Another Fallacy What is it
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
The best of western, allopathic medicine, especially acute emergency care and diagnostics, is arguably the finest in the world. But it is clear that our so-called science-based processes and methodologies that result in FDA approved drugs do not always allow the most useful and important study designs in integrative medicine to be funded and executed.
- Glen Sabin, on why his "integrative oncology" does not have to do double-blind testing.
What logical fallacy is this?
Answers
1The statement presents a few issues in reasoning, primarily involving the use of logical fallacies:
1. **Red Herring:** The mention of the high quality of western, allopathic medicine, especially emergency care and diagnostics, diverts attention from the main point about why integrative oncology does not require double-blind testing. By highlighting the successes of conventional medicine, the statement attempts to distract from the lack of rigorous testing in integrative oncology.
2. **Appeal to Special Pleading:** The argument implies that because the standard methods for testing (such as double-blind testing) are not always applicable or funded for integrative medicine, it should be exempt from these requirements. This suggests that integrative oncology should be treated differently from conventional medicine without sufficient justification for the exemption from standard scientific procedures.
3. **Strawman Argument:** By stating that "science-based processes and methodologies" prevent useful studies from being funded, the argument might misrepresent the scientific process itself, suggesting that it is inherently flawed or inadequate for integrative medicine without addressing why rigorous testing standards are in place.
4. **False Dilemma:** The argument might imply a false dichotomy between conventional ("science-based") medicine and integrative approaches, suggesting that one must choose between them or that they are mutually exclusive. This oversimplifies the complexities involved in medical research and practice.
Overall, the statement appears to use these fallacies to justify a lack of rigorous scientific testing for integrative oncology, which undermines the principles of evidence-based medicine.
1. **Red Herring:** The mention of the high quality of western, allopathic medicine, especially emergency care and diagnostics, diverts attention from the main point about why integrative oncology does not require double-blind testing. By highlighting the successes of conventional medicine, the statement attempts to distract from the lack of rigorous testing in integrative oncology.
2. **Appeal to Special Pleading:** The argument implies that because the standard methods for testing (such as double-blind testing) are not always applicable or funded for integrative medicine, it should be exempt from these requirements. This suggests that integrative oncology should be treated differently from conventional medicine without sufficient justification for the exemption from standard scientific procedures.
3. **Strawman Argument:** By stating that "science-based processes and methodologies" prevent useful studies from being funded, the argument might misrepresent the scientific process itself, suggesting that it is inherently flawed or inadequate for integrative medicine without addressing why rigorous testing standards are in place.
4. **False Dilemma:** The argument might imply a false dichotomy between conventional ("science-based") medicine and integrative approaches, suggesting that one must choose between them or that they are mutually exclusive. This oversimplifies the complexities involved in medical research and practice.
Overall, the statement appears to use these fallacies to justify a lack of rigorous scientific testing for integrative oncology, which undermines the principles of evidence-based medicine.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course