Flaw in the Reasoning: Lack of Evidence

[Kallistatiefling]

Principle Question
Question #4 on page 669 (2018 edition)

The stimulus says "But despite rigorous attempts to show that quantum theory's predictions were inaccurate, they were shown to be accurate within the generally accepted statistical margin of error."

The answer explanation states that the stimulus contains a flaw in the reasoning (lack of evidence against a theory used as proof of the theory's existence). If the stimulus said, "But despite rigorous attempts to show that quantum theory's predictions were inaccurate, no such findings were found," then I would have similarly identified this flaw; however, because the stimulus says "they were shown to be accurate" I believed evidence in support of the theory had been found (perhaps incidentally during attempts to disprove, or perhaps in other studies altogether).

I think I would make this error again. Can you help me suss out why that flaw is said to be present in this stimulus?

Thanks,
Kalli

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Kalli,

Thanks for the question. Because of the way this is stated, it could be interpreted in either of two ways: some evidence for a position (the accurate results) means we should accept the position (quantum theory), or the lack of evidence against a position (no counter evidence) means we should accept a position (quantum theory). I focused on the latter because of the language around the problem, particularly the phrase "rigorous attempts to show that quantum theory’s predictions were inaccurate," which to me meant they were trying to disprove it and couldn't.

I suspect that you answered this question correctly, and that's because the two errors mentioned above are actually quite similar. to many people, a lack of evidence against often equates to some evidence for (although here it's a stronger connection than that due to the results). Usually when making one interpretation or another, you would look to what the author was trying to focus on, which to me was the "rigorous attempts" to disprove portion.

Thanks!