Neeeeeeeoo,
not quite, but points for trying!
:) That link should cover all the above labelled points (and knowledge is always nice, too).
Anyhow, the gist of my perception is (worded differently) that what I percieve, I must then back up, either weakly or strongly, depending on the subject matter. For an example:
- Somebody comes up and tells me that astrology is true and correct and good science. Essentially, the way that the planets align etc can be "read" to determine my personal future (and the personal future of anybody).
- I mull it over and eventually consider that, underneath the quackery surface, there are several focus points. There are well more than 12 types of people in the world... where are all the other personal futures? Why do these readings always come across as cold reading? Why do all twelve readings match my life/week simultaneously? What is the underlying reasoning behind the alignment of celestial bodies, with the impending fate of ourselves? If the future is determinable, implying that it is set in stone, then why are we reading it in the hopes of changing something that is static? If it isn't static, then wouldn't the very act of knowing the future distort it into something different by our newly enlightened actions (or inactions)?
- The astrologist (or believer) can then be confronted with the above. They're all pretty strong points, but they're all pretty obvious, too -- if this science is worth a damn then they've probably got the answers to them all, or at the very least detailed hypothesis on how it all functions. As it is, I've performed this step, and the answer is unwaveringly a variation of finger wiggling and a mystical "ooooOOOOOoooooo!" noise. For me, this is enough to throw astrology out of the window -- nothing supports it. It's akin to the tooth fairy, or god, or mayan prophecy -- fiction that some people take a little too seriously and back it up with fallicious logic and nothing else. This wouldn't satisfy rigorous science but it's a satisfying conclusion for me, personally. I'm not a journal. Hence watered down scientific method.
I guess that's what it comes down to -- applying "proper" logic and reasoning, evidence gathering, as opposed to
logical fallacies and testimonial/intuitional/anecdotal "evidence". You are justified to take a look at these two concepts and dismiss them as no different to other concepts -- that's generally what one comes to learn as they grow, that everyone has "their own way" of thinking and doing things, and they all think they're right. The awesome thing that distinguishes "my way" from the rest?
There's no holes in it. The more intelligent you get, the more knowledge you acquire, the more it makes sense and the stronger it becomes. Try applying that qualifier to anything else (which does the opposite) and you'll see why the last few hundred years have been very special for our species.
