Prove A. No, Prove not A.
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Which fallacy is:
There is no evidence the election was fraudulent, ergo the election was fair.
Show the evidence the election was fair.
Thanks.
Comments on Question
As Dr. Bo points out this is clearly a Shifting the Burden of proof fallacy, but I'm also wondering if the argument might be framed better. For instance, isn't it possible that an election could be both fraudulent and fair? It's not either/or.
Let's say a mendacious mountebank lies to the electorate about his wealth, success, bona fides, and qualifications. An overwhelming majority votes for him and the election goes on without incident. So, even though the candidate is a fraud, the actual election process was fair?
I’d say they are either/or since the election process itself was fair but the information about the candidate was fraudulent. The election and its candidates are two different things: the votes can be properly and fairly submitted, properly and fairly tabulated, and properly and fairly certified even if the electorate had been hoodwinked by a candidate.
I was looking for “Shifting The Burden of Proof” fallacy as a moniker for the spurious argument, which is embarrassingly obvious. Thanks again.
Answers
3This is shifting of the burden of proof
It's reasonable to consider that these are just two statements of opinion.
If we look under the surface, the first opinion may include alleged certainty , based on appeal to common belief or the notion that "we've always done it this way"appeal to tradition Given the novelty of unrequested mail-in ballots, we haven't always done it this way.
The second is shifting of the burden of proof , as answered by Dr Bo, though the error implied is only a rhetorical one and is not evidentiary in its own right.
So we face competing fallacies supported by cognitive biases.
I'm not satisfied with the rhetoric of MSM, or Giuliani et al, and will await the full details. I do consider that one of the discussion points of Sidney Powell is a valid complaint of the timing/manpower demands, in which 5 people with 3 weeks to accomplish the investigation that ought to engage the whole DOJ's investigative effort.
In brief, I see two questions here. Dealing with the first, “There is no evidence the election was fraudulent, ergo the election was fair,” we must always check the premises. The statement: “There is no evidence” can be disproved by presenting evidence.
The statement “no evidence” is false because of affidavits already on file with courts and other evidence. One may challenge the evidence, but one cannot say there is no evidence. Apparently, FEC Chairman Trey Trainor was convinced when he said: “There Was in Fact Fraud.”
The conclusion, the second part of the statement, “ergo the election was fair,” is a non sequitur. Besides fraud, other factors may cause an election to be unfair.
The other sentence, “Show the evidence the election was fair,” is nothing more than a demand. It is an improper attempt to shift the burden of proof. The rule is this: he who proposes a proposition bears the burden of proof.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam. As Bo points out, "Burden of Proof" is an argument in itself and it's fallacious to argue that someone else automatically holds the burden of proof. Realize that ad ignorantiam is two sided, the absence of evidence in support of A does not prove B nor does the lack of evidence again A prove ~B.