The Argument from Silence
¶ 149 The argument from silence aims to prove the non-reality
of an alleged fact from the circumstance that contemporary or later sources of
information fail to say anything about it. It is sometimes misleadingly called the
negative argument; but this can easily be taken to mean something false, namely,
that the argument rests on an explicit denial of some fact. A writer’s silence regarding
a fact may be because of ignorance, or by deliberate omission, or from lapse of
memory.
(a) To be valid, the argument from silence must fulfil
two conditions: the writer whose silence is invoked in proof of the non-reality
of an alleged fact, would certainly have known about it had it been a fact;
knowing it, he would under the circumstances certainly have made mention of it.
When these two conditions are fulfilled, the argument from silence proves its
point with moral certainty. Both conditions have their explanation in the human
instincts which urge us to ascertain the truth, as also to give expression to
it when self-interest so requires.
(b) In applying the argument from silence, the first step
is to be determine by rigorous analysis of the evidence whether or not the conditions
laid down really exist. The first condition presupposes that the alleged fact
was of some importance, was easily knowable, and would certainly have come
directly or indirectly to the notice of the informant whose silence regarding
it is under examination. The second condition presupposes that suppression of
the fact would have been prejudicial to the informant by compromising his
reputation for honor, justice, patriotism, leaning; by injuring his family,
political party, religious denomination; or by giving comfort and aid to his
enemies. (Gilbert J. Garraghan, A Guide to Historical Method, ed. Jean Delanglez
[New York: Fordham University Press, 1946], 162)
¶ 151 CAUTIONS IN THE
USE OF THE ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE
In using this argument from silence two cautions are recommended.
(a) In our modern age with its immense facilities for the
communication of news, an event of importance no sooner happens than it becomes
known far and wide, among all classes of people. But such was not the case in
earlier times. Because of poor means of communication, events of major interest
and importance could remain unknown for long periods of time, even to persons
in high position, even though they could command all existing sources of
information on current happenings. Instances in point, so astonishing that one would
scarcely credit them if they were not attested by unimpeachable evidence, are
on record.
(b) Present-day standards in the selection of data for
historical record often differ from those which obtained among the ancient and
medieval authors. They had their own ideas as to what was important and
unimportant, and hence could easily pass over in silence incidents or facts
which might appear to us in every way deserving of record.
Many incidents may be adduced of the most extraordinary
silence of historians relative to facts with which they must have been acquainted
and which seemed to lie directly in the course of their narrative. Important
facts are mentioned by no ancient writer though they are unquestionably
established by the evidence of existing inscriptions, coins, statues, or
buildings.—Isaac Taylor, The Transmission of Ancient Books to Modern Times
together with the Process of Historical Proof (Liverpool, 1875), 120.
¶ 152 St. Augustine knew (ca. 405) nothing of the great
orthodox Synod of Sardica, ca. 343-344, though he was aware of the parallel
Arain Council held at that same time, and alter in the neighboring Philipopolis.
He was also informed as to the great controversial writings of St. Athanasius
and St. Hilary, which make frequent mention of the same Synod of Sardica. Again,
when St. Augustine was consecrated bishop, neither he nor the aged Bishop of
Carthage, Valerian, was aware of the eighth canon of the Council of Nice, which
forbade that two bishops have their sees simultaneously in the same city.—Feder,
Lehrbuch, 284 f.
Josephus makes no mention of the massacre of the infants
in Bethlehem. Either he never heard of the incident, or if he did, he probably
thought the massacre of a few infants too minor an incident in the criminal
career of Herod to deserve record.—Constant Fouard, The Christ, the Son of God,
1:72.
Numerous long-standing problems bearing on legends, traditions,
and the authorship or authenticity of writings have been satisfactorily solved
by critical use of the argument from silence. On the other hand, attempts to
apply it in certain cases have been unsuccessful. (Gilbert J. Garraghan, A Guide
to Historical Method, ed. Jean Delanglez [New York: Fordham University Press,
1946], 163-64)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
