It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,
true
false
unknown between true or false
being unknowable (among the first three).[1]
In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
How can you know it doesn't exist if you have no knowledge of it? According to your "logic", half the things we take for granted now shouldn't exist.
It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa)
This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false.
The burden of proof is on you, not me. More logical fallacies from the team who lacks all logic and reason.
Did you really just call a logical fallacy a logical fallacy? Jesus.
It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa)
There is no proof of it. There, it's excluded.
This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false.
There is no proof of it. There, it's excluded.
It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (OR VICE VERSA)
There is no proof of it. There, it's excluded.
We DO have the tools to determine the right path. PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. If you think it was Luke, physical evidence disagrees, you are wrong.