Appeal to consequences fallacy in understanding Bell’s theorem

Joan Vaccaro (2018, p. 11) on arguments against superdeterminism:

“An argument that has been advocated by leading physicists is that humans are necessarily independent of the universe that surrounds them because the practice of science requires the independence of the experimenter from the subject of study. For example, Bell et al. state that unless the experimenter and subject are independent, we would need to abandon โ€˜…the whole enterprise of discovering the laws of nature by experimentationโ€™, and Zeilinger claims that if the experimenter and subject were not independent โ€˜…such a position would completely pull the rug out from underneath science.โ€™ However, this argument contains a logical fallacy called an appeal to consequences. Specifically, arguing for experimenterโ€“subject independence on the basis that the alternative has undesirable consequences does not prove that experimenters are independent of their subjects. Rather, the alternative may well be true, in which case we would need to deal with the consequences.”


Vaccaro, J. A. (2018). The quantum theory of time, the block universe, and human experience. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376(2123).