This is a 3-minute TOK video clip which introduces the ‘ad ignorantium’ fallacy. A fallacy is an error in reasoning. The ad ignorantium fallacy is committed if a person claims that they need no evidence to support their views. But what is the limit of what people might reasonably claim to believe in? How about ghosts, aliens, fairies, or unicorns?
A number of knowledge questions are raised including:
1. In what areas of knowledge do we need evidence to gain knowledge and why?
2. Are there some things you can legitimately claim to ‘know’ which do not require evidence?
3. If we do not need evidence for some our beliefs, what implications might that have for the way we think about knowledge and knowing?
4. If we can only legitimately claim to know things that are based on evidence, does it follow that some areas of knowledge are more important than others?