is there a name for this type of argument?

KevinB

One type of argument that I see often in the sciences is the following:

One wishes to refute a scientific theory, A.
One assumes that another theory, B, is correct.
One then shows that A and B give different results.
Since B is assumed to be correct, A must be wrong.

Typically theory A is a new and non-traditional or counterintuitive theory, while B is a well-established and traditional theory. What is unconvincing about this type of argument is the assumption that B must be correct simply because it is already established and popular.

My question is whether there is a specific name given to this type of argument. As I am not familiar with the literature on the analysis of human reasoning and argument, the nearest name I can think of is a straw-man argument, but in my experience a straw-man argument isn't quite the same thing. A straw-man argument in the above context would claim that theory A has some feature which it does not in fact possess, and then refute that feature, thus seeming to have refuted the theory. Or it would misinterpret or misrepresent theory A and then attack the misinterpretation. What I have described above isn't quite so blatant as a straw-man argument.

Dfpolis

↪KevinB

The name for that is "prejudicial thinking."

Sadly, it is all too common both in society as a whole and in science in particular.

KevinB

Thank you both for quick responses. "Prejudicial thinking" is right on, but it may be a bit to directly insulting if I use that in an argument with somebody. I was hoping to be able to say something like, "Ah, but your argument is basically a Johnsonism: you're assuming its truth without being able to say why it is true, and then you're just showing that it gives different results from this new model, and then concluding that the new model must be false" . But at least Damer's is a published work that I can cite if I need to, so thank you for that one.

KevinB

Oops, I forgot to preview my last response before sending it, and I got some formatting in there that messed it up. Sorry about that. Please ignore the italics at the end of that last post. "Johnsonism" was supposed to be an example of the kind of "name" for this type of argument that I was hoping for.

VagabondSpectre

It's called a false dichotomy.

A dichotomy is a set of two mutually exclusive, jointly exhaustive alternatives. Dichotomies are typically expressed with the words "either" and "or", like this: "Either the test is wrong or the program is wrong."

A false dichotomy is a dichotomy that is not jointly exhaustive (there are other alternatives), or that is not mutually exclusive (the alternatives overlap), or that is possibly neither. Note that the example given above is not mutually exclusive, since the test and the program could both be wrong. It's not jointly exhaustive either, since they could both be correct, but it could be a hardware error, a compiler error and so on.

A false dichotomy is typically used in an argument to force your opponent into an extreme position -- by making the assumption that there are only two positions.

Examples:

"If you want better public schools, you have to raise taxes. If you don't want to raise taxes, you can't have better schools." - A third alternative is that you could spend the existing tax money more efficiently.

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem." - No room for innocent bystanders here.

"If you're not with us, you're against us." - Being neutral is not an option.

Forcing people to classify themselves as either "with us" or "against us", leads to the saying "An enemy of my enemy is my friend." While they may hate both of you.

Regarding attempting to favor one element of the dichotomy over another, other fallacies (in the form of appeals to authority, popularity, tradition, etc...) can also accompany a false dichotomy.

KevinB

Thank you. A false dichotomy seems to be another possibility. It's not a phrase I've seen much, so I have some reading to do.

The characteristic thing about the type of argument I have described above is the implicit, almost "sneaky", assumption that theory B is right. It's introduced completely casually, as if its validity is intuitively obvious. Yet, as a scientific theory, theory B is just as subject to doubt (in my opinion) as any other theory, and its popularity is no proof of its validity. If one happens to hold to the popular model, one should still be able to articulate the fundamental evidence for it, whether that be an ab initio proof or some experimental observations, or both. There's something knavish and underhanded about this type of argument that really gets under my skin, even when I'm not one of the disputants. I thought there might be some famous name attached to it, like a politician's name, or the name of someone in a famous novel or play, who used this type of argument to "win" his case, even though some people could see it was more of a trick than a good argument.

VagabondSpectre

The characteristic thing about the type of argument I have described above is the implicit, almost "sneaky", assumption that theory B is right — KevinB

Classically we call such assumptions "circular reasoning" or "begging the question". When the conclusion (the truth of theory B) is assumed or taken for granted rather than made logically likely or necessary by the premises, then the argument is not strong or valid (respectively). He's starting with the premise that theory B is true and calling it a conclusion.

Circular reasoning is much easier to pull off when you combine it with other fallacious appeals (such as false dichotomies, straw-men, etc...). What bothers you so much about what you describe seems to be the fact that there is no solid argument to begin with, where premises are treated as substantiated conclusions.

Wayfarer

↪KevinB

Hi KevinB - I don't suppose you have read, or have in mind, the kinds of issues that are described in Kuhn's famous book, Structure of Scientific Revolutions? It seems to me that you're thinking about similar kinds of subjects.

gloaming

↪VagabondSpectre

Indeed, petitio principii. Using as a necessary premise the very thing you were to demonstrate. Good call.

Relativist

The name for this type of argument is: valid logic. I'll demonstrate:
Where A is the non-preferred theory, B is the preferred theory, and x is a result of A but not a result of B:

1. If A then ~x
2. If B then x
3. B
4. therefore x (2,3 modus ponens)
5. Therefore ~B (2, 4 modus tollens)

The "problem" is that B is a premise, and its truth is not established. The argument just shows that A and B are mutually exclusive.

Other issues may sway one towards either A or B (ideally, the "best" theory is identified abductively as the best explanation for the empirical evidence - i.e. it has the greatest explanatory power and scope), but the reasoning cited is not actually a problem.

is there a name for this type of argument?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions