Logical Fallacies - Argument from Ignorance

The argument from ignorance, sometimes known as an appeal to ignorance, is a fallacious argument that states "if you can't prove it's wrong, then it must be right."  A simple example would be to argue that I was Napoleon Bonaparte in a past life because you can't produce evidence against the claim.



This fallacy is in play when someone argues that homosexuality is a personal choice, because science has not provided proof that homosexuality is not a choice (and it's true that well designed studies haven't produced much in the way of proof).  The problem is that the claim may be false, but also difficult to prove false.

The argument from ignorance is usually considered a special case of the limited choice fallacy.  Basically, it makes the claim that the evidence against my argument would have been produced if my position was false, therefore my position must be true.

I see this one all the time in debates where neither side accepts the evidences that the other side presents, and both sides conclude that "since my opponent can't produce acceptable proof against my argument, my argument must be true."

So remember, "you can't prove me wrong" is not a valid argument in favor of any claim.