Cause and Effect
We often encounter a statement, or in the field of logic, it's called a premise.
At first glance, it seems to follow the scientific principles, but it turns out to be nothing more than pseudo (seemingly so).
How to recognize it❓
Every piece of knowledge involves the meaning of words. And if...
CAUSE AND EFFECT. Among the meanings of words, there is a cause-and-effect connection; then knowledge is established.
EXAMPLE: "ANIMALS THAT THINK"
However, this is not enough; there's still something to consider, which is how to test the cause-and-effect relationship within a sentence. Are the sequences of cause and effect understood by simply following conventions?
It's evident that there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the meanings of "animal" and "thinking" (thinking by an animal or an animal displaying activities characteristic of thinking).
PSEUDO-SCIENCE TEST - Reality
THERE IS REALITY. Ensure that for each key word (with meaning), there are real-world examples, so that the cause-and-effect sequence can be more accountable.
EXAMPLE: "THINKING ANIMAL"
➡️ Animal = "it exists and can be seen in a zoo"
➡️ Thinking = "there is evidence of animals being able to find a way out when blocked"
If there is an empirical example in reality, it means the sentence meets the "knowledge" criteria.
PSEUDO-SCIENCE TEST - Definitive
ROOT OR BRANCH. Check whether a piece of knowledge is independent or tied to a definition?
EXAMPLE: "ANIMALS THINK" = Independent (not connected to a definition)
EXAMPLE: "HUMANS ARE ANIMALS THAT THINK" = Branch - Not Independent (linked to the definition of "HUMANS")
If a piece of knowledge is linked to (considered as) a definition, then perform a compatibility check.
CHECK THE COMPATIBILITY OF FIELD FINDINGS: Is "Animals Think" really the same as what is meant in its definition as humans? If there is no match between the "definition" (humans) and the findings (all animals) in reality, then this is considered a failure.
In this example, the definition of "humans who are animals that think" turns out to be a failure because what is defined doesn't match the reality.
PSEUDO-SCIENCE TEST - Example
TYPES OF EXAMPLES
There are several types of examples that represent the "existence of a certain reality."
1⃣ There is an example of the object itself. If the sentence mentions "shoes," then the test proves the existence of "shoes."
2⃣ If it doesn't involve a visible object, make sure to trace the characteristics (qualities) of "shoes."
3⃣ If their characteristics (qualities) are unknown, then trace the actions of "shoes" (e.g., footprints of shoes).
4⃣ If their actions are unknown, then trace the logical consequences of the second or subsequent hand, so that "shoes" can be traced to others with related connections (logical consequences, for example, "feet" - if there are feet, there is a possibility of wearing shoes) or "muddy places," "sharp rocky areas," and so on.
