(October 12, 2018 at 5:20 pm)LastPoet Wrote: About the argument from silence being a fallacy, I don't know what you mean, seen it throwed around on other discussions but never payed much attention to that line of reasoning before.
The argument from silence, is often a fallacy (considered almost always fallacious by some) where a person is reading into what another doesn't say. In it's valid form, you need to show why something almost certainly should have been said, and there is no reason that it was not. It would be similar to absence of evidence compared to evidence of absence. It is fallacy, because people don't normally show why the silence should not have been otherwise. For instance, there is a fancy party, which has a doorman admitting and recording the guest that attended. Person X is not on that list. This could be used to show, that this person was not at the party (or at least did not enter through the main entrance.) The fallacious version is feeling that something should have been said and wasn't while there could be any number of reasons, why they did not.
A persons silence on something doesn't mean that they didn't know about it, and doesn't meant that they don't have an opinion on it. It doesn't mean that they have a certain opinion on it. Arguments from silence even at their best; are still a rather weak argument, because they are trying to interpret what was not there.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
