Scientific thinking can be defined as the process by which individuals extend their knowledge through the formation of theory on the basis of observations or epidemiological arrays. The theory is then put to trial by dividing the entire population and the outcome or results given a broad view to the correct population via the course of inductive common sense. Before the hypotheses are implemented, the results must undergo an examination by the research planned on the argument that the theory may have substantial backing or be denied. There are six principles of scientific thinking namely: falsifiability, extraordinary claims, replicability, and correlation vs. causation, Occam’s razor and ruling out rival hypotheses (Lilienfeld 65).
Extraordinary claims explain that extraordinary evidence is a necessary requirement of extraordinary claims. For instance, the allegation that such a monster as Bigfoot has lived in North West America for many years without anyone discovering it has need of more meticulous proof. Principle number two, falsifiability, asserts that, for a declaration to have any meaning at all, it must be principally falsifiable. This means that it has to be capable of disproof. For example, if a claim is made that mankind has an invisible soul; the claim is not necessarily untrue. However, it is falsifiable in that no evidence is able to conceivably give it disapproval (Lilienfeld 107).
The principle of parsimony commonly referred to as Occam’s razor states that if more than one explanation for an occurrence is as good as the other, the simpler one should be chosen. Assuming that a poor-sighted individual notices a flying saucer as a Frisbee tournament is in progress on a smoggy day, it is more probable that his report on the unidentified flying object is because of a much easier clarification; he or she mistook the Frisbee for the unidentified object.
During the evaluation of a psychological assertion, one should ask him or herself whether the observations backing their claims have undergone the replication of independent scholars. A researcher may discover that persons who meditate score fifty points higher than those who do not in an Intelligence Quotient test. Since no one else can copy this observation, individuals must be sceptical of it. This is the principle of replicability.
When evaluating a psychosomatic contention, one should ask themselves whether there are any unenclosed alternative rationalizations or whether there are other ways to explain the claim. This is referred to the tenet of ruling out rival hypotheses. If, for instance, investigators observe that depressed individuals that take new medication are better off in comparison to their equally despondent counterparts who receive no medical attention, the only differentiating factor could be because of the people that got treated received remedy anticipated improvement.
A correlation between two items does not necessarily prove a causal link between them. This is the dogma of correlation versus causation. The conclusion that people tend to consume more ice cream on days when crime is at peak does not automatically necessitate that the consumption of ice cream is the source of high crime rates.
There are quite a number of claims made on media that should undergo analyzation with principles of scientific thinking. One of these claims is witchcraft. It reflects the first principle of extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence. People believe that the use of plants to heal certain illnesses is involved with the practice of witchcraft. They claim that those who used herbs to heal had made the proverbial deal with the devil. Today, in a more enlightened period however, this is not true. Herbal medicine presently has the support of science since many of the drugs that are prescribed to patients comprise of compounds that originate from herbs. Research shows that even without this isolation of primary compounds, herbs still possess important curative properties. Also if they had applied the principle of parsimony that requires thriftiness or stinginess, they would not have come up with this theory but come up with a reasonable account for herbalism (Harrison 79).
Another theory states that the Loch Ness Monster actually exists and aside from that it possesses enough intelligence to be able to escape detection. It does this by concealing itself in undetectable, undiscovered, underwater caves. This claim is not falsifiable because scholars have never been able to discover the caves or the monster supposed to be hiding therein. They also have no means of proving this theory false. Hypotheses must be falsifiable since all researchers could give in to the bias of confirmation. Those investigators who portray confirmation bias seek and acknowledge proof that backs what they want to have confidence in and close their eyes to evidence that proves their dogmata false (Frazier 698).
More often than not, evolution is presented as fact. Certain assertions have been made that the visual structure of various animals evolved but not created by God. The mistake here is that there is failure to ask the question: where did the universe originate from? Claims from evolutionists are that it originated from a minute fragment of matter. There are many evidences of God as the sole creator. One of them is that the universe is a cosmos. There is design and order. This proves that the universe did not randomly form itself but there was a supreme being responsible for its coming into being. These rules out the evolutionist’s hypothesis (Harrison 228).
Works Cited
Frazier, Kendrick. Science Confronts the Paranormal. Buffalo, N.Y: Prometheus Books, 1986. Print.
Harrison, Guy P. 50 Popular Beliefs That People Think Are True. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2014. Internet resource.
Lilienfeld, Scott O. Psychology: From Inquiry to Understanding. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon, 2011. Print.
