That is the whole problem: assumptions have been treated as immutable self-evident axioms. They should really be treated as hypothesis, and every evidence should really strenghten or weaken the hypothesis.
To claim axiom over natural phenomenon is to claim absolute knowledge about nature, that is dogma, religion, not science.
I conjecture that the ability to question assumptions is more important to reason than raw cognitive ability, as in the limited sort that IQ test test for. It has no psychometric test as far as I know, and is only somewhat predictive, but it seems to underlie all of creativity, scholarly, literary, artistic .... It seems to be a bit different but related to the ability to come up with novelty. Easy to see in folks, harder to explain.
You have to understand where do the assumptions come from.
When you encounter a new phenomena for the first time you have no idea how to interpret it! You fall back on analogy: what is the most similar thing I have ever seen in my life. It is a prior, H in Bayesian. Now most people do not give it a second thought: if it looks like a duck it probably is a duck (unless of course it is a rubber ducky .. but that one is hard to miss).
Everything you interpret is through your unique prior (knowledge). The more you know, the richer set of your priors.
The first crime you commit is not verifying that your interpretation of the phenomane through prior is actually accurate!
Lets say, you see lightning for the first time. What the heck is it?? It loks like inverted tree of light! And if you are a primitive tribe that is probably where you stop .. or you elevate the phenomena to some unexplainable "magic" thast requires apropriate rituals (to be invented).
Real science is constantly refining your priors (knowledge) to be able to interprete phenomena. The magic tree of light becomes static electrical discharge, path and branching unpredictable minimum resistance paths..
Questioning assumptions (everything) is just science, everything else is religion.
Of course, this is the great mystery: "You have to understand where do the assumptions come from." There is no doubt that they come from our current understanding (or misunderstanding of the world) and that thought in general can be directed towards certain ends. But the emergence of the precise thought? Makes me brain 'urt (Monty Python).
That is the whole problem: assumptions have been treated as immutable self-evident axioms. They should really be treated as hypothesis, and every evidence should really strenghten or weaken the hypothesis.
To claim axiom over natural phenomenon is to claim absolute knowledge about nature, that is dogma, religion, not science.
I conjecture that the ability to question assumptions is more important to reason than raw cognitive ability, as in the limited sort that IQ test test for. It has no psychometric test as far as I know, and is only somewhat predictive, but it seems to underlie all of creativity, scholarly, literary, artistic .... It seems to be a bit different but related to the ability to come up with novelty. Easy to see in folks, harder to explain.
You have to understand where do the assumptions come from.
When you encounter a new phenomena for the first time you have no idea how to interpret it! You fall back on analogy: what is the most similar thing I have ever seen in my life. It is a prior, H in Bayesian. Now most people do not give it a second thought: if it looks like a duck it probably is a duck (unless of course it is a rubber ducky .. but that one is hard to miss).
Everything you interpret is through your unique prior (knowledge). The more you know, the richer set of your priors.
The first crime you commit is not verifying that your interpretation of the phenomane through prior is actually accurate!
Lets say, you see lightning for the first time. What the heck is it?? It loks like inverted tree of light! And if you are a primitive tribe that is probably where you stop .. or you elevate the phenomena to some unexplainable "magic" thast requires apropriate rituals (to be invented).
Real science is constantly refining your priors (knowledge) to be able to interprete phenomena. The magic tree of light becomes static electrical discharge, path and branching unpredictable minimum resistance paths..
Questioning assumptions (everything) is just science, everything else is religion.
Of course, this is the great mystery: "You have to understand where do the assumptions come from." There is no doubt that they come from our current understanding (or misunderstanding of the world) and that thought in general can be directed towards certain ends. But the emergence of the precise thought? Makes me brain 'urt (Monty Python).