Siteadmin, Check users, Administrators
12,071
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong (view source)
Revision as of 18:30, March 6, 2007
, 18:30, March 6, 2007no edit summary
[[Image:X_mark.jpg|200px|right]]
This is a special case of [[circular reasoning]] in which the person tries to disprove a point of view by interpreting the facts through a different view. The logical structure of such an argument is:
# Fact '''A''' is interpreted by theory ''T'' as '''a'''.
# Interpretation '''a''' conflicts with theory ''U''.
# Therefore ''U'' is assumed to be wrong.
However:
# '''A''' is interpreted by theory ''U'' as '''b'''.
# 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:
# 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 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 ==
<table style="border:1px solid #AAAAAA; background: #EDF1F1; float:right; width:100px; margin-left:15px;">
<tr><td>{{fallacy|Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong}}
<tr><td>Use the <nowiki>{{fallacy|Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong}}</nowiki> template to insert the above warning on a page containing an argument that essentially says, ''Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong''. The template links the warning label to this page.
</table>
* [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 ==
* [[Logical fallacy]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
This is a special case of [[circular reasoning]] in which the person tries to disprove a point of view by interpreting the facts through a different view. The logical structure of such an argument is:
# Fact '''A''' is interpreted by theory ''T'' as '''a'''.
# Interpretation '''a''' conflicts with theory ''U''.
# Therefore ''U'' is assumed to be wrong.
However:
# '''A''' is interpreted by theory ''U'' as '''b'''.
# 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:
# 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 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 ==
<table style="border:1px solid #AAAAAA; background: #EDF1F1; float:right; width:100px; margin-left:15px;">
<tr><td>{{fallacy|Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong}}
<tr><td>Use the <nowiki>{{fallacy|Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong}}</nowiki> template to insert the above warning on a page containing an argument that essentially says, ''Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong''. The template links the warning label to this page.
</table>
* [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 ==
* [[Logical fallacy]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]