Science Forums 2

[sebbysteiny]

Hey guys.

The most important part of trying to understand anything is knowing how to find truth by accepting some arguments and rejecting others.

What I hope we can accomplish together in this thread is to get more insight the process of testing arguements before accepting them and to see what is a correct or more correct approach.

My thoughts.

When it comes to testing arguments, some people make individual assumptions that others may not. So we all test arguments in different ways. I will call these underlying assumptions behind all reasoning 'base assumptions'. And then, once we have decided our base assumptions, we then start trying to test it somehow and the method and severity of the testing will depend on our base assumptions.

A friend of mine thought it was enough that he accepted every argument to the balance of probabilities. Fair enough. If it SOUNDED right to him, he accepted it. But in my opinion, if you have a conclusion based on a chain of reasoning, if each link is anything but completely solid, then the conclusions are almost certainly wrong. It's simple probability theory.

Further, I have seen evidence that people can accept arguments for completely irrational reasons. People are most likely to accept an argument if it either agrees with their previous biases, their political biases, or it is the first time they have come accross the subject.

So what are my assumptions?
Just because an argument or thought is accepted by the majority or the mainstream does not make it right or logical.

Just because it sounds like it fits or it fits in with their political leanings does not mean it actually does fit. One needs genuinely convincing evidence.

The correct answer could come from either side of the political spectrum.

I believe that there is ONLY one reality and either something is correct or incorrect and there should always be a way of directly measuring the argument.

I believe in the validity in the scientific method above all other methods.

People do not have infinite researching time.

If the reality described in an argument is a false reality, then apparent proofs capable of being extremely convincing can still be found. However every such 'proof' must contain a flaw. It is just a matter of finding it.

If an argument desrcibes a false reality, every concevable way of testing it should fail. Similarly, if an argument is correct, every convebable way of testing it should only confirm it's correctness further. So, all roads will lead to rome.

All humans want their human rights respected, have a similar sense of morality and have the same strenghts and vulnerabilities to the same influences.

My tests

Apply the argument to a completely different situation. Helps remove bias.

Apply the argument 'to the other side'. Further helps remove bias.

Take the argument to the extreme. Helps reveal if there are any other influences going on.

See how the world would be different if that argument was correct in every single country at every single time.

Does it explain ALL the facts? If not, are there any other influences that can 'save' the argument?

Split the argument into much simpler irrefutable building blocks so one can see clearly how and why it works. Again, if one cannot simplify the argument into irrefutable steps, it must be wrong and if one can, it must be correct.


Thoughts?