So perhaps a few months ago, Tim Shaughnessy was here talking about how all of science is logically fallacious because it commits the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. Which is basically: If p, then q q. therefore p. I only bring this up now because Tim messaged me on FB but it was in my other folder and I didnt see it until today. I had asked for a real life example of this logical fallacy and he gave me the case of Tiktaalik, the famous transitional species between fish and arthropod. The supposed fallacy is this: If evolution is true and life originated in water (p), then there should be a transitional species between fish and land animnal (q). Tiktaalik is a transitional species between fish and land animal (q.) Therefore evolution is true (p). I wanted to address it here because I think it is worth noting and discussing and pointing out the error of this reasoning. There is one simple reason why science is not logically fallacious. Those who are familiar with the scientific method should know the easy answer to this: Falsifiability. Science does not just go around finding a single piece of evidence that confirms their hypothesis and call it a day. There is always the possibility that a hypothesis or even a theory can be falsified and proven untrue with more evidence. This is what prevents the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. Side note: Even IF science was illogical. What does this say about logic? When a conclusion derived from pure logic does not match with the direct evidence in front of our face, which should we chose to accept? The simple fact is that the application of science in the real world has produced a plethora undeniable useful results evidenced by the myriad of technologies and inventions we take advantage of every second of every day. How logical is it to believe that science, which *just* *simply* *works*, is illogical?
Posted on: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 19:41:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015