Do You Know What an “Argument From Ignorance” Is?

There are two words that have become surprisingly difficult to say without somebody thinking they've just been insulted: argument from ignorance.

Nobody necessarily called you ignorant.

Nobody necessarily called you stupid.

It is an old term from logic describing a very specific reasoning error.

That's the mistake.

Here's a damn near perfect example.

Before we get buried in definitions, watch this Neil deGrasse Tyson discussion.

Don't get hung up on whether you believe in UFOs, aliens, government secrets, weather balloons, drones, or little green men.

Pay attention to the reasoning.

Remember what the “U” means.

UFO traditionally means: Unidentified Flying Object.

You see something moving through the sky.

You don't recognize it.

You don't have enough information to identify it.

Fine.

Call it unidentified.

Then comes the interesting part.

Somebody says:

Hold on.

You just traveled from:

“I have no explanation.”

to:

“I have an extremely specific explanation.”

What evidence did we collect during that trip?

None.

That's an argument from ignorance.

The formal idea is simple.

You cannot establish that a proposition is true merely because nobody has proven it false.

And you cannot establish that a proposition is false merely because nobody has proven it true.

It works both directions.

Here's the first version:

Nobody has proven extraterrestrial life does not exist.

Therefore extraterrestrial life definitely exists.

Nope.

Here's the reverse:

Nobody has proven extraterrestrial life exists.

Therefore extraterrestrial life definitely does not exist.

Same mistake.

Different direction.

Humans hate that answer.

We don't like uncertainty.

We want the empty box filled.

Immediately.

So our brains start manufacturing stories.

Maybe.

Any one of those explanations might eventually turn out to be correct.

But:

Eyewitnesses aren't cameras.

Another useful part of Tyson's discussions about UFO evidence is the reminder that human perception isn't perfect.

People misjudge speed.

People misjudge distance.

People remember details incorrectly.

Our brains fill gaps.

Context influences what we think we're seeing.

That's why optical illusions work.

That's important.

Being wrong is not the same thing as lying.

Now forget UFOs.

This is why I like Tyson's example.

The UFO is just the teaching device.

Replace it with a website problem.

Replace it with declining revenue.

Replace it with a security incident.

Replace it with missing inventory.

Replace it with somebody's behavior.

Replace it with a competitor suddenly appearing above you in Google.

The logic remains exactly the same.

That's why investigators ask boring questions.

At Epic App Solutions, those boring questions are often what separates an investigation from somebody telling a story.

That's not as sexy as announcing immediately that you've solved the mystery.

But it has one big advantage.

You're less likely to solve a mystery that never existed.

Try it yourself.

The smartest person doesn't always have the answer.

We've developed this strange cultural idea that intelligent people are supposed to answer immediately.

I disagree.

Intelligent people should know the difference between:

what they know,

what they suspect,

and what they're guessing.

That's not weakness.

That's where investigation begins.

So don't get offended by the word “ignorance.”

If somebody tells you your argument is an argument from ignorance, don't immediately hear:

“You're stupid.”

Ask whether the reasoning fits.

Did somebody move from:

“We cannot explain this…”

straight into:

“…therefore my explanation must be correct”?

If so:

Stop.

Pull the logs.

Check the records.

Run the test.

Measure it.

Ask another question.

Then move the conclusion.

That's still one of the smartest sentences in the English language.

The important word is:

yet.