Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong as edited by DavidE (Talk | contribs) at 16:26, 29 March 2012. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong is a special case of circular reasoning in which a protagonist tries to disprove a point of view by interpreting the facts through a different view. It is thus similar to the no true Scotsman fallacy. The logical structure of such an argument is:

  1. Fact A is interpreted by theory T as a.
  2. Interpretation a conflicts with theory U.
  3. Therefore U is assumed to be wrong.


  1. A is interpreted by theory U as b.
  2. Interpretation b is consistent with view U.

In such a case, the holder of Theory U could as easily use that argument against the holder of Theory T--and the proponent of Theory T would have no just cause to challenge that argument. (To do so would constitute special pleading.)

In challenging a theory, one must not confuse the interpretation of a fact with the fact itself. Different theories infer different things from the same facts. Rejecting a theory out-of-hand merely because it infers things that your theory would not infer is not logical and is not good science. The proper way to challenge an opposing theory is:

  1. To attempt to show that the theory is not self-consistent--i.e., that it leads to contradictions, or failing that,
  2. To show that the opposing theory infers a given proposition, and then to show definitively that that proposition is contrary to fact. For example, the phlogiston theory of fire held that a flammable substance always contained another substance, called "phlogiston," that actually burned. Antoine Lavoisier demonstrated a combustion reaction in which the solid products clearly weighed more than the initial fuel, a thing that the phlogiston theory could not possibly explain.


See Also