I recently read a book in which the author called “arguing from silence” an “intellectual sin.”
Silence holds many mysteries.
Silence reveals many questions.
Silence invokes investigations.
How much of our understanding of the past is arguing from silence? Should what we know be considered whispers instead of silence? Can what we know ever be considered shouting?
Doesn’t the silence of a story tell a story in itself?
We don’t just ask “what’s there” or “why is that there?”
We ask “what’s not there?”
More importantly, “why?”
Why is there silence?
Silence serves as a piece of evidence in its own right sometimes.
It keeps us seeking. It allows for exploration.
It provides contrast for that of which we do know. Or, at least, it gives us the illusion that we do know.
*Regular disclaimer: These thoughts are my own. They don’t necessarily reflect anybody else’s (employers included).