Talk:Fallacy Fallacy

From EvoWiki

"Science and evolution make no claims of truth, but instead argue that evolution is the best current explanation for observable data; it's implicit in the scientific method that any explanation is falsifiable by new information, thus discussions of 'truth' and 'falsity' are specious when directed at specific hypothetical claims; they're only relevant in discussion of evidence."

Other than the above, this is a great entry. But although "science and evolution make no claims of truth", scientists and evolutionists surely do make claims of truth, just as they ought to. If "discussions of 'truth' and 'falsity'" were really "specious when directed at specific hypothetical claims [I believe you mean hypotheses]" then it would be quite difficult to make any sense of what scientists are really after. Surely they want to find out what is true and what is false, don't they? Now, they may never have 100% credence that a particular hypothesis is true, and they may always stand ready to change their minds about whether a particular hypothesis is true (if they come to learn new evidence), but that doesn't make talk of truth "specious".

Here's a specific example of what's wrong with the quote: According to the quote, it seems that as long as I believe that evolutionary theory is the best explanation (of the relevant phenomena), then I'm an evolutionist. But me believing that evolutionary theory is the best explanation is completely consistent with me believing that life as we know it was created in just a few days (specifically, I might believe that one should always believe the 1,382nd best explanation--which happens to be Creationism). In order to be an evolutionist, I must believe more than just that it is the best explanation—I must believe that it is true.

Talk of truth in regards to scientific hypothesis is not specious but of central importance. Being an evolutionist is believing that evolutionary theory (or something very much like it) is true. I stand ready to change my mind about evolutionary theory (as all rational people should), but that doesn't mean that I don't believe it now. -dtlocke (frozentexan.typepad.com)

Hmm... I agree. There is a good point in the first sentence of the paragraph but the rest is also less related to the fallacy itself.

In the definition "When the opponent uses a fallacious argument, to claim that this proves the opponent's opinion wrong is a Fallacy Fallacy", replacing "wrong" by "the best explanation" does not make the claim any more valid. I'll remove the part you don't like, expecting the author to defend it on this discussion page. --tk (t) 10:19, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)