Following Do we apply scientific skepticism at Skeptics.SE? I'm left with a curiosity, but I'd like to learn more. Can you help me out?
According to some we are not using all tools allowed in scientific skepticism, and specifically we're "missing" pure logic arguments, unpublished theoretical proofs and unpublished empirical research.
Restricting this to non-empirical tools, it seems to me that these tools are not really usable in skepticism in general, so here's my doubt.
A factual claim might contain poor logic, however pointing that out does not disprove the claim.
For example: "Men are taller than women on average, therefore any man is taller than any woman" is not disproven by pointing out the fallacy. Either all men are taller than all women or not.
Another example is debunking any claim of causation due to correlation by pointing out that correlation is not causation (correlation is necessary for causation so certainly it does not disprove it).
It's furthermore obvious that a factual claim which contains solid logic is not necessarily true as its factual premises might be wrong.
For example: "All introvert people are lonely. All programmers are introverted, therefore programmers are lonely." This claim contains a valid syllogism but showing that doesn't prove that the claim is valid: it does not show that all introverts are lonely, nor that all programmers are introverts, let alone its conclusion.
Equally a claim might be based on a solid theory, but showing that in an answer that does not prove the claim is correct.
For example: "Do gravitons exist?" can't be answered by simply citing general relativity. While they are predicted by it, we haven't seen any yet and it's perfectly possible that they do not exist, and that we have to change the theory, after all.
The vice-versa is also true:
If someone claims that a medicine works based on a paper containing mathematical mistakes, showing that it does, does not "prove" that the medicine is ineffective, or that it is effective, nor it "proves" that we don't know whether it works or not.
The above paragraphs are examples of why stating that non-empirical logical/theoretical answers are enough to confirm/debunk a claim seems ...alien to me.
I'd like to know what valid examples people think of, when they state that these tools are allowed in scientific skepticism
Basically, I'd like to know what we are missing.
Can you think of examples of any on-topic, factual claims that can be settled by pure theory or pure (formal or mathematical) logic?