|Conflict between data and laws19-09-2016 17:29|
|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
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.
I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
|Into the Night★★★★★
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
|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.
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.
(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?
|Into the Night★★★★★
I know what a false dilemma is.
Not why I discarded the data.
You are making shit up. This is not why I discarded the data.
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
|"(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?
|80 year moving average data||88||13-05-2020 01:32|
|Headed For A New Ice Age? Latest Data Says Yes!||18||11-02-2020 18:00|
|SCIENTISTS: 30 Years Of Data Show The 'Godfather' Global Warming Was Wrong||17||11-02-2020 17:42|
|New California Laws||1||13-10-2019 21:01|
|The Data Mine||284||19-07-2019 04:56|