-Caveat Lector-
Appeals to ignorance and the burden of proof
<http://members.aol.com/jimn469897/ignorance.htm>
The basis of a an appeal to ignorance (also called argumentum ad ignoratium
or argument from ignorance, see Walton) is that whatever has not been
disproved must be correct.
The problem with this type of argument can be seen in these two examples:
"No one has ever proved that the Loch Ness Monster exists, so it must not
exist."
"No one has ever proved that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist, so it
must exist."
These arguments are contradictory, only one can be true and it is not
possible to tell which one it is.
Such an argument proves nothing, its main effect is to shift the burden of
proof.
(Stated properly, an appeal to ignorance is not a fallacy. This statement
is perfectly good but of course does not prove that nessie does not
exist: "Numerous searches of the loch have been made and no monster has
ever been found. And the "evidence" for the monster has been shown to be
fake or caused by natural phenomena. We can reasonably assume that there
is no Loch Ness Monster.")
More example of appeals to ignorance:
"No one has ever proved that silicon breast implants (or electromagnetic
fields or whatever) are safe."
"No one has ever proved that silicon breast implants are unsafe."
Senator Joseph McCarthy (from Walton pages 3-4): "I do not have much
information on this except the general statement of the agency that there
is nothing in the files to disprove his Communist connections." Of course
a lack of proof that someone is not a Communist is not proof that they are
a communist.
"I do not know that this gun is unloaded, so I will assume that it is
loaded." This is an example of the precautionary principle. In the face of
a lack of knowledge it is better to be safe than sorry.
A special case is what I call an appeal to personal ignorance. In this
case the author does not know of proof for (or against) an argument, and so
assumes that no such proof exists. Dixy Lee Ray (with Lou Guzzo) was
particularly good at making this type of argument. In Environmental
Overkill (page 35) she wrote: "How does CFC rise when its molecules are
four to eight times heavier than air? All experience with freon and related
CFCs shows that they are non-volatile and so heavy that you can pour CFCs
from a container and if some of them spill, they will collect at the lowest
point on the ground where soil bacterial will decompose them. Of course,
some molecules will be caught in upward air eddies or otherwise carried
upwards, but this is a
very small fraction of the total." She does not appear to have made any
effort to answer the question in the first sentence. She did not consult
with any atmospheric scientists, or check any reference work, scientific
paper or government report. Instead she simply assumed that no known
mechanism existed. (This claim has been debunked several times, see
Parson, Rowland)
Also on page 35 she wrote "We do not know how these heavier-than-air
molecules cross the equatorial counter currents to accumulate at the South
Pole and do the most ozone destruction there." If by "we" she meant
co-author Guzzo and herself then she is probable right. But if by "we" she
meant the scientific community then she is very wrong (Parson ) (and CFCs
simply do not accumulate at the South Pole).
Burden of Proof
In general, it is up to the person making an argument to try to prove
it. Of course, there are special cases where the burden of proof is
assigned. In criminal court cases (in the United States) it is up to the
prosecution to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." With chemicals and
other manufactured products it was at one time up to the public to show
that the products were unsafe. Over time, the burden of proof has been
shifting to the manufacturers to prove safety. For example,
pharmaceuticals must be proven to be safe and effective before they are
permitted. Most environmentalists would like to see the burden of proof
shifted to the manufacturers for all types of products (the precautionary
principle).
Things to remember
In general, it is up to the person making a claim to try to prove it. Do
not be tricked into trying to disprove someone else's claim.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Absolute certainty is not required to set public policy (in fact, there is
no such thing as absolute scientific certainty). We do not have to prove
that ozone depletion or global warming are real, or that the Bermuda
Triangle is not real, to set public policy.
-end-
At 05:26 PM 5/23/01 -0400, you wrote:
>-Caveat Lector-
>
>In a message dated 5/23/01 2:07:40 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
><< >Do you have proof that he is not.
>
>He presented his case well. You have not presented your case at all. >>
>
>You still have not presented proof that he is not.
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
