(October 19, 2010 at 1:16 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: I've learned a new logical fallacy.
Wikipedia Article on Ad Hoc Hypothesis
Quote:In science and philosophy, an ad hoc hypothesis is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. Ad hoc hypothesizing is compensating for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form.
I used to mock these as "fudge factors" but now I've learned a more sophisticated term.
We see this a lot not just in apologetics but also in government conspiracy theories, UFO stories, astrology and new age woo. Cherished notions can be protected from contrary evidence by improvising new, though unlikely and unsubstantiated, claims. If you say, "well, maybe..." enough times, you can make anything fit.
As a cherished thought becomes overburdened by an ever-increasing number of unsupported, unproven, unlikely ad hoc hypotheses, occam's razor should be applied. Chances are good that when it looks like a duck it's because it is a duck.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but an ad hoc hypothesis is not a logical fallacy. It is quite frequently used in science to explain facts. There is nothing wrong here, in regard to the logical process. However, it does point that a theory, in need of an ad hoc hypothesis, might not be satisfactory, which often leads to a better theory that is more comprehensive, which would include the ad hoc hypothesis more as an integral part.
