Talk:Argument from silence/Archive 1

Archive 1

Examples in fiction

I was wondering if situation of the dog in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Silver Blaze would be a good example of argument from silence in fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.234.222.130 (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Virgin Birth misrepresentation

I notice that the old claim that the Virgin Birth being an argument from silence was put in back. Sigh, people it is not an argument from silence but rather a syllogistic logic:

Major premise: In the first century CE it was widely believed that women were the 'soil' into which a man planted his soil (THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF JESUS Is it a fact or fable? Part 1)

Minor premise: In Roman 1:3 ([KVJ http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4690&version=kjv) Paul says: "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Seed here is translated from the Greek word 'sperma' from which the modern word 'sperm' comes from)

Conclusion: Paul refutes the virgin birth--by his own words.

This logical conclusion (as well as a at least one challenges to the logical steps) can be found at Jesus Police, Telling the Lutheran Story--Do Lutherans believe Jesus was born of a virgin?, The Virgin Birth - Separating Myth from Fact!, The Mystery of Paul's Ignorance by Louis W. Cable, and New Testament Contradictions (1995) by Paul Carlson to name a few locations. In fact, Paul Carlson expressly states "The apostle Paul says that Jesus "was born of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3). Here the word "seed" is literally in the Greek "sperma." This same Greek word is translated in other verses as "descendant(s)" or "offspring." The point is that the Messiah had to be a physical descendant of King David through the male line." This is not novel research, people so stop claiming it is and stop claiming something that can be demonstrated as to be untrue. Herod's slaughter of the Innocents is a far better example of an argument from silence.--216.31.15.35 (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Side note it is not disruptive to post referenced facts. It IS disruptive to post things have have been show through references and quotes to be false. This is NOT the place for agendas. Unless people can shows that current skeptics actually use the argument from silence for the virgin it has no place in this article (claims by apologetics is NOT proof).--216.234.222.130 (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You were restoring a version that was argumentative, instead of presentative, and used primarily biased and unreliable sources. Sources should be professional for an article of this nature - some college kid's rambling on a website is not an acceptable source, whether you believe him or not.

On a side note - "God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,". This indicates a virgin birth, from what I've read - see here. It is an apologetics site, but at least explains kind of what I'm trying to explain. There is another article on what exactly was meant by "virgin" here.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, KrytenKoro, but if you had bothered to read the references provided you would have seen that "God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law" was used to 'dismiss the virgin birth at the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church site:

"Paul, who wrote between 49-64 A.D., had no interest in Jesus’ origins. His only references to Jesus’ family came when he said that Jesus was "born of a woman, born under the law." He asserted that "according to the flesh," Jesus was descended from the House of David (Romans 1:3). Paul also made reference to Jesus’ brother, a man named James. No divine origin here, no miraculous birth, no virgin mother." ("The Virgin Birth - Separating Myth from Fact!", Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church)

"Paul, describing Jesus’ birth, says that "God sent his Son, born of a woman" (Galatians 4:4), using the word gune (woman) rather than parthenos (virgin). In Romans, Paul specifically states that Jesus came "from the seed of David, according to the flesh." (1:3) Surely Paul, the Christian master of marketing, writing before even Mark, would have promoted Jesus’ virgin birth if it had been the case. [...] A final problem with the idea of the virgin birth/conception is that following the birth, as described in Luke (2:22), Mary undergoes the ritual purification ceremony. Had Jesus’ birth been virginal, there would be no need for Mary to be purified. Indeed, as the virgin bride of God, the thought of purification would be anathema." ("Mary Was a Virgin", Jesus Police)

There you have it; both a Christian church and a pro historical Jesus site stating that the "God sent his Son, born of a woman" passage does NOT refer to a virgin birth. Worse yet the Pro historical Jesus site found another passage in Luke that further refutes the idea of a virgin birth as being an "argument from silence".--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't care whether it's relevant, for or against any virgin birth anywhere or when; someone needs to tidy this section to make it comprehensible. Remove some of the theological jargon, where possible. I can't make heads or tails of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.139.149 (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried to get rid of it entirely because it is not a real Argument from Silence for the reason outlined above but it was promptly put back in. Herod's Slaughter of the Innocents is a far better example of how Argument from Silence than convoluted claims about the Virgin Birth. Especially as there were 2nd century Christians who didn't believe in it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that somebody has added four reference refusing the virgin birth is exclusively an argumetn form silence I think it is safe to say that dog is dead and gone.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Has anybody brought up Luke 1:34? That's an affirmation of the Virgin Birth from Luke. I certainly could argue against all the anti-Virgin Birth points, but it seems as if everybody agrees that the Bible has a lot to say about the virginity of Mary, so no argument from silence. I too will remove the reference, in agreement with BruceGrubb.Glorthac (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Fallacy?

If the a.f.s. is used as a proof of certain ignorance, it's fallacious. If it's used a proof of possible ignorance, it isn't. You can't dismiss it out of hand as fallacious, as I've tried to explain in the article. Jacquerie27 22:04 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

It's an interesting article, Jacquerie27, although it might be tedious to make it complete. It would serve no purpose to use these encyclopedia articles as a place for debating what after all constitutes "silence" - that argument would never end. Nevertheless, the article asserts as a fact that St Paul is silent concerning who the father of Jesus is - or rather, concerning the event of the virginal conception. I'm sure that you recognize that this only seems reasonable if an alternative explanation is adopted for St Paul's consistent reference to Jesus as the Son of God. There are alternatives, of course: gnosticism, docetism, etc. But with "orthodox" assumptions, the virgin birth appears to be explicitly mentioned every time this title is used of Jesus. Although this does show a glaring committment to skepticism underlying the article, I don't think that the article would be improved by adding arguments from the other side. What would you recommend, instead? Mkmcconn 20:27 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

I agree that the article flirts with tedium,

He quite didn't say that, and I'm still interested to know what objective test you're applying to decide whether an article is interesting or not. If you've got one, what score does an article have to reach on the index of interest to meet your approval? I'll fall short of it, I know, but I'd like to know whether I'm improving. Jacquerie27 14:00 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

especially when it makes the sophistic point that the argument from silence "proves" that Paul "may not have known" about the Virgin Birth. Geez -- to prove that something may have been the case doesn't sound like much of a proof!

The whole point of the a.f.s. is that it establishes possibility, not certainty. If you've got a way of proving for certain that he knew or did not know about it, lots of scholars, famous and otherwise, would be very interested to see it. Jacquerie27 14:00 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

I do however take strong issue with the claim that the argument has "famously" been used against Paul. The use of the passive voice and the word "famously" sound like the kind of rhetorical dodges that people use to excuse ignorance. Tell us which famous scholars have famously used this argument! If you do not, I will interpret your silence to mean you do not klnow, and I will delete the paragraph! Slrubenstein

You must be a Saki fan. Jacquerie27 14:00 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

By the way, Mkmcconn, I would not at all take Paul's use of "son og God" to refer to the Virgin Birth. In the Hebrew Bible, "son of God" is used to refer to Kings of Israel (who most definitely had biological genitors), see Psalm 2:7 and 89: 26-27. The Apocryphal book Ecclesiasticus uses the phrase to refer to "just" or "righteous" men, which echoes Psalm 17. I grant that the phrase has other meanings (e.g. angelic beings); other sources use the phrase as synonymous with "Children of Israel," so it had an ethnic connotation as well as a moral connotation. My point is that it is an idiomatic phrase that was not used in a way consistent with its literal sense, and that it is pretty likely that Paul and other early Christians "may have" used it just like other people at the time. Slrubenstein

I think that it would be safe to anticipate that as a very early Christian he might have been using the phrase as non-Christians at the time used it. However, it's hard to maintain when one considers the actual, distinctive way that Paul uses the phrase, and the peculiar significance this title has in Paul's explanation of salvation, by which we are "sons of God". But the issue would be hard to conclude, divorced from belief one way or another - that's what I mean by my warning that this article could invite an endless argument over whether Paul is in fact "silent" about who Jesus father is. Mkmcconn 22:19 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

quicky web-refs supporting the "famous use" of this argument:

1. http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b1.htm
2. http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/virgin.html
3. http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/finland/618/virgin.htm
4. http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/The.Holy.Bible/Reasons7.Virg.Birth.Christ.html

All of these pages assert that the argument is in some sense "famous", or the standard fare of critics of the Virgin Birth. Mkmcconn

Thanks, Mkmcconn. It is famous, at least among skeptics. Jacquerie27 14:00 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Actually the http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b1.htm linkc states "The phrase "of the seed of David" strongly indicates that Paul believed Jesus to be the son of Joseph, because Matthew traces Jesus' genealogy from David to Joseph. The phrase "according to the flesh" seems to imply a natural, normal conception and birth." which is clearly NOT an argument from silence. Furthermore the http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/The.Holy.Bible/Reasons7.Virg.Birth.Christ.html expressly states "The reference here (Genesis 3:15) is to the woman's seed, not to the seed of the man. This is unique because the common reference is always to the seed of the man-- "the seed of Abraham" (Isaiah 41:8), not the seed of Sarah, "the seed of David" (Romans 1:3), not the seed of Bathsheba, and so on." Note even Dr. Ian Richard Kyle Paisley admits that seed in Romans 1:3 refers to a non-virgin conseption even when he later tries to tap dance around it later by saying that "according to the flesh" reinforces the virgin birth. The logic simply doesn't hold because even Dr. Paisley uses the "the seed of David" (Romans 1:3) as one of the examples of how "the common reference is always to the seed of the man"; come on, doctor either seed in Romans 1:3 is an example of "the common reference is always to the seed of the man" or it isn't--make up your mind.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Mkmcconn -- although I do appreciate the effort, the above links do not cut it. Let me lay my cards on the table: I do not believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, and I do not believe he was the messiah. My people have been rejecting these claims for 2,000 years, so you will understand why we are a little non-plussed when "skeptics" get passionate about disproving something we never believed. Slrubenstein

If skeptics were arguing to convince you of something you already accept, I could understand why you're non-plussed. They're not. There's also a lot of passion here from a member of your people:

http://www.messiahtruth.com/is714a.html

Your points in the VB article were also good and I've learnt from them. Jacquerie27 17:42 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I want to be crystal clear: my point has nothing to do with skeptics versus Christians, or with the question of whether or not Jesus was "really" born of a virgin. My only concern is what makes for a good encyclopedia article -- obviously the main pont of an encyclopedia is to be informative, and I think that all of us here pay at least lip-service to NPOV and accuracy as crucial to this objective. In this article, I have problems with the vague claim about "the famous" use of the argument of silence concerning the Virgin Birth. I am not questioning whether it is a good argument or a bad argument. I am questioning who has made this argument and how famous it is. Slrubenstein

In the context of the a.f.s, it's famous. It's discussed in the entry for "VB" in the Oxford Companion to the Bible. Jacquerie27 17:42 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

In general, I am dubious about relying on other websites to answer such questions -- that seems to me to be a rather weak form of research that undermines the credibility of our project. After all, we are a web-based encyclopedia. If we rely on other web-based encyclopedias or other web-based material for information, what real value are we adding to the web? How do we evaluate the information on other websites? I checked out the four websites, and did see that a couple of them invoked the argument of silence. But I do not know who made these websites and they do not seem to be original or authoritative; moreover, they did not provide any evidence as to who first employed this argument, or what its status is among Bible critics, theologians, and historians. You see, there really is a real world outside of the web and websites. There really are theologians and Bible critics who teach courses and write books and articles about these issues. Slrubenstein

See above about the Oxford Companion to the Bible. Jacquerie27 17:42 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

I think this article needs to report on what they are doing, and provide an account of debates over the virgin birth (and the argument of silence) in the context of these real debates amoung real people. This would take "real research" -- reading books, searching journals, etc. But the result -- a paragraph that said "The argument from silence was first raised by A in (year). Today scholars are divided into two camps: one (including B, C, and D) accept this argument for the following reasons... The other (including E, F, and G) reject the argument for the following reasons." THIS would make for an informative encyclopedia entry, rather than BS. Slrubenstein

There was no article on the a.f.s before I created one. It's not perfect, but it's a first step. If every article had to be perfectly worded and fully comprehensive from the moment of its creation, you wouldn't have many articles on the Wiki. And I won't ask what objective BS test you're using, or what rating the article gets on the BS scale. Jacquerie27 17:42 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

The problem is the Christan Apologists are misleading people as skeptics against the virgin birth of Christ do not use an argument from silence but rather use syllogistic logic:

Major premise: In the first century CE it was widely believed that women were the 'soil' into which a man planted his seed

Minor premise: In Roman 1:3 (KVJ) Paul says: "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Seed here comes from the Greek word 'spevrma' from which the modern word 'sperm' comes from)

Conclusion: Paul refutes the virgin birth--by his own words (the use of the word 'spevrma'

Note this is all nicely cited so there is no original research. Deal with it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not "nicely cited". You've cited a source for a word, and the interpretation of that word, but then you've presented a novel synthesis from those cited facts. Find a reliable secondary source that says exactly what you're trying to say. Doesn't mean you're wrong, just that you can't source it in that way. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It was cited Guy. Jesus Police, Telling the Lutheran Story--Do Lutherans believe Jesus was born of a virgin?, The Virgin Birth - Separating Myth from Fact!, The Mystery of Paul's Ignorance by Louis W. Cable, and New Testament Contradictions (1995) by Paul Carlson all show this argument in one way or other. So far the only people I have seen claim it are Christian apologetic; show one modern scholar who actually uses the argument from silence regarding the Virgin Birth.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder how many times I'll have to tell you this. You cited sources you believe support your argument, but not one of them uses the phrase argument from silence. You need to find a reliable independent source that says what you want to say. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Guy, with all respect are you being insanely dense? The point of the references is to show that people do NOT use an argument from silence regarding the virgin birth as claimed by the Christan Apologists so of course they are not going use the phase 'argument from silence'. Ray Summers (a Professor and chairman of Baylor University) does use the term 'argument from silence' in refutation of the Herod challenge in his 1998 book Chronos, Kairos, Christos II: Chronological, Nativity, and Religious Studies pg 117. Furthermore the illogic of this position is seen in Farrell Till's Prophecy Fulfillment and Probability where he said ""...the complete lack of reference in contemporary secular histories to Herod's slaughter of the innocents..." Now he doesn't use the exact phrase 'argument from silence' does he BUT he is presenting one. A little logic here would be welcome instead of wile claims that have no references to who supposedly makes the claims being challenged. Without references these are strawmen and not relevant as anybody with a true scholarly mind knows.--216.234.222.130 (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that four book referenced going all the way back 1899 have been produced showing Roman 1:3 is used to challange the virgin birth we can safely say that the claim of the virgin birth is exclusively an argument from silence to be deader than a dodo.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Chris, I don't doubt the truth of your addition of "Legal" issues, but the credibility is lacking without some reference. Can you trace down som examples of which legal systems or legal decisions limit the use of the argument of silence, so that reporting it here doesn't sound so much like hearsay? Mkmcconn 17:35 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

"legitimate"

The article's use of the words "legitimate" and "reasonably" are somewhat POVs. While personally I mildly agree with them, I'll remove these adjectives for now. Shawnc 22:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Well I've retained the words but rewrote the article to be more neutral. Shawnc 22:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

OR

This article is literally comprised ENTIRELY of original research, without which it would just be a dicdef.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 08:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I should perhaps have added a comment here that I removed the tags after having added some sources to the scholarly section and the lead. There is a bit of OR in the text-book examples section, but I see no reason anyone would challenge that material, it's quite trivial. --Merzul 21:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Scholarly uses

As someone who is familiar with the Christian tradition and, to a lesser extent, with the Jewish tradition, I find these examples confusing. I am merely noting that these examples are somewhat esoteric, and if I find the time I will try to find more generally understandable references to add to (not replace) these examples. --Antelan ^talk 00:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

While I don't find them confusing I will argue they are bad examples in so they are at best questionable in their veracity. For example most current skeptics I have read say that by Romans 1:1-3 Paul not only shows he didn't know about the virgin birth but specifically denies it and it is evidently becoming common enough that some Christan groups (like the Lutherans) feel they have to address it. A better and more easily verified example would be Herod's supposed slaughter of the Innocents as only Matthew and no one else mentions it (not even Luke).--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole virgin birth essay in this section should be on a page about virgin birth. It seems irrelevant to have such a lengthy essay on that particular subject in an article that should be just about the logical fallacy. It's a good essay, it just belongs in the page about virgin birth, not here. I won't edit anything, just want to get others opinion on this. 71.29.252.187 (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Latin

My Latin isnt great, but isnt ad-to (i.e. ah hominem) should the fallacy not be argumentum ex silentio.I.e. Deus ex machina.86.156.52.67 (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and it should be argumentum ad silentium because the Latin preposition ad takes the accusative (as in baculum, hominem, ignorantiam), not the ablative like ex (as in baculo, homine, ignorantia). - Diaphanus 156.34.221.32 (talk) 10:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Another scholarly use

It would seem that historians, etymologists, and paleontologists consistently use a form of argument from silence when reasoning about when in the past a particular new development occurred.

For instance, imagine that we are historians in the year 3000 trying to establish the date that Wikipedia was created, given only fragmentary writings of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. If no writings prior to 2001 refer to Wikipedia but many writings after 2001 refer to Wikipedia, the silence of earlier writings taken together with the volume of later ones would tend to indicate that Wikipedia was created around that time.

Use of the fossil record by paleontologists and evolutionary biologists, and of the written record of word usage by etymologists and lexicographers, is similar: when an entity is not attested ("silence") prior to a particular period, but widely attested after that period, we take this as evidence that it developed in that period. --FOo (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC "Argument from silence" within WP:Policy

I have posted an RfC at policy discussion section/query regarding Argumentum ex silentio over on WP:NPOV talk. I am mentioning it here because certain aspects of the argument may interest the editors here (20040302 (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC))

Bavli and Yerushalmi

I find it quite strange for an argument to be made that the authors of the Yerushlami did not know of the Bavli. I find it strange because the former was written before the latter; how could they have a copy of something not written? And as far as the other way in concerend, shouldn't it include a study of whether other writings are mentioned? How often does the Talmud quote other books (as opposed to people) by name, except when discussing their authorship? Not very often, I believe.

Yes, I know that the quote is within the rules. But shouldn't an example make sense?Mzk1 (talk) 11:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Legal aspects

The German Legal System does in fact not make use of juries at all. Judgements, be it in criminal, civil or public cases are reached by judges or the occasional lay magistrates ("Schöffen" would be the German expression). I think the "for example" part in brackets is misleading and should be deleted. Schnief (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

The argument from silence is not an argument based on an absence of evidence. It is based on an absence of commentary--thus, silence. Obviously, it is valid not to believe in unicorns, and the reason is an absence of evidence. That's not an argument from silence.

I added a source from the history dept. at the U. Mass, replacing a dictionary of foreign terms. A university history department is a better source than a dictionary. History2007, who added the dictionary without quoting it, reverted that.

The source Errietta Bissa is a text on trade in ancient Greece. It is not a reliable source for the philosophical validity of a type of argument. I also see no evidence that the source supports the claim. Again, this was added by History2007.

The text from Yifa may be relevant, but it is impossible to say because, again, History2007 refuses to meet the burden of proof of showing that the citation is valid. He has a tendency to cite books he hasn't read. Humanpublic (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Not so actually. I added the quote from Bissa who is a prof of Classics, hence totally WP:RS, and she is expressing a general perspective on args from silence, so it is fine. I also added the direct quote from Yifa now, it is WP:RS. The Oxford Dictionary source was not mine, was there before, and was no reason to remove it. The univ of Mass source you added does not have an author name attached, and may have been some grad student - trust me university websites can get populated as part of a master thesis, etc. The U Mass page has some funny picture of a 12 year old if you look further down in the page - not promising. And you have been told about WP:LINKROT. Read it. History2007 (talk) 06:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The topic is the validity of a type of historical method. You think the history dept. of U. Mass. is unreliable and should be deleted as a source, but a dictionary of foreign terms is "RS". And, you admit you haven't actually read the dictionary of foreign terms, and don't know what it says, but you're going to revert my edit anyway. Is this right? Humanpublic (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You got it: There is no author attached to the U-Mass page, as I said above. Not clear who wrote it (may have been a student), as I said. You need to read WP:RS, as you were told to do before. The natural place for the definition of a term is...? And who produces good dictionaries...? There is no policy that says: delete an RS source if it is not on your shelf. You have been told this more than a few times now, but let me say it again: Don't delete an Oxford Dictionary because it is not on your shelf. That is what you must do. In any case, I added John Lange's article from History and Theory, so the applicable policy overrides it all now. History2007 (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Cherry picking criticisms

Please don't pile on cherry-picked criticisms, to the point of violating undue weight. Thank you. Humanpublic (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The items you removed in this edit were all sourced to WP:RS items by professors in the field. Please provide reasons why they are not WP:RS. Do not remove items per WP:Preserve. Do not start a revert cycle, but discuss why the sources are not WP:RS. History2007 (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say they weren't RS. I said it was undue. Humanpublic (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It will only be undue if there is a long list of other professors who have opposing opinions. So you have admitted that the sources are WP:RS but so far have only provided your "personal opinion" about the statements by these professors. And I saw that you again deleted WP:RS sources. That does not work in Wikipedia. These professors are providing surveys of the field per WP:RS/AC and your personal opinion (summarized in Wikipedia:I just don't like it) cannot over rule them. I will not revert you now not to start a revert cycle, but you must provide "sources" as to why the items that you deleted are not encyclopedic. You have not done that. Should you fail to do that you need to be reverted, else your actions will be WP:disruptive editing of course. History2007 (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I did not provide any personal opinion about the statements of any professors. I gave an editorial opinion about your edit. And, given that you've lready been caught misrepresenting sources, some skepticism about the large wad of additions--all emphasizing a negative view of this topic--seems fair. Please discuss the problem of UNDUE weight frist. Humanpublic (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me? Let me just address your first point only so I will not waste my time with your sourcing claim. Let me just note that your statement that you "did not provide any personal opinion" but "gave an editorial opinion" is contradictory. Your "opinion is your opinion". All the items you attempted to delete are properly sourced and I made sure I added the exact quotes from the sources in the references, so you will not go off on that pointless angle again. The items in the article are used per WP:Scholarship and each addresses a specific issue, e.g. Howell addresses the level of importance to the author (that needs to be mentioned in the article) while Bernecker points out the Pliny issue about Pompeii - a really relevant item given that Pliny's letter is detailed enough to be used by modern scholars to study the volcano, but Pliny never mentions Pompeii's fate. That is in fact an interesting and scholarly item. Your deletion seems to be based on Wikipedia:I just don't like it, not that of the sources. History2007 (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

For the fourth time, my objection is not based on WP:RS. It is based on undue weight. Humanpublic (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You could say that a 4th time or 40th time, but unless you have sources, it remains your "personal opinion". Users can not just go around Wikipedia and delete sourced WP:RS content from publishers such as Cambridge Univ Press, etc. just at will based on Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Just yesterday, you were topic banned for disruptive behavior. I am sorry, I see no signs here that the message sent to you through that ban has been received and understood by you. My suggestion would be for you to read WP:V and WP:RS. Has that been suggested to you before? History2007 (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I will note that I left a message for user:Minorview who also reverted without substantiating his action with sources. Minorview either needs to provide sources, or his edit which removed WP:RS sources will have to be viewed as disruptive, and reverted. History2007 (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Explain why you think the disproportionate weight given to criticism of the method reflects the general expert consensus. YOU are adding material. The burden of proof is on YOU. Minorview (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The burden is on me to show the material is WP:RS. There is no question that the material is WP:RS and that it pertains to the article. The concept "disproportionate" seems to originate in your mind, and the mind of Humanpublic. You have no source that says it is disproportionate. In Wikipedia I do not need permission from you to add WP:RS content that directly pertains to the topic, is properly sourced, and enhances the article, and improves the encyclopedia by explaining different aspects of the issue. If there are substantial other WP:RS sources that invalidate said material, that can be discussed, but so far you have provided nothing to substantiate your statements about disproportionate. Nothing at all, except your own personal opinion. In Wikipedia the personal opinion of a user matters not, and sources rule, per WP:V. May I suggest a reading of WP:V? Read that page, carefully. History2007 (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, in case you may be thinking of WP:Burden in your statement, note that it states:

"Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material."

Note that it talks about reliability of sources in the context of verifiability conditions, and is part of the WP:V page, mentioned above. It states that the burden "is satisfied by providing a reliable source", and sources here are fully acknowledged to be reliable. That was why I told you to read WP:V carefully. This issue is over really. History2007 (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Provide reliable sources stating that there widespread dismissal of the argument of silence. The burden of proof is on you. And check your holier-than-thou attitude. After your additions, the coverage of the subject in this article is not equally balanced between positive and negative, and it is reasonable to demand that you justify that. Minorview (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, you need to read WP:Burden; for it does not work that way. So read WP:V again, and more carefully this time. Now, there are probably a few scattered cases where arguments from silence work - I will look and add a couple in a day or so, but by and large do not hold your breath that all the professors quoted here are suddenly going to do reverse position and love arguments from silence. You just have to accept that your feeling of Wikipedia:I just don't like it will not make these professors reverse position. They will not. Unless, of course, you can convince Marco Polo to mention the Wall of China. How he could have missed that is beyond me... Now just accept that he did not see the Wall... maybe he was reading WP:V too carefully during his 15 years there... History2007 (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, I looked and will add some items for how they can apply and Lange's classic characterization of the 3 requirements for an arg from silence to be applicable, etc. But really the more one looks the more examples show up the other way, e.g. Magna Carta not having been viewed as that important by authors at the time, but gathering much importance later - showing the lower value of contemporary silence, etc. But Magna Carta is a key historical document so it should really be mentioned as well. History2007 (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion of the argument is irrelevant. You're not a source. You add materiual, you need to show that it improves the article. You've stacked the coverage toward criticism, show that such criticism reflects a consensus among experts. Until then, you haven't achieved consensus for your new material. Minorview (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced content

Minorview, did you even read the content you just removed? Did you even notice that the material you just removed included Lange's "3 stage framework for the characterization of arguments from silence" which does not even take sides, but is the classic presentation in the field? Did you notice that I specifically added the item you had asked about, namely that in the few cases of formal analysis these arguments have been considered fallacies? That is the overview of the situation. Do you read before delete? Or do you just hit the revert button by invoking Wikipedia:I just don't like it?

And again, you have zero sources of your own. Zero. You are again long on reverts, short on sources. You have zero sources. Zero. This is WP:Disruptive editing by you.

You have again removed fully sourced WP:RS material that describes the key structure for these arguments. You have removed the key scholarly discussion. What do you want? A medal? History2007 (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

In any case, you have been reverted by another user now. But do not start a revert cycle, and do not just delete at will. History2007 (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with History2007 and have restored the content Minorview removed. The reason giving for removal was WP:NPOV and that argument doesn't seem to hold as the content was very well sourced. Could I remind Minorview that we concern ourselves with what WP:RS say, not with the WP:TRUTH. If Minorview feels that the content favors one particular view and wants a more balanced article, then that's a fully valid argument. In that case, the way forward is for Minorview to find equally good sources for that view and to include them, not to removed content that clearly fulfills WP:RS.Jeppiz (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly enough he deleted the sentence: "Another example of a convincing application is the silence of Cicero on works of oratory by Cato; the argument gaining its strength from the fact that Cato was such an important figure in Cicero's Brutus and he would have likely been cited if possible." That was one of the items he deleted! And that nicely builds on the 3rd stage in Lange's characterization, namely that "Event E is assumed to be a type of event which the author of D would not have overlooked". In this case, given that Cicero was reliant on Cato elsewhere the argument from silence works. That was why I wondered if he had even read what he deleted... History2007 (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC

Nice job of edit-warring, as you complain about edit-warring. The objection is not based on sourcing. It is based on NPOV. Between Humanpublic and myself, this has been pointed out to you 6 times. You are stacking the article with criticism of the concept. You are changing the conensus version. It is your job to show that your edits improve the article. Show why stacking the article doesn't violate NPOV. Minorview (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Minorview, are you aware of what a "consensus version" is? I feel the question is relevant, as you claim History2007 is changing the consensus. Would you kindly point out what the consensus version is and what users have endorsed it. Nobody but you and HP have endorsed the deletions you want to make, while History2007, Smeat75, Seb and Marauder40 have opposed it. It is beyond me how you decide that your version (two users in favor) is a consensus if four users are opposed.Jeppiz (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The consensus version is the most stable one, which is not the one you just reverted to. I'm sorry, nobody can be considered part of any consensus without contributing a single sentence to the discussion: Smeat75, Seb, and Marauder showed up to revert and leave. That is not what the consensus process looks like. It also, allegedly, doesn't look like a vote, although that is what you are appealing to now. Minorview (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

No, you are a long way from policy (you have cited none, just have you have cited no sources), and a long way from logic, as explained above in the deletion of the items. History2007 (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Minorview, you completely ignored my question. Who has expressed support for your claimed "consensus version"? Jeppiz (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any signs of familiarity with Wikipedia policy on the part of Minorview - as evidence by the fact that he provided no link to any policy, nor stated one, but just quotes some vague understanding of imagined policy which has no bearing on actual policy. So let me spell it out for you Minorview, WP:CANTFIX states that "WP:UNDUE discusses how to balance material that gives undue weight to a particular viewpoint, which might include removal of trivia, tiny minority viewpoints, or material that cannot be supported with high-quality sources." None of those 3 apply here, given that the material involved is certainly not "trivia", certainly not a "tiny minority viewpoint" and is certainly WP:RS. So the long and short of it is that you are on the wrong side of policy Minorview. You have no sources and no policy to support your action; except some imagined policy perhaps. But trust me that "imagined policy" is no policy. History2007 (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

POV-tagged

Minorview and HP have both raised concerns over the NPOV of this article. This is already enough to add a POV-tag, as it is clear that the neutrality of the article is disputed. I would tend to agree with them to a certain point. There is an unusually large number of sources that are Judeo-Christian and concern religion, and most experts mentioned in the article favor a certain POV. I don't agree with Minorview and HP that the best option is to delete those views (they are well sourced) but I do believe that for the article to be NPOV, we need a better balance between different views. Unless, of course, there is a source that would lend support to the current imbalance as being representative of the academic community.Jeppiz (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Fine. So let us discuss that. Please provide the list of items used here that are Judeo-Christian. I see only two: Jacobs which is Jewish and in support of arguments from silence, and Timothy Barnes which discusses early Christianity. Are there other Judeo-Christian items here? Regarding the source that states the general view, please see reference item 8 in the article: "Scholarly examinations of the Arguments From Silence (AFS) are extremely rare; when existent it is typically treated as a fallacy." I have done my research here. Magna Carta is certainly not religious, neither is Wall of China, and the Buddhist Monsatic codes are not Judeo-Christian. So let us see which other sources may be Judeo-Christian. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I might be wrong but these references all appear to have a Judeo-Christian focus

• "silence, the argument from". The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Ed. E. A. Livingstone. Oxford University Press, 2006.
• M. G. Duncan "The Curious Silence of the Dog and Paul of Tarsus; Revisiting The Argument from Silence" Informal Logic, Vol 32, No 1 (2012)
• "Talmud". A Concise Companion to the Jewish Religion. Louis Jacobs. Oxford University Press, 1999 page 261
• Timothy Barnes "Pagan Perceptions of Christianity" in Early Christianity: Origins and Evolution to Ad 600 edited by Ian Hazlett et al (May 1991)
  

I might be wrong as I haven't had time to look into all sources in detail. I don't think Judeo-Christian sources is a problem, but I do find it a bit problematic that almost all people cited in the article are in favor of it, very few opposed. As I already said, if there is a good neutral source saying that most academics do support it, then it's another story. This is in no way a criticism of your efforts to find several good sources and including them. That is why I reverted the deletion of your additions and also criticized it. In my view, you've done a good and thorough job. Jeppiz (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

We can just use Lange instead of the "Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church" because it was just used as a definition of the term, and drew no conclusion. I replaced that anyway. Duncan is absolutely not a Christian item, because it is in a journal about logic and uses the structure of Lange to analyze two well known cases, Sherlock Holmes's barking dog (as in Silver Blaze) and Paul of Tarsus. Duncan is not a religious source at all. Regarding Barnes, to make a long story short, I replaced Barnes with Amelang that refers to medieval artisans and so there are no Christian references in the article any more now and just one Jewish source:

• Jacobs: "Talmud: A Concise Companion to the Jewish Religion."

but that which supports the style of argumentation; and I did not add that source by the way. So with one Buddhist source and one Jewish source, there is no potential Judeo-Christian issue at all. Based on those edits, is the tag needed at all? I do not see why. History2007 (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, I separated them into successful, failed and cautious usage and that should clarify it. And most examples now are from history, not religion by any measure. And in any case, I do not know why religious items should be suppressed in any case. History2007 (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You grossly misrepresented the Duncan source. The next word after the part you quote is "However...." and the conclusion of the article is that arguments from silence (AFS) have value. The article states that the claims of fallacy assume the AFS is intended as a proof, but no historical argumnet is intended as a proof. This is the third time I've caught you misrepresenting sources and/or adding sources you haven't actually read. Humanpublic (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutely incorrect, for I used Duncan per WP:RS/AC where he "surveys the field", not as his own opinion. You have caught nothing. Zero. Zero. Duncan states exactly that, then has a long discussion on Holmes and Paul of Tarsus. Your statement is totally incorrect. And I have of course, of course read the sources. Here is what Duncan concludes himself, as his on opinion:

"I conclude that AFS serves as a dialogical topos best evaluated and understood through the perceived authority of the arguer and the willingness of the audience to accept that authority, due to the curious nature of the evidence that argument employs."

The next sentence where he states that arguments from silence are not mentioned in Aristotle's Sophistical Refutations or Hamblin's book Fallacies is already included in the article (the section on structure) - it was there before you typed this. What he says in the footnote is that interpreting the "silence of by Aristotle and Hamblin" would be an arg from silence itself. So what Duncan holds himself is that AFS are a "dialogical topos" to be evaluated based on the assignment of authority to the arguer. That is all. His overview of the field is represented as is, and the next item is already in the body of the article. History2007 (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Prevalence in WP:RS sources that Arguments from silence involve risk and hazard

I think in view of the discussions, I should just go ahead and cite policies and guidelines. In Wikipedia articles, weight is assigned to a specific scholarly view as the "majority view" and "minority view" by using the WP:Due policy. This was summarized by Jimmy Wales as follows:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

The WP:Due policy thus states:

"in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."

So to determine the "majority view", we "consider prevalence in reliable sources" and not "prevalence among Wikipedia editors". So it does not matter if HumanPublic, Minorview or 12 other people Wiki-editors assume that scholarly opinion is divided 50/50 on this issue and they need equal weight. That matters not. The determination is made via "prevalence in reliable sources". Is there such a prevalence - I hold that there is not, and I have provided sources in the article to that effect. Am I right? Try to prove I am not by showing prevalence in reliable sources for a 50/50 split, or a source that says "most scholars hold that arguments from silence include no hazards". Just show me source, not source free statements on talk pages. Have I "cherry picked" sources? If so, show it not just hypothesize it, imagine it and then state it; do not just state it without a basis in WP:RS prevalence sourcing.

Now, do we need a source that says "most scholars hold that arguments from silence involve hazards"? Only if we are going to say "most scholars hold that arguments from silence involve hazards". That is where the WP:RS/AC guideline comes in. That is not part of the WP:Due policy, but part of the "Identifying reliable sources" guideline. It states: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view."

So here is how it works:

• To assign "weight within the article" and a corresponding amount of real estate, per WP:Due the majority and minority views are determined via the consideration of "prevalence in reliable sources" - here the number of Wiki-editors supporting a view means zero. What matters is prevalence in reliable sources.

• To be able to say "most scholars believe X" WP:RS/AC is used and a source that directly states "most scholars believe X" is needed.

Now, is there a 50/50 prevalence in reliable sources regarding the hazards of arguments from silence? I am categorically stating that not to be the case, and that the prevalence in reliable sources is that they involve hazards, risks and dangers. And I can even provide further references that indicate the prevalence towards the existence of hazards. Note that per WP:Due I do not need a statement that states the prevalence; but we need to make an assessment of the prevalence by providing reliable sources on either side of the issue. Are there many more sources on the other side of the issue? I hold that there are not. Let me say that again: I hold that there are not. If there are, let us see them. Let us see the sources. In Wikipedia, sources rule. This is a straightforward application of policy to determine weight via the determination of the majority and minority views. Policy is clear on this. History2007 (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic, and don't know what you mean by 50/50 split. To my knowledge, nobody has ever claimed that any type of historical argument is without hazard, certainly not this one. You're proceeeding as if the question is whether AFS proves anything, and then you point out that most sources say it doesn't prove anything. That's a strawman. Given your dishonesty about the Duncan source (above), and the dictionary of foreign terms, I see no reason to swallow whole your statements about a prevalence of sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanpublic (talk • contribs) 23:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

By 50/50 split I meant an equal prevalence of sources that consider arguments from silence as involving hazards, and those which do not. Also you must, must, must stop these baseless statements about honesty/dishonesty of other editors. You must stop this. As usual you are long on accusations, short on sources. There has been no misrepresentation by me, and I have read all sources I have used. None. Now stop it. History2007 (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and that is a strawman, because all historical arguments involve hazards. Nobody has ever said that the AFS proves anything. Of courzse there are hazards. The quotes you are adding are heavily slanted toward saying it is "invalid" and a fallacy. That is quite different from surveying its strengths and weaknesses. You are misrepresenting sources and misrepresenting the discourse. Now you stop it. Humanpublic (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a note here that user:Humanpublic was topic banned and then indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

No, that is not the case. And you are arguing from first principles here again. You are again short on sources, long on opinion. History2007 (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, I do not want it to go without a response that no one says "any type of historical argument is without hazard". That is a meaningless argument here given that one could say "all air travel has risk". Of course there are risks in air travel, but the risks associated with hang-gliding are different from those of traveling in a jumbo jet. There are also risks for car travel, and I think traveling by a commercial flight is even safer than driving on freeways, etc. So there are different levels of risk and the whole point about the scholarly statements here is that arguments from silence are in the more hazardous category. So a statement that the hazards of hang-gliding are just part of the hazards of air travel is just meaningless. And the scholarly allergy towards arguments from silence is well reflected in the ongoing warnings about them by multiple scholars, as reflected in the article, and others, e.g. that more recent documents can invalidate them, e.g. the shipping documents from the time of Xerxes which changed the previous picture derived from road documents, Sidon, etc.. I will add that anyway, because it is an issue not even mentioned yet. History2007 (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I also added a section on author's interest now, and included Barnes' analysis. With all these other examples, I can not see why a single reference to Christianity can not appear in the article. There are plenty of other examples anyway. And I do not see any reason for the POV tag, now that there are diverse examples. History2007 (talk) 04:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. An example or two from Christian exegesis or Biblical scholarship would be highly useful, and would not violate either WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that is what I think too. And Jeppiz, removed the tag already. There are, however, other interesting issues as well:

• Sometimes the work of one author may be used in an arg from silence convincingly, e.g. Cicero on Cato; and sometimes not, e.g. Cicero on Caelius. That is not in the article yet, but I will add it now.

• Sometimes the information may be scarce because it was deliberately not revealed, e.g. Christians deliberately keeping to themselves in Rome in the many cases.

There are a couple of other examples that can be added (say Henry XVIII theater programs, etc.), and I have added those now - and there may even be more... History2007 (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)