How a little logic could have corrected long-held misbeliefs

Abstract Much to the surprise of generations of biologists and physicians, many of their most cherished beliefs have been discredited, in light of recent research findings. When put to the test in clinical trials or in carefully conducted laboratory studies, our trusted conclusions could not be confirmed. In some cases, we should have known better. Had we thought deeply about what we were doing, when these baseless claims were first published, we could have seen that they were without much merit. In this chapter, we will use deductive logic to show the inadequacy of once-popular hypotheses. For example, we should have known that fungi are not types of plants; that the human genome is not the blueprint for the human body; that bacteria certainly do live in our stomachs; and that diseases seldom have a single, identifiable cause. When we apply our deductive skills to reexamining published conclusions, we can often find new and better ways of interpreting the original findings.