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."

Reason: Books I & II

This book is based on the first five years of The Dr. Bo Show, where Bo takes a critical thinking-, reason-, and science-based approach to issues that matter with the goal of educating and entertaining. Every chapter in the book explores a different aspect of reason by using a real-world issue or example.

Part one is about how science works even when the public thinks it doesn't. Part two will certainly ruffle some feathers by offering a reason- and science-based perspective on issues where political correctness has gone awry. Part three provides some data-driven advice for your health and well-being. Part four looks at human behavior and how we can better navigate our social worlds. In part five we put on our skeptical goggles and critically examine a few commonly-held beliefs. In the final section, we look at a few ways how we all can make the world a better place.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

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