is no milk in a certain bowl; Modus tollens, a logical proof; Proof of impossibility, mathematics; Russell's teapot, an analogy: inability to disprove does not prove
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 ...
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.
The dismissal is made by stating or reiterating that the argument is absurd, without providing further argumentation. This theory is closely tied to proof by assertion due to the lack of evidence behind the statement and its attempt to persuade without providing any evidence. Appeal to the stone is a logical fallacy.
Lack of foundation: the evidence lacks testimony as to its authenticity or source. More prejudicial than probative: Under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, a judge has the discretion to exclude evidence if "its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury."