Parallel with science there is bad science(BS). With BS I mean the collection of articles that for some reason tries to look like science but don't follow through. You can spot BS quite easily, these articles use 'Theorem' and 'Fallacy' instead of 'I am right' and 'You are wrong'. I'm not sure if they use it to deceive the real scientists or people who don't know science but recognizes the buzz words.
In mathematics you prove a theorem using definitions and axioms. If you disagree with the definitions or axioms then all is fine, if you agree the theorems follow as a consequence. You will spot BS theorems by the fact that the proof part is replaced by rambling and the definitions are nowhere to be seen.
Most sciences don't use theorems at all, mainly because nothing actually can be proven. In those sciences you often have an abundance of theories and ideas and the correctness is decided by majority of vote. The more vague the field the more theories. Physics for example don't state theorems, it's based on empirical knowledge. Physics state equations. A proper equation is generally a formula that states observed facts and is thus empirically true. And a formula is something that obeys the rules of a syntax. In this sense, E = mc^2 is a formula, but so is E = mc^3. Consequently physics has several theories explaining the same things, physicists are not bothered(too much...) about using several different theories in parallel. Sometimes light is treated as a wave and sometimes it is a particle depending on what you want to calculate.
An observation regarding this is that the more vague the field, the more problems the scientists seem to have with accepting several theories at once. I think this has to do with pragmatism. Physics is used in practice to get things done and at the same time provides answers to existential questions. When a field has no practical use only the existential aspect is left which leads to a mentality of belief. Regarding beliefs it is often hard for an outsider to understand what a specific disagreement is about. There is one God but your God is the wrong God because you call him A when he actually is called B. Saying there is no God at all is not as bad as giving him the wrong name, it is only when you enter the election and gather voters that you are a threat.
It is in this circus of vote gathering that the practice of pointing out fallacies has become popular. The formal use of the term fallacy comes from the field of logic. For example stating 'if A then B' and then observing B, it is a logical fallacy to conclude that A must be true. If it rains the grass get wet, observing that the grass is wet and then concluding that it has rained is false. This also applies to set theory, when you say 'All cats have four legs', and then after observing a creature with four legs concluding that it must be a cat is a logical fallacy. Statements are either true or false in logic(although there are paradoxes as in all complete systems as shown by Gödel).
The language of logic appeal to everyone involved in arguments and wish they could throw the fallacy argument at their opponent in a discussion. Detecting a fallacy is not that easy though, normally it is not as straightforward as the cat example above. So what do you do? You expand the list of fallacies and make them more usable. This reminds me of how New Agers have taken over the word energy. When a word gets credibility just hijack it for your own purposes. Therefore the list of fallacies has increased beyond logic. Many scientific fields have gotten their own favorites. When used right those fallacies can be very powerful but unfortunately many fallacies are very vague in their description, the consequence when you are moving away from the formal language of logic.You can find many articles relying on those fallacies in trying to debunk other theories by using them, this is very easy if you get your mind to it and use them in a sloppy way.
Creationists(Believers of a creator) tries to debunk evolution by using the fallacy of "Begging the question" or "Petitio principii" which is it's fancy name. They argue that saying "survival of the fittest" is a clean cut example of the fallacy as fittest means he who actually survive. Very true, a clean cut example of circular reasoning. Is this bad news for evolution? Not really, an interesting thing about "Begging the question" is that this does not say anything about the validity of a statement, only that it is meaningless taken out of it's context. Using a fallacy may very well be a fallacy itself.
These type of fallacies must be used with reason because there is no formalism behind them. Used in a bad way it becomes deceiving rhetoric. Sometimes you see a long list of fallacies that are supposed to apply to arguments by proponents of a certain theory, no examples, just an appeal to bow before the power of logic. Using the language of logic and the language of mathematics in many cases is just a desperate effort to lend credibility to arguments the writer thinks needs some artificial leverage. Just putting Theorem in front of a statement does not make it a theorem. So, next time you encounter the Straw Man there is a good chance you are reading BS.
No comments:
Post a Comment