Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:59, 23 February 2013

An argument from silence (also called argumentum a silentio in Latin) is generally a conclusion drawn based on the absence of statements in historical documents. 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.

Thus in historical analysis with an argument from silence, the absence of a reference to an event or a document is used to cast doubt on the event not mentioned. 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. This approach thus uses what an author "should have said" rather than what is available in the author's extant writings.

Historical analysis

An argument from silence can be 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."

Errietta Bissa, professor of Classics at University of Wales flatly state that arguments from silence are not valid. David Henige states that, although risky, such arguments can at times shed light on historical events. 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 any of the Pure Land documents, a copy of the code in which the author identifies himself exists.

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. 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 monastic code. However a copy of the code in which the author identifies himself exists.

Frances Wood based her controversial book Did Marco Polo go to China? on arguments from silence. Woods argued that Marco Polo never went to China and fabricated his accounts 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.

Legal aspects

Jed Rubenfeld, professor of Law at Yale Law School, has shown an example of the difficulty in applying arguments from silence in constitutional law, stating that although arguments from silence can be used to draw conclusions about the intent of the Framers of the US Constitution, their application can lead to two different conclusions and hence they can not be used to settle the issues.

In the context of Morocco's Truth Commission of 1999 regarding torture and secret detentions, 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 detentions did not involve torture, or that some detentions did not take place.

See also

• Argument from ignorance
• Evidence of absence
• Negative proof
• Russell's teapot

References

1. ^ The origins of Buddhist monastic codes in China by Yifa, Zongze 2002 ISBN 0-8248-2494-6 page 32: "an argumentum ex silencio is hardly conclusive" Cite error: The named reference "Yifa32" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
2. "argumentum e silentio noun phrase" The Oxford Essential Dictionary of Foreign Terms in English. Ed. Jennifer Speake. Berkley Books, 1999.
3. John Lange, The Argument from Silence, History and Theory, Vol. 5, No. 3 (1966), pp. 288-301
4. "silence, the argument from". The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Ed. E. A. Livingstone. Oxford University Press, 2006.
5. ^ Seven Pillories of Wisdom by David R. Hall 1991 ISBN 0-86554-369-0 pages 55-56.
6. ^ Historical evidence and argument by David P. Henige 2005 ISBN 978-0-299-21410-4 page 176.
7. "Talmud". A Concise Companion to the Jewish Religion. Louis Jacobs. Oxford University Press, 1999.
8. Governmental intervention in foreign trade in archaïc and classical Greece by Errietta M. A. Bissa ISBN 90-04-17504-0 page 21: "This is a fundamental methodological issue on the validity of arguments from silence, where I wish to make my position clear: arguments from silence are not valid."
9. Jed Rubenfeld Rights of Passage: Majority Rule in Congress Duke Law Journal, 1996 Section B: Arguments from silence, "From this silence one can draw clear plausible inferences about the Framers' intent. The only difficulty is that one can draw two different inferences.... The truth is that the argument from silence is not dispositive".
10. Human Rights, Suffering, and Aesthetics in Political Prison Literature by Yenna Wu, Simona Livescu 2011 ISBN 0-7391-6741-3 pages 86-90.

• Relevance fallacies
• Silence