Here are some suggestions for testing and evaluating the validity of an argument, theory, or experimental result:
If / Then
Arguments (Syllogystic):
1. The premises must be demonstrably true; this requires scrutiny and research, possibly regressing to support premises underlying the stated premises. Regression must not be infinite, but resolve to one or more of the First Principles.
2. The logic must be correct in drawing the conclusion, without non sequitur.
Because / Then (Cause and Effect);
1. The cause must exist, and be necessary and sufficient to produce the effect.
2. Scrutiny for all hidden presuppositions is necessary.
In addition, there
are other common traps to avoid:
1. Logical Inversions; these are found in rationalized arguments typically from rebellious sources or those with worldview agendas that supervene the pursuit for validity.
2. Post Hoc Stories and unjustified Extrapolations; again, these are found in rationalized arguments typically from rebellious sources or those with worldview agendas that supervene the pursuit for validity. Also, these are commonly found in “historical” or forensic pursuits.
3. False Dichotomies; arguments that offer only two possibilities, then attack one in favor of the other. These are similar to Strawman Fallacies, and serve to deflect attention from other, third or more possibilities. Typically involved in worldview presuppositional fallacies.
4. Ad Hominem Abusive Fallacies; attacks directed at the person, not at the challenging argument. Example: “The average person or non-specialist cannot understand (evolution / cosmology/ etc.)”.
5. Flights of Rhetoric; These are designed to wear down and confuse, possibly with uncommon terminology and convoluted sentence structure.
6. Improper use of terminology, such as “empiricism”, “fact”, “truth”.
7. Use of Authority: typically unannotated references to “scientists say that…”, where “scientists” are anonymous, and the statements are not found in research attempts; also improper use of quote mining, such as “Einstein said that…”, when the context of the statement has lapsed into false meaning. Also reference to “studies” which, when examined, do not support the premise, or cannot be found.