VanishedUserABC (talk | contribs) + examples |
VanishedUserABC (talk | contribs) + Yifa |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Thus in [[historical analysis]] the absence of a reference to an event or a document is used to cast doubt on the event not mentioned.<ref name=RHall55 /> While most historical approaches rely on what an author's works contain, an argument from silence relies on what the book or document does not contain.<ref name=RHall55 /> This approach thus uses what an author "should have said" rather what is available in the author's extant writings.<ref name=Henige >''Historical evidence and argument'' by David P. Henige 2005 ISBN 978-0-299-21410-4 page 176</ref><ref name=RHall55 >''SEVEN PILLORIES OF WISDOM'' by David R. Hall 1991 ISBN 0865543690 pages 55-56</ref> |
Thus in [[historical analysis]] the absence of a reference to an event or a document is used to cast doubt on the event not mentioned.<ref name=RHall55 /> While most historical approaches rely on what an author's works contain, an argument from silence relies on what the book or document does not contain.<ref name=RHall55 /> This approach thus uses what an author "should have said" rather what is available in the author's extant writings.<ref name=Henige >''Historical evidence and argument'' by David P. Henige 2005 ISBN 978-0-299-21410-4 page 176</ref><ref name=RHall55 >''SEVEN PILLORIES OF WISDOM'' by David R. Hall 1991 ISBN 0865543690 pages 55-56</ref> |
||
Some scholars such as Errietta Bissa flatly state that arguments from silence are not valid.<ref>''Governmental intervention in foreign trade in archaïc and classical Greece'' by Errietta M. A. Bissa ISBN 9004175040 page 21</ref> Other scholars such as. David Henige state that although risky such arguments can at times shed light on historical events.<ref name=Henige /> |
Some scholars such as Errietta Bissa flatly state that arguments from silence are not valid.<ref>''Governmental intervention in foreign trade in archaïc and classical Greece'' by Errietta M. A. Bissa ISBN 9004175040 page 21</ref> Other scholars such as. David Henige state that although risky such arguments can at times shed light on historical events.<ref name=Henige /> [[Yifa]] has pointed out the perils of arguments from silence, in that although no references appear to the "Rules of purity" codes of monastic conduct of 1103 in the [[Transmission of the Lamp]], or the [[Pure Land Buddhism|Pure Land]] documents a copy of the code in which the author identifies himself exists.<ref name=Yifa32>''The origins of Buddhist monastic codes in China'' by Yifa, Zongze 2002 ISBN 0824824946 page 32</ref> |
||
==Simple examples== |
==Simple examples== |
Revision as of 14:40, 23 March 2012
An argument from silence (also called argumentum e silentio in Latin) is generally a conclusion drawn based on the absence of evidence, rather than the exitence of evidence.[1] In the field of classical studies, it often refers to the deduction from the lack of references to a subject in the available writings of an author to the conclusion that he was ignorant of it.[2]
Thus in historical analysis the absence of a reference to an event or a document is used to cast doubt on the event not mentioned.[3] While most historical approaches rely on what an author's works contain, an argument from silence relies on what the book or document does not contain.[3] This approach thus uses what an author "should have said" rather what is available in the author's extant writings.[4][3]
Some scholars such as Errietta Bissa flatly state that arguments from silence are not valid.[5] Other scholars such as. David Henige state that although risky such arguments can at times shed light on historical events.[4] Yifa has pointed out the perils of arguments from silence, in that although no references appear to the "Rules of purity" codes of monastic conduct of 1103 in the Transmission of the Lamp, or the Pure Land documents a copy of the code in which the author identifies himself exists.[6]
Simple examples
Here is an easily recognizable example:
- Bobby: I know where Mary lives.
- Billy: Where?
- Bobby: I'm not telling you!
- Billy: You're just saying that because you don't know!
Billy's conclusion may not be justified: perhaps Bobby doesn't want to tell him. Consider, however, the following type of argument:
- John: Do you know any Spanish?
- Jack: Of course. I speak it like a native.
- John: That's good, because I need to know the Spanish phrase for "Happy Birthday".
- Jack: Sorry, I don't have time for that right now. Maybe tomorrow. Bye.
Afterwards, Jack continually refuses to give John the Spanish translation, either by ignoring John or by giving excuses. John then concludes, by argument from silence, that Jack does not in fact know Spanish or does not know it well. In other words, John believes that Jack's ignorance is the most plausible explanation for his silence. Use of argument from silence in this situation is reasonable given that the alternatives, that Jack either doesn't want or is afraid to translate, would be unreasonable without more information.
Here is another example using the same argument but in a different context:
- John: Do you know your wife's e-mail password?
- Jack: Yes, I do as a matter of fact.
- John: What is it?
- Jack: Hey, that's none of your business.
When John repeatedly asked for the password, Jack ignores him completely. Thus, using the argument from silence, John concludes that Jack does not actually know the password. Such an argument from silence, in contrast, may be considered unreasonable, since a password is a security feature not intended to be shared with a stranger simply because they asked. It may be reasonable, by contrast, to assume that Jack does indeed know the password but refuses to say it for legitimate security concerns.
Historical analysis
The argument from silence is convincing when mentioning a fact can be seen as so natural that its omission is a good reason to assume ignorance. For example, while the editors of Yerushalmi and Bavli mention the other community, most scholars believe these documents were written independently. Louis Jacobs writes, "If the editors of either had had access to an actual text of the other, it is inconceivable that they would not have mentioned this. Here the argument from silence is very convincing."[7]
Yifa points out that arguments from silence are often less than conclusive, e.g. the lack of references to a compilation of a set of monastic codes by contemporaries or even by disciples does not mean that it never existed.[6] This is well as illustrated by the case of Changlu Zongze's "Rules of purity" which he wrote for the Chan monastery in 1103. One of his contemporaries wrote a preface to a collection of his writings neglected to mention his code. And none of his biographies nor the documents of the Transmission of the Lamp, nor the Pure Land documents (which exalt him) refer to Zongze's collection of a monasic code.[6] However a copy of the code in which the authior identifies himself exists.[6]
Frances Wood based her controversial book Did Marco Polo go to China? on arguments from silence..[4] Woods argued that Marco Polo never went to China and fabricated his accoounts because he failed to mention elements from the visual landscape such as tea, did not record the Great Wall and neglected to record practices such as foot-binding. She argued that no outsider could spend 15 years in China and not observe and record these elements. Most historians disagree with Wood's reasoning.[4]
Legal aspects
In the context of Morocco's Truth Comission of 1999 regarding torture and secret deentions, Wu and Livescu state that the fact that someone remained silent is no proof of their ignorance about a specific piece of information. They point out that the absence of records about the torture of prisoners under the secret detention program is no proof that such dentions did not involve torture, or that some detentions did not take place.Human Rights, Suffering, and Aesthetics in Political Prison Literature by Yenna Wu, Simona Livescu 2011 ISBN 0739167413 pages 86-90</ref>
In some legal systems juries are explicitly instructed not to infer anything because of an accused person's silence; this is known as the right to silence. Thus, the jury may not infer anything from the accused's failure to testify. This in effect bars the use of argument from silence.[citation needed]
On the other hand, statements volunteered by the accused may normally be considered, and in such cases the argument from silence may apply in a limited form. If the accused chooses to testify, the right to silence is forfeited as regards that proceeding. Witnesses also normally have a right to silence as regards any question that is factually incriminating, but that right only bars the jury from making inferences about the witness's conduct. The range of inferences available about the defendant's conduct will vary.[citation needed]
Some versions of the Hearsay Rule use a form of argument by silence in that if a party fails to respond to a statement that would normally provoke a denial, this statement is considered as having been adopted by that party and can generally be used against him or her at trial. The reasoning behind this is that if the party had disagreed with the statement, he or she would have objected.[citation needed]
See also
Notes and reference
- ^ "argumentum e silentio noun phrase" The Oxford Essential Dictionary of Foreign Terms in English. Ed. Jennifer Speake. Berkley Books, 1999.
- ^ "silence, the argument from". The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Ed. E. A. Livingstone. Oxford University Press, 2006.
- ^ a b c SEVEN PILLORIES OF WISDOM by David R. Hall 1991 ISBN 0865543690 pages 55-56
- ^ a b c d Historical evidence and argument by David P. Henige 2005 ISBN 978-0-299-21410-4 page 176
- ^ Governmental intervention in foreign trade in archaïc and classical Greece by Errietta M. A. Bissa ISBN 9004175040 page 21
- ^ a b c d The origins of Buddhist monastic codes in China by Yifa, Zongze 2002 ISBN 0824824946 page 32
- ^ "Talmud". A Concise Companion to the Jewish Religion. Louis Jacobs. Oxford University Press, 1999.