Eww, Valentine’s day tomorrow, also known as international act like a sheep day. Who let the dogs out?
I had to do that.
Now, onto serious business. Can you remember the last argument (debate) you had? If you don’t remember, go on and have one right now. You can debate the existence of the abominable snowman, thought by some to stalk the Himalayan Mountains. See if you can prove or disprove his existence to one of your friends/family members.
If you do remember the last argument you had, are you familiar with these terms: “Argumentum ad Ignorantiam” and “burden of proof?” If you are, good for you. : ) But if you’re not (sometimes even if you were), you might have used them to defend your claims. Used them the wrong way, don’t get your hopes high.
Let’s have an example of the first fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantiam:
Johnson: It is impractical to send snowmen to the moon because the money spent for that project could be spent on bailing out crashed businesses…
Hanson: It is not impractical.
Johnson: Why?
Hanson: Just try to prove that I wrong.
(Hanson defends his claim by an ad ignorantiam, i.e., his claim is true, if Johnson cannot refute him.)
As you probably figured, appeals to ignorance are pretty common, and if you don’t spot or avoid using them, you’re having/believing fallacious arguments. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric, so being aware of it might be an eye opener in some (sometimes important) situations. Just remember that there are some exceptions, such as science, law courts, and some specific other situations where it is used for practical reasons and is not considered a fallacy. “The assumption of innocence until proved guilty” is a practical –not a logical– process that is an example of such exception.
Now let’s see an example for burden of proof:
Bobby: The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe.
Obama: No he didn’t. There’s no Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Bobby: Prove it!!1!
Obama: (explicit language, click the link for his reply >) LINK
Here, our boy Bobby Henderson made a very bold claim, expecting Obama to find proof against it to negate the existence of the Monster. But it is Bobby who has to find proof supporting his claim if his monster is to stand any fighting chances. Without any initial proof of his existence, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not proven just because Obama can’t prove his non-existence.
Two more examples, The Invisible Pink Unicorn and Russel’s Teapot both make points about the burden of proof and/or the appeal to ignorance, falling under the same broken logic.
What’s interesting to note is that even some of the people that society regards as smart can be in fact ignorant and uneducated beyond belief (in some matters). Like Richard Dawkins, who believes in flying teapots that float in space.
Now, let’s try to ignore the fact that this post may have no real importance to you (but it does, really) and that I forgot what I was really trying to say, and continue. But if you know what appeal to ignorance and burden of proof are, this is the end (my only friend, the end). Mission accomplished.
PS: Don’t make these errors in your arguments.
PPS: Watch out, others make them constantly. Smack them with your newly learned fallacies when they do. Ladies like it when you do that.
