Work In Progress

Truth

How do we determine what is true and factual? How do we evaluate beliefs, decisions and procedures? How do we align our life with what is true?

Introduction

I've been reading 'The Demon Haunted World'. Which has been somewhat enlightening. It mostly deals with the scientific method, and skepticism. It spends a decent amount of time looking into how so many people have been convinced of aliens, demons and the like.

I have a lot of concurrent research projects going on at once. I've decided that these research projects should be halted until I've determined the standard of scientific accuracy I need to continue researching. Some of these future projects include:

Truth is something that I value very highly. I believe that truth is a greater source of comfort than any theology I've come across. The research and study of truth is refreshing after coming from a religion which fears critical self examination.

I'm still exploring and trying to get a grasp on things. Yet I know that I feel more confident in living a life that ends according to natural truth, rather than one that commands obedience in order to reach some promised after-live land.

However, this has opened up a great question of how to determine what is true? I would prefer not to get lost in some trap of epistemology for what remains of my mortal life. Others have thought long and hard about this, so I'll do my best to understand how they reached their conclusions and work from there. No need to reinvent truth, just to understand it. And the compromising we have to make with our limited human perception of the universe.

Outcomes

Once I'm finished this book, and this page of writing, what would I like to have completed?

I think that it would be helpful to have a repeatable system or procedure for determining scientific accuracy. Which is probably just a fancy way of saying that I want to understand the scientific method and how to use it.

The book also heavily discusses skepticism, and its importance when confronting new information and claims. I think that it would be helpful to exit this book with a clear understanding of how to be scientifically skeptical. As well how and when to apply this skepticism.

Additionally, I want a way to test my beliefs and validate the information I find in my research. I'm thinking about either how to conduct research on myself, or how to ensure that any advice I hear, actually has a beneficial effect. (running tests to determine the most reliable way to be productive, Does the Pomodoro technique work or is there a better method?)

To summarize, My objectives for this book, and this writing are:

Understand the scientific method
Able to identify fallacies in my own, and other people's thinking
Able to conduct tests and validate findings

The Scientific Method

I guess if we don't have anything that is restricting our research, or our writing of it, then we can have some freedom in the way that we explore the scientific method.

My first thought about exploring this research project is to figure out what the goal of it is to ensure I don't get too far off from what I would like to have an understanding of when I finish writing this research.

Why understand the scientific method? Why research it? What does it mean to understand it? How can we verify our understanding of these ideas? Will these ideas hold the test of time? Why not just google it, and accept whatever we find as fact?

If this is to be the foundation of my understanding of reality, then I should do my best to understand the mechanisms and tools that are used in its reasoning.

What is it?

The Scientific Method is a process for experimentation that is used to explore observations and answer questions. [3]

The technique used in the construction and testing of a scientific hypothesis.[4]

Do I really need to do all of this research and writing to re-explain the scientific method, especially when there is already all of this information available for free else where?

Shouldn't I focus on how I want to use the information? And Explaining my current understanding of the topic instead of trying to re-write the textbook on it?

Steps of the Scientific Method

Extra

The method of science, as stodgy and grumpy as it may seem, is far more important than the findings of science. pg. 26[1]

This is the point where I will research and try to understand the scientific method. I want to understand what it is, how it works and why things are set up as they are.

Hypotheses are framed so they are capable of being disproved. A succession of alternative hypotheses is confronted by experiment and observation. Science gropes and staggers toward improved understanding. Proprietary feelings are of course offended when a scientific hypothesis is disproved, but such disproof's are recognized as central to the scientific enterprise. pg. 25[1]

What are the different steps, how did they come to be?

The scientific way of thinking is at once imaginative and disciplined. ... One of the reasons for its success is that science has built-in, error-correcting machinery at its very heart. ... Every time we exercise self-criticism, every time we test our ideas against the outside world, we are doing science. ... Every time a scientific paper presents a bit of data, it's accompanied by an error bar - a quiet but insistent reminder that no knowledge is complete or perfect. ... nothing is known for certain (although much is certainly false). ... Humans may crave absolute certainty; they may aspire to it; they may pretend, as partisans of certain religions do, to have attained it. But the history of science - by far the most successful claim to knowledge accessible to humans - teaches that the most we can hope for is successive improvement in our understanding, learning from our mistakes, an asymptotic approach to the Universe, but with the proviso that absolute certainty will always elude us. pg. 30[1]

Quotes

How can we affect national policy - or even make intelligent decisions in our own lives - if we don't grasp the underlying issues? pg. 10[1]

'Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time.'... He stressed honesty. He was willing to admit the limitations of the physician's knowledge. pg. 12[1]

It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money as long as you have got it. pg. 16[1]

It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. pg. 16[1]

Wisdom lies in understanding our limitations. pg. 25[1]

If we resolutely refuse to acknowledge where we are liable to fall into error, then we can confidently expect that error - even serious error, profound mistakes - will be our companion forever. But if we are capable of a little courageous self assessment, whatever rueful reflections they may engender, our changes improve enormously. If we teach only the findings and products of science ... without communicating its critical method, how can the average person possibly distinguish science from pseudoscience? pg. 26[1]

I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time - when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness. pg. 28[1]

Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. pg. 32[1]

the reason science works so well is partly that built-in error-correcting machinery. There are no forbidden questions in science, no matters too sensitive or delicate to be probed, no sacred truths. that openness to new ideas, combined with the most rigorous, skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, sifts the wheat from the chaff. pg. 34[1]

So in preparing to defend their theses, they must practice a very useful habit of thought: they must anticipate questions. They have to ask: where in my dissertation is there a weakness that someone else might find? I'd better identify it before they do. pg. 34[1]

If the ideas don't work, you must throw them away. Don't waste neurons on what doesn't work. Devote those neurons to new ideas that better explain the data. pg. 35[1]

Science, Ann Druyan notes, is forever whispering in our ears, 'Remember, you're very new at this. You might be mistaken. You've been wrong before.' pg. 37[1]

The physicist has an idea. The more he thinks it through, the more sense it seems to make. he consults the scientific literature. The more he reads, the more promising the idea becomes. thus prepared, he goes to the laboratory and devises an experiment to test it. The experiment is painstaking. many possibilities are checked. The accuracy of measurement is refined, the error bars reduced. He lets the chips fall where they may. He is devoted only to what the experiment teaches. At the end of all this work, through careful experimentation, the idea is found to be worthless. So the physicist discards it, frees his mind from the clutter of error, and moves on to something else. The difference between physics and metaphysics, Wood concluded as he raised his glass high, is not that the practitioners of one are smarter than the practitioners of the other. The difference is that the meta-physicist has no laboratory. pg. 40 [1]

An extraterrestrial being, newly arrived on earth - scrutinizing what we mainly present to our children on television and radio and in movies, newspapers, magazines, comics and many books - might easily conclude that we are intent on teaching them murder, rape, cruelty, superstition many of them finally get it. What kind of society could we create if, instead, we drummed into them science and a sense of hope? pg. 42 [1]

Even a succession of professional scientists - including famous astronomers who had made other discoveries that are confirmed and now justly celebrated - can make serious, even profound errors in pattern recognition. Especially where the implications of what we think we are seeing seem to be profound, we may not exercise adequate self-discipline and self-criticism. pg. 50

But we humans have a talent for deceiving ourselves. Skepticism must be a component of the explorer's toolkit, or we will lose our way. There are wonders enough out there without our inventing any. pg. 60

... scientific method: everything hinges on the matter of evidence. On so important a question, the evidence must be airtight. The more we want it to be true, the more careful we have to be. No witness's say-so is good enough. People make mistakes. People play practical jokes. People stretch the truth for money or attention or fame. People occasionally misunderstand what they're seeing. People sometimes even see things that aren't there. pg. 68

The tenets of skepticism do not require an advanced degree to master, as most successful used car buyers demonstrate. The whole idea of a democratic application of skepticism is that everyone should have the essential tools to effectively and constructively evaluate claims to knowledge. All science asks is to employ the same levels of skepticism we use in buying a used car or in judging the quality of analgesics or beer from their television commercials. pg. 76

Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same things as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. pg. 161

But I try not to think with my gut. If I'm serious about understanding the world, thinking with anything besides my brain, as tempting as that might be, is likely to get me into trouble. Really, it's okay to reserve judgement until the evidence is in. pg. 170

He wants it both ways - the language and credibility of science, but without being bound by its method and rules. He seems not to realize that the credibility is a consequence of the method. pg. 174

When you buy a used car, you might very much want to believe what the salesman is saying: 'So much care for so little money!' and anyway, it takes work to be skeptical; you have to know something about cars, and it's unpleasant to make the salesman angry at you. Despite all that, though, you recognize that the salesman might have a motive to shade the truth, and you've heard of other people in similar situations being take. So you kick the tires, look under the hood, go for a test drive, ask searching questions. You might even bring along a mechanically inclined friend. You know that some skepticism is required and you understand why. There is usually at least a small degree of hostile confrontation involved in the purchase of a used car and nobody claims it's an especially cheering experience. But if you don't exercise some minimal skepticism, if you have an absolutely untrammeled gullibility, there's a price you'll have to pay later. Then you'll wish you had made a small investment of skepticism early on. pg. 174

Keeping an open mind is a virtue - but, as the space engineer James Oberg once said, not so open that your brains fall out. Of course we must be willing to change our minds when warranted by new evidence. But the evidence must be strong. Not all claims to knowledge have equal merit. The standard of evidence in most of the alien abduction cases is roughly what is found in cases of the apparition of the Virgin Mary in medieval Spain. pg. 177

What skeptical thinking boils down to is the means to construct, and to understand, a reasoned argument and, especially important, to recognize a fallacious or fraudulent argument. The question is not whether we like to conclusion that emerges out of a train of reasoning, but whether the conclusion follows from the premises or starting point and whether that premise is true.
Among the tools:

Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the 'facts'

Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If there's a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) - not just most of them.

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.

Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not wroth 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 sceptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

pg. 197

The reliance on carefully designed and controlled experiments is key, as I tried to stress earlier. We will not learn much from mere contemplation. It is tempting to rest content with the first candidate explanation we can think of. One is much better than none. but what happens if we can invent several? How do we decide among them? We don't. We let experiment do it. pg. 198

Variables must be separated. Suppose you're seasick, and given both an acupressure bracelet and 50 milligrams of meclizine. You find the unpleasantness vanishes. What did it - the bracelet or the pill? You can tell only if you take the one without the other next time you're seasick. Now imagine that you're not so dedicated to science as to be willing to be seasick. Then you won't separate the variables. You'll take both remedies again. You've achieved the desired practical result; further knowledge, you might say, is not worth the discomfort of attaining it. pg. 199

How does this play a role in running your own experiments?

In addition to teaching us what to do when evaluating a claim to knowledge, any good baloney detection kit must also teach us what not to do. ... Among the fallacies are:

Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.

Argument from authority

Argument from adverse consequences

Appeal to ignorance - the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa

Special pleading

Begging the question, also called assuming the answer

Observational selection, also called the enumeration of favorable circumstances ... counting the hits and forgetting the misses

Statistics of small numbers

Misunderstanding of the nature of statistics

Inconsistency

Non sequitur - Latin for 'it doesn't follow'

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - Latin for 'it happened after, so it was caused by'

Meaningless question

Excluded middle, or false dichotomy - considering only the two extremes in a continuum of intermediate possibilities

Short-term v. long-term

Slippery slope

Confusion of correlation and causation

Straw man - caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack

Suppressed evidence, or half-truths

Weasel words

pg. 199 - 204

I want to do more research and understand better all of the argument fallacies. I think it would be helpful to create a resource to quickly reference in the future. As well as to create Anki cards for memorizing these fallacies.

In a more controversial study, Stanford University psychiatrists divided eighty-six women with metastatic breast cancer into two groups - one in which they were encouraged to examine their fears of dying and to take charge of their lives, and the other given no special psychiatric support. To the surprise of the researchers, not only did the support group experience less pain, but they also lived, on average, eighteen months longer. pg. 223