Two Fallacies of Empiricism

[This post is intended to be tongue-in-cheek-ish.]

The desert-landscapes fallacy:

1. Theory T is committed to the existence of Fs.
2.  Fs do not exist in desert landscapes.
3.  Therefore, T is false.

The problem is that this argument presupposes that we can identify desert landscapes and their denizens. More accurately, define a desert landscape as the minimal theory T* such that T* provides an adequate account of phenomena P (or, alternatively, as the ontology derived from T*). Further, define a barren wasteland as any theory T# that purports to be a desert landscape but which, in point of fact, does not adequately account for P. The argument, thus, presupposes that there is some theory T! that is more likely than T to be a desert landscape than a barren wasteland. But, of course, T purports to be a desert landscape and purports that every more minimal theory is a barren wasteland. The argument, therefore, begs the question.

The scary movie fallacy:

1. Theory T is committed to Fs.
2.  Fs are ghouls (on T).
3.  Therefore, T is false.

Call a theory T a scary movie iff it essentially invokes primitive spooky entities (hereafter, ghouls). And call an entity spooky only if it is a character in a scary movie. The problem is now evident. In order to know whether or not T is a scary movie, we must know whether or not Fs are ghouls; and in order to know whether or not Fs are ghouls, we need to know whether or not T is a scary movie.

Any other newly discovered fallacies (whether or Empiricism or not) are welcome.

Comments

[Tony Marmo]

I agree with your reasoning in general terms. But just to clarify what you mean, let me ask you this. You present the three initial points of the fallacy:
1. Theory T is committed to the existence of Fs.
2. Fs do not exist in desert landscapes.
3. Therefore, T is false.

My reading of point (1) is that it does not explicitly say where Fs exist. Against (2) the first and most obvious argument is that Fs (may) exist elsewhere.

[marc]

Tony, yah. I was making the background assumption that the only things which exist are desert dwellers.

[Tony Marmo]

Ok, I see. Your second argument against the scary movie fallacy seems stronger. If I understand you, what you mean is that the second falacy looks like the chicken versus egg Byzantine discussion: Which one came first? The egg or the chicken?

Of course, I am a suspect in this case, because I am not very fond of empiricism. Empiricism is kind of a Museum article, with a XIXth century flavour, you know.

Although I guess one empiricist could argue that since Ghouls are imaginary there can be no empirical evidence of their existence, so that it does not matter what T is. In such a case, it would be as if in a Byzantine discussion like chicken versus egg the empiricist picks either one of them... I prefer your argument.

Offtopic: I noticed you have been working a lot. Your blog is full of new and interesting stuff.

[marc]

"Offtopic: I noticed you have been working a lot. Your blog is full of new and interesting stuff." Thanks, but don't you mean NOT working?! :^)

[Tony Marmo]

Blogs are the future of academic discussion. A researcher of our generation who has no blog is like a runner without legs.