The argument from silence (Latin argumentum e(x) silentio) is that the silence of a speaker or writer about X proves or suggests that the speaker or writer is ignorant of X. Here is an example of a legitimate argument from silence:
- John: Do you know any Spanish?
- Jack: Of course. Speak it like a native.
- John: That's good, because I need to know the Spanish for "Happy Birthday".
- Jack: Sorry, not got time for that right now. Maybe tomorrow. 'Bye.
- John: Do you know your wife's email password?
- Jack: Yes, I do as a matter of fact.
- John: What is it?
- Jack: Hey, that's none of your business.
Whether reasonable or not, it would be a logical fallacy to say that you have proven the premise to be false solely on the basis of argument from silence.
The argument from silence has also famously been used by skeptics against the virgin birth of Christ. St Paul, for example, does not mention the virgin birth, and skeptics therefore argue from his silence that he did not know of it. If this argument is used as an attempted proof of Paul's ignorance, it is a logical fallacy, because ignorance is only one possible reason for Paul's silence: it's also possible that he did not think the virgin birth was important or relevant to his reasoning, or that he referred to it in texts that have now been lost or mutilated. However, the argument from silence is not fallacious if it is used to prove that Paul may have been ignorant. From the fact that Paul refers to the resurrection, it is certain that he knew of it; from the fact that Paul does not refer to the virgin birth, it is not certain that he knew of it, therefore he may have been ignorant of it.Scholarly Uses of the Argument