Argument from Ignorance and Argument from Silence
https://doi.org/10.32603/2412-8562-2021-7-1-5-16
Abstract
Introduction. This article focuses on the specifics of the arguments from ignorance and arguments from silence. The relevance of the work is due to the growing interest of the scientific community in modeling of defeasible (presumptive) reasoning and verification of their validity.
Methodology and sources. Methodologically, the work is based on the dialectical approach of D. Walton, who proposed a corpus of argumentation schemes for presumptive arguments and a methodology for testing their validity using critical questions. To test the validity of arguments from ignorance and silence, we propose the concept of epistemic burden, the proper fulfillment of which is a necessary condition for the validity of these arguments.
Results and discussion. The result of the research is the development of corpuses of critical questions for two schemes of argumentation: the argument for ignorance and the argument from silence, which include questions to check the fulfillment of the epistemic burden by the proponent or information source. The methodology for verifying arguments using the proposed critical questions is analyzed using examples.
Conclusion. The difference between the two types of reasoning is that in the argument from ignorance, the epistemic burden is placed on the discussion participants (panelists), and in the argument from silence it is placed on the source of the information.
Keywords
presumptive argumentation,
critical questions,
argumentation schemes,
defeasible reasoning,
intellectual virtue
Supporting agencies: The work was supported by a grant of Russian Science Foundation (project No. 20-18-00158 “Formal philosophy of argumentation and a comprehensive methodology for finding and selecting solutions to a dispute “).
About the Authors
E. N. Lisanyuk
Saint Petersburg State University; Higher School of Economics
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Elena N. Lisanyuk – Dr. Sci. (Philosophy) (2016), Professor at the Department of Logic; Professor at the School of Philosophy and Cultural Studies. The author of 170 scientific publications. Area of expertise: logic, argumentation, deontic logic, history of logic, formal philosophy, logic of action
7/9 University emb., St Petersburg 199034
21/4 Staraya Basmannaya str., Moscow 105066
A. A. Khamidov
Saint Petersburg State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Alisher A. Khamidov – Postgraduate at the Department of Logic, Research Engineer at the Institute of Philosophy. The author of 7 scientific publications. Area of expertise: argumentation, philosophy of action, logic of Aristotle
7/9 University emb., St Petersburg 199034
References
1. “Nevsky crayfish”, SUE “Vodokanal of St. Petersburg”, available at: http://www.vodokanal.spb.ru/vodosnabzhenie/biomonitoring/nevskij_rak1/ (accessed: 01.08.2020).
2. Doyle, A.K. (2012), Zapiski o Sherloke Kholmse [Notes about Sherlock Holmes], Transl. by Mikhalyuk, V., Klub Semeinogo Dosuga, Khar'kov, Ukraine.
3. Lepina, M. (2015), “When to “start to be afraid”: what to do if the child is lost?”, Miloserdie.ru, available at: https://www.miloserdie.ru/article/kogda-nuzhno-nachinat-boyatsya-chto-delat-esli-rebenok-poteryalsya/ (accessed: 01.08.2020).
4. Ivlev, Yu.V. (1998), Logika [Logic], Logos, Moscow, RUS.
5. Copi, I.M. and Cohen, C. (1990), Introduction to Logic, 8 ed., Macmillan, New York, USA.
6. Hamblin, C.L. (1970), Fallacies, Methuen, London, UK.
7. Toulmin, S.E. (1958), The uses of argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, USA.
8. Lisanyuk, E.N. (2015), Argumentatsiya i ubezhdenie [Argumentation and persuasion], Nauka, SPb, RUS.
9. “Art. 45. Declaring a citizen as deceased” (1994), Grazhdanskii kodeks Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Civil Code of the Russian Federation], part 1, available at: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_5142/ (accessed 30.09.2020).
10. “Art. 14. Presumption of innocence” (2001), Ugolovno-protsessual'nyi kodeks Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation], part 1, available at: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_34481/50cc4ba5b9174a79ff3a7c8fe091aed08316c8f9/ (accessed 30.09.2020).
11. Hinton, M.D. (2018), “On Arguments from Ignorance”, Informal Logic, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 184–212. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v38i2.4697.
12. Walton, D.N. (1996), Arguments from Ignorance, The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA, USA.
13. Frolov, K.G. (2020), “Intellectual Integrity as Intellectual Virtue”, Siberian Journal of Philosophy, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 85–97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25205/2541-7517-2020-18-2-85-97.
14. Lange, J. (1966), “The Argument From Silence”, History and Theory, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 288–301.
15. Walton, D. (1985), “New directions in the logic of dialogue”, Synthese, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 259–274. DOI: 10.1007/BF00485596.
Review
For citations:
Lisanyuk E.N., Khamidov A.A. Argument from Ignorance and Argument from Silence. Discourse. 2021;7(1):5-16. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32603/2412-8562-2021-7-1-5-16
Views:
656
Email this article 