What is the Galileo Fallacy?
The notion of a logical fallacy where an argument is deemed true because it has been attacked is often discussed in philosophical and logical circles. This fallacy lacks a widely accepted specific name, but Tim Harding has coined the term “Galileo fallacy,” which aptly captures the essence of this misunderstanding. The Galileo fallacy essentially states that if an argument has been attacked, it must be true, a mistaken belief that overlooks the complexity of the scientific and logical methods.
The Galileo Fallacy Unveiled
The Galileo fallacy is not a formal logical fallacy, but rather a widespread misconception that occurs when people interpret attacks against an argument as a test of its veracity. This fallacy can be seen in various contexts, from scientific debates to religious discourse. For instance, believing that white supremacy is right because it has faced many criticisms reflects a misunderstanding of how truth is determined.
“People attack the argument supporting white supremacy which doesn't make the argument true. White supremacy is wrong and the argument supporting it is wrong.”
The Role of Scientific Method and the Syllogistic Fallacy
The scientific method provides a framework for testing and validating hypotheses. In this context, an argument is considered true if it withstands rigorous scrutiny, including attacks by the scientific community. This process relies on the principle that the absence of refutation is equivalent to confirmation, a key aspect of inductive reasoning.
The Galileo fallacy, however, breaches the formal rules of logic. It is an example of a syllogistic fallacy, where the mere fact that an argument has been attacked is conflated with its validity. This misunderstanding can lead to erroneous conclusions, as seen in the persecution of scientists like Galileo, where being attacked became synonymous with being right.
Beyond Galileo: The Persecution Fallacy
A related concept is the “persecution fallacy,” which is encountered not only in scientific circles but also in religious environments. In these contexts, the persecution of believers is sometimes viewed as evidence of the truth of their beliefs. This fallacy is rooted in the notion that being persecuted implies a deeper truth, often leading to societal divisions and misunderstandings.
“Perhaps the name ‘persecution fallacy’ would be equally apt! We often encounter it also in religious circles whereby persecution of the faithful is taken by the faithful as evidence for the faithful.”
Why Calling It a ‘Fail to Have Any Bearing on the Matter’ Suffices
Many argue that the Galileo fallacy is more of a non sequitur, a broader category of logical fallacies. Calling it a non sequitur is appropriate because it highlights the fallacy of inferring a conclusion from a premise that is unrelated or irrelevant. For instance, equating the attack on a theory with the validation of a different, previously discredited theory is a fallacious comparison.
“Whether or not an argument has been attacked has no bearing on the validity of that argument. An argument either is or is not valid independent of whether it is attacked or not.”
Conclusion
The Galileo fallacy is a common misconception that misinterprets attacks on an argument as evidence of its truth. This fallacy can be found in various contexts, from scientific debates to religious beliefs. Understanding and recognizing these fallacies is crucial for maintaining a logical and rational discourse. By calling it a non sequitur, we can focus on the underlying issue of irrelevance without getting lost in the minutiae of naming specific fallacies.
References:
What is the logical fallacy which states that an argument is true because people have attacked it?