Remember me
▼ Content

Conflict between data and laws


Conflict between data and laws19-09-2016 17:29
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
If your interpretation of a law conflicts with observation, there are four possibilities:

1. The data is wrong.
2. The data is incomplete.
3. The law is wrong.
4. The law is being USED wrong.

Claiming that either the data is wrong or the law is wrong is the fallacy known as "false dilemma".


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
19-09-2016 20:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
If your interpretation of a law conflicts with observation, there are four possibilities:

1. The data is wrong.
2. The data is incomplete.
3. The law is wrong.
4. The law is being USED wrong.

Claiming that either the data is wrong or the law is wrong is the fallacy known as "false dilemma".


That is not a false dilemma. The data may actually be wrong or non-existent.

The law may actually be wrong or is being used wrong. That is not a false dilemma.

The observation itself may be the result of an error. It is observation that collects the data.

You seem illiterate on informal logic, and the formal logic it comes from.


The Parrot Killer
19-09-2016 21:16
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Okay. I will be so clear this time that you cannot possibly misinterpret what I say.

A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning": Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false). Claim Y is false. Therefore claim X is true.


A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, false binary, black-and-white thinking, bifurcation, denying a conjunct, the either–or fallacy, fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, fallacy of the excluded middle, the fallacy of false choice, or the fallacy of the false alternative) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.



False Dilemma

(also known as: false dichotomy*, the either-or fallacy, either-or reasoning, fallacy of false choice, fallacy of false alternatives, black-and-white thinking, the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, bifurcation, excluded middle, no middle ground, polarization)

Description: When only two choices are presented yet more exist, or a spectrum of possible choices exists between two extremes. False dilemmas are usually characterized by "either this or that" language, but can also be characterized by omissions of choices. Another variety is the false trilemma, which is when three choices are presented when more exist.


A false dilemma (also known as a false dichotomy) is a logical fallacy which involves presenting two opposing views, options or outcomes in such a way that they seem to be the only possibilities: that is, if one is true, the other must be false, or, more typically, if you do not accept one then the other must be accepted. The reality in most cases is that there are many in-between or other alternative options, not just two mutually exclusive ones.


False Dilemma

Definition:

A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator.

Putting issues or opinions into "black or white" terms is a common instance of this fallacy.

Examples:

Either you're for me or against me.



(Note: "you" doesn't actually mean you; it's just an example.) So a false dilemma is when there are more than two options, but you ignore all but two and insist that there is an either-or involved.

You point to data. You invoke a law. You note that the data and your invocation of the law contradict. You then tell me that either the data is incorrect or I am arguing against Planck's Law, and of course Planck's Law is correct. You then draw the conclusion that the data has been systematically fudged.

This is a false dilemma. You are assuming that you are correctly using Planck's Law, so you just ignore the possibility that you are wrong, removing that from the three possibilities (incomplete ≈ wrong, so I will merge 1 and 2). Since nobody would argue against Planck's Law, the implication is that the data is wrong, but in reality you are misusing Planck's Law.

Since you just decided we're doing ad hominems here, I think that you have a very bad grasp of logic and science, but are so sure of yourself that you never consider that you could be wrong. How else could you confidently claim that molecules have temperature and radiate black body radiation?
20-09-2016 00:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Okay. I will be so clear this time that you cannot possibly misinterpret what I say.

...long-winded stuff anyone can look up...

I know what a false dilemma is.

jwoodward48 wrote:
You point to data. You invoke a law. You note that the data and your invocation of the law contradict. You then tell me that either the data is incorrect or I am arguing against Planck's Law, and of course Planck's Law is correct. You then draw the conclusion that the data has been systematically fudged.

Not why I discarded the data.
jwoodward48 wrote:
This is a false dilemma. You are assuming that you are correctly using Planck's Law, so you just ignore the possibility that you are wrong, removing that from the three possibilities (incomplete ≈ wrong, so I will merge 1 and 2). Since nobody would argue against Planck's Law, the implication is that the data is wrong, but in reality you are misusing Planck's Law.

You are making shit up. This is not why I discarded the data.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Since you just decided we're doing ad hominems here, I think that you have a very bad grasp of logic and science, but are so sure of yourself that you never consider that you could be wrong. How else could you confidently claim that molecules have temperature and radiate black body radiation?

You are doing a very bad job with restitution, dude. I knew your apology was an empty one.

This last paragraph is just the argument of the Stone along with ad hominems.


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2016 00:34
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
"(Note: "you" doesn't actually mean you; it's just an example.)"

As I JUST SAID, I'm referring to other people's arguments.

Also, I'm not trying for restitution anymore. My argument was sincere then. It would be empty if I said it now. I would like for the ad hominems to stop, but only because they are fallacious and unfounded.

You have never defined the Stone. What is that?




Join the debate Conflict between data and laws:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Data Mine28419-07-2019 04:56
Climate Data Gaps?125-06-2019 13:28
The Faith Basis for Radiometric Data627-05-2019 21:00
Satellite confirms key NASA temperature data: The planet is warming — and fast422-05-2019 18:30
I see how climate change will lead to conflict in my home country, Nigeria219-03-2019 15:47
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact