3 ms·

P1: "Korean has an independent origin from Chinese." P2: "I don't believe this is true" (because my background assumption is that things originate from China)

P1: "Korean has an independent origin from Chinese." P2: "I don't believe this is true" (because my background assumption is that things originate from China) P1: "What evidence do you have that Korean isn't independent of Chinese" P2: "None, we have no evidence from this time period." P1: "Therefore, Korean has an independent origin from Chinese." P2: "That is argument from ignorance." P1: "Here are differences between Korean and Chinese." P2: "I don't believe this is sufficient evidence to enough to revise my doubt about your hypothesis." (because of the strength of my belief in my background assumptions) What I'm pointing out is that P2's background assumptions and strength of belief in such is inherent to his culture and life experience. This could have easily gone P1: "Korean has an independent origin from Chinese." P2: "Okay" (because my background assumption is that things have independent origins.) Or in an alternate universe P1: "Korean originates from Chinese." P2: "Okay" (because my background assumption is that things originate from China)

solidsnack9000 6y ago
Up to where P1 says, "Therefore, Korean has an independent origin from Chinese.", that is indeed argument from ignorance. Where P1 offers some discussion of differences between Korean and Chinese, that's where we start to get into a discussion based on evidence that can be evaluated. If P2 doesn't find it convincing, then we can ask why; this allows P2 to muster evidence which can be evaluated. That's a fine and constructive direction. A finite conversation like that doesn't necessarily end with a solid conclusion and everyone being convinced of the same thing. What you're pointing out with regards to the perceived strength or weakness of certain assumptions is not what we're talking about with argument from ignorance: argument from ignorance is about the form, not the semantics.

solidsnack9000 6y ago

Up to where P1 says, "Therefore, Korean has an independent origin from Chinese.", that is indeed argument from ignorance. Where P1 offers some discussion of differences between Korean and Chinese, that's where we start to get into a discussion based on evidence that can be evaluated. If P2 doesn't find it convincing, then we can ask why; this allows P2 to muster evidence which can be evaluated. That's a fine and constructive direction. A finite conversation like that doesn't necessarily end with a solid conclusion and everyone being convinced of the same thing. What you're pointing out with regards to the perceived strength or weakness of certain assumptions is not what we're talking about with argument from ignorance: argument from ignorance is about the form, not the semantics.