The problem: mistakes in thinking
Are scientists truly logical thinkers? Do their conclusions really follow from their results, or do they make simple mistakes in reasoning? Editor-in-Chief of the journal, eNeuro, Christophe Bernard, says the answers to these and similar questions is, too often, no. In an editorial, https://www.eneuro.org/content/7/6/ENEURO.0491-20.2020, he says that neuroscientists are prone to committing “fallacies.” These are errors in reasoning that make their arguments invalid. They frequently draw broad conclusions from data that just don’t support them. For instance, they often fail to consider alternative explanations for their data. Therefore, the conclusions they are justified in drawing are much narrower than the ones they actually draw. And illogical reasoning can lead to bad outcomes. Other scientists, relying on the conclusions in a paper, might try to repeat or extend it and fail. This adds to the confusion and controversy about the “reproducibility crisis” in science.
How the scientific hypothesis can help
One problem is that scientists aren’t trained in logic or critical thinking in general. We’ve never been taught basic principles and, consequently, don’t always recognize when we’re going wrong. And we lack strategies and methods to help out. In a new essay, I’ve outlines a number of specific ways in which use of the scientific hypothesis can reduce the prevalence of fallacies in scientific writing (https://scientifichypothesis.org/on-reducing-fallacies-in-neuroscience-critical-thinking-improved-with-the-scientific-hypothesis/). By its very nature, the hypothesis encourages a easy to follow procedure that can keep you on the right track. Check it out.