I'm fine with you wanting proof that the 1500 hour rule enhanced safety. I personally believe it did, but you're right you should be able to back up claims with proof.

However, now that we have the rule nobody needs to prove that it enhances safety. If you are making the claim that the 1500 hour rule does not increase safety, it is now incumbent on you to prove your claim is correct.

Just saying that the two are unrelated without evidence is as equally specious an argument as saying that the two are related. If you want to change part of the status quo, of which the effects of the whole are known, then prove that part in particular is unnecessary.

And by the way, you are correct that correlation is not sufficient to show causation. Correlation is necessary for causation, however, and it follows logically that requiring more experience prior to an airline job would enhance safety a priori. I firmly believe your argument in the negative has a higher burden of proof.

Can't prove a negative. -- https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

No one can show that it has improved safety either.

I'm a CFI, ATP, and experienced 121 PIC with 10K. I don't need studies to know the difference between 250 hours, 500 hours, and 1500 hours. BTDT, seen it in action.

Just like I don't need a study to tell me that reducing student driver hours from 50 to 5 would be a bad idea.

No my logical fallacy is personal experience and common sense.

Exactly, anecdotal, which is not what should be used when making policy.

Obama didn't create a 1500 hr rule. 1500 hours for an ATP has been required for decades. If anything, he reduced the amount of hours required for an ATP.

I don't make policy. I'm just telling you why I agree with the policy.

All age and experience requirements are something called a “legal fiction.” Is EVERY 16 year old mature enough to get a drivers license? He// no. Some 30 year olds aren’t mature enough for a driver’s license. But you need to establish a standard somewhere and it needs to be a standard that is both understandable and enforceable in the real world. I’ve flown with military pilots who were 400 hour O-2s that were perfectly competent to fly an F-15 in combat. And I once instructed (briefly) a 35 year old doctor with twice that many hours who was on his second V-tail Beech and sort of expected me to be in the right seat giving him instrument instruction when he crashed his third because his attitude made him unteachable.

Any standard you make is going to under correct for some and over correct for others. Might as well mak it something easy for the non flying bureaucrats to administer.

I see where your brain is shorting now, maybe I can translate to something easier for you to understand!

Example:
Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars, and that because no one can prove him wrong, his claim is therefore a valid one.

Reality:
Sonic Flyer declares that the 1500 hour rule has no effect on safety, and that because no one can prove him wrong, his claim is therefore a valid one.

You are the one arguing. We aren't proposing to make the 1500 hour rule. It is already made. There is no argument.
You are arguing we should amend the qualifications, therefore you need to prove your argument.

I'm not sure I can make this any more simple, but in the likely event you still don't comprehend I will see if I can make it even more simple for you