Is the argument from ignorance always a fallacy?

[Parsimony]

I know in some forms, it certainly is a fallacy. When stated as "if it hasn't been proven true, then it's false" or "if it hasn't been proven false, then it's true", we can say with confidence that it is a fallacy.

There is another way that it can be stated as well: "we don't know how to explain Phenomenon A with any explanation other than Explanation A. Therefore, Explanation A is true." In this case, "Explanation A" may often be replaced with "supernatural intervention" or the like in order to explain things (i.e. Phenomenon A) such as the origin of the Universe, of life, of conscious awareness, etc.

However, I realized that you can take almost any argument and turn it into an argument from ignorance using the form posted in the second paragraph. Here are a few examples: "we don't know how to explain objects with mass falling to the ground with any explanation other than the theory of gravity. Therefore, the theory of gravity is true", "we don't know how to explain the Sun giving off the amount of light and heat it does except through nuclear fusion. Therefore, the Sun must use nuclear fusion" and "we don't know how to explain birds flying except with aerodynamics. Therefore, birds use aerodynamics to fly."

Does this mean that the argument from ignorance, in itself, is insufficient to prove that an argument is a fallacy? Must some other arguments and evidence therefore be drawn in to demonstrate whether the argument passes or fails?

 

[leibowde84]

I know in some forms, it certainly is a fallacy. When stated as "if it hasn't been proven true, then it's false" or "if it hasn't been proven false, then it's true", we can say with confidence that it is a fallacy.

There is another way that it can be stated as well: "we don't know how to explain Phenomenon A with any explanation other than Explanation A. Therefore, Explanation A is true." In this case, "Explanation A" may often be replaced with "supernatural intervention" or the like in order to explain things (i.e. Phenomenon A) such as the origin of the Universe, of life, of conscious awareness, etc.

However, I realized that you can take almost any argument and turn it into an argument from ignorance using the form posted in the second paragraph. Here are a few examples: "we don't know how to explain objects with mass falling to the ground with any explanation other than the theory of gravity. Therefore, the theory of gravity is true", "we don't know how to explain the Sun giving off the amount of light and heat it does except through nuclear fusion. Therefore, the Sun must use nuclear fusion" and "we don't know how to explain birds flying except with aerodynamics. Therefore, birds use aerodynamics to fly."

Does this mean that the argument from ignorance, in itself, is insufficient to prove that an argument is a fallacy? Must some other arguments and evidence therefore be drawn in to demonstrate whether the argument passes or fails?

Your example of gravity is based on objective evidence. I think that the fallacy lies when one uses another's lack of a better explanation to prove their own, without having to provide sufficient objective evidence.

 

[Skwim]

I know in some forms, it certainly is a fallacy. When stated as "if it hasn't been proven true, then it's false" or "if it hasn't been proven false, then it's true", we can say with confidence that it is a fallacy.

There is another way that it can be stated as well: "we don't know how to explain Phenomenon A with any explanation other than Explanation A. Therefore, Explanation A is true." In this case, "Explanation A" may often be replaced with "supernatural intervention" or the like in order to explain things (i.e. Phenomenon A) such as the origin of the Universe, of life, of conscious awareness, etc.

However, I realized that you can take almost any argument and turn it into an argument from ignorance using the form posted in the second paragraph. Here are a few examples: "we don't know how to explain objects with mass falling to the ground with any explanation other than the theory of gravity.

Actually, the term "gravity" doesn't imply any theory at all, but merely denotes the attraction of masses. As for any real theory of gravity, the only one I'm aware of is a distortion of space that accompanies a mass. However, this doesn't amount to conclusive knowing (knowledge), and still falls a little short of certainty. So any argument about gravity would involve its operation, not its reality.

"we don't know how to explain the Sun giving off the amount of light and heat it does except through nuclear fusion. Therefore, the Sun must use nuclear fusion" and "we don't know how to explain birds flying except with aerodynamics. Therefore, birds use aerodynamics to fly."

Does this mean that the argument from ignorance, in itself, is insufficient to prove that an argument is a fallacy? Must some other arguments and evidence therefore be drawn in to demonstrate whether the argument passes or fails?

But it isn't ignorance. They're conclusions regarded as fact. Just keep in mind what a scientific fact is. As Stephen J. Gould has said

A scientific fact is not "absolute certainty", but simply "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."​

 

[DawudTalut]

............. Must some other arguments and evidence therefore be drawn in to demonstrate whether the argument passes or fails?

Peace be on you.
Yes.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Your example of gravity is based on objective evidence. I think that the fallacy lies when one uses another's lack of a better explanation to prove their own, without having to provide sufficient objective evidence.

This.

Also, I think there are two possible mistakes that someone could make.

One could say the evidence gained through empirical methods is incomplete, and present
a supernatural explanation with no evidence whatsoever.

Or one could co-opt evidence gained through empirical methods and use it to claim evidence of a supernatural truth.

 

[Unification]

I know in some forms, it certainly is a fallacy. When stated as "if it hasn't been proven true, then it's false" or "if it hasn't been proven false, then it's true", we can say with confidence that it is a fallacy.

There is another way that it can be stated as well: "we don't know how to explain Phenomenon A with any explanation other than Explanation A. Therefore, Explanation A is true." In this case, "Explanation A" may often be replaced with "supernatural intervention" or the like in order to explain things (i.e. Phenomenon A) such as the origin of the Universe, of life, of conscious awareness, etc.

However, I realized that you can take almost any argument and turn it into an argument from ignorance using the form posted in the second paragraph. Here are a few examples: "we don't know how to explain objects with mass falling to the ground with any explanation other than the theory of gravity. Therefore, the theory of gravity is true", "we don't know how to explain the Sun giving off the amount of light and heat it does except through nuclear fusion. Therefore, the Sun must use nuclear fusion" and "we don't know how to explain birds flying except with aerodynamics. Therefore, birds use aerodynamics to fly."

Does this mean that the argument from ignorance, in itself, is insufficient to prove that an argument is a fallacy? Must some other arguments and evidence therefore be drawn in to demonstrate whether the argument passes or fails?

Arguing is ignorance in itself.

 

[Spockrates]

I learn best from example. So here is an example you might run into at this forum during a debate between a Catholic and Other Christian:

26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
(Matthew 26:26)
​

Catholic: "Jesus didn't say the bread is like his body, so he must mean the bread is his body!"

Other Christian: "You're wrong! Jesus didn't say the bread was literally his body, so it must be only a symbol of his body!"

Both are making an argument from ignorance, and so they are not providing any proof for their claims. Instead of taking about what Jesus didn't say, they should instead talk about what he did say.

Undecided: "Jesus says the bread is his body, but this statement is too ambiguous for me to figure out what he really meant. So I can't say which of you speaks the truth."

In this case, the undecided is the only one proving his claim: Far from being obvious, Jesus' words are ambiguous in this instance. The undecided doesn't know what Jesus meant, but he does know what he meant is unknown! And I suppose there must be similar or even better examples of making arguments of ignorance about other religions as well.