Inflation of Conflict
Andy Wible
The number of skeptical qualified scientists has been growing steadily; I would guess it is about 40% now. I would like to see the public look upon global warming as just another scientific controversy and oppose any public policies until the major issues are settled.
S. Fred Singer, founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project
The inflation of conflict fallacy (IC) is the error of exaggerating the amount of disagreement in a field in order to invalidate claims in that field. In making the above claim, Singer wildly exaggerates the amount of disagreement among experts over global warming and goes on to suggest that it is a common scientific squabble that may safely be ignored for the time being. But multiple peer-reviewed studies have set the proportion of experts that agree on global warming at approximately 97%.
Another form of IC is a type of hasty generalization (see Chapter 84). Two authorities disagree on some topic, so we can say nothing meaningful about that field. For example, someone might say to himself, “Ken Ham and Bill Nye disagree on whether the Earth is 6,000 years old or 4.6 billion years old. So, given all of this disagreement, we have no clear idea how old the Earth really is.” The problem with this example is that young Earth creationists like Ham are a fringe group. There is little to no actual disagreement among scientists on the approximate age of the Earth - 6,000 years is way off.
A juror or judge listening to two expert witnesses disagree on a topic might conclude there is enough reasonable doubt in the field to give a “not guilty” decision. The problem in this case is that payments made to such witnesses render their claims to unbiased expertise suspicious. A wider view of how things stand outside the courtroom may reveal little real disagreement among experts. Conventions in the popular press that promote “both sides of the story” or constant debate formats seem to encourage this type of IC.
Even when the conflict promoted is among genuine experts, concluding that the disagreement is common across the field is a faulty inference. For example, pointing out two credible scientists who disagree on global warming and that with such equal disagreement it is a toss-up on whether global warming is true is a mistake in reasoning.
A final form of IC correctly points to disagreement in a field but incorrectly implies that, as a result, little can be known. One scientist might claim that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and another that its age is 4.6 billion years. The arguer then concludes that therefore we really have no idea of the age of the Earth. These scientists, though, are in fundamental agreement on the age of the Earth. More work may reveal whose estimate is more accurate, but the disagreement is minor. A similar example is when creationists criticize biologists for widely disagreeing about evolution when in truth the disagreement is on particular details of the theory and not on the core thesis of descent with modification.
IC is not always used to conclude that we can know nothing about a particular field. Often the disagreement is used to support an opposing position. A young Earth supporter may suggest that the disagreement among the “old” Earth supporters implies that her young 6,000-year-old hypothesis is right or just as good. The disagreement is alleged to render the issue subjective or supportive of contrarian views. The biblical evidence for a young Earth, it is claimed, is just as good as the scientific evidence for an old one, or even better due to the agreement among young Earth scientists.
Noting disagreement among authorities can be the basis of a good argument. When there is widespread disagreement on the core aspects of a topic and the participants are bona fide authorities, then there is a good reason for a non-expert to suspend judgment on the issue. Currently, physicians disagree on whether patients should take a multivitamin. Pointing out this controversy should lead the novice to suspend judgment and look into the issue more carefully.
Conflict among experts is good reason to question the topic as long as the conflict is not inflated.