A Salad Bar of Fallacy

In a recent post I made two points concerning evolution. First, the book by Jerry Coyne advertising evolution as truth is in error. And second that the standards used and accepted by evolutionary enthusiasts are below (“far, FAR below”, I said) that of other sciences.

In response, Scott, over at monkeytrials, posted a lengthy rebuttal in which he made several points, which I will try to capture here in condensed form. I imagine Scott will help correct me if my impressions are incorrect.

1. The first and abiding point concerns plumbers showing up to critique Darwin and non-chefs critiquing chefs. Scott has denied that this is an appeal to authority, yet insists that authority trumps “outsiders”, who are butting in and are out of their league. (also related is #6 below).

2. Stephen J. Gould is invoked in an excerpt that makes his case that evolutionary science is different and therefore is allowed to use different standards. The bulk of the Gould complaint compares evo-science to law. But Scott also uses a hoops/pigskin reference as an “apples and oranges” argument. Evidence, the argument seems to be, is relative.

3. Next he compares evo-science inferences to Einstein’s inferences as a means of justifying their use.

4. Then the existing record of empirical evo-confirmations is cited.

5. Scott repeats that an hypothesis cannot be argued against unless a competing, superior hypothesis is first presented.

6. Finally he categorizes me in a fashion that appears calculated to imply that I lack credentials satisfactory to the task, in his opinion.

Let’s discuss what is happening here.

1. There is no possible way to use the metaphors of plumber vs. Darwin and diner vs.chef and not be referring to lack of authority or a requirement of authority. This is a common syndrome within paleo- whatever: If you criticize, you show your ignorance: so begone, ignorant one. In fact I was not challenging the factoids produced by archaeology; dinosaurs of all stripes existed as did huge sloths, mastadons, etc. What I was challenging – and still challenge – is the rationalization that accompanies these factoids. So the challenge is about process: the logic and rational relationships that are being used to declare TRUTH. Does it take four PhD’s in paleo-whatever to examine logic? In fact, how many biologists even study logic?

The process of determining actual Truth is not restricted to biologists and is not dependent upon one’s knowledge of paleo-factoids. Logic is a separate and universal set of truths and can be an acquired skill set if it is studied and applied rigorously and with intellectual honesty. Logic is not dependent upon any information set derived by any scientific pursuit; conversely, science is dependent upon logic. Illogically obtained, science data has no value.

So there are two fallacies at play, here. First the obvious Appeal to Authority Fallacy, second a weak Red Herring Fallacy where a demand is made that is not even pertinent to the issue: being an expert in X is not essential when observing logical processes common to all rational pursuits. But being logical is essential to being an expert in X, if X is a rational pursuit.

2. Gould is making a plea that is a Special Pleading Fallacy: X is somehow “special” and this makes it OK to exempt X from the constraints placed on the rest of the alphabet.

3. Here is my favorite. Einstein did in fact infer certain things mathematically. He did not however declare them fact until empirical confirmation was accomplished. He never declared them to be Truth. This is just a false use of an authority.

4. As I have done many times, I again asked to be made acquainted with which of Scott’s list of evo-things are actual, incontrovertible, empirical proof of evolution. This request has never been answered. I again request just one (1) instance of this. Providing a lengthy list of inferential presumptions does not make the case that evolution is as robust as other sciences. Part of the problem here is that evolution is not even completely defined, as redefinitions are to be forthcoming in this, the year of Darwin. The hypothesis remains malleable.

5. To claim that fallacies cannot be cited when identified unless a Truth is provided as well…. is false. A fallacy is a fallacy, and is false, period.

6. I might have hoped for a better classification than “armchair philosopher”, but I can see that it served Scott’s purposes. Biologists seem to have an almost accountant-like drive to classify and categorize things; but I had hoped for something more along the lines of “Templar of Logic”. Oh, well. At any rate it is an Ad Hominem Fallacy, and as I said above it appears designed to imply a lack of acceptable credentials on my part, so it was applied in the name of the Appeal to Authority Fallacy. But again, I was not critiquing the details of the science, I was being critical of the conclusions of fact and truth being drawn, and there’s your apples vs. oranges.

In fact other sciences do use inference, and use it successfully and rationally. The process is to take data, draw an inference, form a hypothesis, design an experiment, limit the variables, take data, objectively analyze for conformance to the hypothesis, list deviations, draw another inference, repeat the above until deviations are under the instrumentation noise threshold. If this process converges, it will produce a factoid, which remains contingent, and therefore never becomes absolute Truth. There is no stopping at the pointin the process where the inference is made.

The only pursuit of which I am aware that uses “mountains” of inferences to generate “facts” and “Truth” is evolution. I maintain that this is an error, no matter how compelling the mountain of inferences might be. It might be asymptotic to factuality due to sheer bulk, weight of numbers, and might even be used as fact, but it is not fact. It remains hypothesis until it is verified empirically (a la’ Einstein, if you will, to reverse the Appeal to Authority). And it is never absolute truth.

The reason that I object strenuously to the perpetuation of such fallacies is not for either the benefit or detriment of evolution. The reason is that the persistent, erroneous use of the words “fact” and ”Truth” on the behalf of evolution are a part of the culture war we find ourselves in now. The war to instill relativism benefits from these fallacies and will ultimately result in complete relativism and denial of standards. This removes rational thought from the process, and results in intellectual and ethical chaos. This skid has started, and is nearly out of control. That’s why I object.

This brings me to the final point: “scientists need not be either aware or concerned about culture wars or social aspects of their work” (a point that Scott forgot to make this time around). This is valid; but only if they are scrupulous about their claims in the first place. Intellectual integrity demands it.