What sceptical thinking boils down to is the means to construct,
and to understand, a reasoned argument and, especially important,
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
premises or starting point and whether that premise is true.
Among 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 this 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 electron, 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 sceptics must be given the chance to follow your
reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the
same result.
The reliance on carefully designed and controlled experiments is
key, as I tried to stress earlier. We will not learn much from mere
contemplation. It is tempting to rest content with the first
candidate explanation we can think of. One is much better than
none. But what happens if we can invent several? How do we
decide among them? We don't. We let experiment do it. Francis
Bacon provided a classic reason:
| Quote: | Argumentation cannot suffice for the discovery of new work,
since the subtlety of Nature is greater many times than the
subtlety of argument. |
|
