The logical fallacy of the argument from ignorance is logic not psychology; This would be under philosophy or even math ("informal logic"); psychology might explain why people do it, but it's not a part of psychology, it's a part of philosophy. He's also wrong about eyewitness testimony being among the highest form of evidence in a court of law, it's well understood to be the least accurate. Two mistakes in the first four 4 minutes - I couldn't watch any more.
