The appeal to ignorance fallacy says that if you haven't given solid proof that something doesn't exist, it exists, or that if you haven't given proof something exists, it doesn't exist. Is the appeal to ignorance fallacy accurate? No, That's ridiculous. Let's say that you think there is a type of platypus that can ride horses. Nobody's ever given any evidence it doesn't exist, have they? That means it exists!
Right? Uh, no. That's just humanity throwing a preposterous theory at people so they don't feel ridiculous or guilty believing something wrong and not believing the truth. Humanity has a tendency to try and give themselves a mindset that makes them feel secure about their beliefs, even though the know it's wrong. For example, many people say that since there is no evidence that God exists, he does not exist. But there are also people who say that since nobody has given evidence that God does not exist, that means he does. So anybody who uses either of these excuses is defeating their own argument. Either that, or they just end up looking really stupid.
As a conclusion to this essay, the appeal to ignorance fallacy is used by many people, even though it is one of the dumbest arguments out there, only created so that a bunch of ignorant humans could feel more secure about their preposterous ideas and notions. It should be given no credibility, and you should just ignore anybody's idea if it is supported by this.
Comments