Outline of some important issues regarding "science" and the "scientific method".

What is a Skeptic?:

One who questions the validity of a particular claim by calling for evidence to prove or disprove it.

Science and Skepticism:

Science is "...a set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed or inferred phenomena, past or present, and aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation."

The following elements are involved in thinking scientifically:

• Induction: Forming a hypothesis by drawing general conclusions from existing data.

• Deduction: Making specific predictions based on the hypotheses.

• Observation: Gathering data, driven by hypotheses that tell us what to look for in nature.

• Verification: Testing the predictions against further observations to confirm or falsify the initial hypotheses.

This process is based on the hypothetico-deductive method and involves the following elements:

• a) putting forward a hypothesis,
  
• b) conjoining it with a statement of 'initial conditions,'
  
• c) deducing from the two a prediction
  
• d) finding whether or not the prediction is fulfilled
  

• Hypothesis: A testable statement account for a set of observations

• Theory: A well-supported and well-tested hypothesis or set of hypotheses.

• Fact: A conclusion confirmed to such as extent that it would be reasonable to offer provisional agreement.

• Objectivity: basing conclusions on external validation.

• Mysticism: basing conclusions on personal insights that elude external validation.

25 problems associated with scientific thinking.

• Problems in Scientific Thinking:
  
  
  
  • 1. Theory influences observations [Heisenberg principal: "What we observe is not nature itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning.]

  • 2. The observer changes the observed. [The act of studying an event can change it.]

  • 3. Equipment constructs results. [The actual equipment used in an experiment often determines the results.]

• Problems in Pseudoscientific thinking.
  
  
  
  • 4. Anecdotes do not make a science.

  • 5. Scientific Language does not make a science.

  • 6. Bold statements do not make claims true.

  • 7. Heresy does not equal correctness.

  • 8. Burden of proof[convincing others of the validity of your evidence.

  • 9. Rumors do not equal reality [urban legends].

  • 10. Unexplained is not inexplicable.

  • 11. Failures are rationalized.

  • 12. After-the-fact reasoning [post hoc, ergo propter hoc].

  • 13. Coincidence.

  • 14. Representativeness.

• Logical Problems in Thinking
  
  
  
  • 15. Emotive words and false analogies.

  • 16. Ad Ignorantiam [if you cannot disprove a claim it must be true] related to #8 above, burden of proof!

  • 17. Ad Hominem and Tu Quoque [discrediting the claimant in hopes that it will discredit the claim].

  • 18. Hasty generalizations.

  • 19. Overreliance on authorities.

  • 20. Either-Or. [Fallacy of negation or the false dilemma] dichotomizing the world so that if you discredit one position, the observer is forced to accept the other.

  • 21. Circular reasoning [fallacy of redundancy, begging the question or tautology.].

  • 22. Reductio ad absurdum and the Slippery slope.

• Psychological Problems in Thinking.
  
  
  
  • 23. Effort inadequacies and the need for certainty, control, and simplicity.

  • 24. Problem-solving inadequacies. Scientific thinking is "problem solving" and some inadequacies associated with this are:
    
    
    
    • a) Immediately forming a hypothesis and looking only for examples to confirm it.

    • b) Not seeking evidence to disprove the hypothesis.

    • c) Slow to change the hypothesis even when it is obviously wrong.

    • d. If the information is too complex, adopt overly-simple hypotheses or strategies for solutions.

    • e) if there is no solution, if the problem is a trick and "right" and "wrong" is given at random, forming hypotheses about coincidental relationships that are observed. Causality is always found (Singer & Abeel, 1981, p. 18.

  • 25. Ideological immunity, or the Planck Problem. ["Educated, intelligent, and successful adults rarely change their most fundamental presuppositions". According to Max Plank.... An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out and that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning, Plank, 1936, p. 97)]