Have you ever found yourself in a spot wondering how few people can think so amazingly? Arguments flowing like shampoo out of the bottle — that smooth! End your search, as it is the pit-stop to refresh your critical thinking skills, where you can learn how to be suave and sassy.
It is important to note that you do not have to do the philosophical heavy-lifting yourself. Many thinkers have come and gone, leaving behind the treasure trove of ideas. Nietzsche, Kant, Plato, Socrates and Aristotle are some of the pop stars in the sphere of philosophy. If history is your secret crush, you might have also heard about Epicurus, Epictetus and Pyrrho from the Greco world. While if you are from India or from the Indic sphere of influence, you might have heard about Gautama, Patanjali, Kapil, Jaimini and others.
Well, those are a lot of names, my bad! These names are not relevant to our purpose and can be shaved off. This principle of eliminating (or shaving off) the unnecessary explanations is known as a razor in philosophy. It is not always right, but mostly true. Therefore, it helps in thinking on the feet by allowing for quicker problem solving and easier decision making. Let us look at each for some context.
Occam’s razor: the simplest explanation is often the correct one.
You have been inside during the entire lockdown, but now you have a headache. What if it is coronavirus disease? Or you could be simply tired. Which one do you think? Available evidence indicates that you were inside this whole time. It is the simpler explanation that you could be tired.
It says that a complex explanation has more assumptions which may lead to more errors. However, it must be noted that the simplest explanation must account for all available evidence.
The claim for cancer cure requires exhaustive controlled trials, for it is an extraordinary claim. Similar has been our experience with the current coronavirus pandemic, where every vaccine went through layers of testing.
Hitchen’s razor: what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
It is in synergy with the Sagan standard above. Since the burden of proof lies with the claimant, one can reject, without evidence, any claim made without evidence.
It is akin to the political debates of our times. Both arguments and counterarguments have no foundational evidence. They are more like arrows thrown in the dark, as nothing productive comes out ever. Therefore, these can be dismissed even without evidence.
Hume’s razor: what ought to be cannot be deduced from what is.
You cannot deduce the effect if you do not know the cause. There can be two meanings: first, where there is an effect, there is a cause, although we do not always know the cause. Second, true causes are the ones that must be sufficiently able to produce that effect.
Let’s give it a minute or two before you jump onto the next razor. Remember, this is the amount of thought you must also give before drawing up any cause-effect conjectures.
Hanlon’s razor: never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.
If you ever feel that the world is against you, stop! Have you considered that the behaviour of people may not have anything to do with you but with themselves? The razor encourages you to not give yourselves too much importance and be less judgemental and more rational. What if, instead of harbouring malice, one was plain stupid or incompetent?
Alder’s razor: that which cannot be settled by an experiment is not worthy of debate.
It is also called Newton’s flaming laser sword. It is named after Newton, as he insisted that any statement is testable by observation. Flaming laser sword, as it is much more capable of cutting off the clutter than Occam’s razor. Razor vs flaming laser sword, which one do you think would win?
Grice’s razor: conversational implications are to be preferred over the semantic contest for linguistic explanations.
Most people are poor communicators and struggle to find just the right words or examples to express themselves. It is futile to get into silly arguments just over semantics. Therefore, listen to the context as well.
Popper’s falsifiability principle: for a theory to be considered scientific, it must be fallible.
This is the reason why every research is preceded by hypotheses, both null and alternative. To say “all swans are white” is a scientific statement, it must be fallible. The presence of one black swan could prove the statement false, therefore, it is indeed a scientific statement.
- - -
Enough with principles! There are a bunch of logical reasoning tools which could also help you think on the feet. Not really a bunch, but only three.
Deduction: it allows reasoning from one or more statements to reach a logical conclusion. It is a top-down logic where the conclusion is derived reductively.
Induction: it allows reasoning from a given premise or evidence, however, the conclusion is often probable. It is a bottom-up logic as a certain amount of generalisation and extrapolation is used.
Abduction: it is much like deduction but slightly different. It begins with a set of observations and then seeks to simplify the most likely conclusion.
Sounds confusing, is it? Well, these three had a purpose, now the “Duck Test” can be introduced.
Duck test: if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
It is an example of abductive reasoning where you draw the most likely conclusion given the evidence. If something seems a certain way, that is probably that way only.
- - -
Well, to think well also means to conclude well! Therefore, tell me if what you read felt like a good read. Did it teach you how to think? Did it inspire you to think? Did it make you think? If it did, it proves to be a good summary of how to think, therefore don’t forget to press that clap button!
Comments
Post a Comment