“You don’t know that ghosts don’t exist. Therefore they do exist.”

Today I watched the last part in Dr. Sadler’s lecture series on fallacies. In the future, I definitely plan to check out the rest of his lectures, but I want to vary my content consumption, so I will be looking into some other content for the rest of the month.

The two that he talks about in this video are the “Appeal to Ignorance” fallacy and the “Begging the Question” fallacy.

The aforementioned is laid out as such: You haven’t proven X to be the case. Therefore, X is not the case.

It could also be used in the reverse of this: You haven’t proven X not to be the case. Therefore, X is the case.

A real-life example: “You don’t know that I ate the last of the ice cream. Therefore, I didn’t eat the last of the ice cream.

In this kind of an argument, you are, what Dr. Sadler calls, misplacing the burden of proof. What is the proof to disprove your argument? By saying “you don’t know, therefore not,” you are placing that “burden of proof” on the other person.

While it’s nice to think that we are all-knowing and always know all the evidence, that’s simply not the case. Sometimes, we simply don’t know the counter argument. That doesn’t make your conclusion true.

We tend to apply this fallacy even subconsciously. If two people are debating and debater #1 asks something or states something and debater #2 can’t think of or come up with an answer, what do we automatically do? We think, “ah, debater #1 must be right since debater #2 doesn’t have an answer.

Sometimes we just don’t know. Whether debater #1 is right, wrong, or somewhere in between is not proven by your ignorance on a particular subject.

Something else related to this topic is that we should be consistent in our demand for proof in these situations. We tend to demand more proof from the opposing side to our views, but in reality, we should be demanding equal proof from both sides so that we can better substantiate our claims and opinions. If you’re a Republican and Donald Trump says something you like, don’t agree with him for the sake of you liking it. Agree with it because of actual evidence of what he says being correct. Same can be applied to a Democrat with the favorite candidate of their choice.

The second fallacy he talks about is called “Begging the Question.”

While this is a phrase this is often used, it has a much more specific use than simply “asks the question.” It is used in circular arguments. Arguments that the conclusion is snuck into the premise.

The structure of these kinds of arguments looks incredibly simple. It’s laid out:

A because A.

Now, the argument isn’t going to look this straight forward or everyone would know it was a dumb argument. It’s not going to look like: “Microsoft is the best because Microsoft is the best.” No one will look at that and say, “That seems like a solid argument, I totally agree with you.” Everyone will know how dumb it looks. They’ll see it as what it is; an opinion.

Instead, it will say the same thing, but in a different way. For instance:

“Apple was the most popular brand in 2018 because people liked Apple more than any other company last year.”

Now, to an outsider, this almost seems like it could be a good argument, right? But this is doing the exact same thing the Microsoft example is doing, just in different words. A telltale sign that you have a fallacious argument is if you can swap the conclusion and the premise and still have your apparent argument.

In this example that would be: “People liked Apple more than any other company last year because Apple was the most popular brand in 2018.”

Your premise isn’t proving your conclusion any more than your conclusion is supporting your premise. You have a circular argument that has no proof whatsoever.

Once again, an argument like this may attract people who are already in agreement with you. “Yeah, I love Apple. It was super popular. I totally agree.” But to someone who is a skeptic, this argument isn’t going to hold up for 30 seconds.

Questioner: “How do you know people liked Apple more than any other company last year?

You: Well, because Apple was the most popular brand in 2018.”

Questioner: What? You didn’t prove anything. You just said the same thing in different words. Where’s the evidence?

You: (in panic) Yeah, well you don’t know it wasn’t the most popular brand, so it was.

Boom. Double fallacy committed. Recommended sentence: Mandatory 1-month of critical thinking study with early probation if clear understanding is demonstrated after one week.