Changes

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:

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:

# To attempt to show that the theory is not self-consistent--i.e., that it leads to [[Logical fallacy#Contradiction|contradictions]], or failing that,

# To attempt to show that the theory is [[reductio ad absurdum|not self-consistent]]—i.e., that it leads to [[Logical fallacy#Contradiction|contradictions]], or failing that,

# 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.

# 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.