Difference between revisions of "Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | [[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: | 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: | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
# 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 == | ||
| + | <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 == | == See Also == | ||
Revision as of 15:27, March 14, 2007
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 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
| Template:Fallacy |
| Use the {{fallacy|Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong}} 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. |