Essay On The Six Principles Of Scientific Thinking

Scientific thinking, the terminology referring to the critical thinking directed towards ideas associated to science, is considered to be a unique approach that enables us to examine and analyze scientific claims. This so-called form of critical thinking, according to Lilienfeld (2011), follows a framework according to six principles. In this light, this paper briefly discusses the six principles of scientific thinking. Moreover, this paper will associate two examples from media with the principles of scientific thinking.

Ruling out Rival Hypotheses

More often than not, scientists consider explanations, regardless of the number of possible explanations, to a particular phenomenon, and by performing experiments and statistics they could restrict the possible explanations by eliminating the disproved hypotheses. Ruling out of rival hypotheses states that one must include all possible explanations to events. Needless to say, an exclusion of explanation, regardless of how many, results to plausible erroneous conclusion which introduces risks when disseminated to public.

Correlation is not Causation

This principle of scientific thinking argues that the association of two events with each other – correlation – does not necessarily mean that they have a cause-and-effect relationship. The conclusion that the correlation of an event with another event means one must be the cause of the other – causation – pertains to the correlation-causation fallacy. The third variable problem is a primary reason why the statement "correlation means causation" fallacious. The third variable problem refers to the scenario wherein the two correlated variables may be related to a third variable, and that the correlation may be explained because of the existence of the third variable.

Falsifiability

In order to understand this principle fully, it must be noted that a falsifiable theory does not imply that the theory is false; rather, falsifiability pertains to the capability of a theory to be disproven. Thus, a falsifiable theory is a meaningful scientific claim; otherwise, the theory cannot be tested. Furthermore, a falsifiable claim means that the claim must be true for certain outcomes only, and not all outcomes. In effect, the falsifiability principle accounts the "testability" – the capability of a certain theory to be tested or experimented or proven – aspect of scientific claims.

Replicability

The replicability principle of scientific thinking argues that a good scientific study means that the results and findings must be consistent regardless of how many times the study is performed. Even when the study is performed with a minor variation, the findings must still be consistent or in line within the findings from the original study; in this case, the deviation from the original study results from the minor variation. In effect, failure to replicate the findings leads to disapproval of the initial claim.

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

Firstly, the persuasiveness of evidences must be proportional with the magnitude of the claim's opposition to what we already know. Extraordinary claims are those that introduce intense opposition to what we already know; thus, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Occam's Razor

Occam's Razor, or the principle of parsimony, pertains that the most parsimonious – the logically simplest – explanation must be selected among the explanations that could similarly well explain a phenomenon. This technique eliminates the complicated explanations among the explanations that account all the evidences. However, Occam's Razor must be interpreted only as a guideline, and not a hard-and-fast rule. Occam's Razor dictates that more often than not, the simplest explanation, given that it accounts all the evidences, must be the more probable explanation.

Application

In order to understand how these principles apply, let us examine two separate journal articles and analyze which of these principles must be applied in order to boost the "confidence level" of the claims.
The journal article entitled "Sobering effect of the love hormone" claims that the oxytocin, or the 'love' hormone, can reduce the coordination impairment from alcohol consumption. The study was performed by introducing oxytocin into the brains of rats before giving them alcohol. Findings showed that the rats showed fine motor control in the rats with oxytocin relative to the control group, the rats without oxytocin (University of Sydney, 2015).
In order to accept the claim more, not only must the study be replicated, but it must be tested with a different host other than rats. The reason behind this is that, although it is likely that replicate studies with rats will display similar findings, other animals may have a different reaction to what the rats exhibited. With this proposal, the claim's falsifiability is existent while proving the study's flaw to investigate the reactions of different species to oxytocin, thus, the study hadn’t ruled out a possible explanation.
On the other hand, the article entitled "Deconstructing mental illness through ultradian rhythms" claims that regular balanced meal times together with early bedtimes reduces the chances of having mental illness. This study was performed on genetically modified mice, and shows that instead of being associated to circadian rhythm, sleep abnormalities are caused by imbalance of dopamine-based ultradian rhythm generator (Douglas Mental Health University Institute, 2015).
This study showed a very persuasive evidence that contradicted the idea that sleep abnormalities are caused by disruptions in circadian rhythm – what we already know, thus, applying the second from the six principles. Still, this groundbreaking claim could be accepted more if the study is replicated probably using a different host.

References

Douglas Mental Health University Institute. (2015, February 21). Deconstructing mental illness through ultradian rhythms. ScienceDaily. Retrieved February 27, 2015 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150221192246.htm
Lilienfeld, Lynn & Wooly, Namy. (2011). Psychology: From Inquiry to Understanding. 2nd Edition. Boston, MA: Pearson.