Original link David Ferrer: 15 Logical Fallacies You Should Know Before Getting Into a Debate

When ignorance (not knowing) is used as a premise to support an argument, it is the appeal to ignorance fallacy. Each of us is ignorant in many ways, but weaponizing this unfortunate state of humanity cheapens the debate and is also used when debaters are deliberately misleading their audience.

Appealing to ignorance proves nothing except that a person does not know.

Interestingly, this fallacy is often used to support multiple conflicting conclusions. For example: "No one can clearly prove that aliens exist, so aliens cannot be real", and "No one can clearly prove that aliens do not exist, so aliens must be real." The same argument strategy can support mutually exclusive claims at the same time, which is a bad strategy.

Appealing to ignorance proves nothing except that a person does not know. If no one can prove that ghosts or flying saucers don't exist, then there's no proof that these things do or don't exist. If we don't know if they exist, then we don't know that they do exist or that they don't exist. Ignorance does not justify any claim to knowledge.

Considering the following examples, can you spot an appeal to ignorance?

Example 1: “There is no evidence that the Illuminati ever existed. They are too smart to destroy all evidence.”

Example 2: “I don’t know Tank Johnson; I know he has a long criminal record, but I bet he really is just misunderstood."

YouTube video: Appeal to Ignorance (Logical Fallacy)

The correct logic is that there is a lack of evidence. , no definite conclusion can be made.