Not only can this lead us to a wrong conclusion, but it can also cause conflict with other people, who may have drawn quite different conclusions on the same matter. In a fast business environment, you need to make sure your actions and decisions are founded on reality. The "Ladder of Inference" helps you achieve this. Find out more in this article and infographic.
Description[ edit ] Consilience requires the use of independent methods of measurement, meaning that the methods have few shared characteristics. That is, the mechanism by which the measurement is made is different; each method is dependent on an unrelated natural phenomenon.
For example, the accuracy of laser rangefinding measurements is based on the scientific understanding of laserswhile satellite pictures and Jumping to conclusions is wrong sticks rely on different phenomena.
Because the methods are independent, when one of several methods is in error, it is very unlikely to be in error in the same way as any of the other methods, and a difference between the measurements will be observed.
As a result, when several different methods agree, this is strong evidence that none of the methods are in error and the conclusion is correct. This is because of a greatly reduced likelihood of errors: Random errors will tend to cancel out as more measurements are made, due to regression to the mean ; systematic errors will be detected by differences between the measurements and will also tend to cancel out since the direction of the error will still be random.
This is how scientific theories reach high confidence — over time, they build up a large degree of evidence which converges on the same conclusion. For example, in the 19th century, the Sun appeared to be no more than 20 million years old, but the Earth appeared to be no less than million years resolved by the discovery of nuclear fusion and radioactivityand the theory of quantum mechanics ;  or current attempts to resolve theoretical differences between quantum mechanics and general relativity.
Those techniques with the fewest or no shared characteristics provide the strongest consilience and result in the strongest conclusions. This also means that confidence is usually strongest when considering evidence from different fields, because the techniques are usually very different.
For example, the theory of evolution is supported by a convergence of evidence from geneticsmolecular biologypaleontologygeologybiogeographycomparative anatomycomparative physiologyand many other fields.
As a result, to disprove evolution, most or all of these independent lines of evidence would have to be found to be in error. This is also used for the validation of new techniques through comparison with the consilient ones.
If only partial consilience is observed, this allows for the detection of errors in methodology; any weaknesses in one technique can be compensated for by the strengths of the others.
Alternatively, if using more than one or two techniques for every experiment is infeasible, some of the benefits of consilience may still be obtained if it is well-established that these techniques usually give the same result.
Consilience is important across all of science, including the social sciences,  and is often used as an argument for scientific realism by philosophers of science.
Each branch of science studies a subset of reality that depends on factors studied in other branches. Atomic physics underlies the workings of chemistrywhich studies emergent properties that in turn are the basis of biology. Psychology is not separate from the study of properties emergent from the interaction of neurons and synapses.
Sociologyeconomicsand anthropology are each, in turn, studies of properties emergent from the interaction of countless individual humans. The concept that all the different areas of research are studying one real, existing universe is an apparent explanation of why scientific knowledge determined in one field of inquiry has often helped in understanding other fields.
Deviations[ edit ] Consilience does not forbid deviations: However, when the convergence is strong enough, then new evidence inconsistent with the previous conclusion is not usually enough to outweigh that convergence.
Without an equally strong convergence on the new result, the weight of evidence will still favor the established result. This means that the new evidence is most likely to be wrong. Science denialism for example, AIDS denialism is often based on a misunderstanding of this property of consilience.
A denier may promote small gaps not yet accounted for by the consilient evidence, or small amounts of evidence contradicting a conclusion without accounting for the pre-existing strength resulting from consilience. By contrast, if the same historian had made the same claim five times in five different places and no other types of evidence were availablethe claim is much weaker because it originates from a single source.
The evidence from the ancient historians could also converge with evidence from other fields, such as archaeology: Consilience has also been discussed in reference to Holocaust denial. Yet no historian has ever claimed that one piece of evidence proves the Holocaust.
We must examine the collective whole. A similar way to state this is that to ask for one particular piece of evidence in favor of a conclusion is a flawed question.
Both artists and scientists have identified the importance of biology in the process of artistic innovation. The rational view was recovered during the high Middle Agesseparated from theology during the Renaissance and found its apogee in the Age of Enlightenment. Thus Consilience is a test of the truth of the Theory in which it occurs.
More recent descriptions include:Cognitive distortions are exactly what the name implies: distortions in our cognition. Irrational thoughts/beliefs that we unknowingly reinforce over time.
In science and history, consilience (also convergence of evidence or concordance of evidence) refers to the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions. That is, when multiple sources of evidence are in agreement, the conclusion can be very strong even when none of the individual .
Jun 20, · How simple things can sometimes turn out HORRIBLY, horribly wrong!
Jumping to conclusions (officially the jumping conclusion bias, often abbreviated as JTC, and also referred to as the inference-observation confusion) is a psychological term referring to a communication obstacle where one "judge[s] or decide[s] something without having all .
In the FIGU literature (contact notes, books, booklets, letters, periodicals. etc.) a lot of information is published regarding global political, military, cultural and historical events, scientific facts, discoveries and inventions that range from the historical past, the present and very far into the future.
Jumping to the Wrong Conclusion Our reactions to events are based on core beliefs we’ve developed about ourselves and the world. Based on past experiences, including childhood experiences, people develop these underlying beliefs.