When can we tell that an argument is an appeal to ignorance? An appeal to ignorance is a type of informal fallacy that arises when an argument is taken as real because it has not been proven to be false or argument is false because it has not been proven to be true.
Put otherwise in an appeal to ignorance fallacy, the debater states that statement P is correct because someone didn’t confirm that P is false. Or statement P is incorrect because nobody proved that it’s real. Hence in every case, the absence of proof or evidence that P is false or true is used as a reason behind concluding that P is false or true.
The form of an appeal to ignorance fallacy looks like this. We didn’t know that P is false; therefore, P must be accurate, or we did not know that P is true; therefore, P must be false. Let me clearly illustrate this point with the help of an example.
Somebody could state, “I have examined all of the reasons for the presence of God, and I’ve observed that none of them demonstrates that God is real. That’s a good enough reason for me, there’s no God. Therefore, in this particular situation, the arguer concludes that there’s zero God since you will find no sufficient proof of God’s presence. However, the lack of sufficient evidence of God’s presence doesn’t rationalize the realization that there’s no God. What the debater justified in this particular instance is we can’t see God.
Here are two other examples to further illustrate the fallacy of appeal to ignorance. The existence of heaven must be real because nobody has ever successfully defended that it is just a product of one’s imagination.
Why appeal to ignorance Fallacy is an Asset for Entrepreneurs and a Problem to Philosophers?
It is found within an entrepreneurial mind. And maybe that is an excellent example of when fallacies are not problematic. however, in reasoning, it is a problem. But in reality, this fallacy has caused a lot of progressions.
As a foundation in logical reasoning, it is a problem, the fallacy of appeal to ignorance is problematic because it is using an empty claim as a fundament that, due to its emptiness, cannot support any other claim or conclusion. This is and should be a problem for philosophers. In reality, though, as said, it is different. what can we make of that combination? How can we understand it?
What to make of that Difference?
The rules for optimal functioning differ from an entrepreneurial mind to a philosophical one. Both follow different values and, therefore, different norms. The truth is more important in philosophical practice. That is why logical flaws matter more there than to an entrepreneurial mind. For the entrepreneur, the fact that something has not been proven non-existent or impossible is a challenge to make it possible. As Nelson Mandela once said,
“It always seems impossible until it is done.”
Thought Leaders are often entrepreneurs or at least innovative thinkers and professionals with a certain level of autonomy and independence. And that is when the different norms become exciting. What norms to follow when you are a thought leader and aim to develop a sense of wisdom and work based upon a well thought out vision ? should you care about fallacies? Please continue reading to understand the power of the fallacies of wise leaders.
The power of the fallacies of wise leaders like Mandela
The power of the fallacies of wise leaders, like the appeal of ignorance, is what makes them leaders indeed! The fact that in their vision, they are meticulous in thinking it out, yet in aiming to realize the vision, they are not. They base their lives on faith, trusting to find a way to make it work. And that is an enormous benefit!
The dynamics of social reality simply differs from the system of ideas. Wise leaders need to be able to find their way in both worlds, but most of all need to know when to accept certain norms like leading. And this is what wise leaders and wise thought leaders do so well! They know when to be pragmatic and make things work until they work; and when to deepen their thinking and make sense of their logical criticism to refine their vision.
Once a vision is done, pragmatism should be domineering. This is the case when a practical question is at stake. Then when the vision again is under review, in times of reflection, logic should be followed.
This distinction can be called tautological, indeed, referring to itself and lacking a logical base in itself. That might be true, Yet when being bothered by it, one might be missing the essence of this blog. And that is that there are times to be meticulous in logic, looking for problems, and allowing your thoughts and ideas to develop further in a meaningful direction. Nevertheless, there are also times to not care about it, indeed we ensure to ‘commit the fallacy of appeal to ignorance’ oneself to make something work and create a meaningful impact with one’s idea.
Too little appeal to ignorance has caused the Gap between wisdom and impact
Distinguishing these norms from different people in different spheres for a longer time, a lifetime even has been the cause of the enormous gap between wisdom and impact in our contemporary world. The wiser ideas of philosophy only rarely touch the entrepreneurial reality indeed. Also, the other way around, the entrepreneurial spirit of finding opportunities to create impact lacks wisdom.