Argument from silence: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:23, 1 January 2008

The argument from silence (also called argumentum a silentio in Latin) is generally a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence.^[1] 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.^[2] 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.^[3]

Textbook examples

Here is an easily recognizable example:

Bobby: I know where Mary lives.

Billy: Where?

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. Their difficult situation could be resolved using a zero-knowledge proof. Consider, however, the following type of argument:

John: Do you know any Spanish?

Jack: Of course. I speak it like a native.

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 does not in fact know Spanish or does not 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:

John: Do you know your wife's e-mail password?

Jack: Yes, I do as a matter of fact.

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 does not 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 most famous argument from silence often used by skeptics regards Herod the Great's supposed slaughter of the innocents. Since no one other than Matthew records this (not even Luke) many skeptics say this slaughter was made up by Matthew to support a passage Matthew misreads as prophesy.

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 is inconceivable that they would not have mentioned this. Here the argument from silence is very convincing."^[4]

Contrary to the claims of Christan Apologists the skeptics against the virgin birth of Christ do not use an argument from silence but rather use this syllogistic logic:

Major premise: In the first century CE it was widely believed that women were the 'soil' into which a man planted his soil ^[5]

Minor premise: In Roman 1:3 (KVJ) Paul says: "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Seed here comes from the Greek word 'spevrma' from which the modern word 'sperm' comes from) ^[6]

Conclusion: Paul refutes the virgin birth--by his own words.

This syllogistic reasoning can also bee seen at Jesus Police, Telling the Lutheran Story--Do Lutherans believe Jesus was born of a virgin?, The Virgin Birth - Separating Myth from Fact!, and New Testament Contradictions (1995) by Paul Carlson. In fact Paul Carlson expressly states "The apostle Paul says that Jesus "was born of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3). Here the word "seed" is literally in the Greek "sperma." This same Greek word is translated in other verses as "descendant(s)" or "offspring." The point is that the Messiah had to be a physical descendant of King David through the male line."

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 is 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

^ "argumentum e silentio noun phrase" The Oxford Essential Dictionary of Foreign Terms in English. Ed. Jennifer Speake. Berkley Books, 1999.
^ "silence, the argument from". The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Ed. E. A. Livingstone. Oxford University Press, 2006.
^ See the example cited in the article, about which Louis Jacobs says that "the argument from silence is very convincing".
^ "Talmud". A Concise Companion to the Jewish Religion. Louis Jacobs. Oxford University Press, 1999.
^ THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF JESUS Is it a fact or fable? Part 1 http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b0.htm
^ http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4690&version=kjv

[1] "argumentum e silentio noun phrase" The Oxford Essential Dictionary of Foreign Terms in English. Ed. Jennifer Speake. Berkley Books, 1999.

[2] "silence, the argument from". The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Ed. E. A. Livingstone. Oxford University Press, 2006.

[3] See the example cited in the article, about which Louis Jacobs says that "the argument from silence is very convincing".

[4] "Talmud". A Concise Companion to the Jewish Religion. Louis Jacobs. Oxford University Press, 1999.

[5] THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF JESUS Is it a fact or fable? Part 1 http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b0.htm

[6] ttp://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4690&version=kjv

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 ==Scholarly uses of the argument==
+The most famous argument from silence often used by skeptics regards Herod the Great's supposed slaughter of the innocents.  Since no one other than Matthew records this (not even Luke) many skeptics say this slaughter was made up by Matthew to support a passage Matthew misreads as prophesy.
-The argument from silence has also famously been used by skeptics against the [[Virgin Birth (Christian doctrine)|virgin birth]] of Christ. According to Daniel Schowalter, such an argument "cannot be determinative, but it is 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."<ref>Daniel N. Schowalter. "Virgin Birth of Christ". ''The Oxford Companion to the Bible''. Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, eds. Oxford University Press. 1993.</ref> [[Paul of Tarsus|Saint Paul]], for example, does not mention the virgin birth, and skeptics therefore argue from his silence that he did not know of it. If this argument is used as an attempted [[logical argument|proof]] of Paul's ignorance, it is incorrect, because ignorance is only one possible reason for Paul's silence; it's also possible that he did not 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 is not incorrect if it is 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 does not refer to the virgin birth, it is '''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 is inconceivable that they would not have mentioned this. Here the argument from silence is very convincing."<ref>"Talmud". ''A Concise Companion to the Jewish Religion''. Louis Jacobs. Oxford University Press, 1999.</ref>
+Contrary to the claims of Christan Apologists the skeptics against the [[Virgin Birth (Christian doctrine)|virgin birth]] of Christ do '''not''' use an argument from silence but rather use this syllogistic logic:
+:Major premise: In the first century CE it was widely believed that women were the 'soil' into which a man planted his soil <ref>THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF JESUS Is it a fact or fable?  Part 1 http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b0.htm</ref>
+:Minor premise: In Roman 1:3 (KVJ) Paul says: "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Seed here comes from the Greek word 'spevrma' from which the modern word 'sperm' comes from) <ref>http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4690&version=kjv</ref>
+:Conclusion: Paul refutes the virgin birth--by his own words.
+This syllogistic reasoning can also bee seen at [http://www.jesuspolice.com/common_error.php?id=7 Jesus Police],
+[http://www.elca.org/questions/Results.asp?recid=36 Telling the Lutheran Story--Do Lutherans believe Jesus was born of a virgin?],
+[http://arian-catholic.org/arian/virgin_birth.html The Virgin Birth - Separating Myth from Fact!], and
+[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html New Testament Contradictions (1995) by Paul Carlson].  In fact
+Paul Carlson expressly states "The apostle Paul says that Jesus "was born of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3). Here the word "seed" is literally in the Greek "sperma." This same Greek word is translated in other verses as "descendant(s)" or "offspring." The point is that the Messiah had to be a physical descendant of King David through the male line."
 ==Legal aspects==