Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil
Wouldn't it also be a logical fallacy to assume the other side of that (being false) as well though? Isn't that what they call an argument from ignorance?
|
An argument from ignorance is assuming a premise is one thing because the opposite hasn't been proven true, saying that the lack of proof is evidence of the opposite claim. Or sometimes it's an argument from personal ignorance, saying "I don't understand A therefore B".
So yes saying that a place of justice for evil doers absolutely does not exist simply because there's no evidence for it is a logical fallacy.
However an argument can be logically consistent and still be flawed. Because it's generally difficult to prove a negative the default provisional position should be that something does not exist unless there's positive evidence for it.
EDIT: In this case the fallacy was an appeal to consequences... the premise being that there's a place of justice and the fallacy being that the claim is true because if it was false the consequences aren't desirable (that they're getting off too easy).