Argumentum ad Ignorantiam
Argument from Ignorance
Similar to the Argument from the Negative Fallacy, this fallacy occurs when the arguer, because they can't (or won't) produce the necessary evidence to support their claim, attempts to unfairly shift the burden of proof onto the respondent.
Essentially, users are saying: "Well... you can't prove the opposite of my stance; therefore, my stance must be correct."
Example:
Obviously, sasquatch exist because nobody can prove they don't.
Where does the burden of proof lie? Is it up to you go turn over ever inch of earth on the planet to disprove this?
⬆️ Sasquatch! ⬆️
Example:
Mr. Spagnolo: Did you know that there are puppy dogs riding unicorns backward beneath the surface of Pluto?
Student: OMG, no, there are not!
Mr. Spagnolo: Prove it!
Student: I don't have a spaceship.
Mr. Spagnolo: See! I knew it! Dogs. Riding. Unicorns. Backward. Underground. Pluto.
Just because you can't prove this wrong doesn't mean this argument is acceptable as truth.
Example:
Richardo: "Well, nobody has criticized me, so I must be pretty dang good at my job!"
Simply because Richardo has not received criticism doesn't mean that that criticism isn't floating around out there somewhere. Maybe he's so bad at his job that nobody bothers complaining to him because they know he won't understand.
