|
|
Vacuous Explanation |
| Description: | ||
|
||
| The argument proposes an explanation, but the mechanism proposed does not have a clear meaning, other than merely "whatever explains this phenomenon." | ||
|
|
||
| Comments: | ||
|
||
| Appeals to the "nature" of things, or to hidden forces, such as "divine guidance," "destiny," and "fate" are especially important examples of vacuous explanation. | ||
|
|
||
| Examples: | ||
| "This sedative causes sleep because of its dormitive virtue." | ||
| "Some species become extinct because they have been around for so long that the species itself becomes elderly. They die of 'species old age'." | ||
|
|
||
| Discussion: | ||
|
||
| The creation of "theoretical constructs" is not necessarily bad reasoning. For example, no one has ever actually seen an electron or a photon. These particles are merely part of a theory aimed at explaining light and other phenomena. However, the theory has been very successful - to the point that most of us now actually believe that these tiny particles of matter actually exist. Perhaps they do. A good theoretical construct helps to guide our thinking about a phenomenon, and leads us to explore the phenomenon more deeply. By contrast, the fallacy of Vacuous Explanation mimics the creation of legitimate theoretical constructs, but it errs in offering a construct that has no meaning other than "that which explains the phenomenon." As such it gives us no genuine guidance. | ||
|
|
||
| Classification: A retroductive Fallacy of Circularity. | ||
|
||
| Source: This fallacy was described but not named by Francis Bacon in Novum Organum, 1620, as the first of his Idols of the Theater. | ||
Go to: WELCOME EXPLANATION of PRINCIPLES TABLE of FALLACIES EXERCISES INDEX