Editing Argument from ignorance (section)

== Use ==
The term was likely coined by philosopher [[John Locke]] in the late 17th century.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings |date=1995|publisher=Pennsylvania State University Press |editor-first1=Hans V. |editor-last1=Hansen |editor-first2=Robert C. |editor-last2=Pinto |isbn=978-0271014166|location=University Park, Pa.|oclc=30624864}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Locke|first1=John|title=An Essay Concerning Human Understanding|date=1690|chapter-url=http://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/439/locke0417.htm|access-date=12 March 2015|chapter=Book IV, Chapter XVII: Of Reason}}</ref> 

In debates, appealing to ignorance is sometimes an attempt to shift the [[Philosophic burden of proof|burden of proof]].

There is a debate over whether the argument from ignorance is always fallacious. It is generally accepted that there are only special circumstances in which this argument may not be fallacious. For example, with the [[presumption of innocence]] in legal cases, it would make sense to argue:<ref name="Walton1996">{{Cite book |title=Arguments from Ignorance |last=Walton |first=Douglas |author-link=Douglas N. Walton |publisher=Pennsylvania State University Press |year=1996 |isbn=0-271-01474-1 |location=University Park, PA}}</ref>

<blockquote>It has not been proven that the defendant is guilty.<br>Therefore, the defendant is not guilty.</blockquote>