Changes

'''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.  The logical structure of such an argument is:

'''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:

# Fact '''A''' is interpreted by theory ''T'' as '''a'''.

# Fact '''A''' is interpreted by theory ''T'' as '''a'''.

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 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 not self-consistent--i.e., that it leads to [[Logical fallacy#Contradiction|contradictions]], or failing that,