Scientific Certainty Fallacy

The scientific method doesn't prove things, it only disproves things. A hypothesis should be formulated to explain a fact, test conditions should try to disprove the fact (not just look for what you already think), then run the available data through the test conditions. Failure to falsify would then give a fair grounding for the hypothesis and it can be peer reviewed to help try to eliminate any subjectivity and bias, then published as a theory. Even as a theory it is still only tentative and is subject to review and revision should new data become available to falsify it in part or whole. 

Does your discussion fit into this framework? Are you scientists? Is one of you a science denier?

Hi Bryan   You state ( inter alia) "A hypothesis should be formulated to explain a fact, "

That is where the problem lies.  The facts are clear.  There are a number of  layman theories as to why the facts are what they are.  Accepting those layman theories would not impact the position of the other party. I am saying that there appears to be enough information to warrant an expansion of that layman list of theories.  Expanding that list would impact the other party, because it would require them to consider their belief is not perfect.  In the end this fact will have multiple causes depending on the situation.

I am not saying that there is a definitive causal relationship between the facts and my "concern".  I am saying the information shows that there is enough correlation to warrant an investigation.

I do not know if the other person is a scientist.   I have a science degree, (and 2 more degrees), although I am not a scientist, I do read and know how to read studies. 

The other person says his position is based on science, although as Dr. Bennett responded he may not really understand what that is.  Me, I strongly believe in good science.  I also believe in questioning the status quo, improvement, reflection and the ability to admit previous conclusions were incomplete.  

[To Curious Pete]

I'm confused, what does layman's theory have to do with science? The biggest problem with science discussions online seems to be that people who don't have any understanding of science think they have something valuable to contribute when it's usually just "I don't understand that therefore it can't be true" or "this makes sense to me therefore it must be true".

So you have more education in science than I do so when I see that you are continuing a discussion with someone who says "There is not scientific proof in the data" I'm a little bit baffled and had assumed that you perhaps also weren't familiar with it. 

Perhaps you're just more charitable than I am and try to talk around his misunderstanding, or perhaps you're just less experienced than I am at talking to science deniers (which this immediately sounds like from the language used) and didn't pick up on it. 

I don't see any point in having such a discussion without establishing how science is conducted, and always try to establish the framework of the scientific method so that my interlocutor and I are not talking past each other. Unfortunately in my experience those who have opinion based on religious beliefs aren't interested in how science is conducted but only in evangelising. 

Try to establish an understanding of what words like fact, observe, hypothesis, theory, etc. mean in the context of science and if you can't then you're probably wasting your time on that person, but if it's a public discussion others may benefit. 

"Smoke is not proof there's a problem to look at" is a particularly problematic statement. That suggests that you should only investigate when you've already concluded something rather than when you don't know. This is in the realms of begging the question. This sounds like someone who is afraid of looking in case what they find isn't consistent with their beliefs.

I am charitable with my time, and because someone does not have an understanding does not mean I will not converse with them,   It is not about experience or intelligence either. Their vote carries the same weight, so the burden is on me to talk to them and at the very least articulate my position with clarity.

The foundation of positions like these are not based on logic, however based on social belief systems.  Those systems are inherently flawed.  I am looking for an on ramp to find that crack as I have not experienced an individual like this before.  They hide behind the words "Scientific proof"

I don't know who suggested not talking to someone because they don't have understanding. I was trying to suggest how to reach the person; talking past each other is still conversing but seems fruitless to me. 

Are we talking past each other too? If he says scientific proofs surely the ramp to the crack is that there is no such thing.

I would add that "well, there's smoke so we should look for fire" is a reasonable basis for a hypothesis that is also proposing a falsifiability test. a prediction that there will be fire, and if not, then the smoke had some other cause.

Thank you  Dr. Bennett for your response.  Now that I think of it, the lack of understanding about the scientific method, and what constitutes proof is a huge contributing factor.

The reason the person is taking this position is to defend their belief.  I am arguing that their belief is not as flawless as they contend, and there is merit in looking into it.  So his response is to attack the very concept that there might be a problem.  I guess it really is a Burden of Proof fallacy.  

Perhaps equalizing what he thinks proof means is a good start.   Will have to handle that with care.

I 

Perhaps ask him how he justifies his belief?

So I got to the bottom of it, well as deep as I could go.  He admitted he did not have all the facts, however that does not change his belief.  It was fun trying to deconstruct was saying with logic, and without distraction. His argument is based on a combination of a number of fallacies i identified. 

• Appeal to Authority
• Bandwagon
• Argumentum ad Populum
• Burden of Proof
• Equivocation
• A bit of the "No True Scotsman"
• and the good ole Texas Sharpshooter