Fallacy of the Crucial Experiment
The fallacy of the crucial experiment is one of the many smokescreens that are used to cover the fact that the reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. Whenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regression, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. Without Divine revelation, neither logic nor math can be known. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma.
The Logical Fallacy of the Crucial Experiment occurs when an experiment is claimed to have proved or disproved something. It is unlikely that a single experiment could do such a thing. In addition, some experiments are used to teach a politically correct, though untrue, doctrine.
Examples of the Fallacy of the Crucial Experiment
“The Urey-Miller experiment proved that life can come into existence spontaneously.”
It did not. Though this experiment is taught to students as one of the crucial experiments, it doesn't prove what the teachers tell the students that it proves. In fact, the Urey-Miller experiment, along with much follow-up research, makes the feasibility of the idea of spontaneous life springing from non-living things so remote that some people are proposing the life came form outer space. Of course, the UFO hypothesis just moves the problem across space and doesn’t answer anything.
How can we know anything about anything? That’s the real question
|
