How to not fool yourself

[The Barbarian]

I saw this list written by Carl Sagan. Sounds good to me:

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.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Here's a source: The Baloney Detection Kit: Carl Sagan’s Rules for [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-Busting and Critical Thinking

ETA: The link is good. It's the title that has a bad word.

 

[The Barbarian]

Here's a source: The Baloney Detection Kit: Carl Sagan’s Rules for [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-Busting and Critical Thinking

ETA: The link is good. It's the title that has a bad word.

I was a little reluctant to link it. So I just gave credit to Sagan.

 

[AV1611VET]

How to not fool yourself

I saw this list written by Carl Sagan.

* list *

It doesn't always work, does it?

 

[J_B_]

Meh. I dunno if that list is of much use. To me it seems more a combination of time, maturity, and the luck of trusting in what is trustworthy.

 

[jayem]

Interesting. I especially like point #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.

I'm talking here about Good science. Which is not authoritarian and will not claim to be the very last word. It recognizes that scientific knowledge is tentative and may be in error. And it will correct itself when new data is discovered. This is a strength, not a weakness. Unlike traditional religions--conservative Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and others--good science won't rely on ancient scriptures and beliefs, and won't allege infallibility. This is what makes good science superior to religion.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm talking here about Good science. Which is not authoritarian and will not claim to be the very last word. It recognizes that scientific knowledge is tentative and may be in error. And it will correct itself when new data is discovered. This is a strength, not a weakness.

Then why are science papers graded?

 

[Bradskii]

Interesting. I especially like point #3:

I'm not sure. Surely an authority on any given subject is a de facto expert in that subject. If they are not, then why would they be classed as an authority? My doctor is an authority on medicine. If he says I need a vaccine then I'll take his advice. I don't have the time or the knowledge to run through the list to check to see if he's right.

I think it's a good list for s scientist. But for the guy in the street?

 

[jayem]

Then why are science papers graded?

Because students of science need to know basic concepts and techniques. That's the starting point for making future advances. And as I said, when new discoveries are made, the older ideas will be replaced. Good science should continually evolve.

 

[The Barbarian]

It doesn't always work, does it?

So far, nothing comes close to being as effective.

 

[Laodicean60]

But for the guy in the street?

I agree all that stuff is way above my pay grade. This one will be interesting to watch.

 

[jayem]

I'm not sure. Surely an authority on any given subject is a de facto expert in that subject. If they are not, then why would they be classed as an authority? My doctor is an authority on medicine. If he says I need a vaccine then I'll take his advice. I don't have the time or the knowledge to run through the list to check to see if he's right.

I think it's a good list for s scientist. But for the guy in the street?

I'm an MD myself--board certified in internal medicine. Now retired after 40+ years in practice. Physicians can be considered as authorities at the current state of knowledge. (Assuming they keep up with current best practice recommendations.) But medical science isn't stagnant, and never should be. Being an authority in 2024 doesn't mean the same will be true in 2044.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm an MD myself--board certified in internal medicine. Now retired after 40+ years in practice. Physicians can be considered as authorities at the current state of knowledge. (Assuming they keep up with current best practice recommendations.) But medical science isn't stagnant, and never should be. Being an authority in 2024 doesn't mean the same will be true in 2044.

Sure. No problem there. All of us can only work at the level of the current knowledge. I was an expert on CAD systems (computer aided draughting) when I was working and people appealed to that authority by asking my advice. But I've been retired a few years so if you wanted to know something about it today then you need to ask someone else. I'm no longer an authority.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because students of science need to know basic concepts and techniques. That's the starting point for making future advances. And as I said, when new discoveries are made, the older ideas will be replaced. Good science should continually evolve.

In 1969, I submitted to my 9th grade science teacher a drawing of our solar system with Pluto as our ninth planet.

Was that good science?

If you were teaching a science class to 9th graders today, how would you grade a drawing like that?

 

[AV1611VET]

So far, nothing comes close to being as effective.

I won't argue that science is doing the best it can.

I will argue anyone who disagrees that science is myopic.

And as such, can't be trusted to meddle in areas of spiritual Truths.

Telling us studies show we may as well pray to milk cartons for what good it'll do doesn't cut it.

I do, however, like what science did with the communion wafer to show its DNA did not change after it was blessed.

But that's a rare exception.

A very rare exception.

 

[jayem]

In 1969, I submitted to my 9th grade science teacher a drawing of our solar system with Pluto as our ninth planet.

Was that good science?

If you were teaching a science class to 9th graders today, how would you grade a drawing like that?

It was good science in 1969. But 35+ years later, when more advanced astronomical observation techniques were in use, and the qualities of a planet were revised, Pluto was determined to be a dwarf planet, or planetoid. As I stated earlier, good science will accept a change of thinking when supported by up to date evidence. That's a strength, not a failing. And I would teach that to my students.

 

[AV1611VET]

It was good science in 1969. But 35+ years later, when more advanced astronomical observation techniques were in use, and the qualities of a planet were revised, Pluto was determined to be a dwarf planet, or planetoid. As I stated earlier, good science will accept a change of thinking when supported by up to date evidence. That's a strength, not a failing. And I would teach that to my students.

So what is good science today can be bad science tomorrow ... right?

Or would you grade his drawing "GOOD"?

I get the impression that even good science has a shelf life.

 

[Astrophile]

So what is good science today can be bad science tomorrow ... right?

It is not so much bad science as outdated science.

Or would you grade his drawing "GOOD"?

I'm not a teacher, so I can't really answer the question. Pluto is still a spherical body in orbit around the Sun, just as it was in 1969, so to that extent your drawing was accurate. However, a modern drawing of the solar system, even by schoolchildren, ought to include the main asteroid belt between Jupiter and Mars, and the Kuiper belt beyond the orbit of Neptune. Perhaps the drawing should also show Pluto, Eris, Haumea and Makemake as dwarf planets in the Kuiper belt.

I get the impression that even good science has a shelf life.

True, but scientific theories advance rather than being overthrown. It is as Newton said, modern science sees farther than ancient science because it stands on the shoulders of giants.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

So what is good science today can be bad science tomorrow ... right?

Or would you grade his drawing "GOOD"?

I get the impression that even good science has a shelf life.

You do understand that nothing about Pluto changed, right? It was just our definition. We weren't "wrong" about Pluto being a planet because at the time the definition of a planet included a body with Pluto's description. But then we changed that definition because we observed so many other bodies in our own solar system that would fit the definition too. It was determined that the definition was too broad and it was revised which recategorized Pluto. We're not necessarily "right" about that new definition today. It's just a definition.

 

[Laodicean60]

in areas of spiritual Truths.

I wonder if the Quantum sciences will closer explain the spirit someday. I hear from researchers in nutrition science that some have personal biases when researching nutrition.