The Appeal to Ignorance

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is

true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply
because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with
influential rhetoric.
The fallacy of the argument from ignorance is any argument that reason from the
inability to show that a proposition P is false (or that we are ignorant about P) to the
fact that P is true. That is, it is a type of argument that claims that a statement is
true because it has not been shown to be false.
Appealing to ignorance arguments is fallacious for at least two reasons. First, a lack
of evidence in support of the claim that P is false is an absence of evidence about
an issue. It is not positive evidence that P is true. Second, if such arguments were
true, then we could use the fact that we dont something is not the case to infer a
wide variety of wild facts.
Non-fallacious uses of Argument from Ignorance
In some cases, the argumentum ad ignorantiam is a correct (nonfallacious)
argument because we can rightly assume that our knowledge base is complete. If
some proposition is not known to be in it, we can infer that this proposition must be
false.
Non-fallacious uses of the ad ignorantiam: in science, the law courts, and some
specific other situations, one must, for practical reasons, assume that something is
false unless it is proved true and vice-versa. E.g., "the assumption of innocence until
proved guilty" is a practical, not a logical, process. Obviously, someone can be
legally innocent, but actually guilty of a crime.
In many instances, if a decision must be made and we cannot prove something in
spite of serious attempts to do so, then we presuppose as a pragmatic
consideration, without deductive proof, that whatever that something is, is probably
the case.
Shifting the Burden of Proof
When an individual has the responsibility to show that a proposition P is true, we
say that this individual bears the burden of proof. It is up to them to prove that P is
the case, not up to those who dont accept P.
P is accepted by nearly everyone (it is uncontroversial).
But, no one can conclusively prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that not-P (a
controversial claim) is false.

Therefore, there is an absence of conclusive proof that not-P (the controversial

claim) is false and so this is positive evidence that not-P is true.
Therefore, it is up to those who reject not-P (the controversial claim) to show that it
is false.
Notice that the intermediate conclusion states that because there is an absence of
proof should count as positive evidence. This sort of argument pushes the burden of
proof away from individuals who ought to give positive evidence for their claims
since what they claim runs counter to common sense or certain rules.
When we place the burden of proof on the person making an uncontroversial claim
P, we implicitly commit the appealing to ignorance fallacy.
The correctness or incorrectness of the argumentum ad ignorantiam will depend on
what stage the inquiry is in, and, if it is closed, what its findings were. This in turn,
depends on the standard or burden of proof appropriate for the inquiry.

Sources:
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/ig.htm
http://philosophy.lander.edu/scireas/ignorance.html
http://dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/92nonfallacious.pdf
http://davidagler.com/teaching/criticalthinking/handouts/Handout8_AppealingToIgno
rance.pdf

Sample 1:
Reporter: What is your respond to the accusation that you are a corrupt official?
Official: Do they have proof that I am one? Because if they cannot show any proof,
then it maybe because I am not corrupt.
Reporter: Sir, as your psychological examinations have not been released, they say
that it is because you really are not mentally capable and qualified for the job. What
can you say about this?
Official: You know how unreliable these tests can be. They cannot rely on its results.
How can they say I am not fit for the job when there is no precise and universally
recognized measure to determine my capability?

Reporter: Are you worried that your ratings are going down and that you are at the
bottom of the polls?
Official/Candidate: Not really, these surveys are not very accurate. Since the
elections are not over yet, I am not yet out of the race.

Other samples:

If one argues that God or telepathy, ghosts, or UFO's do not exist because
their existence has not been proven beyond a shadow of doubt, then this
fallacy occurs.
On the other hand, if one argues that God, telepathy, and so ondo exist
because their non-existence has not been proved, then one argues
fallaciously as well.
Jon: You should sleep with me tonight.

Liz: Why should I?

Jon: There isnt any good reason why you shouldnt. Therefore, you should

No one has ever proven that God does not exist. Therefore, God does exist.
You cannot show that you didnt steal a cookie from the cookie jar. Therefore,
you did.
There is something in the sky, but I dont really know what it is. You know, I
cant really
prove that it isnt a UFO. Therefore, it is!

I dont know Liz isnt cheating on me. I really have no evidence to suspect she
is. But, I

cant prove that she isnt cheating on me! I dont know where she is at every
moment. You
know? I think she is cheating on me!

Burden of Proof
Example #1: Defendants Choosing Not to Testify
The prosecution puts forward a weak case against John consisting mostly of shady

witnesses claiming John killed Mary. John decides not to take the stand. If this is
taken as
an indication that John killed Mary, then the jury is placing the burden of proof on
John
and committing the appeal to ignorance fallacy.
o Why? The jury is reasoning as follows: you didnt testify and prove you are not
guilty, therefore you are guilty.
o This reasoning is incorrect because the defense does not bear the burden of proof
and
does not need to show that the defendant is not guilty.
Example #2: Juries Placing the Burden of Proof on the Defendant
The prosecution puts forward their case. The defense then puts forward their case.
The
jury reasons that it is more likely that the defendant John killed Mary than did not
kill
Mary (but they have reasonable doubt about whether John killed Mary). If the jury
finds
John guilty, then the jury is placing the burden of proof on John to prove his
innocence
and is thus committing the appeal to ignorance fallacy.
o Why? The jury is reasoning as follows: the defense did not prove that the
defendant is
not guilty, therefore s/he is guilty.
o This reasoning is incorrect because the defense does not bear the burden of proof
and
does not need to show that the defendant is not guilty.
Advertisement: With the Insanity workout tapes you will lose 30 pounds in only 60
days! If
you dont believe us, order it and try it for yourself! If youre not completely
satisfied, send it

back for a full refund. Is insanity correctly placing that burden of proof on you, the
consumer, to
prove the effectiveness of their product?
Bens economics professor calls him in to talk about his latest homework
assignment. Hes
claiming that Ben plagiarized the essay and will receive a zero. He the asked him to
prove that he
wrote it by writing another, under his supervision. Ben is claiming that he was
honest and simply
worked harder on this paper than other assignments. Whose job is it to prove Bens
guilt or
innocence?