Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Humanpublic (talk | contribs) at 15:57, 17 February 2013 (this is a translation of a Monastic text from the year 1103. please quit adding this junk.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Some scholars such as David Henige state that, although risky, such arguments can at times shed light on historical events.

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."

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

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. Cite error: The named reference Yifa32 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. http://www.umass.edu/wsp/history/outline/silence.html
3. "silence, the argument from". The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Ed. E. A. Livingstone. Oxford University Press, 2006.
4. ^ Seven Pillories of Wisdom by David R. Hall 1991 ISBN 0-86554-369-0 pages 55-56.
5. ^ Historical evidence and argument by David P. Henige 2005 ISBN 978-0-299-21410-4 page 176.
6. "Talmud". A Concise Companion to the Jewish Religion. Louis Jacobs. Oxford University Press, 1999.
7. 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