Forum:One Single Proof

From One Single proof article: "forensic arguments often make use of large quantities of circumstantial evidence in such a way as to point directly to a cause without a single smoking gun."

No less fallacious than Single proof is the ruse of appealing to "large quantities" of studies to elude presenting a concise account of the evidence. A convoluted argument is suspicious because each piece of circumstantial evidence contributes its own level of uncertainty, sliding down an increasingly slippery slope towards the wrong conclusion. Good theories tend to be elegant and parsimonious.

So I propose the reciprocal fallacy of the "One Single proof", which would be the "Overwhelming Evidence fallacy". It consists of killing a legitimate request for primary sources with a phrase along: "Millions of studies in the published literature, as a whole, overwhelmingly prove that X is true". Certainly, if the proof relies on such a number of sources that only a superhuman can handle, chances are the researchers themselves no longer know what they're doing.

The fallacy is a variant of Argumentum Verbosum or Proof by intimidation. The arguer produces an overwhelming array of statements to obscure results. The opponent is unable to address them all or even understand them, so he's simply obliged to accept them. The Overwhelming Evidence fallacy achieves the same effect more economically, instead of producing verbose statements it just needs to suggest them. Devious!

If the One Single proof fallacy is at home with the denialists, the Overwhelming Evidence is standard issue with the orthodox.

Cheers! &mdash; Unsigned, by: Brasov / talk / contribs
 * Galileo gambit. It would be nice to know which widely-accepted theory you disagree upon.  Maybe we can clarify some things. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A human being's grasp is naturally limited to a very small subset of widely-accepted theories. Therefore your challenge hints at proud, but automatic subscribing of everything mainstream, which is Groupthink rather than elite club membership. If you tell me which mainstream you consider suspicious, if any, I'll tell you about mine.&mdash; Unsigned, by: Brasov / talk / contribs
 * No, you tell us yours, you started this conversation, so I assume you have something on your mind. Do tell. Sophie  Wilder  13:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This phenomenon is what I had in my mind. Rational blogs are crowded with members seeking validation in Groupthink. They usually challenge others from an "us" position, denoting their "me" lacks confidence. Point out the shortcoming and you get a knee-jerk appeal to a hidden agenda. Mine is simply Rationality.&mdash; Unsigned, by: Brasov / talk / contribs
 * well if you go into a roomful of people and say "you're all mistaken - prove me wrong!" then you shouldn't be too surprised at a short response. Hmmm... Rational blogs are crowded with members seeking validation in Groupthink. So far you have failed to provide a single example, nor have you said what you're here for. How very concerned of you. Sophie  Wilder  14:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice Straw Man, Sophie. And the aggression. What am I doing here? You certainly consider yourself more entitled that I am to point fallacies out. This is what the thread is about. I reported what I see as a fallacy withn the fallacy. My contention is that appeals to "large quantities" of studies imply the arguer knows little about the subject, or the subject is house of cards, or both. You'd only react with aggression to this if you were doing it. The single example of Groupthink was you, read again. The second was Osaka asking what am I "denying". Certainly it must have touched a fiber in the groupies.


 * So... we're not allowed so say most studies favour a certain position, unless we cite enough individual studies to convince you? Is that what you're trying to say? Sophie  Wilder  18:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * More or less, save that the aim is not "to convince", but to draw an outline of the primary papers considered to have more weight in the argument. There's always a first author to suggest any given connection. All arguments are susceptible of Principal Component Analysis, but only someone well versed in the supporting literature can do it. Impostors (groupthinkers) dismiss the possibility and use the fallacy I outlined.
 * Ah, so we're all indulging in groupthink because we don't cite all the evidence every time we mention something? Sophie  Wilder  18:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I said nothing of the kind. Your persistent intentional distortions are straw men for the sake of obfuscating. Any hint at Groupthink in your tribal circle, which you see as a crackless stronghold of rationality, triggers an emotional defence. Such behaviour is not exactly rational.
 * We already have an article on the Gish Gallop ("argumentum verbosum").
 * It's certainly true that someone can blithely dismiss an objection by citing "overwhelming evidence." But it's not really an argument at all - it's the rejection of an argument.  If someone says they don't believe global warming is real, my citation of overwhelming evidence is not arguing against them, it's just a dismissal/evasion.  In that sense, it does justly deserve contempt - it's not presenting any sort of evidence or logic, but just asserting itself by tautology ("It's true because there are many reasons why it is true.")
 * On the other hand, if I were to respond by sending them the IPCC report, then that would be different. In such a case, I have little sympathy.  It's true that it might be difficult, but being Galileo is difficult.  If you're the lone bastion of ineluctable truth, then it's a rough job and you either have to talk yourself hoarse answering all the establishment's numerous arguments, or else accept that you can't answer them all (by reason of fatigue or your own error).
 * Consider the contrary principle you are implicitly proposing, where it is bad form to present too many items of evidence or argument in favor of a position. This inherently privileges all form of dissent, no matter how illegitimate.
 * I have experienced this problem myself, though. I worked out that because I am a human, and I have brown hair, that therefore all humans have brown hair.  Some jerk in Korea tried to use several billions of people as argument against me, and obviously I can't refute each example individually.  It was an attempt at intimidation.--[[Image:adsig.png|25px|link=User:AD|AD]]talk 06:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Three billion people is a hell of a black swan.  08:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I have yet another observation regarding the statement: "The fallacy often rests on the idea that without a particular key bit of information, the entire system will fall apart".

Even if no bit is essential to the argument, citation influence can still be ranked. The argument can be simplified for peer review by sorting citations by their influence and removing the least influential chunk, which will be the largest (see below).

The proof of simplificability relies upon network analysis. Graph representations of citation references in most fields (see Google's PageRank) produce distributions of node weights (the importance of the citations) that follow a Power Law. This implies that essential citations are few (short distribution head) and secondary citations are many (long tail). See Structures and Statistics of Citation Networks.

This adds to the fallaciousness of "need for large quantities of studies". The missing non-essential citations can be invoked later in the discussion if required.

So indeed, any argument can be greatly simplified for peer review without "overwhelming" your opponent with papers. If the discussion intends to be constructive, that is.--Brasov (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)