Argument from silence Totally Explained

Everything about The Argument From Silence totally explained

The argument from silence (also called argumentum a silentio in Latin) is generally a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary 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 valid and convincing form of abductive reasoning.

Textbook examples

Here is an easily recognizable example: ť Bobby: I know where Mary lives.

   Billy: Where? ť 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:
ť John: Do you know any Spanish?

   Jack: Of course. I speak it like a native. ť 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 doesn't in fact know Spanish or doesn't 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 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: ť John: Do you know your wife's e-mail password?

   Jack: Yes, I do as a matter of fact. ť 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 doesn't 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 has also famously been used by skeptics against the virgin birth of Christ. According to Daniel Schowalter, such an argument "cannot be determinative, but it's an important consideration for people who see the virgin birth as a feature created within the early traditions about Jesus rather than a historical occurrence." Saint Paul, for example, doesn't explicitly mention the virgin birth, and skeptics therefore argue from his silence that he didn't know of it. If this argument is used as an attempted proof of Paul's ignorance, it's incorrect, because ignorance is only one possible reason for Paul's silence; it's also possible that he didn't think the virgin birth was important or relevant to his reasoning, or that he referred to it in texts that have now been lost or mutilated. However, the argument from silence isn't incorrect if it's used to prove that Paul might have been ignorant. From the fact that Paul refers to the resurrection of Jesus, he demonstrates knowing it. From the fact that Paul doesn't refer to the virgin birth, it's not certain that he knew of it; therefore, he might have been ignorant of it.
The argument from silence is very 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 Yerushalmi 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's inconceivable that they wouldn't have mentioned this. Here the argument from silence is very convincing."

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 silence. 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's 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.

Notes and reference

Further Information

Get more info on 'Argument From Silence'.

External Link Exchanges

Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:

<a href="http://argument_from_silence.totallyexplained.com">Argument from silence Totally Explained</a>

Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned.