Sign In
Subscribe

Explore Science-first Philosophy
Sign In
Subscribe
💪
Science | Philosophy | Critical Thinking | History
|» AI | Physics | Evolution | Astronomy | Ethics | Metaphysics | Epistemology | Futurism | 30 Phil Book | Politics | RW – More…
Science • Phil • Cr. Think • Hist • …

Update Content

Latest 4 Research Tidbits

It’s time to explore the last 4 updated tidbits.

First up.

1.

A Critical Thinking FAQ.

Subject: Reasoning.

Why is “inductive” reasoning not as reliable as deductive?.

Induction identiffies patterns and can be strong, but deduction is tighter because its conclusion must follow. Use induction to explore. Use deduction to prove.

The central point is this.

Inductive reasoning is less reliable because it generalizes from limited observations. Even if the pattern looks strong, a new example can break it. Deductive reasoning is more dependable because, if the premises are true and the logic is valid, the conclusion has to be true. Induction suggests. Deduction guarantees.

Now, the details…

Inductive reasoning is considered less reliable because it relies on patterns, not absolute certainties. While you can absolutely trust good deductions, you can only trust inductive ones while the pattern holds up.

Let’s dive in…

You can trust deductions, but you can also question whether they are “good” or not. Good deductions stand up to rigorous examination. The focus of this type of skepticism is on evaluating the validity of each premise. Deductive reasoning follows a strict logical path, if the premises are true, the conclusion is true. With the rise of science in the last century, this also means each premise must be falsifiable. You must be able to test it!

Can you believe conclusions based on inductive reasoning? Absolutely, but with a caveat. The premises still must be falsifiable, and you can only believe the conclusions so long as the pattern holds up. In 30 Philosophers, I describe this as the middle empiricist viewpoint. You believe good deductions and embrace inductive conclusions so long as observations support them. From this middle view, the book also explores the true skeptic which believes but constantly reevaluates deductive premises and tends not to believe other types of reasoning. The other view it explores is the True Believer which explores the unknown.

With inductive reasoning, you’re making an educated guess based on past observations, but you can’t be 100% sure the pattern will continue. Think of it like predicting the weather: just because it’s sunny today and yesterday, doesn’t mean it will be sunny tomorrow. So, while inductive reasoning is useful for making informed decisions, it’s important to recognize its limitations and not confuse probability with certainty. 

 


That Critical Thinking FAQ, 

was first published on TST 2 years ago.

The flashcard inspired by it is this.

Front: Type of reasoning that moves from examples and patterns to a likely conclusion or generalization.
Back: Inductive reasoning..

 

2.

A History FAQ.

Subject: Origin Story: Voltaire.

What is the origin story of Voltaire?.

Voltaire’s journey reminds us that intellectual freedom often comes at a cost but also shows how the power of ideas can challenge authority, inspire change, and reshape the world.

In simple terms.

The Enlightenment didn’t begin in lecture halls; it began in prison cells. Voltaire’s story reminds us that ideas often emerge under pressure, not comfort. Suppression doesn’t kill truth—it tests it. When expression is punished, courage becomes the engine of progress, and wit becomes a weapon against power.

Now, the details…

The origin story of Voltaire is a tale told in chapter 26 of “30 Philosophers.” It is the story of the birth of the Enlightenment and Voltaire’s fight for his right to write.

It begins in Paris, where François-Marie Arouet was born on November 21, 1694, to a middle-class family. His father, a successful lawyer, envisioned a legal career for his son, but François-Marie had other plans. From a young age, he displayed a sharp intellect and wit, earning him a place at the prestigious Collège Louis-le-Grand. Here, he immersed himself in classical works that would shape his future as a writer and philosopher.

By 1711, at just 17 years old, François-Marie faced a crossroads. Defying his father’s wishes, he chose literature and philosophy over law, stepping boldly into the Parisian intellectual scene. Over the next few years, his wit and eloquence earned him both admiration and enemies. In 1716, his sharp tongue led to exile for insulting a French Regent. Undeterred, he returned to Paris a year later, only to be imprisoned in the infamous Bastille for his biting satire targeting the government and the Church.

Rather than breaking his spirit, the Bastille became a crucible for François-Marie. Using books and writing materials secured through clever negotiations, he penned his first play, Oedipus. Released in 1718 after a year in prison, he emerged as Voltaire, a pen name symbolizing his transformation into a fearless defender of free thought. Later that year, Oedipus premiered to wide acclaim, cementing Voltaire’s reputation as a rising star of the Enlightenment and beginning his legacy as a tireless satirist who wielded his pen against oppression.

 


That History FAQ, 

was first published on TST 1 year ago.

The flashcard inspired by it is this.

Front: What movement emphasized reason, free inquiry, and individual rights?
Back: Enlightenment.

 

3.

A Critical Thinking FAQ.

Subject: Elusive Illusions.

What is the Ebbinghaus Illusion?.

The Ebbinghaus Illusion reminds us that our senses don’t report reality directly; they interpret it.

Seen another way.

Illusions don’t just trick the eyes. They expose the mind’s shortcuts and how easily context shapes belief, not just perception. The deeper lesson is that clarity includes how we see. In a world of elusive illusions, hinting allusions illuminate.

Now, the details…

The Ebbinghaus Illusion plays with how our minds perceive size relative to surroundings. Imagine two identical circles. Surround one with larger shapes and the other with smaller ones. The circle surrounded by smaller shapes appears bigger, even though they’re the same size. This illusion highlights how context can warp our perception. It’s why you might seem taller standing next to shorter people, regardless of your actual height.

This concept isn’t new. Ancient skeptics like Pyrrho observed similar phenomena and used them as a cautionary tale about trusting appearances. Pyrrho’s philosophy boiled down to “do not trust until you verify,” contrasting with the empirical approach of “trust but verify.” For skeptics, illusions like this are a reminder to question not only new claims but also the beliefs and assumptions we take for granted.

The Ebbinghaus Illusion underscores how easily our perception can be tricked, urging us to interrogate what we think we know. It’s a call to think critically, constantly reevaluating our understanding to avoid being misled by appearances.

 


That Critical Thinking FAQ, 

was first published on TST 1 year ago.

The flashcard inspired by it is this.

Front: Which view of perception does the Ebbinghaus Illusion support?
Back: Indirect realism.

 

4.

A Critical Thinking FAQ.

Subject: The Fermi Paradox..

Does the Fermi paradox lack good thinking?.

Good thinking isn’t just about asking big questions like the Fermi Paradox—it’s about recognizing the biases that shape our answers and staying open to possibilities far beyond our current understanding.

Looked at differently.

The Fermi Paradox is a valuable question, not a failed argument. The trouble arises when human expectations are smuggled in as cosmic rules. Good critical thinking means separating evidence from assumption and recognizing how bias, projection, and limited samples distort conclusions about an immense and unfamiliar universe.

Now, the details…

The Fermi Paradox itself doesn’t lack good thinking—it’s a useful framework—but some of the conclusions drawn from it do. A critical thinking lens reveals that the paradox is often entangled in cognitive biases, one of the Four Mind Traps that can distort our reasoning. These biases lead to overly simplistic assumptions, such as the belief that we “should have” encountered alien life by now. For more on avoiding such traps, see the TST Framework.

First, there’s the availability heuristic: we assume that the way life developed on Earth must be a universal blueprint for all life in the cosmos. This bias blinds us to the diversity of evolutionary paths and alien priorities that might make them fundamentally different from us. Critical thinkers recognize that extrapolating from limited examples is a flawed approach.

Second, the paradox often falls into the trap of confirmation bias, favoring evidence that supports human exceptionalism. It assumes that if aliens exist, they would think, communicate, and explore like humans do. Yet, truly alien civilizations might operate on timescales, technologies, or goals that are beyond human comprehension. Good thinking challenges us to confront and overcome these biases.

 


That Critical Thinking FAQ, 

was first published on TST 1 year ago.

The flashcard inspired by it is this.

Front: What mistake treats absence of evidence as evidence of absence?
Back: Argument from ignorance.

 

5.

A Critical Thinking FAQ.

Subject: Personal Judgement.

Why do people confuse rule-following with moral reasoning?.

Rules can guide behavior, but moral reasoning requires judgment. Never outsource your judgment to authority.

Briefly.

Authoritarians often create rules that make obedience feel moral, even when the result is harmful. Their power grows when people stop judging for themselves. Use rules as guides, but never as a replacement for conscience. When authority asks you to surrender moral responsibility, hold the line.

Now, the details…

Humans rely on rules because rules simplify decision-making. In complex societies, laws provide structure and predictability. But when rules are treated as moral substitutes rather than tools, people stop thinking and start deferring. This is where rule-following quietly replaces moral reasoning.

One core mind trap at work is authority bias—the tendency to assume that decisions made by an authority figure or system are inherently correct. When combined with moral outsourcing, individuals shift responsibility away from themselves and onto the rulebook. If the rule allows it, the thinking goes, then it must be right. Judgment is no longer required.

This is how context disappears. Absolutist thinking flattens moral landscapes into binaries: legal or illegal, allowed or forbidden. Nuance, intent, proportionality, and harm are pushed aside. Complex moral hierarchies collapse into slogans like “rules are rules,” which feel firm but explain nothing.

The danger is not ignorance—it’s abdication. When people say “I’m just following the law,” they are not making a moral claim; they are avoiding one. As Hannah Arendt famously observed in her analysis of bureaucratic evil, systems don’t require monstrous individuals—only people willing to stop judging their own actions.

Rules are necessary. Judgment is indispensable. When judgment is surrendered to authority, responsibility dissolves—and history shows us exactly where that leads.

 


That Critical Thinking FAQ, 

was first published on TST 2 months ago.

The flashcard inspired by it is this.

Front: What kind of thinking erases context and proportionality?
Back: black-and-white thinking (Absolutist).

 

6.

A Critical Thinking FAQ.

Subject: Philosophy of Science.

What is the difference between anthropology and paleontology?.

Anthropology uncovers culture, and paleontology uncovers ancient life.

To clarify.

Anthropology studies humans and their cultures, paleontology uncovers ancient life through fossils, and archaeology explores past human societies through material remains—all piecing together the story of life and humanity.

Now, the details…

In my writing, a question like this falls within critical thinking because the philosophy of science is about inquiry. How we think. In this case, who does what is part of Idea Evaluation, one of the Five Thought Tools.

Both anthropology and paleontology explore the past. Anthropology explores our history back to the emergence of Homo habilis 2.3 million years ago. Paleontology explores the fossil record all the way back to LUCA about 3.6 billion years ago.

Anthropology focuses on the study of humans, their cultures, behaviors, and biological evolution. It includes subfields like cultural anthropology, which examines societal structures and traditions. It also includes biological anthropology, which studies human evolution and adaptation.

Paleontology, on the other hand, investigates ancient life forms through the study of fossils. All fields always overlap, paleontologists primarily examine the fossilized remains of plants, animals, and microorganisms to understand prehistoric ecosystems and the history of life on Earth.

Many fields can overlap and get blurry. Paleoanthropology draws heavily on paleontological techniques to study ancient hominins and their environments. Archaeology examines past human cultures through material remains, often intersecting with anthropology and paleontology.

 


That Critical Thinking FAQ, 

was first published on TST 1 year ago.

The flashcard inspired by it is this.

Front: Does anthropology or paleontology study all ancient life?
Back: Paleontology.

 

7.

A Science FAQ.

Subject: TST Ethics.

Why do scientific models work if they aren’t literally true?.

Scientific models succeed not because they are perfectly true, but because they reliably capture patterns in reality. Trust scientific models for what they do well, but do not mistake them for reality itself.

Simply put.

Scientific models are powerful because they organize important patterns, relationships, and variables in the world. They help us predict, explain, and navigate reality, even when they simplify it. Think well by using models with confidence, but also with humility. They are maps that improve over time, not final pictures of the territory.

Now, the details…

Scientific models work because they approximate reality, not because they perfectly mirror it.

A model is a structured simplification — a map, not the territory. When we describe an atom as a tiny solar system, or light as a wave, or spacetime as a fabric, we are not claiming those metaphors are physically exact. We are building tools that capture patterns well enough to predict outcomes. If the predictions hold, the model is useful — even if it is incomplete.

Throughout history, models have been refined rather than discarded outright. Newton’s gravity still works for launching rockets and building bridges, even though Einstein showed it was not the full story. Early atomic models captured energy levels long before quantum mechanics revealed probability clouds. Superseded does not mean useless — it means limited in scope.

Scientific models work because reality has structure. Our rational frameworks latch onto that structure. The closer the fit, the better the predictions. Models are not literal copies of the world — they are disciplined approximations that survive because they continue to work.

 


That Science FAQ, 

was first published on TST 2 months ago.

The flashcard inspired by it is this.

Front: What is a simplified symbolic representation of reality used to explain and predict patterns?
Back: Scientific model.

 

8.

A Science FAQ.

Subject: Copernicus.

Did Copernicus prove that Earth moves around the Sun?.

Nicolaus Copernicus did not prove heliocentrism—he built a model that explained the sky better than any alternative available at the time.

What matters here is this.

Copernicus didn’t claim final proof. He offered something more subtle: a coherent framework that reduced complexity and aligned more naturally with observation. Science often advances this way—not through decisive experiments at first, but through models that work better. Proof may come later; clarity often comes first.

Now, the details…

No, Copernicus did not prove that Earth moves around the Sun in the modern scientific sense. He lacked the instruments to detect stellar parallax or directly measure Earth’s motion. What he offered instead was a mathematical model that reorganized the solar system in a way that made planetary motion simpler, more consistent, and more predictable.

Under the geocentric system, astronomers were forced to pile epicycles upon epicycles to explain what they observed—especially retrograde motion. Copernicus’s heliocentric model didn’t immediately improve observational accuracy, but it dramatically improved coherence. The strange motions of the planets became natural consequences of Earth itself being in motion.

This distinction matters. Science does not always begin with proof; it often begins with better explanations. Copernicus showed that a model could be superior even before it was empirically confirmed. Later observations—by Galileo, Kepler, and eventually Newton—would supply the proof Copernicus lacked. But without his model, those confirmations might never have been recognized for what they were.

 


That Science FAQ, 

was first published on TST 3 months ago.

The flashcard inspired by it is this.

Front: Is an unconfirmed mathematical framework a proof or a model?
Back: Model.

 

The end.

Scroll to Top