Carl Sagan's advise on Critical Thinking
-
From Carl Sagan's book:The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (ISBN-10: 0345409469 or ISBN-13: 978-0345409461)
There is a chapter called: The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
In this chapter, Sagan shares nine tools to apply when attempting to determine whether something is fact, fiction, or deception:
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."I'll leave it to the "Gentle Reader" to take from this nugget of wisdom what you will. I only offer it as a way to bolster your own "bullshit detector" on these forums.
-
I'm curious why you, a liberal with extreme TDS, are posting this.
As for the points, we need to treat them like marxism. Marxism is the utopian fantasy world, but communism is the reality
Climate-gate is an example of how science is abused for personal gain.
-
@bi4smooth Arguments from authority carry little weight... hmm. Yet you spew "authority" lines all day long. Fauci is your GOD. He IS Science to you. You need to read what you posted again.
-
@manhandler said in Carl Sagan's advise on Critical Thinking:
@bi4smooth Arguments from authority carry little weight... hmm. Yet you spew "authority" lines all day long. Fauci is your GOD. He IS Science to you. You need to read what you posted again.
Not at all... Fauci (to use your example) is no authority! He is an EXPERT!
To repeat what I posted to your absurdity on another thread:
Funny about the difference between you and actual scientists:
- Actual scientists go out of their way to prove they are wrong - about everything! It's the scientific method!
- You go out of your way to prove you're right - about every insignificant detail - even when you've clearly made a mistake, you insist you are right - mostly in a childlike manner: repeating yourself, saying it louder or multiple times, and lastly calling the other person names...
That is germane to the topic because you like to point out Fauci's having been wrong in the past as evidence of his incompetence. I point to Fauci's having been wrong in the past as evidence that he's working with DATA and not POLITICS!
- Data changes as more and more is gathered. More data means better conclusions.
- Politics nearly never changes... Just look at you and Trump!
-
As an "expert", how many people did Fauci kill in the AZT scandal?
Fauci wasn't "wrong" about GOF research, in the Rand paul exchange. Fauci was/is a liar.
Rand Paul quoted from the official NIH website what GOF research is, he then compared it to what Fauci funded Bill Gate's Eco-Health to do in Wuhan. Only a blatant liar or a crackhead liberal would claim they aren't the same. Fauci said they weren't the same.
For the love of Poseidon, please stop sucking Fauci's ass.
-
@raphjd said in Carl Sagan's advise on Critical Thinking:
As an "expert", how many people did Fauci kill in the AZT scandal?
Fauci wasn't "wrong" about GOF research, in the Rand paul exchange. Fauci was/is a liar.
Rand Paul quoted from the official NIH website what GOF research is, he then compared it to what Fauci funded Bill Gate's Eco-Health to do in Wuhan. Only a blatant liar or a crackhead liberal would claim they aren't the same. Fauci said they weren't the same.
For the love of Poseidon, please stop sucking Fauci's ass.
See a match, shout FIRE!
I've never supported Fauci unconditionally.
- I know little about Fauci and AZT in the 1990's - I do know that I had friends literally dying to get added to virtually any cockamamie study they could (replacing your entire blood supply? Using Leukemia treatments? Freezing your body to the point of actual, if short-term death? Yeah - people tried all of these things)... AZT was certainly known not to be a cure, and it had a long list of known side-effects - but it was forced into approval by the newly-minted gay-political-machine - even though CDC and FDA said there wasn't enough known about it's long-term effects.... like the early COVID-19 response, we didn't know SHIT yet.
- I do know you have a habit of holding people you dislike to modern-day standards, even to their decades-old behaviors and decisions. So, I take your point-of-view with a grain of salt - you can only blame yourself for that...
- Forget Fauci or Paul - look at what the other scientists have said about the purported GOF research Paul was accusing them of... it didn't match the criteria.
Considering Fauci's word to "be enough" is to make him "an authority" - which I don't believe he is (nor, does he claim to be)... likewise, to assume that an Ophthalmologist (Rand Paul) knows more about genetic research than a department head at the NIH (or, ALL of the department heads at the NIH) is just plain absurd.
There is a reason why Scientific Research is "peer reviewed" prior to being generally accepted, and why some kinds of research get the "peer review" treatment even before the experiments start!
Peer review said that the NIH research in Wuhan was NOT Gain Of Function... that you think Rand Paul (and yourself) have more in-depth knowledge of the subject than the general scientific community (in and outside the NIH) speaks more to your own hubris and self-aggrandizement...
I'm sorry, especially given the scientific community's response to the Paul/Fauci argument about GOF, I think Rand Paul should be embarrassed! (Maybe he is!... privately)
-
Fauci was a POS then and is still a POS, but you worship him.
Your liberal, Pelosi panty sniffing idiocy is showing.
Rand Paul, read directly from the NIH website, the definition of GOF research. He then read the section of the work to be funded by the NIH for Bill Gate's Eco-Health. Even you can do that.
-
@raphjd said in Carl Sagan's advise on Critical Thinking:
Fauci was a POS then and is still a POS, but you worship him.
Your liberal, Pelosi panty sniffing idiocy is showing.
Rand Paul, read directly from the NIH website, the definition of GOF research. He then read the section of the work to be funded by the NIH for Bill Gate's Eco-Health. Even you can do that.
Unlike you, I don't pretend to know more (or better) than the experts in the field who "peer reviewed" the reports and the claims made by Sen. Paul...
If you know more than them, please present your CV here to backup your claims...
-
Clearly, you are a Fauni worshipper.
Take 2 documents and compare them and if they match, they are talking about the same thing. That is what Rand Paul did.
The official NIH definition of GOFR and what Fauci paid Bill Gate's Eco-Health to do in Wuhan matched.
You don't need to be an expert to know that the 2 things matched.
Seriously dude, pull your head out of Fauci's ass.
-
@raphjd said in Carl Sagan's advise on Critical Thinking:
Clearly, you are a Fauni worshipper.
Take 2 documents and compare them and if they match, they are talking about the same thing. That is what Rand Paul did.
The official NIH definition of GOFR and what Fauci paid Bill Gate's Eco-Health to do in Wuhan matched.
You don't need to be an expert to know that the 2 things matched.
Seriously dude, pull your head out of Fauci's ass.
Seriously, dude - pull your EGO out of your own ass...
You still seem to think that your "I Got a C+ in High School Science Class (even though I blew the teacher to get the +)" is more enlightened and informed about genetic research than.... oh, the PhDs who make it their life's work?
We're not talking about 2-paragraph documents (where some Technical Writer has tried to summarize 3,000 pages of research into 2 paragraphs or 100 words, whichever is shorter)... we're talking about knowing and understanding the WORDS in the paragraphs...
I'm still waiting to see your CV - Masters in Biology even? (That'd be more germane to the topic than Paul's Ophthalmology!)
When we want a proofer to validate that manual duplication of 2-paragraph documents are unchanged, we'll certainly call you first! That's your special purpose! (apparently)
-
You still have your head up Fauci's ass making excuses for him, that is dedication.
How does Fauci's shit taste?
