The first principle is ruling out rival hypotheses. This principle means that only one explanation would be relevant in explaining a given claim. A situation may be defined by different arguments or explanation, which may be seen as relevant to a given a situation. However, most of them may not be relevant in making excellent conclusion over a given matter. At a pool of explanations, the most outstanding explanation matters most. Although, it is a bit hard to differentiate, or identify the most outstanding explanation individuals may define their view on a given matter and come with a conclusive statement on the best explanation of the given element.
The second principle is that correlation is not causation. This is the scientific principle that dictates that one thing will cause the other. As different incidences occur, they define that one thing leads to the other. There have always been incidences of confusion where one thing has confused of being the cause of a given issue. However, the confusion may be a bit expensive as it may trigger the wrong reaction. It is always wise to define what would be the most significant cause of a given course, without ignorance of the possible correlation of elements.
The third scientific principle is Falsifiability. This principle dictates that any claim must be in a position to be proven wrong. It is not guaranteed that every claim given will have ample ground to define its reliability. At some point, other factors will be used to define the prevalent one wrong. Therefore, in any form of thinking or argument over a given issue, there must be that chance of a factor being turned down by the existence of another factor, which may be equally strong, or stronger than the original factor. The individual or factor proving the other wrong must possess the outstanding capability to prove its prevalence.
The fourth scientific thinking principle is replicability. This is an extremely influential psychology principle that expounds that claims needs to be tested, as well as replicated again. The alleged claim or argument must be in a position to be tested and approved by individuals or psychologists when they are put into action. For this scientific thinking principle to be relevant in the field where it would be exceedingly meaningful, the factor must possess the replication factors, which would be extraordinarily useful.
The fifth scientific thinking principle dictates that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Availability of evidence will always be the best way to win a situation or a case. However, evidence is never valuable until it is useful in stamping a claim. This is an indication that the most outstanding claim is backed with extensive evidence. Adequate evidence should be gathered depending on the intensity of a claim. In a pool of evidence, the extraordinary claim will be defined best by the presence of an extraordinary fact about the claim. There must be an individual who will be in a position to stand to the defense of the extraordinary claim. In this case, reliable and conclusive decision must be made to ensure that there is no confusion that is created in the determination of the fate of a claim.
The sixth scientific thinking principle is Occam’s razor. Different people have different methods of passing an explanation. This principle means that some people will explain claims in a complicated manner while others will do it in a simplified manner. The level of explanation is critically fundamental in defining the reliability of different claims. However, the main issue in such a case is to determine the most valuable explanation that may be useful in defining the most outstanding claim.
According to article “”Holder sees way to curb bans on gay marriage”, by Matt Apuzzo written in New York Times on Feb.24 2014, gays rights should be affirmed through a judicial process. This is an issue that has been in the headline for a long time. This issue has been made extremely complex following definition of various processes that may be used in making them work out. This case may be useful in defining the Occam’s razor thinking principle.
The other case is the one published in the New York Times by David Herszenhorn on Feb. 24, 2014 under the article “Amid political upheaval, Ukraine faces dire need for economic help”. This article defines a ruling that was passed over the Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych over murder allegations. The ruling was mainly defined by the existence of irresponsible economic activities and poor political decisions. This indicates lack of adequate research on the allegations made over the president. In this case, the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is the most evident principle.
The other article on the New York Times is “The Double-edged drug addiction treatment with a dark side” by Deborah Sontag as written on November 16, 2013. This article defines the challenges of finding the most useful drug addiction treatment process. Schneider, who is the subject of the argument, does not prove the most outstanding addiction treatment process. However, this process may not be tested. This is proper definition of the principle of replicability.
