As a speaker, I get asked a lot about how to get the point across at a student conference and “Fanqiang and Science”, is the latest debate. This article explains why Fanqiang and Science are a controversy and present some reasons why it should not be a controversy.
The main argument in favour of the “Fanqiang and Science” argument is that there is no “ad hominem fallacy” here, as the other side has no logic or fact to stand on. In other words, if we want to discuss scientific issues using logic, we can easily do so by asking questions that have no basis in fact or logic.
The other side will tell you that, when we talk about scientific issues, it is not just about debate tactics, but it is about making the best arguments we can, while looking at issues from different perspectives, that have not been ruled out. Thus, when we talk about the “Fanqiang and Science” argument, the other side can hardly stand to argue because they would have to respond to our arguments that have no basis in logic.
It seems that this is where the problem lies. To effectively use science, and debate tactics, we have to know how to make sure we are not committing “fallacies of induction”. Click here for more information about https://medium.com/me/stats/post/7d3e4914e90
Induction comes from Latin and means to lead a person to a conclusion. In this case, we are going to demonstrate that induction is a fallacy, and that, indeed, Fanqiang and Science are an argument based on induction.
For a discussion on a scientific issue, the question or topic should be answered first, before any other topics. Therefore, if we say that, with the “Fanqiang and Science” argument, “the solution was apparent and it is in sight”, the reader will only get one side of the argument and would be left with no other option than to conclude that the solution is obvious.
Fallacies of induction are the root of the “Fanqiang and Science” argument. We are taught to think logically and scientifically, but not when we begin to argue with the scientists, because there is no logical way to make them look stupid or fallacious, even if we do not believe that they are.
Scientists are doing a great job and, thankfully, they are rarely accused of fallacies of induction, as the controversy over “Fanqiang and Science” highlights. If we want to effectively use logic and evidence, we must use logical fallacies, and we need to know how to counter our opponents and make them look fallacious.