Question

...
EricE

Argument from Silence with Silence means consent

Here is a modified version of the Example given for the Argument from Silence fallacy.

Jay: Dude, where are my car keys?

Bob: (says nothing)

Jay: Silence means consent

Bob: (says nothing)

Jay: I KNEW you took them!

Is this still a fallacy?

If it is, then the "Argument from Silence" fallacy could also be called the "Silence Means Consent" fallacy.

 

 

asked on Friday, May 22, 2020 06:35:21 AM by EricE

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

...
0
Bryan writes:

Where does consent come into this? The fallacy doesn't say anything about consent, you can't consent to a question (unless it is specifically framed as a request for consent), and consent is not the same thing as confirmation.

posted on Friday, May 22, 2020 09:23:12 AM
...
0
EricE writes:

I will not remain silent!

I want to say "thank you" to everyone for their comments regarding my question.

 

posted on Sunday, May 24, 2020 11:01:40 PM

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

Uncomfortable Ideas: Facts don't care about feelings. Science isn't concerned about sensibilities. And reality couldn't care less about rage.

This is a book about uncomfortable ideas—the reasons we avoid them, the reasons we shouldn’t, and discussion of dozens of examples that might infuriate you, offend you, or at least make you uncomfortable.

Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.

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
2

It is still a problem because we don't know why the person is being silent, we cannot assume the reason is consent. It is like me sending an e-mail to the president of the USA asking if there are aliens that visited the earth, and finishing with "if you don't reply, I will just assume that means you are agreeing that there are aliens visiting the earth." Then after a few weeks concluding that I now have confirmation from the president of the USA that aliens have visited the earth.

answered on Friday, May 22, 2020 06:56:16 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
0
Uber Miguel writes:

As Messiah cultists will opine, "Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence," nor anything but just what it is. I'd argue this is less of a fallacy, and more of an imagined basis for assumption and confirmation bias. Remember that a fallacy implies a failure to assert that your position or argument is sound. Paranoia is the lack of sound judgement.

posted on Saturday, May 23, 2020 10:29:51 PM
...
0
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To Uber Miguel]

Remember that a fallacy implies a failure to assert that your position or argument is sound.

I never heard of that definition (or implication). Since informal arguments or positions cannot be sound, then this implication cannot apply to informal fallacies, including the argument from silence. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you wrote.

[ login to reply ] posted on Sunday, May 24, 2020 10:25:08 AM
...
0
Uber Miguel writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

For the most part when you attempt to make an argument from disconnected lines of evidence then even if you're right for an unrelated reason, what you said does not support your claim and is fallacious. Sure, informally a story might be convincing but if you cannot connect the dots then it's a fallacy even if you're ultimately right about the overall point.

Silence to a question may help suggest guilt but it could also mean a lot of other unrelated things, is all I'm saying.

[ login to reply ] posted on Sunday, Jun 07, 2020 02:11:39 AM
...
0
Bryan writes:
[To Uber Miguel]

If the thing in question would necessarily leave evidence then it's fair to conclude that a lack of evidence confirms the absence of something.

E.g. If I were to claim that mount Vesuvius erupted last night, and there is a complete lack of evidence, we would not be left shrugging our shoulders and saying that we just don't know if it really happened. 

[ login to reply ] posted on Monday, May 25, 2020 03:12:14 PM
...
0
Uber Miguel writes:
[To Bryan]

Sure, as are all similar Bayesian approaches to evidence for claims but most such claims, especially on theological figures and events that have long since passed, aren't as clear cut nor necessary.

Nice straw man example though.. just not at all pertinent to the topic at hand. It'd be more like dismissing the claim that Vesuvius erupted because you'd expect to find lava, not realizing that not all eruptions include obvious lava flows.

[ login to reply ] posted on Sunday, Jun 07, 2020 02:36:09 AM
...
0
Bryan writes:
[To Uber Miguel]

You obviously don't understand what a straw man is. My response wasn't to a specific, it was that "lack of evidence is not evidence of absence" doesn't apply in all cases. It doesn't, I gave an example where it doesn't. 

[ login to reply ] posted on Sunday, Jun 07, 2020 03:47:38 AM
...
0
Bryan writes:
[To Uber Miguel]

Also I don't know what exactly is "more like" dismissing a claim that Vesuvius erupted because of a lack of something specific; I was quite clear in saying a complete lack of evidence. 

[ login to reply ] posted on Sunday, Jun 07, 2020 04:44:20 AM
...
DrBill
1

Argument from Silence is a fallacy because it entails presumption of whatever the proponent is asserting merely because it's not actively countered.

"Silence means consent" was a common law element asserted by Thomas More during reign of Henry VIII, not a construct of logic, and despite its wide acceptance, when it became convenient to do so, Henry disregarded it and pursued charges of treason against More when he would not affirm Henry's positions on divorce.   More thought he and his family were safe by never revealing what he thought.

More might have hoped to survive using “Qui tacet consentiret”, but he was doomed because his active opposition would have resulted in the same outcome.

To the point of the question, Jay never made an assertion of Bob's culpability. Bob's lack of response has no meaning, but if one could be construed it would be that Bob agreed that Jay could not find his keys.

 

answered on Saturday, May 23, 2020 10:03:24 AM by DrBill

DrBill Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
TrappedPrior (RotE)
1

"Silence means consent" is just an unsupported, arbitrary judgement. It doesn't affect the truth value of what is said (or unsaid), so you can't infer anything from this other than "Bob probably doesn't want to talk."

From the looks of this, Jay went into the conversation with a predetermined conclusion, and was simply seeking easy confirmation of this, hence the "silence means consent" point.

answered on Friday, May 22, 2020 07:09:03 AM by TrappedPrior (RotE)

TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories

Comments