August 30, 2020. This article examines the claim that something “must have existed because there is no evidence that it did not” in relation to the comfort women and Nanjing Massacre issues, considering the argument from ignorance, the devil’s proof, and reductio ad absurdum, while questioning the Japanese government’s response to historical controversies.

August 30, 2020
The following is a continuation of the preceding chapter.
Chapter Two: How the Self-Denigrating View of History Was Demonstrated
The Historiography of Japan in the Century, Keiji Nagahara, 2003, Yoshikawa Kobunkan
The Theory of War Crimes, written by Kisaburo Yokota, Yuhikaku, 1947, p. 98
■ The Government Must Declare That Neither the Comfort Women Issue nor the Nanjing Massacre Issue Had Any Basis in Fact
Arguments criticizing Japan often take the following form: “Japan says that there was no forcible recruitment of comfort women, but because there is no evidence proving that it did not occur, forcible recruitment must have occurred.”
The assertion that “there is no evidence that it did not occur, therefore it must have occurred” is what logic calls the “argument from ignorance” (argumentum ad ignorantiam), and it is entirely erroneous.
Certainly, from a logical standpoint, completely proving that “something did not exist” is known as the “devil’s proof” (probatio diabolica) and is exceedingly difficult.
This is because, to prove that something did not exist, one would have to investigate every conceivable thing in the world, which is impossible.
However, under “reductio ad absurdum,” also called proof by contradiction, if it can be demonstrated that A and B can never exist simultaneously, then by proving that A exists, it is possible to prove that B does not exist.
Some argue that this does not constitute proof because it is indirect, but it is nevertheless a valid proof based upon orthodox logic.
Rather than saying hesitantly that “the fact that comfort women were forcibly recruited could not be confirmed,” the Japanese government should state clearly that the allegation is “entirely without factual foundation.”