- Whenever possible, there should be independent confirmation of the “facts”.
- Encourage substantive debate about the evidence by proponents knowledgeable about all points of view.
- Arguments from authority carry little weight – “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do it again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say this is that in science there are no authorities; At most, there are specialists.
- Analyze more than one hypothesis. If there is something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained.
- Try not to get too attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. Compare it fairly to the alternatives. See if you can find reasons to reject it. If you don’t, others will.
- Quantify. If whatever you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate between competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations.
- If there is a chain of arguments, all links in the chain must work (including the premise) – not just most of them.
- Occam’s razor. Following this rule of thumb leads us, when confronted with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well, to choose the simpler one.
- Always ask if the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, validated. Propositions that can’t be tested aren’t worth much.
Rationality must prevail in the discussions and analysis of technologies. Immersing yourself in the hype draws attention, but hype and FOMO should not be the influencer of strategic decisions.