alex3619
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,810
- Location
- Logan, Queensland, Australia
My background includes applied logic, including theory of science, as part of an artificial intelligence degree. I also completed a biochemistry degree and found that there was almost no discussion of theory of science - methodology yes, but not about why things are done a particular way. It is ironic to me that in saying this to provide background, I may be guilty of argument by authority, which is part of what I wish to discuss. The difference is that I am not saying that I am right, I am saying I have an argument.
Another example is that I posted earlier on XMRV and the Lo and Alter PMLV study:
http://forums.phoenixrising.me/show...l-Request-for-Retraction-of-XMRV-paper/page10
My post was post 95. This would be an example of a false dichotomy, reducing it to two views. This was not my intent, and indeed it appears possible that Alter thinks both views are essentially correct, it was just meant to be illustrative. What it also illustrates is how easy it is for us to make this kind of mistake.
Those who are discussing these issues keep asserting either overt or informal fallacies - most probably including me, its easy to do. I just wanted people to be aware of some of these issues as applied to XMRV research. Please feel free to disagree with me.
Some suggested reading:
Inductive fallacies -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Inductive_fallacies
Argument from Authority -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
More generally you might like this:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx
I love the logo here - but I cannot vouch for the rest of the site. Too often sceptics do not practice what they preach, and such sites attract deniers pretending to be sceptics, and I have not explored the site.
I will try to simplify these issues. I am however very much out of practice, so I am aware I may misconstrue some issues - please think these things through for yourselves, and feel free to disagree.
Inductive Fallacy: compare these two -
1. I saw a white swan. I saw another white swan. I saw a whole lot of white swans. Conclusion: All swans are white.
Reply: Anybody ever been to Perth, Australia? What colours (shades?) are the swans?
2. One study did not find XMRV in the blood of ME/CFS patients. Another study did not find XMRV in the blood of ME/CFS patients. A whole lot of studies did not find XMRV in the blood of ME/CFS patients. Conclusion: XMRV is not in the blood of ME/CFS patients.
Reply: This conclusion might actually be correct - but it does not follow from the argument. A million similar negative studies would not prove XMRV is not in blood. Some studies are positive too. What is required is a study with a strong direct conclusion that XMRV is not found in the blood of ME/CFS patients. We need better studies to prove contamination. The best evidence would be direct evidence of contamination in WPI labs. Without such evidence, contamination is not proved. It might be that contamination is a problem, or it might not. It is well accepted that contamination is a major issue with MLVs, which is why such care is taken with testing, retesting, and controls. The consistent major differences between controls and patients is very strong evidence that the contamination claim is wrong.
Argument from Authority: This one is tricky -
1. The King has decreed that all foreigners are evil. The King is the final authority in all things. Therefore, all foreigners are evil.
Reply: This is self evidently wrong - this case is too easy, the real world is more complicated. I wish most fallacies of this kind were this simple. However, ask any follower of almost any cult, and they have trouble seeing this problem in the cult leader.
There is a problem in this example in that the claim that the King is the final authority is a false premise. In the real world, many authorities are used to justify claims who are indeed authorities, but the point is that while authorities are often right, they can be wrong too.
2. Dr. Mystery has said that XMRV research in ME/CFS should be abandoned. Dr. Mystery is an authority on MLVs, of which XMRV is one. Therefore XMRV research in ME/CFS should be abandoned.
This is tricky to rebut. Dr. Mystery is a recognized authority on this type of virus, has real experience and published papers. So shouldn't Dr. Mystery be taken as right?
However, we also have Dr. Serendipity, who supports continued research into XMRV in ME/CFS. Dr. Serendipity is also an expert. Clearly if experts are always right, then we have a contradiction. Please feel free to substitute experts of your choice for my examples.
The current convention for dealing with this is on the basis of consensus. We hold that if the vast majority of scientists, after peer review and debate on the totality of research, agree with one view it should be accepted. This does not however mean it is proven, only that the weight of evidence supports it. Just one good study can change the situation completely.
It will take only one really good study to head us toward accepting XMRV association or contamination theories. I still await that study. I am hoping that either the BWG or Lipkin studies will be that study, but it would not surprise me if we see some other study that also does this.
In the meantime I assert there is still sufficient evidence to justify further research into XMRV and ME/CFS.
Bye,
Alex
Another example is that I posted earlier on XMRV and the Lo and Alter PMLV study:
http://forums.phoenixrising.me/show...l-Request-for-Retraction-of-XMRV-paper/page10
My post was post 95. This would be an example of a false dichotomy, reducing it to two views. This was not my intent, and indeed it appears possible that Alter thinks both views are essentially correct, it was just meant to be illustrative. What it also illustrates is how easy it is for us to make this kind of mistake.
Those who are discussing these issues keep asserting either overt or informal fallacies - most probably including me, its easy to do. I just wanted people to be aware of some of these issues as applied to XMRV research. Please feel free to disagree with me.
Some suggested reading:
Inductive fallacies -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Inductive_fallacies
Argument from Authority -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
More generally you might like this:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx
I love the logo here - but I cannot vouch for the rest of the site. Too often sceptics do not practice what they preach, and such sites attract deniers pretending to be sceptics, and I have not explored the site.
I will try to simplify these issues. I am however very much out of practice, so I am aware I may misconstrue some issues - please think these things through for yourselves, and feel free to disagree.
Inductive Fallacy: compare these two -
1. I saw a white swan. I saw another white swan. I saw a whole lot of white swans. Conclusion: All swans are white.
Reply: Anybody ever been to Perth, Australia? What colours (shades?) are the swans?
2. One study did not find XMRV in the blood of ME/CFS patients. Another study did not find XMRV in the blood of ME/CFS patients. A whole lot of studies did not find XMRV in the blood of ME/CFS patients. Conclusion: XMRV is not in the blood of ME/CFS patients.
Reply: This conclusion might actually be correct - but it does not follow from the argument. A million similar negative studies would not prove XMRV is not in blood. Some studies are positive too. What is required is a study with a strong direct conclusion that XMRV is not found in the blood of ME/CFS patients. We need better studies to prove contamination. The best evidence would be direct evidence of contamination in WPI labs. Without such evidence, contamination is not proved. It might be that contamination is a problem, or it might not. It is well accepted that contamination is a major issue with MLVs, which is why such care is taken with testing, retesting, and controls. The consistent major differences between controls and patients is very strong evidence that the contamination claim is wrong.
Argument from Authority: This one is tricky -
1. The King has decreed that all foreigners are evil. The King is the final authority in all things. Therefore, all foreigners are evil.
Reply: This is self evidently wrong - this case is too easy, the real world is more complicated. I wish most fallacies of this kind were this simple. However, ask any follower of almost any cult, and they have trouble seeing this problem in the cult leader.
There is a problem in this example in that the claim that the King is the final authority is a false premise. In the real world, many authorities are used to justify claims who are indeed authorities, but the point is that while authorities are often right, they can be wrong too.
2. Dr. Mystery has said that XMRV research in ME/CFS should be abandoned. Dr. Mystery is an authority on MLVs, of which XMRV is one. Therefore XMRV research in ME/CFS should be abandoned.
This is tricky to rebut. Dr. Mystery is a recognized authority on this type of virus, has real experience and published papers. So shouldn't Dr. Mystery be taken as right?
However, we also have Dr. Serendipity, who supports continued research into XMRV in ME/CFS. Dr. Serendipity is also an expert. Clearly if experts are always right, then we have a contradiction. Please feel free to substitute experts of your choice for my examples.
The current convention for dealing with this is on the basis of consensus. We hold that if the vast majority of scientists, after peer review and debate on the totality of research, agree with one view it should be accepted. This does not however mean it is proven, only that the weight of evidence supports it. Just one good study can change the situation completely.
It will take only one really good study to head us toward accepting XMRV association or contamination theories. I still await that study. I am hoping that either the BWG or Lipkin studies will be that study, but it would not surprise me if we see some other study that also does this.
In the meantime I assert there is still sufficient evidence to justify further research into XMRV and ME/CFS.
Bye,
Alex