Argument from silence
Encyclopedia
The argument from silence (also called argumentum e silentio in Latin
) is generally a conclusion based on silence of opponent, failing to give evidence. In the field of classical studies, it often refers to the deduction
from the lack of references to a subject in the available writings of an author to the conclusion that he was ignorant of it. When used as a logical proof in pure reasoning, the argument is classed among the fallacies, but an argument from silence can be a convincing form of abductive reasoning
.
Billy's conclusion may not be justified: perhaps Bobby doesn't want to tell him. Consider, however, the following type of argument:
Afterwards, Jack continually refuses to give John the Spanish translation, either by ignoring John or by giving excuses. John then concludes, by argument from silence, that Jack does not in fact know Spanish or does not know it well. In other words, John believes that Jack's ignorance is the most plausible explanation for his silence. Use of argument from silence in this situation is reasonable given that the alternatives, that Jack either doesn't want or is afraid to translate, would be unreasonable without more information.
Here is another example using the same argument but in a different context:
When John repeatedly asked for the password, Jack ignores him completely. Thus, using the argument from silence, John concludes that Jack does not actually know the password. Such an argument from silence, in contrast, may be considered unreasonable, since a password is a security feature not intended to be shared with a stranger simply because they asked. It may be reasonable, by contrast, to assume that Jack does indeed know the password but refuses to say it for legitimate security concerns.
and Bavli mention the other community, most scholars believe these documents were written independently. Louis Jacobs
writes, "If the editors of either had had access to an actual text of the other, it is inconceivable that they would not have mentioned this. Here the argument from silence is very convincing."
In the Nova
/Horizon episode "The Case of the Bermuda Triangle", David Kusche pointed out that the argument from silence has been used to create an improper shifting of the burden of proof
in many Bermuda Triangle
stories and theories:
. Thus, the jury may not infer anything from the accused's failure to testify. This in effect bars the use of argument from silence.
On the other hand, statements volunteered by the accused may normally be considered, and in such cases the argument from silence may apply in a limited form. If the accused chooses to testify, the right to silence is forfeited as regards that proceeding. Witnesses also normally have a right to silence as regards any question that is factually incriminating, but that right only bars the jury from making inferences about the witness's conduct. The range of inferences available about the defendant's conduct will vary.
Some versions of the Hearsay Rule
use a form of argument by silence in that if a party fails to respond to a statement that would normally provoke a denial, this statement is considered as having been adopted by that party and can generally be used against him or her at trial. The reasoning behind this is that if the party had disagreed with the statement, he or she would have objected.
Latin
Latin is an Italic language originally spoken in Latium and Ancient Rome. It, along with most European languages, is a descendant of the ancient Proto-Indo-European language. Although it is considered a dead language, a number of scholars and members of the Christian clergy speak it fluently, and...
) is generally a conclusion based on silence of opponent, failing to give evidence. In the field of classical studies, it often refers to the deduction
Deductive reasoning
Deductive reasoning, also called deductive logic, is reasoning which constructs or evaluates deductive arguments. Deductive arguments are attempts to show that a conclusion necessarily follows from a set of premises or hypothesis...
from the lack of references to a subject in the available writings of an author to the conclusion that he was ignorant of it. When used as a logical proof in pure reasoning, the argument is classed among the fallacies, but an argument from silence can be a convincing form of abductive reasoning
Abductive reasoning
Abduction is a kind of logical inference described by Charles Sanders Peirce as "guessing". The term refers to the process of arriving at an explanatory hypothesis. Peirce said that to abduce a hypothetical explanation a from an observed surprising circumstance b is to surmise that a may be true...
.
Textbook examples
Here is an easily recognizable example:- Bobby: I know where Mary lives.
- Billy: Where?
- Bobby: I'm not telling you!
- Billy: You're just saying that because you don't know!
Billy's conclusion may not be justified: perhaps Bobby doesn't want to tell him. Consider, however, the following type of argument:
- John: Do you know any SpanishSpanish languageSpanish , also known as Castilian , is a Romance language in the Ibero-Romance group that evolved from several languages and dialects in central-northern Iberia around the 9th century and gradually spread with the expansion of the Kingdom of Castile into central and southern Iberia during the...
? - Jack: Of course. I speak it like a native.
- John: That's good, because I need to know the Spanish phrase for "Happy Birthday".
- Jack: Sorry, I don't have time for that right now. Maybe tomorrow. Bye.
Afterwards, Jack continually refuses to give John the Spanish translation, either by ignoring John or by giving excuses. John then concludes, by argument from silence, that Jack does not in fact know Spanish or does not know it well. In other words, John believes that Jack's ignorance is the most plausible explanation for his silence. Use of argument from silence in this situation is reasonable given that the alternatives, that Jack either doesn't want or is afraid to translate, would be unreasonable without more information.
Here is another example using the same argument but in a different context:
- John: Do you know your wife's e-mail password?
- Jack: Yes, I do as a matter of fact.
- John: What is it?
- Jack: Hey, that's none of your business.
When John repeatedly asked for the password, Jack ignores him completely. Thus, using the argument from silence, John concludes that Jack does not actually know the password. Such an argument from silence, in contrast, may be considered unreasonable, since a password is a security feature not intended to be shared with a stranger simply because they asked. It may be reasonable, by contrast, to assume that Jack does indeed know the password but refuses to say it for legitimate security concerns.
Scholarly uses of the argument
The argument from silence is convincing when mentioning a fact can be seen as so natural that its omission is a good reason to assume ignorance. For example, while the editors of YerushalmiJerusalem Talmud
The Jerusalem Talmud, talmud meaning "instruction", "learning", , is a collection of Rabbinic notes on the 2nd-century Mishnah which was compiled in the Land of Israel during the 4th-5th century. The voluminous text is also known as the Palestinian Talmud or Talmud de-Eretz Yisrael...
and Bavli mention the other community, most scholars believe these documents were written independently. Louis Jacobs
Louis Jacobs
Rabbi Dr. Louis Jacobs was a Masorti rabbi, the first leader of Masorti Judaism in the United Kingdom, and a leading writer and thinker on Judaism...
writes, "If the editors of either had had access to an actual text of the other, it is inconceivable that they would not have mentioned this. Here the argument from silence is very convincing."
In the Nova
NOVA (TV series)
Nova is a popular science television series from the U.S. produced by WGBH Boston. It can be seen on the Public Broadcasting Service in the United States, and in more than 100 other countries...
/Horizon episode "The Case of the Bermuda Triangle", David Kusche pointed out that the argument from silence has been used to create an improper shifting of the burden of proof
Philosophic burden of proof
The philosophic burden of proof is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.-Holder of the burden:When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim...
in many Bermuda Triangle
Bermuda Triangle
The Bermuda Triangle, also known as the Devil's Triangle, is a region in the western part of the North Atlantic Ocean where a number of aircraft and surface vessels allegedly disappeared under mysterious circumstances....
stories and theories:
Legal aspects
In some legal systems juries are explicitly instructed not to infer anything because of an accused person's silence; this is known as the right to silenceRight to silence
The right to remain silent is a legal right of any person. This right is recognized, explicitly or by convention, in many of the world's legal systems....
. Thus, the jury may not infer anything from the accused's failure to testify. This in effect bars the use of argument from silence.
On the other hand, statements volunteered by the accused may normally be considered, and in such cases the argument from silence may apply in a limited form. If the accused chooses to testify, the right to silence is forfeited as regards that proceeding. Witnesses also normally have a right to silence as regards any question that is factually incriminating, but that right only bars the jury from making inferences about the witness's conduct. The range of inferences available about the defendant's conduct will vary.
Some versions of the Hearsay Rule
Hearsay
Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. As a legal term, "hearsay" can also have the narrower meaning of...
use a form of argument by silence in that if a party fails to respond to a statement that would normally provoke a denial, this statement is considered as having been adopted by that party and can generally be used against him or her at trial. The reasoning behind this is that if the party had disagreed with the statement, he or she would have objected.
See also
- Argument from ignoranceArgument from ignoranceArgument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" , is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted"...
- Evidence of absenceEvidence of absenceEvidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests the non-existence or non-presence of something. A simple example of evidence of absence: checking one's pocket for spare change and finding nothing but being confident that one would have found it if it were there...
- Negative proof
- Russel's teapot