the fallacy of the non-demonstrable fundamental component

Virology is a science that has a fundamental definition that an inactive/“dead” virus enters a cell and hijacks cell functions for replication 

If there is no reproducible non-circular science that experimentally demonstrated this feature, this event, there could be a lacuna in the scientific method.

Would that lacuna (missing scientific link) have a fallacy name like:

“the fallacy of the non-demonstrable fundamental component‘“

”the fallacy of the scientific method lacuna”

Note: this is an IF question.
We can grant that someone could claim that the seminal science does exist. That aspect can be in dispute. The question is conditional.  And similar questions can be formulated in many areas of study.

Thanks!

Steven Avery

Dutchess County, NY USA

https://linktr.ee/stevenavery

 

 

To address the inquiry effectively, we need to evaluate whether the assumption that there is no reproducible science demonstrating the fundamental properties of viruses constitutes a logical fallacy, cognitive bias, or poor reasoning. Here is a more detailed approach:

### Analysis of the Argument:
1. **Assertion Made:**
- Virology claims that an inactive/"dead" virus can enter a cell and hijack cellular functions for replication.

2. **Conditional Hypothesis:**
- If there is no reproducible scientific evidence demonstrating this mechanism, it suggests a potential flaw or lacuna in the scientific method.

3. **Naming the Hypothetical Fallacy:**
- The term sought is to describe a hypothetical missing scientific link, such as "the fallacy of the non-demonstrable fundamental component" or "the fallacy of the scientific method lacuna."

### Logical Evaluation:
- **Causal Overstatement (Hasty Conclusion):**
The argument suggests that because reproducible evidence might be lacking in this hypothetical scenario, the entire science of virology might have a foundational flaw. This is an overstatement. Lack of evidence at a particular moment does not necessarily reflect on the validity of the entire field.

- **Argument from Ignorance (Ad Ignorantiam):**
This logical fallacy occurs when it is claimed that something is true simply because it has not been proven false or vice versa. The argument implies that if there's no demonstrable evidence (in the hypothetical scenario), it means there is a flaw, which isn't necessarily true.

- **Generalization Fallacy:**
Assuming that because one specific element is not demonstrably proven, the entire scientific process or the field itself is flawed, is a form of hasty generalization.

- **Lack of Evidence Is Not Evidence of Lack:**
Just because a specific piece of evidence hasn't been demonstrated in reproducible experiments doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it invalidates the scientific method.

- **Scientific Practice and Incremental Evidence:**
Science often operates with evolving evidence and understanding. The lack of initial reproducibility might point to a need for further research rather than indicating a foundational flaw.

### Terminology Suggestions:
- If one were to provide a label for a fallacious assumption about a missing scientific demonstration, it might be appropriately called:

**"Fallacy of Unproven Component"**: Claiming a flaw in the overall scientific field based on a hypothetical missing demonstrable component.

**"Fallacy of Premature Dismissal"**: Rejecting a scientific theory or method prematurely due to a current lack of evidence without considering the possibility of future discoveries.

### Conclusion:
The hypothetical scenario presented suggests several potential logical fallacies, including causal overstatement, argument from ignorance, generalization fallacy, and the misconception that lack of evidence equates to evidence of lack. Naming such a hypothetical fallacy might lean towards terms like "Fallacy of Unproven Component" or "Fallacy of Premature Dismissal."

In reality, scientific fields, including virology, build on a body of evidence that accumulates over time, and the absence of specific reproducible evidence at one point does not inherently discredit the fundamental principles of the field.