03 Jul '06 14:03>
Originally posted by FreakyKBHconsidering these ideas taking from Sagan's writing:
Zemeckis recalls, "I had a great relationship with Carl through the whole project."
Zemeckis worked with Sagan on striking the balance between human interest and science.
However, although Sagan did pass away prior to the film's release in 1997 (November 9, 1934 – December 20, 1996, accoring to the Wik), therefore within months o ...[text shortened]... e always reaching erroneous conclusions based on half-baked information, don't you think?
Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities"😉.
Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
Quantify, wherever possible.
If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
"Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?
your attack on the good Doctor is really laughable.
Maybe you think Roy Hobbs hit that world series winning homerun too.