What do we know?

Let me share with you an interesting incident which I read in the renowned book "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawkings. When Bertrand Russell was tending to a social event He convinced people that the earth revolves around the sun and then the sun revolves around the cluster of stars: galaxy. At the end of the lecture, an old lady ridiculed him by saying that the world is a flat plate supported on the back of a turtle. Bertrand cleverly asked ' what is the tortoise standing on?'She replied its turtles all the way down!

If you find the concept of earth on the back of a turtle a ridiculous one, let me tell you that there are even more absurd theories, for instance: earth on the back of elephants standing on the turtle or the earth on the back of a whale and even on the horns of a bull!  The story is entertaining, yet Stephen posed an exceptionally convincing question. We would all find this image of level, flat earth on the rear of turtles a strange and peculiar one, yet how are we entirely certain that this is false? If we didn't have the technical innovation and advancement we have at the moment, there was no chance of knowing whether Bertrand was telling truth or the old lady, except if we have actually confirmed ourselves by flying high into the intergalactic space and observing the motion and momentum of sun.

Bertrand Russell

Let me give you a brief about Bertrand Russell: His most convincing commitments consolidate his supporting of logicism (the view that science is in some huge sense reducible to reasoning), his refining of Gottlob Frege's predicate math (which really shapes the reason of most contemporary structures of reasoning), his shield of fair monism (the view that the world involves just a single kind of substance which is neither just mental nor just physical), and his speculations of unequivocal depictions, legitimate atomism, and coherent sorts. I couldn't in any way, shape, or form characterize his works here due to the super level intricacy and profundity in this substance and I am not completely certain I am sufficiently fit to try and get them.

So what should be our criteria to check if someone's claim is right or false? Check their qualifications, right? Well of course Bertrand Russell was more qualified than the old lady (I don't know that for sure!) and given his fame, he is trustworthy too! Most of the people would just side with Bertrand Russell if it was a contest between him and the old lady, why? because they blindly trusted in someone whose intellect is greater than theirs.

That is the same wrong approach, that caused misconceptions in the past. People considered these bards, clergies better than themselves. They blindly followed whatever nonsense these superior people spewed and resultantly wandered far away from the right path. The whole concept of Science is not about what is the correct answer, it's rather in knowing how to tell right apart from wrong. We don't know if it is right or wrong unless we have confirmed it ourselves

Let me ask you again: 

"What should be our criteria to check if someone's claim is right or false? "

If  you are keeping up with me, you would most likely know the answer, but just for the same of recalling and simplicity, these are the ways we can establish this concept:

• Firstly, 

  "NULLIUS IN VERBA”—“on no one’s word…”

  We would never take anyone's word as true just because he is supposed to have a higher intellect than us.
• Apply the Socrates Method. Now, the Socratic method is a type of agreeable discussion between people, given posing and addressing inquiries to invigorate decisive thinking and to draw out thoughts and hidden presumptuousness. And if you didn't get what it is, I have covered this exclusively in "Have you heard of Socrates?" This practice is so that you can understand what is the problem actually. I believe you have heard the quote:

  " If you can write the problem on paper, it is half solved"

• Make random guesses and make hypotheses. Don't be afraid, you might not hit the target initially, but once you start making and nullifying your own hypothesis, you would definitely develop the clarity of solution and you would end up with a suitable hypothesis. 
• Check your hypothesis in ideal and real conditions. This has also been covered in "Real or Ideal?"
• Discussion with piers. And this is undoubtedly my famous part. If you know something is right, you should be able to convince others as well. You should present definitive pieces of evidence and proves to affirm your claims and others will also back your statement or oppose it.

Now, finally, you can convince yourself that you are right unless someone comes up with better logical evidence or proof that defies yours. What will you do then? Either find better evidence or change the hypothesis. Whatever the result may be or whatever the approach you would choose, in the end, it will leave a vast room for more study and learning. And of course, there is a possibility that this will never happen and you have found the right answer. If this happens will you just put a full stop? Certainly not! You have discovered the true answer go find its applications, challenge your answer, see if it is proven right every time.  This is the very nature of Science:

"Always approaching towards Perfection but never finding Perfection perfectly"