The more a theory forbids, the better it isĤ. Every ‘good’ scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory–an event which would have refuted the theoryģ. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory – if we look for confirmationsĢ. The criteria for when a theory should be considered scientific, and for how to distinguish between science and pseudoscience:ġ. an extraordinary new-age/religious/spiritual claim or conspiracy theory about aliens in other dimensions, it’s probably best to dismiss it instead of speculating and taking it seriously. However, if someone makes a claim that is unfalsifiable and can’t be tested, proven or disproven, verified or falsified e.g. a single black swan would falsify the theory that “all swans are white”. Ask yourself: How can I test this theory? What would disprove it? What would refute it? e.g. “Aliens that exist in other dimensions outside of our reality secretly control our minds and everything we think, say and do.”įalsification is a good rule of thumb to apply when you’re presented with any claim or theory. Hypothesis that are impossible to disprove, refute or test are unfalsifiable, and are therefore not scientific e.g. Karl Popper’s Falsifiability Principle is that for a statement, hypothesis, or theory to be considered scientific, it must be falsifiable, that is, it must be possible to disprove or refute it. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or refute it.” – Karl Popper “It is easy to obtain confirmations or verifications for nearly every theory – if we look for confirmations. If someone or something seems a certain way, they probably are that way. However, if most people were critical thinkers that demanded evidence for their beliefs, this wouldn’t happen. Unfortunately new-age/religious/spiritual teachers and their followers frequently make extraordinary claims like these, and have them believed by millions of people without the slightest bit of evidence or proof. ![]() It’s not good enough for new-age/religious/spiritual teachers and their followers to simply assert that these things are true, or to imply that their guru or teacher possesses these supernatural abilities, extraordinary claims like these must be backed up by extraordinary evidence. However, if someone claims that they, or their guru/religious/spiritual teacher, can contact the dead, see the future, read minds, cure or heal any disease or sickness including AIDS or cancer, talk directly with God (and have God talk back unambiguously), perform miracles, or that they have supernatural powers of any kind, than these are extraordinary claims, and they must be backed up by extraordinary evidence such as a live demonstration to prove it. It’s reasonable to simply take them at their word. If someone claims that their name is Michael, or that their dogs name is Charlie, that’s not an extraordinary claim. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” – Carl Sagan The opposite of Occam’s razor is Occam’s duct tape which is when someone approaches a problem with a ridiculously large number of assumptions. In philosophy, a razor is a principle or a rule of thumb, that allows for the elimination (the “shaving off”) of unlikely explanations for a phenomenon. Hanlon’s razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence or stupidity.Grice’s razor: Address what the speaker actually meant, instead of addressing the literal meaning of what they actually said.Newton’s flaming laser sword: If something cannot be settled by experiment, it is not worth debating.Popper’s falsifiability principle: For a theory to be considered scientific, it must be possible to disprove or refute it.Duck test: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. ![]() Hume’s razor: Causes must be sufficiently able to produce the effect assigned to them.Hitchens razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.Sagan standard: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.Occam’s razor: Entities should not be multiplied without necessity.In this article nine philosophical razors you need to know:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |