Beware the Trickery: Understanding and Defending Against Ad Ignorantiam Attacks in Politics
How to Recognize and Counter One of the Most Misleading Rhetorical Strategies
As we get involved, either voluntarily or involuntarily, in the election, we need to take care of those who would use trickery to try to catch us out. We hear them say things, and in the hustle and bustle of life, we don't always stop and think about what they are saying. Worse, we can repeat what we have heard without really checking to see if we believe what we have heard.
We talked about one of the tricks people use, Ad Hominem Attacks, before, but this time, I want to focus on a different trick: Ad Ignorantiam.
What is an Ad Ignorantiam Attack?
An Ad Ignorantiam attack is a rhetorical strategy where someone uses the Ad Ignorantiam fallacy to undermine an opponent's position or character. This involves asserting that a claim must be true (or false) because there is no evidence to disprove (or prove) it. Here's a clear example to illustrate:
Example of an Ad Ignorantiam Attack: There is no evidence that my opponent, Politician B, has never engaged in illegal activities. Therefore, we should be concerned about their potential criminal behavior.
In this example, Politician A uses the lack of evidence to prove Politician B's innocence to suggest that Politician B might be guilty of illegal activities. This is an Ad Ignorantiam attack because it leverages the absence of disproof as supposed evidence for the claim.
Why is This a Problem?
Shifts the Burden of Proof: It unfairly shifts the burden of proof to the opponent, forcing them to prove a negative, which is often practically impossible. This unfair tactic can leave the opponent feeling unjustly treated.
Creates Unwarranted Suspicion:** It can create suspicion or doubt about the opponent without any substantive evidence, thereby damaging their reputation unjustly.
Distracts from the Real Issues:** Such attacks can distract from substantive debate on policy and factual issues, focusing instead on unfounded accusations.
How Do You Defend Against Ad Ignorantiam Attacks?
Highlight the Fallacy: Point out that the claim relies on the Ad Ignorantiam fallacy and lacks substantive evidence.
Shift the Burden of Proof Back: Remind the audience that the person making the claim bears the burden of proof and should provide evidence to support their assertion.
Focus on Evidence: Emphasize the importance of basing claims and accusations on solid evidence rather than the absence of disproof. Understanding and identifying Ad Ignorantiam attacks can help maintain fair and logical discourse, especially in contentious areas like politics. This understanding empowers you to make informed decisions and hold others accountable for their claims.
Difference Between the Ad Ignorantiam Fallacy and 'Not Being Able to Prove a Negative'
The Ad Ignorantiam fallacy and the concept of 'not being able to prove a negative' are related but distinct concepts. Here's the difference between them:
Ad Ignorantiam Fallacy
The Ad Ignorantiam fallacy (argument from ignorance) occurs when someone asserts that a proposition is true simply because it has not been proven false, or vice versa. This fallacy relies on the absence of evidence as proof of a claim.
- "No one has proven that ghosts do not exist. Therefore, ghosts must exist."
- "No evidence shows that the new policy will fail, so it must be successful."
In these cases, the absence of disproof is incorrectly used as evidence for the truth of the claim.
Proving a Negative
"Not being able to prove a negative" refers to the logical and practical difficulties in demonstrating that something does not exist or has never happened. This concept highlights the challenge of providing evidence for the non-existence of something.
- "You cannot prove that there are no unicorns anywhere in the universe."
- "It's impossible to prove that no one in the entire world is a spy."
These statements point to the inherent difficulty of proving a universal negative because it would require exhaustive and comprehensive evidence covering all possible scenarios. Understanding these differences helps recognize flawed arguments and the challenges in proving certain types of claims.
Beware
Both Ad Hominem and Ad Ignorantiam attacks work because we use our System 1 brains, not our System 2 brains, to consume what we hear. People who use these attacks may or may not have better arguments, but they are using them with you because they think you need to listen more and process what you hear. None of us are immune to these influencing techniques, and if you believe you are, then that is probably just a story you are telling yourself.