What is this Fallacy called?

@gre107,

Syntactically, your argument is a bare axiom because all you say is ~S |- (therefore) ~S. You are just inferring one premise and concluding based off of that one premise the conclusion without logical supposition.

What you may be talking about is "denying the antecedent." The argument states that If P then Q,~P, thus ~Q. You would have to argue "IF science can prove the origin of the universe THEN science is right. Science CANNOT prove the origin of the universe. Therefore, Science is wrong. But denying the antecedent is not correct because it will always have some hindrance of informal fallacies.

A correct form of argument would be the argument of Modus Tollens. Modus Tollens states that If P then Q, ~Q, therefore ~P. You would have to argue "IF science can prove the origin of the universe THEN science is right. Science is wrong. Therefore, science cannot prove the origin of the universe.

@gre107,

It is a hasty generalization. Just because the science cannot prove the origin of the universe does not mean that it cannot prove other things.

@gre107,

I'm really puzzled at how one could go about answering the original poster if it is not determined what "science is wrong" is supposed to mean.

I am doubtful that this example given by the original poster is really representative of any one fallacy. I can read 4-5 informal fallacies into the example.

@gre107,

gre107;45703 wrote:

What is the name of the argument/fallacy when you reject evidence that leads to proof when the proof is not 100%.

For example: Science cannot prove 100% how the origin of the universe came about. Therefore science is wrong.

I know that it is Argument of ... . It's the "..." part that I forget! Ugghhh!

Thanks

Hasty generalization would fit, so would a biased sample, or just ordinary ol' non sequitur. If science cannot prove something it only means it can't prove something . . . there is no logical pathway from "can't prove" to "wrong."

@gre107,

What does "wrong" mean?

Is "Science is wrong" even a proposition? It's so blurry, I cannot see its contours. What kind of claim is it? Is it an evaluation? A description? Is it normative? I'm quite confused. The kind of statement "Science is wrong" amounts to will better help us, I think, determine the kind of fallacy that is in question.

@nerdfiles,

nerdfiles wrote:

I'm really puzzled at how one could go about answering the original poster if it is not determined what "science is wrong" is supposed to mean.

I am doubtful that this example given by the original poster is really representative of any one fallacy. I can read 4-5 informal fallacies into the example.

With informal logic, many fallacies can fall under a wide range of possibilities. With this one, the first one it is guilty of is hasty generalization. Then others follow along.

@gre107,

That seems so artificial... "the first one."

What does that mean?

I realize that we have to "stick to the topic," thus to answer his question it might come quite easily, given our roster of standard informal fallacies.

But nevertheless, I think hasty generalization of this sort presupposes, or is logically posterior to, the fallacy of composition.

Again, what does it mean to say "first" in this context?

To clarify: You should take me now as not simply saying "I can read this or that many fallacies into it" but "I can read this or that many fallacies that on my interpretation come first as opposed to the others.

So let's see how fruitful this notion of rank takes us. I'll play along, though I think the whole first, second, etc rank business is rubbish.

@nerdfiles,

nerdfiles;51130 wrote:

That seems so artificial... "the first one."

What does that mean?

You are making it difficult for no good reason. Saying it's a fallacy is just a way to help identify how conclusions don't follow from premises. It doesn't matter what "science is wrong" means, all that matters is the structure of the statement. What you are asking is like hearing someone say "2 +2 = 5" and then demanding to know "what does 2 + 2 even mean????????" Who cares! We are discussing the mistake of concluding 5 from the sum of two twos.

@gre107,

1. This is a philosophy forum.
2. Clearly my questions are needed as you fail to make a distinction between formal and informal fallacies. Thus, you have failed to identify the broadest class of fallacy to which our original poster is concerned.

Formal fallacies are mistakes in form (structure).

Informal are partly form (in some cases) and partly or fully content (in others). For instance, poisoning the well is an informal fallacy which in fact has no form at all.

Thus, you are plainly wrong.

Let's look at the definition of "informal fallacy" at fallacyfiles: "...Also, because content is important in informal fallacies, there are arguments with the form of the fallacy which are cogent."

Hasty generalization, as has been championed by the other poster in this thread, is an informal fallacy.

As content is important, my question of what it means is relevant and equally as important.

Your example of 2+2=5 is categorically different from the kind of fallacy our original poster has provided. The former is formal while the latter informal.

Again, this is a philosophy forum. Are we really about to attack someone for sincerely asking questions? It's been 2,000 years. I think we're old enough now to not shame ourselves with another Apology. If you think me insincere, say so. I will readily justify why I ask questions, if that justification is not made apparent in my post. (I admit, I made modifications to my post before you could see them. Would you have posted something different, in a completely different spirit had you seen my modifications?) And I feel I did make it apparent in my post, so either you didn't read it, or you're dogmatically opposed to certain forms of skepticism, or you're simply irritated by seeing "What does that mean"-like questions.

Either way, I should not have entertained your idiosyncrasies this far, as you failed to make a crucial distinction between types of fallacies and failed to provide a relevant counterargument because of that.

@gre107,

Plus, if you've never noticed yet, the biggest task in philosophy is not to give a solution, but to determine what the problem is.

@nerdfiles,

Is it not just an incomplete syllogism?

@nerdfiles,

nerdfiles;51135 wrote:

1. This is a philosophy forum.
2. Clearly my questions are needed as you fail to make a distinction between formal and informal fallacies. Thus, you have failed to identify the broadest class of fallacy to which our original poster is concerned.

Formal fallacies are mistakes in form (structure).

Informal are partly form (in some cases) and partly or fully content (in others). For instance, poisoning the well is an informal fallacy which in fact has no form at all.

Thus, you are plainly wrong.

Let's look at the definition of "informal fallacy" at fallacyfiles: "...Also, because content is important in informal fallacies, there are arguments with the form of the fallacy which are cogent."

Hasty generalization, as has been championed by the other poster in this thread, is an informal fallacy.

As content is important, my question of what it means is relevant and equally as important.

Your example of 2+2=5 is categorically different from the kind of fallacy our original poster has provided. The former is formal while the latter informal.

Again, this is a philosophy forum. Are we really about to attack someone for sincerely asking questions? It's been 2,000 years. I think we're old enough now to not shame ourselves with another Apology. If you think me insincere, say so. I will readily justify why I ask questions, if that justification is not made apparent in my post. (I admit, I made modifications to my post before you could see them. Would you have posted something different, in a completely different spirit had you seen my modifications?) And I feel I did make it apparent in my post, so either you didn't read it, or you're dogmatically opposed to certain forms of skepticism, or you're simply irritated by seeing "What does that mean"-like questions.

Either way, I should not have entertained your idiosyncrasies this far, as you failed to make a crucial distinction between types of fallacies and failed to provide a relevant counterargument because of that.

I didn't mean to upset you. But I do think you are complicating the issue and packing your posts with irrelevancies for no reason except to hear your own brain think. I'd prefer you to get to the point. Your post above reminds me of a kid with a powerful car who can't stop spinning his wheels. You may have a lot of brain power, but it isn't going anywhere.

if you understand enough to distinguish between formal and informal fallacies, then it seems to me you should see this is a very simple problem. If I were debating the person who claimed science is wrong because it can't prove something, I could attack it using a variety of the informal labels. There is normally no one "right" way to expose informal fallacies.

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth;51139 wrote:

I didn't mean to upset you. But I do think you are complicating the issue and packing your posts with irrelevancies for no reason except to hear your own brain think. I'd prefer you to get to the point. Your post above reminds me of a kid with a powerful car who can't stop spinning his wheels. You may have a lot of brain power, but it isn't going anywhere.

if you understand enough to distinguish between formal and informal fallacies, then it seems to me you should see this is a very simple problem. If I were debating the person who claimed science is wrong because it can't prove something, I could attack it using a variety of the informal labels. There is normally no one "right" way to expose informal fallacies.

It's quite difficult not to be rude. It was the other poster who claimed that there's a "first fallacy" as if to say "it's the most accurate" in response to my saying:

Quote:

I can read 4-5 informal fallacies into the example.

To which you responded, after I asked him "What does that mean?" (referring to his statement about one fallacy being "first"). Now you just seem to be confused. It could not be more clear that I am defending the "multiple interpretation of applicable fallacies" claim--the one which you're "reprimanding" me with.

My asking this question ("What does that mean?") is just another way of getting to the point you seem to be reprimanding me with that there's more than one fallacy that can be read into the example and perhaps generally when fallacies are committed. But seem to be treating my question as a super-general, childish-philosopher kind of question, whereas you ignore that it was a particular question in response to a particular claim, that particular claim you are opposed to (that there's only "one right answer"). I really am confused as to how you could stumble into such a confusion.

It's quite irritating to be chastised with the exact point I was trying to make when the point, as I have made it, is immediately available in the thread.

I think you're simply attacking me for being "wordy." But my point has been made, and it was quite straight forward and succinct. You've glossed over it, repeated it, and attacked me with it as if I didn't already acknowledge it (when it is plainly obvious that I did).

@gre107,

And what's more, "formal" and "informal" are the broadest classes. There are a multitude of subfallacies within each broad class.

That said, there's no reason to suppose that someone knows particularly what breed of dog a creature is when all he's done is distinguished it from being a wolf.

Nothing about understanding the distinction between formal and informal fallacy implies an understanding a distinction between, say, red herrings and question-begging fallacies.

@gre107,

If we changed the proposition to Scientific theory A is incorrect in respect to B, we could put Scientific theory A under vigorous empirical testing and reach a conclusion about the truth of our orginal statement. The statment 'Science is wrong' doesnt contain any factual information and has only emotive meaning. We might nod our head and agree with the sentiment, if we where that way inclined but thats all we could do.

Now what I think the orginal poster, is trying to deal with is more of a statement along the line's 'Scienctific theory's are not certain (in the strictest sense, due to the nature of empirical proposition) ,can we use them in prediction and dealing with certain problems'. Now we have a meaningful statement which is open to empirical testing and we can see examples of where we have used Science to reach conclusions that have been useful to us in making predictions and dealing with problems we are presented with. The fact Science cant be certain is of no importance to us. I dont know what one would call that 'fallacy' though.

@nerdfiles,

nerdfiles wrote:

And what's more, "formal" and "informal" are the broadest classes. There are a multitude of subfallacies within each broad class.

That said, there's no reason to suppose that someone knows particularly what breed of dog a creature is when all he's done is distinguished it from being a wolf.

Nothing about understanding the distinction between formal and informal fallacy implies an understanding a distinction between, say, red herrings and question-begging fallacies.

But aren't formal and informal fallacies divided by formal and informal logic? If they are, as I understand they are, then nearly all fallacies in existence are informal. Because the OP was not using formal logic, his example would be an informal fallacy. Of course there are hundreds of these so it pretty much says nothing other than there is an error in argumentation method.

Honestly, I think you are complicating by reading more into what the OP originally posted than what was necessary. Nothing like asking philosophers a simple question and then watching them turn it into a complex argument that was never intended.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus;51156 wrote:

Honestly, I think you are complicating by reading more into what the OP originally posted than what was necessary. Nothing like asking philosophers a simple question and then watching them turn it into a complex argument that was never intended.

My central claim is thus: "I am doubtful that this example given by the original poster is really representative of any one fallacy. I can read 4-5 informal fallacies into the example."

Is this really complicating the matter? Since it is an informal fallacy that the OP has posted, and we all clear on that, I have said nothing more complicated than what is attested by the other posters in this thread. I have said perhaps the most simple and mundane and innocuous, there are many ways that I personally find to read this purported fallacy.

This isn't any different from all of you posting different answers, some which overlap. Admittedly, informal fallacies have a family resemblance. They're all very similar. I get to this point by stating that I can read multiple fallacies into it. Some of you claim hasty generalization, some claim it is denial of the antecedent, some claim it isn't "really" a fallacy at all.

This is all I'm saying...but for myself. Really, I wish the claim would cease that I'm "overcomplicating." I'm doing nothing of the sort. Do not mistake the length of my posts and the explications of obvious relevant details as "overcomplicating." Discussing the informal/formal distinction only came about because another poster asserted that this was a formal fallacy. I'm not overcomplicating the matter by pointing out that this is false and giving an subsequent explanation for why I think so.

In any event, {length of post} does not imply {overcomplicating} so I wish this would stop.

@gre107,

And asking "What is 'science is wrong' supposed to mean?" is simply the kind of question that occurs when you think the fallacy isn't "all there." So in effect, I'm saying that I don't think the original poster has provided the entire fallacy. Thus, I too lean to the position that this is not really a fallacy at all.

I'm suggesting that the thing in question cannot be adequately identified because it's lacking in features that are supposed to represent it, supposing the original poster does have an easily identifiable fallacy in mind.

@gre107,

gre107 wrote:

What is the name of the argument/fallacy when you reject evidence that leads to proof when the proof is not 100%.

For example: Science cannot prove 100% how the origin of the universe came about. Therefore science is wrong.

I know that it is Argument of ... . It's the "..." part that I forget! Ugghhh!

Thanks

It sounds like a variation of Ad Ignorantiam. A cannot be demonstrated. Therefore, not A. This isn't precisely what's going on here, but I think it's close enough.

Science's lack of ability to demonstrate a scientific proposition isn't of itself evidence that the scientific proposition is wrong.

What is demonstrated is that science is not to be trusted as an infallible source of knowledge. Every scientific proposition should be taken with a grain of salt.

Philosophy Forum

What is this Fallacy called?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know