Animals in Science
Appendix
Critical Thought
Critical thought is based on certain laws of logic and when those laws are violated you end up with fallacious reasoning. Advocated of using animals in science make frequent use of these fallacies so it behooves us to beware of them. Some examples are below:
Ad populum Fallacy
Appeals to emotion rather than reason. Uses an appeal to mass sentiment in order to win conclusions for an argument not supported by the facts. Such as:
Why do you want to see sick children suffer when research on animals could cure them?
This does not address whether experiments on animals actually do result in cures, it just makes it appear they do and makes those opposing them appear to be uncaring louts
The Fallacy of Question Begging
An apologist for animal experimentation accuses those who oppose it of being misanthropic, prejudice etc. because people’s lives are being saved by it. The person who opposes animal experimentation objects stating that the statement begs the question of whether or not animal experiments are in fact helping people. This can also be circular if the argument assumes its own conclusion
Black or White Fallacy
Is a zebra black or white?
OR
Are animals like humans or not?
The black or white fallacy is a question postulating 2 answers but that cannot be answered with one or the other. Both answers are correct when taken together but not as a single answer. The question presupposes that zebras are either black or white but not both
Fallacy of Composition
Confuses use of all and some:
All scientists historically have used animals.
Some animal experiments cured disease.
Therefore all animal experiments are valid.
Confuses the collective and the distributive forms of a word
Straw Man Fallacy
An argument made whereby the opponent’s position is misquoted, misrepresented, exaggerated, or otherwise distorted as to appear ridiculous. (Saying things that are false so you can easily refute them.) For example:
Ray Greek said that animal models are scientifically outdated and dangerous in 2004.
His opponents say that Ray Greek said that animal models have never accomplished anything, have always been wrong, and that he opposes science.
Irrelevant Appeal to Authority
Citing an authority whose opinion carries no weight in the given subject. For example:
Polls reveal many scientists and scientific organizations support animal experimentation.
What is left unsaid is that most have a vested interest (direct or indirect) in the process.
OR
A PhD biologist or philosopher says animal models help physicians practice medicine. A PhD biologist or philosopher are not trained to practice medicine and hence are outside their area of expertise when commenting on why and how physicians practice medicine.
Ad hominem fallacy
A supporter of NAVS asks a vivisector: Why do you experiment on animals when you know it does not result in cures? The vivisector answers: Why do you kill babies!?! You have no respect in the scientific community! You are stupid and dangerous! Hitler was a vegetarian and the Nazis did not experiment on animals so you are a Nazi.
The ad hominem fallacy is a personal attack relating to the criticism or question instead of answering the question. In other words it is an attempts to refute the critic (the NAVS supporter) via the critics own special circumstances.
Fallacy of illicit conversion
If P then Q therefore if Q then P
If all Nobel Prize winners experimented on animals then experiments on animals were responsible for all Nobel Prizes.
All Nobel Laureates washed their cars but their car washing experiences had nothing to do with their winning the Nobel prize.
Irrelevant conclusion fallacy
A bill for housing legislation is being debated on the senate floor. A senator stands and speaks about the bill but says nothing about the bill’s merits simply says that all people deserve good housing. This is an irrelevant conclusion fallacy because the conclusion says nothing about the premise that it is suppose to be supporting or contradicting; is the bill a good one or bad one.
Same concept when an animal experimenter says children should not suffer but says nothing that addresses the merits of the statement. Arguing for something that no one disagrees with (babies should not tortured, motherhood is a good thing, etc.) instead of arguing about the issue at hand is what this fallacy does (do animal experiments help humans).
Fallacy of insufficient statistics
I bought this coat from store X and it wore out too soon therefore I will not shop at store X again because all their products are faulty.
OR
One animal experiment (on horses) helped prove that the heart pumps blood in a circle therefore all animal experiments are useful.
Post hoc fallacy
Concluding that a casual relationship is a causal one:
Every time I wash my car it rains therefore my washing my car causes it to rain.
OR
Every Nobel Laureate has done research on animals therefore research on animals caused the individual to win the Prize.
An animal experiment revealed X, which was also true in humans. BUT, the human study preceded the animal studies.
Irrelevance fallacy
The statements are simply irrelevant to the subject / question. For example: Today is Tuesday, the temperature is 71 degrees, I am 33 years old and therefore animal models are valid.
|
