6/12/2023 0 Comments The demon hauntedThe best part, in my opinion, was the rationale: at some point we did not fully understand something and formed a hypothesis based on available knowledge of the time. Not much has changed, but the examples used hold a lot of value for addressing the detractors of science and logic applied to complex thoughts such as where did something come from or why does something exist. The topics Sagan went into were centered around conspiracy theories of the time -UFOs, Extraterrestrial Life Forms, and Religious explanations of the natural world. Just the section above from Sagan was worth the price of the book. It was timeless in its approach to detractors of scientific reasoning. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified.If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work, including the premise, not just most of them.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. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because its yours.Arguments from authority carry little weight.Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts.The question is not whether we like the conclusion that emerges out of a train of reasoning, but whether the conclusion follows from the premise, or starting point, and whether that premise is true.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |