|
Carl Sagan's Scientist's Toolkit
In Sagan's classic book, "The Demon Haunted World," he
presents a rational "toolkit" approach for evaluating any unexplained phenomena. So powerful, these tools arm the
critical thinker in any "true-believer" argument.
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. Arguements 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 is 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 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 outisde
our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inverterate skeptics
must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result
|
