Some people can say they have seen a ghost or a supernatural being, while the others can say that is complete nonsense. The same goes with unidentified flying objects, also called UFO's. It has never been proven either way. Although both sides of the argument believe they are right. One side must be wrong even though it has not been proven otherwise. This belief on their own single part is called an 'appeal to ignorance.' Which is arguing that something is true because there is no real evidence available to prove otherwise.
             The difference between what is and is not a appeal to ignorance is through these examples. Cases that show evidence is not found would lead to the obvious truth such as the sun is the hottest object in our solar system. It is not a ignorant choice, just goes to show that nothing was found to prove that it was a wrong conclusion. On this part it is not an appeal to ignorance. Something that is impossible to prove such as the age old debate on which came first, the chicken or the egg, would be a perfect example of appealing to ignorance.
             'I do not have to prove what I say. Thats my opponets job as you will see its impossible to prove me wrong, so I win.' Comments such as these throw ignorance straight in the face of people listening. That is an argument that uses an opponets inability to disprove a conclusion as proof of the conclusions corrrectness.
             There is also another form of ignorance on the good side. Saying, 'I do not know that this gun is loaded, therefore I will assume that it is.' Is a precautionary ignorance. It is very illogical to assume that something is the way it is and thats final when it comes to situations alike to this.
             Overall, the appeal to ignorance is a two-way road. Until there is evidence to back up what has been said there is no proof that it is actually true. Nothing is innocent until proven guilty. That is just the governments way of not causin
             ...