This is often referred to as a fallacy of presumption. Presumption fallacies occur when the premises merely assume what they are trying to establish. Rather than providing evidence from which a legitimate conclusion may be deduced. The fallacy of concealed evidence, in particular, occurs when an argument conceals facts. That may contradict or otherwise weaken the premises given in support of a conclusion. Good arguments, on the other hand, require that the premises do not neglect key pieces of evidence that may outweigh the supplied evidence and lead to a different conclusion.
It’s covered in the blog post suppressed evidence. What precisely is suppressed evidence fallacy, and why must all true premises be included? It also includes examples and advice on how to prevent it. When factual and meaningful information is omitted for whatever reason, it is considered suppressed evidence.
What is Exactly Suppressed Evidence Fallacy?
Logical arguments must include all relevant and significant evidence. To highlight significant and crucial evidence is both manipulative and irrational. This is what we call the suppressed evidence fallacy.
Because it produces the presumption that the actual premises are full, the error of suppressed evidence is classified as a fallacy of presumption.
Example or Discussion Of Suppressed Evidence Fallacy
This is a challenging fallacy to detect since we sometimes have no means of knowing if we haven’t been told the complete truth. Such assumed errors might occur in the:
- Court (by Judge or Prosecutor)
- Scientific research, etc.
The following are examples of the Suppressed Evidence Fallacy:
The majority of dogs are amiable and pose no danger to those who pet them. As a result, it is okay to pet the small dog that is approaching us right now.
It should be easy to imagine all kinds of things that may be true and are very relevant to the topic at hand. The dog might be snarling to guard its house, or it could be frothing at the mouth, indicating rabies.
That style of the car is badly constructed. A friend of mine has one, and it always causes him problems.
This may appear to be a sensible reply, but there are other things that may be unsaid. For example, the friend may not take proper care of the automobile and may not change the oil on a regular basis. Perhaps the friend considers himself a mechanic and performs a poor job.
Advertising is perhaps the most prevalent use of the fallacy of Suppressed Evidence. Most marketing strategies will convey useful information about a product while ignoring troublesome or negative facts.
When you receive digital cable, you can watch various channels on each television in the home without having to buy pricey additional equipment. However, with satellite TV, you must purchase an additional piece of equipment for each set. As a result, digital cable is a superior investment.
All of the above premises are correct and do lead to the conclusion. But they overlook the fact that if you are a single individual, there is little or no need to have independent cable on more than one television. Because this information is omitted. The preceding argument violates the suppressed evidence fallacy.
This fallacy is also occasional in scientific studies when someone concentrates on evidence that supports their theory while neglecting facts that would seem to disprove it. This is why it is critical that experiments duplicate others and that information on how the studies were public. Other scholars may come upon the previous data. Suppressed Evidence fallacies are common in creationism. There are several instances when creationist arguments simply dismiss evidence that is pertinent to their assertions but would cause them trouble.
The more evolved organisms would travel to higher ground for protection as the water level rose, while the more basic ones would not. This explains why less primitive organisms are deeper down in the fossil record and human remains towards the top.
All sorts of key details are overlooked here. Such as the fact that marine life would have such a deluge and would not have been discovered piled in this manner for those reasons.
This fallacy is also prevalent in politics. It is not uncommon for a politician to make assertions without including important facts. As an example:
Look at our money and you’ll see the phrase “In God We Trust.” This demonstrates that we are a Christian nation and that our government recognizes that we are a Christian people.
What overlooks here is that these phrases were only on our currency during the 1950s when there was great fear of communism. The fact that these phrases are so new and mostly a reaction to the Soviet Union makes the conclusion that this is a “Christian Nation” politically much less believable.
Avoiding The Suppressed Evidence Fallacy
You can avoid committing the fallacy of suppressed evidence by using caution when conducting research on a topic. If you are intending to defend a concept, you should look for the conflicting evidence. Rather than evidence that confirms your presuppositions or assumptions. You are more likely to avoid missing critical facts this way. No one can properly accuse you of perpetrating this error.
The Ending Note
The criterion of genuine premises includes the condition that the premises do not disregard any key piece of evidence that exceeds the supplied evidence and leads to a completely different conclusion. If an inductive argument ignores such evidence, it is committing the error of suppressed evidence.
The suppressed evidence fallacy is akin to begging the question in that the arguer leaves out a crucial premise. The distinction is that suppressed evidence omits a premise that demands a different result. Whereas begging the question omits a premise that supports the claimed conclusion. However, because both fallacies begin by omitting a premise from the argument, the two fallacies might overlap in some situations.