Nonfallacious Arguments from Ignorance
نویسنده
چکیده
THE argument from ignorance has traditionally been classified as a fallacy, but there is growing recognition that this kind of argument can be nonfallacious in some cases. This raises a question: what kind of successful or good argument is it, in these cases? In this paper two argumentation schemes to represent the form of the argumentum ad ignorantiam are introduced. It is argued that they are best judged as fallacious or not in a particular case, in relation to a context of use in dialogue.
منابع مشابه
Profiles of Dialogue for Evaluating Arguments from Ignorance
The argument from ignorance is a hard type of argumentation to evaluate using the profile of dialogue as a tool, because parts of the argumentation are responses that do not occur in the sequence of exchanges. The argument from ignorance works as an inference because implications are drawn from what was not said. This feature poses a difficulty for the profile of dialogue method. And in fact, w...
متن کاملRULES FOR REASONING FROM KNOWLEDGE AND LACK OF KNOWLEDGE The modern logic textbooks typically classify the argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument from ignorance as a fallacy,
The modern logic textbooks typically classify the argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument from ignorance as a fallacy, although many of them increasingly hasten to add that in some cases this form of reasoning can be nonfallacious. In the search of 240 logic textbooks and critical thinking manuals reported in (Walton, 1996, p. 25), 55 were found to have something to say about argument from ignora...
متن کاملIgnorance is Lack of True Belief: A Rejoinder to Le Morvan
In this paper, I respond to Pierre Le Morvan’s critique of my thesis that ignorance is lack of true belief rather than absence of knowledge. I argue that the distinction between dispositional and non-dispositional accounts of belief, as I made it in a previous paper, is correct as it stands. Also, I criticize the viability and the importance of Le Morvan’s distinction between propositional and ...
متن کاملTypes of Dialogue , Dialectical Shifts and Fallacies
The critical discussion is clearly a major context of dialogue to use as a normative model in evaluating arguments as fallacious or not.1 However, this paper will study other types of dialogue that cluster around the edges of the critical discussion. It is a thesis of this paper that these peripheral models of dialogue are needed to support evaluations of arguments as fallacious or nonfallaciou...
متن کاملIgnorance and Imprecise Probabilities
Decisions or inferences sometimes have to made in situations where substantive information about aspects of the problem are either lacking or conflicting. This is often handled by constructing a non-informative prior by appealing to principles such as indifference, maximum entropy, invariance, or maximizing missing information. Unfortunately these priors and the resulting posteriors may depend ...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2001