Science Bullshit And Being Contrarian

Neils Bohr and Albert Einstein famously had many discussions / disagreements both taking contrarian views and calling out any 'bullshit' in their hunt for the truth about reality. 

Carl Sagan's 9 timeless lessons for detecting baloney

by Ethan Siegel, February 10, 2026

Carl Sagan was one of the most prominent scientific figures of the 20th century, helping cofound the now-thriving field of planetary science and popularizing physics and astronomy for a generation of adults and children. His "baloney detection kit" remains, even in 2026, a masterstroke for helping guide people down the path of critical thinking, and inoculating themselves against grifters, frauds, and charlatans.

1. Demand independent confirmation of whatever statements are asserted as facts.
2. Encourage substantive debate from all points of view by those with substantial, relevant expertise.
3. Don’t accept an argument from an authority because that person is an authority. Instead, judge arguments based on the merits of the underlying facts, and how experts scrupulously interpret those facts.
4. Spin as many hypotheses as you can that are consistent with the data. Every possible explanation that isn’t ruled out or contradicted by the already-existing data should be considered, and each hypothesis should be tested and examined as rigorously as possible.
5. Whatever your favorite, most preferred hypothesis is — especially if it’s your original idea — be its harshest critic. By attempting to knock it down or poke holes in it as hard as you can, you’ll determine how well it stands up under the steeliest of scrutiny. (And if you don’t, others will.)
6. Don’t settle for a qualitative analysis of the issue. Be quantitative: ask and answer the key question of “by how much?”
7. If there’s a chain of argument being put forth, then every link in the chain, from the premise to the final conclusion, must be sound.
8. The convenient rule of Occam’s Razor: to choose the simplest explanation among multiple hypotheses that explain the data equally well.
9. Ask whether the hypothesis, at least in principle, can be falsified. Non-falsifiable and untestable hypotheses cannot be checked out, and hence those ideas are incapable of disproof.

Read Siegel's Big Think article for excellent explanations of each. A month later Siegel published the following 

The right way to be a scientific contrarian

by Ethan Siegel, March 10, 2026

The answers to these key five questions showcase whether such researchers are being scrupulous, careful, and comprehensive, or whether they’re merely elevating a contrarian position — and potentially themselves — to prominence, despite what the evidence shows.

1. Are they accurately representing the consensus position?
2. Are you reckoning with the full suite of evidence, or only with a selection of it?
3. Is your proposed alternative able to explain everything that the current consensus successfully explains?
4. Is there a fair head-to-head test that can compare the mainstream idea with the alternative directly?
5. Are you being honest about the successes and failures of your alternative? Would those who support the consensus position agree?

As before read Siegel's article for the explanations and examples.