Question

...

Is this a logical fallacy?

If the authority doesn't mention X then it must not be there.

Example : The medical expert doesn't mention that the Egyptian mummy was emblamed, therefore it must not be emblamed.

asked on Sunday, Jan 30, 2022 09:28:44 AM by

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Master the "Rules of Reason" for Making and Evaluating Claims

Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.

This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book. 

Take the Online Course

Answers

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
3

argument from ignorance- there is no evidence (against/for) X therefore X is (true/false)
answered on Sunday, Jan 30, 2022 09:43:33 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
1
Ed F writes:

I think the fallacy Lynx asks about is a little different than Argument From Ignorance (or at least is an interesting variant).

Argument From Ignorance is about evidence—if there’s no evidence for something then (in most cases) it’d be a fallacy to assume that it’s not true.   Lynx’s fallacy is dealing specifically with authorities.  If an authority doesn’t mention something, can we assume that the authority did so intentionally and (since they’re an authority), that therefore the fact is true.    This would seem to be a species of a more general fallacy—if someone avoids answering a question (e.g., fails to deny they committed a crime), can we draw a conclusion (guilt?) based on their silence on the issue?  Not sure what that fallacy is called (although such reasoning is not always fallacious). 

posted on Sunday, Jan 30, 2022 10:40:43 AM
...
2
Ed F writes:
[To Ed F]

The fallacy I was trying to think of was argument from silence 

[ login to reply ] posted on Sunday, Jan 30, 2022 11:18:23 AM
...
1
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Ed F]

I do agree that this is a better fit. The argument from ignorance is also about drawing conclusions where there is no evidence. Silence is a form of lack of evidence.

[ login to reply ] posted on Sunday, Jan 30, 2022 11:39:43 AM