Scientist Carl Sagan,
writing for Parade magazine
on October 30, 1983,
had an article
that featured an image
of the world half-covered
in gray shadows, and
dotted with white snow.
Alongside this
scene of devastation
were the words:
“Would nuclear war
be the end of the world?”
The nuclear (war) "winter"
was pure speculation by Sagan,
who must have written the
Baloney Detector later in his life !
For those of the Irish persuasion,
let's call this the Malarkey Detector.
And for those in Brooklyn, New York,
where I lived with old relatives
while earning an MBA in Manhattan,
this would be a Banana Earl Detector.
For a while I thought "Earl" was the
name of their auto mechanic,
until I realized their old car
always needed oil, the lubricant.
not earl, the mechanic,
because it leaked oil !
For me, this is a
farm animal digestive
waste products detector:
1.
Wherever possible
there must be
independent confirmation
of the “facts.”
2.
Encourage substantive debate
on the evidence
by knowledgeable proponents
of all points of view.
3.
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.
4.
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.
5.
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.
6.
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.
7.
If there’s a chain of argument,
every link in the chain must work
(including the premise)
— not just most of them.
8.
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.
9.
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 skeptics
must be given the chance
to follow your reasoning,
to duplicate your experiments
and see if they get the same result.