“P is supported by eliminating all alternatives. Otherwise you are simply engaging in logical fallacy. That’s the point.”
—No, P would be PROVEN by eliminating all alternatives (a feat that’s unrealistic). Why do you equate PROVEN with mere SUPPORT?!
“What you are beginning to realize are the limits of science because theories are dependent on logical fallacy.”
—Yes, science is limited – but not because theories can’t be SUPPORTED, but because they can’t be PROVEN.
The fallacy is in equating the two – which is what you are doing – although in a new bizarre way. The fallacy tells us that although theories can be “supported” that they can’t be “proven” – and thus warns against equating the two. You likewise equate the two by saying that since theories can’t be proven that they thus can’t be supported! (This may be the discovery of a new fallacy – I wonder if you get to name it? :-) ) Which would mean all science is a fallacy (which at least you admit “theories are dependent on logical fallacy”).
“It is not a ‘logical certainty’ or ‘absolutely proven’ that P is supported. It may appear that P is supported but alternatives to P may be supported as well.”
—Yes, that’s one of the differences between “supported” and “proven”. Multiple competing theories may be supported by a finding, but of course multiple competing theories can’t be proven true.
Missed that. Good catch on proven vs. supported.
Because to claim that P is supported without eliminating all alternatives is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
"—Yes, science is limited – but not because theories can’t be SUPPORTED, but because they can’t be PROVEN."
They aren't really supported. That's the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
"The fallacy is in equating the two – which is what you are doing – although in a new bizarre way. The fallacy tells us that although theories can be “supported” that they can’t be “proven” – and thus warns against equating the two. You likewise equate the two by saying that since theories can’t be proven that they thus can’t be supported! (This may be the discovery of a new fallacy – I wonder if you get to name it? :-) ) Which would mean all science is a fallacy (which at least you admit “theories are dependent on logical fallacy”)."
All theories are dependent on the fallacy of affirming the consequent. They appear to be supported until they fail. Unless they are based on the philosophy of naturalism, in which case they are unfalsifiable. Evolution fits this scenario.
"—Yes, that’s one of the differences between “supported” and “proven”. Multiple competing theories may be supported by a finding, but of course multiple competing theories can’t be proven true."
Which is why it is the fallacy of affirming the consequent to claim that any single theory is supported. It never was supported. You just thought it was because you engaged in logical falllacy.