Misunderstanding the Michelin Guide

The latest Michelin Guide for Singapore has added five new one-star restaurants to the list. Columnist Wong Ah Yoke ("Questions remain over selection process", The Straits Times, 27 July 2018), and other critics, have bemoaned the exclusion of other deserving restaurants.

This complaint arises from the interpretation of "not in the list" to mean "not worthy to be in the list".

This inference is illogical -- because there is no suggestion that all restaurants in Singapore were visited, and only five were found to deserve a Michelin listing. All that a listing in the Michelin Guide means is: Michelin visited these restaurants, and found that they deserve to be listed. It says nothing about any other restaurant in Singapore.

This illogical leap (fallacy) has a name: Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Appeal to ignorance). Its argument form goes this way: "If there is no proof that X is true, then X is false". In this context, "Since there is no proof that Restaurant A is worthy to be listed in the Michelin Guide, then Restaurant A is not worthy to be listed in the Michelin Guide."

This fallacy has a mirror version: "If there is no proof that Y is false, then Y is true".

All we need to do when we encounter a logical fallacy is to expose the argument as a fallacy. We do not need to mount any kind of rebuttal, counterargument or alternative argument to the claim.

END