fallacy

Argument from silence

Also called: Argumentum ex silentio, Silence means consent

An argument from silence concludes something from the fact that a person or a record says nothing about it.

How it works

Silence is read as an admission, an agreement or proof that something never happened. That only works when the person would certainly have spoken and could have: a thorough record that should mention the event, or someone who was asked directly and had every reason to answer. Most of the time people stay silent for reasons that have nothing to do with the claim.

1 / 4

A question for the booth

Call booth. An argument from silence reads a missing answer as an answer. The tray is empty, but the gauge swings to yes anyway. Silence only counts when the other side certainly heard, could reply and would have; here the booth isn't even plugged in.

Reply tray: nothing comes out
Gauge needle: reads the silence as yes
Unplugged cable: it may never have heard

Examples

"The minister hasn't replied to my post about the contract, so she knows it was corrupt."

Ministers ignore most posts; no reply tells us nothing about the contract.

"Not one of the scientists spoke against the study, so they all accept it."

Silence may mean they have not read it, were not asked, or do not comment publicly.

"The company's annual report doesn't mention a data breach, so there wasn't one."

This one can be reasonable if breaches must be reported there; check whether the record was required to mention it.

How to spot it

"They haven't denied it" or "no one objected" is offered as the evidence.
Nobody shows that the silent person was asked, able or obliged to respond.
A missing statement is treated as a statement.

How to respond

Ask whether the person would have been expected to speak, and whether they could have.
List the other reasons for silence: not seeing it, legal advice, not caring.
Ask for positive evidence for the claim itself.