1. “Scientific” Group Thinking - 1 The “scientific” group overestimates its invulnerability or high moral stance. The “scientific” group overestimates its invulnerability or high moral stance. The group collectively rationalizes the decisions it makes. The group collectively rationalizes the decisions it makes. Demonizes or stereotypes outgroups and their leaders. Demonizes or stereotypes outgroups and their leaders.

2. “Scientific” Group Thinking - 2 Has a culture of uniformity where individuals censor themselves and others so that the façade of group unanimity is maintained. Has a culture of uniformity where individuals censor themselves and others so that the façade of group unanimity is maintained. Contains members who take it upon themselves to protect the group leader, by keeping from him/her theirs or other group members’ information. Contains members who take it upon themselves to protect the group leader, by keeping from him/her theirs or other group members’ information.

3. “Scientific” Group Thinking - 3 The group exhibits a tremendous self-confidence, leading to a sense of entitlement and of belonging to an elite community of experts. The group exhibits a tremendous self-confidence, leading to a sense of entitlement and of belonging to an elite community of experts. It forms an unusually monolithic community, with a strong sense of consensus, whether driven by the evidence or not, and an unusual uniformity of views on open questions. It forms an unusually monolithic community, with a strong sense of consensus, whether driven by the evidence or not, and an unusual uniformity of views on open questions.

4. “Scientific” Group Thinking - 4 These views seem related to the existence of a hierarchical structure in which the ideas of a few leaders dictate the viewpoint, strategy, and direction in the field. These views seem related to the existence of a hierarchical structure in which the ideas of a few leaders dictate the viewpoint, strategy, and direction in the field. In some cases, a sense of identification with the group, akin to identification with a religious faith or political platform. In some cases, a sense of identification with the group, akin to identification with a religious faith or political platform. A strong sense of boundary between the group and other experts. A strong sense of boundary between the group and other experts.

5. “Scientific” Group Thinking - 5 A disregard for and disinterest in the ideas, opinions, and work of experts who are not part of the group, and a preference for talking only to with members of their community. A disregard for and disinterest in the ideas, opinions, and work of experts who are not part of the group, and a preference for talking only to with members of their community. A tendency to interpret evidence optimistically, to believe exaggerated or incorrect statements of results, and to disregard the possibility that their favourite theory might be wrong. A tendency to interpret evidence optimistically, to believe exaggerated or incorrect statements of results, and to disregard the possibility that their favourite theory might be wrong.

6. “Scientific” Group Thinking - 6 This is coupled with a tendency to believe results are true because they are “widely believed,” even if one has not checked (or even seen) the proof oneself. This is coupled with a tendency to believe results are true because they are “widely believed,” even if one has not checked (or even seen) the proof oneself. A lack of appreciation for the extent to which a research program ought to involve risk. A lack of appreciation for the extent to which a research program ought to involve risk.

7. Shared science ethics - 1 Science succeeds because scientists comprise a community defined and maintained by adherence to a shared ethic. Science succeeds because scientists comprise a community defined and maintained by adherence to a shared ethic. It is adherence to an ethic, not adherence to any particular fact or theory. It is adherence to an ethic, not adherence to any particular fact or theory. There are two basic tenets to this ethics: There are two basic tenets to this ethics:

8. Shared science ethics - 2 If an issue can be decided by people of good faith, applying rational argument to publicly available evidence, then the issue must be so regarded and decided. If an issue can be decided by people of good faith, applying rational argument to publicly available evidence, then the issue must be so regarded and decided. If, on the other hand, rational argument from the publicly available evidence does not succeed in bringing people of good faith to agreement over an issue, society must allow and even encourage people to draw diverse conclusions. If, on the other hand, rational argument from the publicly available evidence does not succeed in bringing people of good faith to agreement over an issue, society must allow and even encourage people to draw diverse conclusions.

9. Shared science ethics - 3 Science succeeds because scientists adhere, if imperfectly, to the two principles, requiring that: Science succeeds because scientists adhere, if imperfectly, to the two principles, requiring that: We agree to argue rationally, and in good faith, from shared evidence, to whatever degree shared conclusions are warranted. We agree to argue rationally, and in good faith, from shared evidence, to whatever degree shared conclusions are warranted. Each individual scientist is free to develop his own conclusions from evidence. But is also required to put forward arguments for those conclusions for the consideration of the whole community. Each individual scientist is free to develop his own conclusions from evidence. But is also required to put forward arguments for those conclusions for the consideration of the whole community.

10. Shared science ethics - 4 These arguments must be rational and based on evidence available to all members. These arguments must be rational and based on evidence available to all members. The evidence, the means to obtain it, and the logic of the arguments used to deduce conclusions from it, must be shared and open to examination by all. The evidence, the means to obtain it, and the logic of the arguments used to deduce conclusions from it, must be shared and open to examination by all.

11. Shared science ethics - 5 The ability of scientists to deduce reliable conclusions from shared evidence is based on the mastery of tools and procedures developed over time. They are taught because experience showed they lead to reliable results. The ability of scientists to deduce reliable conclusions from shared evidence is based on the mastery of tools and procedures developed over time. They are taught because experience showed they lead to reliable results. Each member of the community recognizes that the eventual goal is to establish consensus, which may emerge quickly or take time. Each member of the community recognizes that the eventual goal is to establish consensus, which may emerge quickly or take time.

12. Shared science ethics - 6 Membership in the community is open to everyone. Membership in the community is open to everyone. Considerations of status, age, gender, or any other personal characteristics, may not play a role in evaluating a scientist’s evidence and arguments, and may not limit his access to information and to the means of dissemination of evidence and argument. Considerations of status, age, gender, or any other personal characteristics, may not play a role in evaluating a scientist’s evidence and arguments, and may not limit his access to information and to the means of dissemination of evidence and argument.

13. Shared science ethics - 7 Entry to the community is, however, based on two criteria: Entry to the community is, however, based on two criteria: First, the mastery of some of the crafts of a scientific subfield, to the point where you can independently produce work judged by other members to be of sufficiently high quality. First, the mastery of some of the crafts of a scientific subfield, to the point where you can independently produce work judged by other members to be of sufficiently high quality. Second, the allegiance and continued adherence to the shared ethic. Second, the allegiance and continued adherence to the shared ethic.

14. Shared science ethics - 8 While ortodoxies may become established temporarily in a given subfield, the community recognizes that contrary opinion and research programs are necessary for the community’s continued health. While ortodoxies may become established temporarily in a given subfield, the community recognizes that contrary opinion and research programs are necessary for the community’s continued health. Scientists give up the need to feel they are right all the time. In exchange, they become members of an ongoing enterprise that over time achieves what no individual alone could. Scientists give up the need to feel they are right all the time. In exchange, they become members of an ongoing enterprise that over time achieves what no individual alone could.

15. A thinking map We have looked at a large number of pieces of reasoning types, and now we need a thinking map of how to best analyse, understand, and evaluate them. We have looked at a large number of pieces of reasoning types, and now we need a thinking map of how to best analyse, understand, and evaluate them. The thinking map, below, is a list of key questions you should ask when evaluating all sorts of arguments – whether someone else’s or your own. The thinking map, below, is a list of key questions you should ask when evaluating all sorts of arguments – whether someone else’s or your own. We separate these “Right Questions” into Fallacies, Clarification, Analysis and Evaluation, Judging Credibility, Causal Explanation. We separate these “Right Questions” into Fallacies, Clarification, Analysis and Evaluation, Judging Credibility, Causal Explanation.

16. Fallacies - 1 A fallacy is a reasoning “trick” an author might use while trying to persuade you to accept a conclusion. A fallacy is a reasoning “trick” an author might use while trying to persuade you to accept a conclusion. Once you have identified the reasons for a conclusion, you want to determine whether any fallacies were used. If so, you will not want to accept the conclusion based on that reasoning. Once you have identified the reasons for a conclusion, you want to determine whether any fallacies were used. If so, you will not want to accept the conclusion based on that reasoning. Thus, looking for fallacies in an important step in determining conclusion acceptance or rejection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy Thus, looking for fallacies in an important step in determining conclusion acceptance or rejection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

17. Fallacies - 2 Ad hominem: An attack, or an insult, on the person rather than addressing the person’s reasoning. Ad hominem: An attack, or an insult, on the person rather than addressing the person’s reasoning. Slippery slope: Making the assumption that a proposed step will set off an uncontrollable chain of undesirable events, when, in fact, procedures exist to prevent such a chain of events. Slippery slope: Making the assumption that a proposed step will set off an uncontrollable chain of undesirable events, when, in fact, procedures exist to prevent such a chain of events.

18. Fallacies - 3 Searching for perfect solutions: Falsely assuming that because part of the problem would remain after a solution is tried, the solution should not be accepted. Searching for perfect solutions: Falsely assuming that because part of the problem would remain after a solution is tried, the solution should not be accepted. Equivocation: A key word is used with two or more meanings in an argument, such that the argument fails to make sense once the shifts in meaning are recognized. Equivocation: A key word is used with two or more meanings in an argument, such that the argument fails to make sense once the shifts in meaning are recognized.

19. Fallacies - 4 Appeal to popularity (ad populum): An attempt to justify a claim by appealing to sentiments that large groups of people have in common; falsely assumes that anything favoured by a large group is desireable. Appeal to popularity (ad populum): An attempt to justify a claim by appealing to sentiments that large groups of people have in common; falsely assumes that anything favoured by a large group is desireable. Appeal to questionable authority: Supporting a conclusion by citing an authority who lacks special expertise on the issue at hand. Appeal to questionable authority: Supporting a conclusion by citing an authority who lacks special expertise on the issue at hand.

20. Fallacies - 5 Straw person: Distorting our opponent’s point of view so that it is easy to attack; thus we attack a point of view that does not truly exist. Straw person: Distorting our opponent’s point of view so that it is easy to attack; thus we attack a point of view that does not truly exist. Either-or (false dilemma): Assuming only two alternatives exist when it is possible that there are more than two. Either-or (false dilemma): Assuming only two alternatives exist when it is possible that there are more than two. Wishful thinking: Making the faulty assumption that because we wish X were true (or false), then X is indeed true (or false). Wishful thinking: Making the faulty assumption that because we wish X were true (or false), then X is indeed true (or false).

21. Fallacies - 6 Explaining by naming: Falsely assuming that because you have provided a name for some event or behaviour that you have also adequately explained the event. Explaining by naming: Falsely assuming that because you have provided a name for some event or behaviour that you have also adequately explained the event. Glittering generality: The use of vague, emotionally appealing virtue words that dispose us to approve something without closely examining the reasons. Glittering generality: The use of vague, emotionally appealing virtue words that dispose us to approve something without closely examining the reasons.

22. Fallacies - 7 Red herring: An irrelevant topic is presented to divert attention from the original issue and help to “win” an argument by shifting attention, away from the argument and to another issue. Red herring: An irrelevant topic is presented to divert attention from the original issue and help to “win” an argument by shifting attention, away from the argument and to another issue. Begging the question: An argument in which the conclusion is assumed in the reasoning. Begging the question: An argument in which the conclusion is assumed in the reasoning.

23. Fallacies - 8 Hasty generalization fallacy: A person draws a conclusion about a large group based on experiences with only a few members of the group. Hasty generalization fallacy: A person draws a conclusion about a large group based on experiences with only a few members of the group. Faulty analogy: Occurs when an analogy is proposed in which there are important relevant dissimilarities. Faulty analogy: Occurs when an analogy is proposed in which there are important relevant dissimilarities. Causal over simplification: Explaining an event by relying on causal factors that are insufficient to account for the event or by overemphasizing the role of one or more of these factors. Causal over simplification: Explaining an event by relying on causal factors that are insufficient to account for the event or by overemphasizing the role of one or more of these factors.

24. Fallacies - 9 Confusion of cause and effect: Confusing the cause with the effect of an event, or failing to recognize that the two may be influencing each other. Confusion of cause and effect: Confusing the cause with the effect of an event, or failing to recognize that the two may be influencing each other. Neglect of a common cause: Failure to recognize that two events may be related because of the effects of a common third factor. Neglect of a common cause: Failure to recognize that two events may be related because of the effects of a common third factor. Post hoc fallacy: Assuming that a particular event, B, is caused by another event, A, simply because B follows A in time. Post hoc fallacy: Assuming that a particular event, B, is caused by another event, A, simply because B follows A in time.