4.8 • +11k Ratings
Save
Print
Edit
Sometimes you are in an argument, when your opponent says something that you just can't counter. There's just no way to prove them wrong. Although an argument like this might seem strong or even unbeatable, in reality it is a logical fallacy, one known as the non-testable hypothesis. Once you understand how the non-testable hypothesis works, it becomes much easier to identify and reject in logical argumentation.
A non-testable hypothesis is a logical fallacy. A fallacy is an error of some kind.
A logical fallacy is employed like a logical reason, but it is actually flawed and illogical.
A non-testable hypothesis is specifically an informal logical fallacy, which means that its fallacy lies not in the structure of the logic (which would be a formal logical fallacy), but rather in something else.
A non-testable hypothesis is a claim that cannot be tested.
A non-testable hypothesis can occur in a single claim or in an argument involving multiple people.
Here is what it looks like to make an argument from a non-testable hypothesis.
Other sentient lifeforms for sure exist in the universe.
In some ways, this isn't unreasonable to conclude. If humans exist, and we live on just one planet in the universe, it seems reasonable to conclude that other sentient lifeforms are out there, too. However, there is absolutely no way to test this claim.
Because there is no way at the moment to observe the presence of other sentient lifeforms, to argue they "for sure" exist is to argue a non-testable hypothesis.
Maybe, maybe not, flaticon.
If there is no way on Earth to logically test whether or not something is true, then it is a non-testable hypothesis. You might be able to predict whether something turns out to be true, but you cannot predict whether something is true.
Our means to test things on Earth are always evolving, but your hypotheses should be based on our means today, not on means that we may or not have in the future.
Here's a better way to phrase our thoughts about aliens.
Based upon what we know, it is probable that other sentient lifeforms exist in the universe.
Because this is not making a claim, this is not a hypothesis, non-testable or otherwise. This is a prediction and not a logical fallacy.
Predictions vs. hypotheses: When a weather forecaster predicts sunny skies tomorrow, she is not forming a hypothesis. She is using past data to extrapolate the probability of something happening in the future. Likewise, someone can predict that we will find aliens one day—and maybe even when we will find aliens—based on what we know about the universe today and our rate of technological growth. However, this prediction does not prove it will happen. It merely predicts the likelihood that it will happen, based upon some form of data.
On the other hand, hypotheses prove certainties. Gravity is a certainty. It has been proven by hypothesis to exist. Gravity is not "99% proven to exist."
Think of it this way. If a weather forecaster "hypothesizes" that it will rain tomorrow, and it does rain, what has she proven? Has she proven that her forecasting abilities are infallible? Obviously not. In fact, the most she could prove, after many trials, is the statistical likelihood that her forecasts are correct. She can use evidence to support the probable efficiency of her work.
A non-testable hypothesis boils down to, "you can't prove this right and you can't prove it wrong."
If something cannot be proven right or wrong, then what does it prove? It doesn't prove anything, which is the problem with arguing from a non-testable hypothesis.
To draw a conclusion requires evidence. However, as it's been made clear, a non-testable hypothesis cannot be supported by evidence. Therefore, to conclude anything based upon a non-testable hypothesis is a fallacy.
Here is how someone might use a non-testable hypothesis as a form of support in an essay.
There is much more evidence to support the existence of the Illuminati than one realizes. First of all, many philosophers, including Reginald Riposte, believe it is very sane to believe that the elites could be running the world, even the Illuminati. Second, and perhaps most damning, is the fact that the Illuminati are untraceable, as if magically concealed. In other words, because they go unseen and unheard, their effects are missed. Third, there is a wealth of historical evidence that points to their existence. In fact, evidence dates back to the 18th century, when the “Bavarian Illuminati” formed. From there, their power only grew."
This quote is brimming with logical fallacies and more. However, can you spot the non-testable hypothesis amid the riffraff?
The non-testable hypothesis is in the second “point,” that the Illuminati are untraceable. Absurdly, this writer asserts that the Illuminati does things, despite the fact that it is impossible to prove or disprove the actions of untraceable "magic-like" entities. In reality, the writer cannot assert anything about a group that is "untraceable, as if magically concealed" for the very reason that they are "untraceable, as if magically concealed."
All right, so how can one avoid writing a non-testable hypothesis? First, it’s important to understand what a testable hypothesis looks like. Here’s one.
Water changes from solid to liquid when it rises above 32 degrees Fahrenheit.
Sure, this one is a gimme, but it makes for a good example. This hypothesis can be tested in the laboratory. Here’s another one.
When I pet my cat, he purrs.
This one can be tested by, well, petting the cat in various situations. He probably won’t always purr, a fact that will disprove this hypothesis.
Notice how, in these examples, there is some kind of test that can be performed. That’s it. That’s a testable hypothesis. If you can’t test it, then it is non-testable.
Non-testable hypotheses are ridiculous “logical arguments,” and you should be very conscious not to use one. Here are some ways to be sure that doesn’t happen:
When you assume things, you don’t verify them. When you don't verify something, you may employ a non-testable hypothesis.
For instance, someone might write in an essay that, "because Shakespeare is a towering figure, the greatest of all playwrights, it is unlikely that he would make such an error in his play." However, this line of reasoning employs a non-testable hypothesis. You cannot prove that Shakespeare is the "greatest" of all playwrights, because "greatest" is a subjective term. Therefore, you cannot use such a notion in a logical argument.
This would not have happened if the writer had not made the assumption that Shakespeare is the best, and instead investigated that idea before committing it to paper. If they had investigated that idea, they would have found that it cannot be proven one way or another.
Fun fact, this example is also the fallacy of appealing to an authority. Even well-regarded figures can make mistakes!
It’s a fair idea to respect a non-harmful belief. However, just because you respect someone’s beliefs or opinions, it does not mean that you should accept their beliefs and opinions as valid in a logical argument. Validate yours and others’ beliefs not by volume of opinion, not by friendship, not by anything except logic.
If you fail to do this, you will find non-testable hypotheses creeping into your own logic. Stay steady the course! You want an essay that follows the logical road.
The bottom line is this: when you make a claim, understand where it is coming from. Be sure you are not taking anything for granted. Be sure you are not making an emotional claim. Be sure you are not speaking purely from a personal experience. Be sure you understand why you believe what you believe before you attempt to use it in a logical argument. Be sure you have empirically verifiable data to help prove your hypothesis. If you employ a non-testable hypothesis as the basis for your argument, it is dead at the get-go.
The non-testable hypothesis is also known as the "untestable fallacy," the "unfalsifiable fallacy," and the "untestable explanation fallacy." All of these names refer to the exact same flaw in logic.
Note that an un-testable hypothesis is not synonymous with a hypothesis that cannot be tested yet due to the immediate limits of our science. For instance, in theoretical physics, there are many hypotheses that we cannot test yet. These theories and hypotheses are not fallacious; they are simply as of yet unproven. However, using any such concept as evidence remains fallacious in argumentation, and is still an argument from a non-testable hypothesis.
You can identify a high-level theoretical concept by seeing whether or not is discussed at the highest level of academia. High-level theories are based heavily in what we do know as scientific fact, whereas less esteemed non-testable hypotheses are based in no science whatsoever.
A non-testable hypothesis is a claim that cannot be tested.
Planet Earth is frequented by invisible aliens.
If a hypothesis can be tested in some way, such as by trial or experimentation, it is testable. If not, then it is non-testable.
Because a non-testable hypothesis is a logical fallacy, the result is a failed argument.
Be perfectly prepared on time with an individual plan.
Test your knowledge with gamified quizzes.
Create and find flashcards in record time.
Create beautiful notes faster than ever before.
Have all your study materials in one place.
Upload unlimited documents and save them online.
Identify your study strength and weaknesses.
Set individual study goals and earn points reaching them.
Stop procrastinating with our study reminders.
Earn points, unlock badges and level up while studying.
Create flashcards in notes completely automatically.
Create the most beautiful study materials using our templates.
Sign up to highlight and take notes. It’s 100% free.
