Standardization

Snertle.

1. Fnorbert's existence, if any, occurs outside of time and space. 2. Science can only test what is inside time and space. C. Science cannot prove that Fnorbert doesn't exist.

Kiarra.

1. Things only exist inside time and space. 2. Fnorbert is not inside time and space. C. Fnorbert can't exist.

Contextualization

Arguments that conclude "science can't prove X," usually crop up after someone says "science has proved X," which suggests that somewhere out there, there is a scientific proof that Fnorbert doesn't exist. It would be nice if we could find that proof and see if it works since, if it works, that would prove that science can prove that Fnorbert doesn't exist. (Doing something always proves it can be done.) But neither speaker says anything about such an argument, so we're going to assume it doesn't exist. Remember, we always judge an argument set based only on the information contained in that set.

The basic issue for Snertle is whether or not science can prove that Fnorbert doesn't exist. Since science has proved itself effective over and over again, Snertle definitely bears the burden of proof here. Is it a light or a heavy burden? Well, if Snertle's argument fails, does that definitely mean that science can prove that Fnorbert doesn't exist? Science has limits, and this might just be one of them. So Snertle's failure can't settle the matter, so his burden is a light one.

For Kiarra, the question is whether or not Fnorbert can exist. Fnorbert is presumably a "supernatural" being, one with powers beyond those of natural animals and people. This puts Fnorbert into the same class as Superman, Odin and The Easter Bunny. Our basic knowledge of such beings is that they don't exist, so Fnornerts believers bear the burden of proof here. What if 90% of humanity believes in Fnorbert? Well, they're entitled to their beliefs, but that doesn't mean we have established background knowledge here. If they want to say that we know Fnorbert exists, they have to come up with a good argument. What about Kiarra's position? Is the idea that these things can't exist park of our background knowledge? Nope. There may be a good argument to that effect out there somewhere, but it's not widely established, so I'll say no. Which means that Kiarra has burden of proof on her position as well. Is this a light or a heavy burden? Say it's a light burden. Then if her argument fails it might be true that Fnorbert can't exist. Which is basically the same as saying he might exist, which basically means it's not true that he can't exist. So Kiarra bears a heavy burden of proof.

Is one of these arguments a counter argument to the other one? Kiarra's conclusion is that "Fnorbert can't exist," while Snertle's is "Science can't prove that," which would only be a counter argument to Kiarra if she was basing her argument on science. Sionce she isn't, Snertle isn't making a counter argument here. Now, Kiarra does refer to Snertle's premises here, but she doesn't use this reference to say thet there's anything wrong with Snertle's argument. Instead, she uses that premise to independently argue that Fnorbert can't exist. So no counter argument there either. This means the first argument given will be the direct one, and the other will be the opposing one.
Basic Issues: Can science prove that Fnorbert doesn't exist? (Snertle says no.) Can Fnorbert exist? (Kiarra says no.)
Null Hypotheses: "Maybe" to both issues.
Burden of Proof
Snertle: Light burden. (If his argument fails, Fnorbert might or might not exist..)
Kiarra: Heavy burden. (If her argument fails, Fnorbert can exist.)
Tactics
Snertle: Direct argument
Kiarra: Opposing argument

Analysis

Is Snertle...
Relying on authority? No.
Relying on a comparison? No.
Relying on a sample? No.
Relying on a correlation? No.
Relying on an explanation? No.
Relying on lack of evidence? No.

Is Kiarra...
Relying on authority? No.
Relying on a comparison? No.
Relying on a sample? No.
Relying on a correlation? No.
Relying on an explanation? No.
Relying on lack of evidence? No.

Since neither of the speakers is relying on an inductive argument strategy, we'll call these both "deductive" arguments.

Evaluation

Language check - Okay, you could reasonably call one of these arguments a language fallacy, but I think it's more of a deductive fallacy, so at this point I'm going to say no-one commits a language fallacy. Of course, you could go back and change this later. And the fist of death doesn't have to stick exactly to what you wrote in your evaluation.

Relevance check - Hmmmm, I don't see any obvious irrelevancies.

Presumption check - Nope, I don't see any presumption errors.

Deductive validity. (Is either argument deductively invalid?) This is tricky, so I'm going to re-standardize the arguments before I do it. Yes, I can do that. No, it's not just because I'm the instructor. You can do it too. In fact, you can do it any time. Notice that I carefully craft my restandardizations to make clear those aspects of these arguments I am going to pay attention to.

Snertle.

1. Fnorbert might exist. 2. Fnorbert does not exist in time. 3. Fnorbert does not exist in space. 4. Science can only test what is inside time and space. C. Science cannot test Fnorbert's existance.

Is it possible to have a situation in which all the premises are true and the conclusion is false? Well, if we defince "science" as just a process of observing events and experiments and thinking about the results, then yeah, this is valid. All those events and experiments occur in time and space, and we can't observe things that ain't in time and space, so "science" can't test this "not in time, not in space," Fnorbert. (But there's a deeper reason why this argument is valid. I'll explain that in the next section.)

Kiarra.

1. Fnorbert does not exist in time. 2. Fnorbert does not exist in space. C. Fnorbert does not exist.

Is it possible to have a situation in which all the premises are true and the conclusion is false? No. If something exists, it exists in time and space. So this argument is valid.

Self-Contradiction? Does either argument contain two or more mutually contradictory premises? Yes, Snertle's argument does. He says Fnorbert might exist, but then contradicts himself when he says Fnorbert doesn't exist in time and space. If Fnorbert does not appear in time and space, then he doesn't exist. If he doesn't exist, then it's not true that he might exist. Snertle's argument cannot work because it commits the self-contradiction fallacy. (Now do you see the deeper reason why Snertle's argument is valid?)

Note. (Yes, you can make notes whenever you like. Also comments, asides, and tangents. No commentaries tho'.) Snertle doesn't seem to know what the word "exist" means. This means that his argument could also be seen as committing the fallacy of equivocation.

Fist of Death
Based on the facts provided by Snertle, Fnorbert does not exist. As Kiarra points out, Snertle defines Fnorbert as "existing" outside of time and space but, guess what, existence only happens inside time and space, so Snertle has in effect defined Fnorbert as non-existant. Snertle uses this definition to argue that science can't prove that Fnorbert doesn't exist. His argument says that science only tests things inside time and space, and since Fnorbert isn't in time and space, Fnorbert can't be tested. Maybe this is true, but it doesn't matter because we don't need science to prove Fnorbert doesn't exist. I'm not sure whether Snertle means to assume that Fnorbert might exist, but if he does, his argument contradicts itself by saying that Fnorbert both might and does not exist. If he isn't assuming the possibility of Fnorbert's existance then it's hard to see why he would want to argue that science cannot test the existance of something that, by definition, cannot exist.

Use your browser's "back" key to return to your place in the reading.

---

This Site is Proudly Hosted By: