| • Science | • People | • Locations | • Timeline |
| Contents | ||
Some uses of the argument by lack of imagination are considered fallacious. Irving Copi writes that:
Argument by lack of imagination is sometimes expressed in the form "Y is absurd (because I can not imagine it), therefore it must be untrue." This is sometimes confused with the logically valid method of argument, reductio ad absurdum. A logical argument using reductio ad absurdum would be framed as "X logically leads to a probably impossible (absurd) conclusion, therefore it must be false." In reductio ad absurdum, it is necessary to show that X implies a contradiction (such as "not X", or "Y and not Y" for some other proposition Y). In an argument from ignorance, X implies something which the speaker considers absurd rather than something which the speaker can prove to be a contradiction.
Examples:
In most modern criminal legal systems, it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that the defendant is guilty. So in cases where the defendant has been acquitted, it is a logical fallacy to conclude that they were innocent - this would be to assume a proposition simply because it has not been proved false. The assumption of innocence is inspired by consideration for human rights, not by logical necessity.
As another example, suppose someone were to argue:
This would be an argument from lack of imagination, and can be shown false. In the absence of intellectual property, an artist or inventor does not usually sell their creation, they sell their service. Since anyone can copy their creation at whim, it is their unique services in creating new works, advertisements, live performances, or new inventions that are still valuable. Gift economies may also arise which support popular creators with the gifts of their admirers.
Unexplained phenomena are often an indication that a particular scientific theory is incomplete, or incorrect. For example, the wave theory of light does not explain the photoelectric effect, though it fits well with the results of the double-slit experiment. However, later theories based around quantum mechanics explain both. It would be a mistake to assert that because a phenomenon is unexplained by current scientific theories, it is unexplainable by science.
Bishop Hugh Montefiore , in his book 'Probability of God', offers the following argument against evolution:The first assertion above turns this into an argument from ignorance. In fact polar bears benefit from the fact that their camouflage conceals them from their prey. Protection from predators is only one benefit of camouflage—the argument above fails to acknowledge that there could be other benefits, and hence is fallacious.