Changes

# Interpretation '''b''' is consistent with view ''U''.

# 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 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:

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 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.

== Reference ==

== References ==

*[http://creationwiki.org/Your_theory_does_not_work_under_my_theory,_so_your_theory_must_be_wrong Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong] by [[CreationWiki]]

*[http://creationwiki.org/Your_theory_does_not_work_under_my_theory,_so_your_theory_must_be_wrong Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong] by [[CreationWiki]]

== See Also ==

== See also ==

* [[Logical fallacy]]

* [[Logical fallacy]]

[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]

[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]