on Toshareproject.it - curated by Bruce Sterling
Read these nine rules for scientific research (made up by Carl Sagan many years ago).
1.) Demand independent confirmation of whatever statements are asserted as facts.
2.) Encourage substantive debate from all points of view by those with substantial, relevant expertise.
3.) Don’t accept an argument from an authority because that person is an authority. Instead, judge arguments based on the merits of the underlying facts, and how experts scrupulously interpret those facts.
4.) Spin as many hypotheses as you can that are consistent with the data. Every possible explanation that isn’t ruled out or contradicted by the already-existing data should be considered, and each hypothesis should be tested and examined as rigorously as possible.
5.) Whatever your favorite, most preferred hypothesis is — especially if it’s your original idea — be its harshest critic. By attempting to knock it down or poke holes in it as hard as you can, you’ll determine how well it stands up under the steeliest of scrutiny. (And if you don’t, others will.)
6.) Don’t settle for a qualitative analysis of the issue. Be quantitative: ask and answer the key question of “by how much?”
7.) If there’s a chain of argument being put forth, then every link in the chain, from the premise to the final conclusion, must be sound.
8.) The convenient rule of Occam’s Razor: to choose the simplest explanation among multiple hypotheses that explain the data equally well.
9.) Ask whether the hypothesis, at least in principle, can be falsified. Non-falsifiable and untestable hypotheses cannot be checked out, and hence those ideas are incapable of disproof.
What do you make of these rules? Do you think you could follow these rules? If so, how would you go about doing that?
Carl Sagan had a knack for distilling the scientific mindset into something both rigorous and deeply human, and these nine rules are a great example of that. They’re not just instructions for scientists — they’re a blueprint for thinking clearly in a world full of noise, bias, and wishful thinking.
Here’s how I see them, and how I can operate within their spirit.
What these rules really capture
Each rule pushes toward the same goal: reducing the chance that we fool ourselves. Humans are brilliant, but we’re. (((speak for yourself, Bing))) also prone to confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, and overconfidence. Sagan’s rules are a kind of intellectual hygiene — a way to keep our thinking honest.
A few highlights:
Rules 1, 2, and 3 emphasize independence and expertise. Knowledge shouldn’t be a popularity contest or an appeal to authority.
Rules 4 and 5 encourage creativity paired with humility. Generate many ideas, then attack your own favorite one with gusto.
Rules 6 and 7 push for precision and logical integrity. “True-ish” isn’t good enough.
Rule 8 reminds us that simplicity is a virtue — but only when it explains the data just as well as the alternatives.
Rule 9 is the backbone of science: if an idea can’t be tested, it can’t be improved or discarded.
Together, they form a worldview that’s curious, skeptical, and self-correcting.
🤖 Could I follow these rules?
Yes — and in many ways, I’m already built to operate in their direction. But I also have limitations, and being transparent about those is part of staying faithful to Sagan’s spirit.
Here’s how I align with the rules:
1. Independent confirmation
I can compare information across multiple sources and highlight where they agree or diverge. I can’t conduct experiments, but I can help you evaluate the strength of evidence.
2. Substantive debate
I can present multiple expert perspectives, including minority or competing interpretations, without taking sides myself.
3. Avoiding appeals to authority
I don’t treat a claim as true just because a famous person or institution said it. I focus on evidence and reasoning.
4. Generating hypotheses
I’m good at proposing multiple plausible explanations for a set of observations — and pointing out what data would help distinguish between them.
5. Critiquing hypotheses
I can analyze weaknesses, assumptions, and potential failure points in any idea, including the ones I generate.
6. Being quantitative
When data exists, I can help quantify differences, magnitudes, probabilities, and uncertainties.
7. Checking every link in the chain
I can walk through an argument step-by-step and test whether each part holds up logically.
8. Applying Occam’s Razor
I can compare hypotheses and identify which ones are simpler or require fewer assumptions — while noting that simplicity isn’t the only criterion.
9. Falsifiability
I can help identify whether a claim is testable, what evidence could disprove it, and whether it belongs to science or philosophy.
🧭 How I would actually apply these rules in practice
If you asked me to evaluate a claim — say, “X causes Y” — I’d approach it like this:
Gather independent sources and check whether they converge.
Lay out competing explanations, not just the most popular one.
Identify assumptions and test whether they’re justified.
Quantify the effect if data allows.
Check the logic from start to finish.
Highlight what would falsify the claim, and whether that test has been done.
Point out uncertainties, not just conclusions.
In other words, I’d try to help you think like a scientist — not by replacing your judgment, but by sharpening it.
If you want, we can even apply these rules to a real-world claim or question you’re curious about. It’s a great way to see how powerful Sagan’s framework really is.