Question

...
MicroBeta

A Genetic Fallacy?

Let's say I'm discussing a very well known test of gravity such as the Cavendish Experiment.  It is very well understood, is performed by physics students in lab classes every semester, and has scientific consensus.

The rebuttal is something like: 

"if you didn't perform it yourself then you can't say the results are accurate or even real"

It is a genetic fallacy to say you weren't there so you can't know?

asked on Thursday, May 05, 2022 07:23:16 AM by MicroBeta

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Uncomfortable Ideas: Facts don't care about feelings. Science isn't concerned about sensibilities. And reality couldn't care less about rage.

This is a book about uncomfortable ideas—the reasons we avoid them, the reasons we shouldn’t, and discussion of dozens of examples that might infuriate you, offend you, or at least make you uncomfortable.

Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
3

I would say that it is a false statement more than anything. This claim assumes that the average person is better at conducting a scientific experiment and interpreting data than people who do this for a living, which is not the case.

As for the genetic fallacy , I do think one can make a good argument that this also applies.
answered on Thursday, May 05, 2022 07:28:00 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
1
Ed F writes:

Alternatively it assumes we can’t rely on what others have determined, or that what they determined had been reported correctly.  
Although we shouldn’t believe everything we hear (and should use discretion in deciding what to accept), it is not unreasonable or fallacious to rely on second-hand “knowledge”.   If it were, then mankind would never have advanced beyond the caveman days because everyone would have to discover everything themselves.  . 

posted on Thursday, May 05, 2022 10:19:36 AM
...
1
TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:

It's also just a nonsensical claim, since we rely on second-hand knowledge all the time. So the person putting forward the assertion is almost definitely going to find themselves in violation of their own statement.

posted on Thursday, May 05, 2022 10:55:04 AM