Skeptical thinking boils down to the means to construct, and to
understand, a reasoned argument. Furthermore, to recognize a fallacious
or fraudulent argument. The question is not whether we like the
conclusion that emerges out of a train of reasoning, but whether the
conclusion follows from the prmise or starting point and whether that
premise is true. These are the tools:
- Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the
"facts".
- Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable
proponents of all points of view.
- Arguments from authority carry little weight - "authorities" have
made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps
a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at
most, there are experts.
- Spin more than one hypothesis. If there's something to be
explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained.
Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the
alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in the
Darwinian selection among "multiple working hypotheses,"" has a much
better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with
the first idea that caught your fancy.
- Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's
yours. It's only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself
why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if
you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don't, others will.
- Quantify. If whatever it is you're explaining has some measure,
some numerical quantity attached to it, you'll be much better able to
discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is
open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the
many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is
more challenging.
- If there's a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work
(including the premise) - not just most of them.
- Occam's Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced
with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the
simpler.
- Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle,
falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth
much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is
just an elementary particle - an election, say - in a much bigger Cosmos.
But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not
the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out.
Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to
duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.
Selection taken from "The Demon-Haunted World" by Carl Sagan, 1996.
|
Contents
|
