proof

Proof can refer to the factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something, the act of validation or testing for truth, or to a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it. We toss the word 'proof' around in vernacular usage, yet rigorous usage of the term 'proof', outside alcoholic spirits, applies only to mathematics and to philosophical syllogisms.

Whereas disproof is an achievable certainty, "proof" is technically much less easily attained. A person who was demonstrably in Hong Kong at the time of a shooting in New York city could not have committed the crime, whereas we can be much less certain of the innocence of those capable of wielding a gun among the seven million or so people who were in New York city at the time.

Scientific method involves a closing in on the best possible explanation for observed phenomena, which is ideally achieved by discarding experimentally disproven falsifiable hypotheses. The lack of absolute certainty inherent in "best possible" does not sit well with those with a rigid need for a psychological sense of certainty, yet highest probability is the best that we can reasonably demand of most of our important questions.

By comparison, all religions are invented religions (despite claims of received dogma) and demand belief without any incontrovertible evidence to support religious claims. Religious dogmatists, particularly creationists, attempt unsuccessfully to suborn facts to fit their religious dogma. Whereas science moves from fact to explanation, religion moves from dogma to distortion. Because religions are only very loosely based on observable reality, attempts to twist empirical realities to fit religious dogma are necessarily fraught with illogic and falsehoods.

Received notions of deities do not provide the best explanations for observed facts, so scientific knowledge unintentionally runs counter to, or disproves, religious claims. Claims that "God performed a miracle" do not provide any explanation at all for empirical data.

As a result of this lack of foundation in reality, there are many invented religions, yet almost universal agreement about internally logical, replicated, scientific knowledge. New information might necessitate a slight modification of scientific hypotheses to better fit the data, but scientific theories carry a high degree of likelihood, and scientific laws signify near certainty.

Fallacious argument from ignorance are much loved by creationists and advocates of intelligent [sick] design theory. In these fallacies, the arguer erroneously claims either that lack of proof must render a claim false, or that lack of disproof must render a claim true. Referring back to the shooter analogy – disproof may render false any claim that a person who was actually in Hong Kong could have shot someone in New York city, but it does not prove that a particular individual in New York was necessarily the shooter. Conversely, not knowing who shot the victim in New York does not mean that the victim of the shooting could not have been shot.

When proponents of intelligent [sick] design theory demand an explanation for evolution of a complex, functioning system they are committing the fallacy of argument from ignorance (in addition to the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof).

Quo Vadis?
...section index...

Argument from Ignorance

Argument from Ignorance, or argumentum ad ignorantiam:

Fallacious arguments from ignorance erroneously claim either that lack of proof must render a claim false, or that lack of disproof must render a claim true.

Despite its name this fallacy does not refer to being ignorant of the facts per se, rather it refers to an ignorance of alternatives and of what constitutes proof. This fallacy muddles the true-false dichotomy with the question of proof or disproof, and as such is a form of false dilemma where only two options are presented when several options exist. The ignored possibilities include false claim-not disproven, and true claim-not proven, while the implied dichotomy confines options to false claim-disproven or true claim-proven. If only the world of thought were truly so simple.

An example of this fallacious argument within intelligent [sick] design theory is embodied in the “irreducible complexity” claim that if evolutionary biologists cannot provide the demanded explanation for “specified complexity”, then evolutionary theory fails, further fallaciously implying or stating that biological evolution is not a fact, and still further fallaciously implying or stating that God (aka the ‘intelligent designer’) must be responsible for whatever biological mechanism is under debate. Such a concatenation of fallacies could fool only those who insist upon belief in a creator.

The more careful claim of a ‘intelligent [sick] design’ debater is that ‘intelligent [sick] design theory’ ought to be taught alongside science in the classroom. This is not a substantiable claim because nothing about ‘intelligent [sick] design theory’ qualifies it to be regarded as science. Merely disputing the content of science does not qualify as being science. While many ‘intelligent [sick] design’ proponents appear not to understand the true nature of science, pretentiously-named Fellows of the so-called Discovery Institute are mostly well enough educated that they ought to understand the advantages and limitations of scientific investigation.

Many creationists and ‘intelligent [sick] design theory’ debaters who display the argumentam ad ignorantiam logical fallacy do not make their reasoning explicit, such that the conclusion of truth or falsehood is merely implied, or the actual argument is buried in the wordiness typical of ‘intelligent [sick] design’ authors. Because ‘intelligent [sick] design theory’ authors write for a readership that is typically not well versed in science, writings on ‘intelligent [sick] design theory’ necessarily contain very lengthy explanations. However, wordiness can also be a technique of verbal obfuscation wherein an argument – and its inherent deficiencies of logic – are obscured by rhetoric.

When the reader is not well versed with the topic under discussion, he or she will have more difficulty in determining whether or not the writer has provided an accurate, authoritative, and complete account of the topic. When the conclusions drawn by the writer fit with the reader's preconceived notions or feelings about the topic, then the reader is at risk of being misled. Knowledge of the fallacies of logic can provide a short-cut to determining the difficulties with an argument. A single fallacy of logic does not necessarily render the conclusions suspect. However, a plethora of fallacies do indicate that the argument, and hence the conclusions drawn, are fatally flawed.

Quo Vadis?
...section index...

Fallacy Fallacy

Argumentum ad Logicam : Fallacist's Fallacy : Fallacy Fallacy : "Fallacio" :

This fallacy is akin to the two wrongs don't make a right adage. A fallacious argument lacks a convincingly strong logical connection between acceptable premises and relevant conclusion. However, a true conclusion could be tacked onto a fallacious argument (ignoratio elenchi). So, the fact of unacceptable premises and/or an illogical argument says nothing about the truth-value of the conclusion itself. Accordingly, one is not necessarily justified in concluding that a proposition is false simply because a fallacious argument has been presented for the proposition. (The professional proponents of intelligent [sick] design theory implicitly fall back on this escape clause.)

In commenting on the fallacies of logic inherent in creationist arguments, I realize that recognizing fallacies alone does not render creationist conclusions incorrect. Demonstration of the falsity of creationists' claims does require scientific exposition, but that voluminous topic is not the primary purpose of this site. The fact that I, along with experts in the relevant scientific fields, am convinced by the scientific evidence has, however, made me certain that creationists' conclusions are false, and this prompted me to examine the fallacies that must be present in arguments for false conclusions. I can think of no other huge body of fallacious arguments within an area where conclusions are subject to empirical scrutiny. So, religious dogma and creationist nonsense provides ideal fodder for critical thinking. The problem with creationist and intelligent [sick] design arguments–beyond their manifest ignorance of science–lies in the fact that they are fraught with fallacies.

It is theoretically possible, on grounds of logic, that creationists' and intelligent [sick] design proponents' criticisms of science could be well founded. In so far as scientists usually admit that their hypothesis or theory will be subject to subsequent revision, creationists and intelligent [sick] design proponents are correct that gaps do exist in scientific knowledge. Scientists regularly admit that science has unanswered questions. This is one of the features that makes the study of science interesting. The nature of scientific investigation is to incrementally refine the body of understanding. Rarely do scientific discoveries completely overturn previous paradigms. However, unlike the case for religious dogma, nor does science lay claim to having a complete answer.

In this regard, though, it is an argument from ignorance–ignorance of possibilities–to believe that disproving scientific explanations is even possible by intelligent [sick] design propositions, let alone that it could prove the existence of God. Just as a single exposure of a fallacious argument does not overturn creationist arguments, gaps in scientific knowledge do not discredit the broad subject of scientific understanding. To argue so is a fallacy of composition – extrapolating from a part to the whole. In thinking that attacking elements of science could disprove biological evolution, creationists and intelligent [sick] design proponents are creating a false dichotomy, ignoring the actual explanation of incomplete-but-accurate knowledge.

Creationist and intelligent [sick] design arguments, though often implied rather than being spelled out fully, do not constitute a body of argument remotely as strong as empirical scientific evidence, scientific hypotheses, or scientific theories. So, exposure of all or many of the fallacies in the arguments of creationists and intelligent [sick] design proponents is not to commit the fallacist's fallacy: "It is reasonable to, at least provisionally, reject an improbable proposition for which no adequate evidence has been presented. So, if you can show that all of the common arguments for a certain proposition are fallacious, and the burden of proof is on the proposition's proponents, then you do not commit this fallacy by rejecting that proposition. Rather, the fallacy is committed when you jump to the conclusion that just because one argument for it is fallacious, no cogent argument for it can exist." Fallacy Fallacy

Quo Vadis?
...section index...

God of the Gaps

Argument from incredulity, God of the Gaps, subtype of argument from ignorance

The argument, "I don't believe that ..." is particularly common amongst creationists and proponents of intelligent [sick] design theory.

This is a form of argument from ignorance in which the incredulous debater refuses to believe in a particular line of evidence (denial), or an interpretation of evidence that supports an alternate conclusion to that which the debater favors. The argument from incredulity essentially takes the position that personal reluctance to believe that something is true (or false) is a good reason for unfounded insistence that it is not true (or false). The fallacy lies in the segue from opinion to attempts at justification. The fact remains that while incredulity may be justified in that disbelief may have good grounds, it also may not be justified. The problem is simply that incredulity alone is not sufficient argument for or against a fact or interpretation.

In the history of human attempts to understand their universe, supernatural explanations–Gods of the Gaps–provided a framework for explanation in the absence of scientific comprehension. Humans invented deities to fill gaps in their understanding. Modern science offers the opportunity for comprehension, but many with an emotional need to believe literally in dogma are patently not interested in attaining true understanding.

Quo Vadis?
...section index...

Shifting the Burden of Proof

Shifting the burden of proof

The burden of proof is always on the arguer, creationist or evolutionist, who is making an assertion. The difficulty for creationists lies in making logical arguments against evidence, and for evolutionists in sifting through voluminous evidence for a pertinent example to illustrate their point. [searching for "biological evolution" on PubMed produced 117942 hits on 5/1/07]

The construction of a cogent deductive/inductive argument begins with acceptable premises (supported by evidence) and proceeds according to the laws of deductive/inductive reasoning to a conclusion supported by the premises.

Shifting the burden of proof is a subtype of the argument from ignorance fallacy that shifts the burden of proof onto the person whose argument is attacked. This is the "prove it, or I am correct!" challenge that underlies many creationist taunts.

The source of the fallacy in arguments from ignorance is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. The implied conclusion of creationist demands is that unless the evolutionist can provide an adequate explanation for specifically selected creationist questions, then evolutionary theory is false, biological evolution is no longer a fact, and the existence of God is proven (at another level of implication).

The argument runs like this:
creationist challenge: demonstrate exactly how the bacterial flagellum evolved!
premise: the bacterial flagellum is a functional multi-component system
premise: if scientists cannot demonstrate exactly how the bacterial flagellum evolved, then (implied or stated fallacious conclusions)
conclusion E: Biological complexity cannot have evolved
conclusion T: evolutionary theory fails
conclusion G: God must have designed the flagellum
conclusion X: God exists
conclusion M: We are the products of special creation, are not related to apes, and must possess innate moral absolutes

The argument above demonstrates the fallacious argumentum ad ignorantiam because the conclusions, in employing a false dichotomy, are not supported by the premise. That is, even if scientists could never demonstrate exactly how the bacterial flagellum evolved, it would not necessarily follow that evolutionary processes were not responsible for the structure. Further,
even if this structure arose by some mechanism other than evolution, this mechanism need not by necessity have been designed by some mythical supernatural intelligence.

In fact, on the basis of the fallacious, not to mention devious, reasoning behind creationist demands for specific scientific explanations, "irreducible complexity" demands fail because the claims of scientific merit regarding questions of divine design behooves the creationists to demonstrated exactly how God designed the apparatus. If creationists wish to make the claim that God designed the bacterial flagellum, then the claimers must provide experimental or empirical verification for the hypothesis of divine design. This is particularly so when creationist are demanding inclusion of these speculations within the science curriculum.

Creationists' earlier demands for an explanation of the evolution of the eye have been abandoned because much more research has been devoted to the evolution of vision, and evolutionary scientists can provided an account for the reducible complexity of the eye. That ploy did not work, so creationist demands have moved to the microscopic bacterial flagellum because much less funding has been devoted to microbiology.

If one follows 'creation vs evolution' debates, one will quickly observe that creationists do claim to prove the existence of God, while evolutionists do not attempt to disprove the existence of God. Evolutionists merely defend the experimental support for evolutionary theory. Creationists mistakenly assume that because modern science provides much more probable explanations for natural phenomena than does the God of the Gaps then the aim of science is to disprove the existence of God. Mainstream science does not concern itself with questions concerning the existence or nonexistence of purported supernatural phenomena.

On the other hand, scientists investigate the physical world and defend, to other scientists, their conclusions based upon experimental results. Scientific reports follow a format of introduction to ideas based upon past research, the question to be addressed, experimental methods, experimental results, and conclusions based upon both current scientific understanding and experimental results. Science proceeds by incremental gains in understanding. It is the very nature of science that conclusions are acknowledged not to be the final word upon explanation, and that, once a scientific theory is widely accepted, research will move on to yet unanswered questions. Scientists also recognize something of which creationists appear to be unaware – that inductive reasoning cannot, by the rules of logic, yield proof. This impossibility applies to scientific inductive reasoning and to theological induction from any misinterpreted facts.

Creationists utilize, in their religiously-motivated attacks on science, one of the chief virtues of science – the reluctance of the community of scientists to accept any hypothesis or theory until burden of 'proof' (probability) moves to the level of general acceptance.

Quo Vadis?
...section index...