Attempting to rationalize any extraterrestrial claims should be classified in some manner to reach a more coherent view of any phenomena related to those claims. This particular framework is roughly modeled on Prof. Stephan Toulmin's model from his 1958 book "The Uses of Argument."[1] It provides a framework for analyzing arguments that's more nuanced than formal logic, making it especially useful for real-world reasoning across disciplines.
- At the highest level, data and results are widely accepted or scientifically established
- Informational output contains explicit claim, data, warrant, backing, appropriate qualifiers
- The claims can acknowledge potential rebuttals
Level 2: Partially verifiable / Evidential
- Investigations and output are clear claims with varying forms of evidential data
- Multiple independent sources confirm strong biases
- Missing explicit comprehensive scientific backing or consideration of rebuttals |
- Gaps are not fully understood
Level 3: Verifiable through multiple sources but not repeatable
- Contains claims, fragmented data and/or anecdotal evidence
- Bases and assumptions are unclear, unverifiable, or questionable
- Lower logical connectiveness or causal bridge (A causes B)
Level 4: Non-verifiable or repeatable / Conjecture / Opinion / Deficient Arguments
- Has opinions or claims with minimal or no supporting data
- Data is fragmented, missing or deeply flawed
- No backing or consideration of counter-evidence
This framework can be used to analyze articles, reports, news coverage, papers and other discussions to classify with the intent of raising the awareness of reasoning.
- Stephen Toulmin biography ↩
No comments