Scientific Certainty Fallacy
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
I am having a discussion with someone who's response is. "There is no scientific proof". My response is, There is enough data to question the status quo and to investigate. His response "There is not scientific proof in the data".
Effectively he says, "There is no fire." I say.. "Well there is a lot of smoke, let's look for the fire." His response is "Smoke is not proof there is a problem to look at."
What do you call that type of "logic"? Any examples, or thought experiments I could give him.
Comments on Question
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.
Answers
2In my experience, people who say "There is no scientific proof" either don't understand the scientific method or don't know what "proof" means in the context of science. A rational response to an alleged dubious scientific claim is "the evidence doesn't support that conclusion." Now, depending who is making the argument, one has the burden of proof to present the evidence and convince the unconvinced.
As for a thought experiment, ask them what kind of "proof" could convince them? This usually helps them put in perspective what kind of evidence would or would not be possible, and adhere to more reasonable standards. It also may demonstrate that the claim being made is not scientific, but something else... as in a claim outside of what methodological naturalism can demonstrate.
Sounds like a type II error in statistics: not rejecting the null hypothesis when it ought to be rejected.
The null hypothesis would be: there is no relationship between two things."
The alternative would be that there is a relationship between such things. If you're correct, if there is enough data to reject the null hypothesis, then not doing that would be not rejecting the null hypothesis when it ought to be rejected. It's a statistical fallacy, I would say. Unless this person has reasons to believe that this is not a false negative.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
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"