INTRODUCTION

What qualifies as proof?

We humans live in a world full of assumptions, ulterior agendas, and profound confusion, and this makes it extremely challenging to determine what, if anything, is real or not. It's not our fault though, for despite that Mother Nature gave us our fantastic gift of higher intelligence, she didn't have enough time to write up a rulebook for exercising that intelligence. Thus, like a child with a lot of money, we can't help ourselves but to squander our potential on false, meaningless, wasteful, and often reckless aspirations, counting on our poorly understood and primitive instincts to guide our pursuits. So how do we emerge from this quagmire of emotion-led aspirations and false beliefs? Quite simply, we need a means to accurately determine the credibility of information.

Before we learn about the Scientific Method, it is important to understand why we need such a thing in the first place, and to understand the only alternative: our misleading instincts. Instincts are our evolved hard-wired 'memories', and their sole purpose is to generate behaviors, emotions, thoughts, and desires that manipulate us into reproductive scenarios, no matter how far removed those instinctual cues may seem to be from reproduction. For example, the most obvious instinct is our sex drive, which directly facilitates reproduction. The love instinct creates a pair-bond that provides a nurturing environment for our offspring. Less obvious, our rage instincts serve to protect us from harm (allowing us to have future reproductive opportunities). Altruism facilitates social harmony, leveraging the safety of 'strength in numbers' which allows once again for more scenarios of reproduction. The Ego instinct allows the most powerful minds to surface to the top of the desirable suitor pool. The curiosity instinct can lead to discoveries that further increase your chances of reproduction. And so on... Anything we can possibly desire, dislike, or fear, has an instinct driving that emotion, and emotions are nothing more our instincts' control mechanism over us.

All of our instincts, in some way, lead to an increased probability of reproduction. They do this by putting thoughts and desires into our consciousness that we then try very hard to fulfill. Completion of the desires demanded by the instincts result in a 'pleasurable' experience, a most natural feeling of completion, righteousness, totality, purity, and piety. For all of history, what is 'right' has always been defined by the pleasurable direction of the instincts. The simple fact that we have left the animal kingdom, built our cities, and created our education systems, doesn't change how our brain's are wired, because deep within everyone's brain still exists the most fundamental primitive instincts that form the root of everything we wish to pursue.

The problem with the instincts, however, is that they are not always 'correct' in the assumptions they lead us to believe. In fact, for anything outside the context of sexual reproduction, they are usually completely 'wrong'. The instincts only know how to do one thing: increase your chances of creating babies; and if they have to, they will lie, cheat, fabricate, and mislead you every chance they get in order to steer you back onto the statistically reproductive track. It is the instincts that are responsible for the beliefs that our universe contains demons, gods, heavens, miracles, and other ego-placating fantasy, and all because of the perceived power and safety that comes with those beliefs; and power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.

Why do we need the Scientific Method?

The instincts don't care about knowing the truth, they only care about their reproductive goals, and are not to be trusted in the absence of logic. It's long been recognized that our emotions make it very difficult to be truly objective, so in order to break free of the confusing misdirection of the instincts and to clear the way to discovering the truth, the 'Scientific Method' was devised as a tool for determining the credibility of anything imaginable, to be able to separate fact from human-derived fantasy. In essence, the Scientific Method 'removes' the polluting effects of human-bias when attempting to understand the true nature of things, and tries hard to limit the scope of 'reality' to only that which is verifiable.

The main function of the Scientific Method is to help us to create a body of 'knowledge' that is based strictly upon strong, verifiable, and reliable evidence. Picture this body of knowledge like a cutout puzzle that is being assembled from the center, and slowly the Scientific Method is adding pieces to the existing body. All new pieces added 'must' be attached to and fit precisely with the existing knowledge. It is incorrect to assume that something exists if it doesn't somehow have a direct connection to this center body of knowledge. This purified body of knowledge is all that we should be using to formulate our perspective of the universe, otherwise we will most likely be using incorrect information that can severely warp our interpretation of reality, making our world unnecessarily confusing, dangerous, illogical, and unpredictable.

The Scientific Method's most important rule is it must assume that a 'thing' does 'not' exist unless there is strong evidence to support its existence. With this rule in effect, and by testing all kinds of things imaginable, over time we've been able to compile a great deal of credible information. It will be impossible to add information to this body of knowledge without first putting that information through the Scientific Method. Any hypothesis that doesn't fully convince the Scientific Method, will remain a theory. Anything that the Scientific Method rejects, is most likely fantasy.

Ultimately, we 'need' the Scientific Method in order to reveal the truth about our universe, and to be able to remove fantasy from our perspective of reality. Without this method, we are condemned to the constant misperceptions fed to us by our instincts' primitive agenda, whom would forever leave us chasing false hopes and dreams with no natural ability to separate reality from fiction. It is the essence of the Scientific Method that forms the foundation of atheism, and the core of our philosophies here at BetterHuman.org.

How does the Scientific Method work?

The basic mechanism of the Scientific Method is quite easy:

Formulate a hypothesis (a theory) that may explain a particular phenomenon. It must extend from what is currently already strongly supported by the Scientific Method, and may not make any assumptions.
Use the rules of the Scientific Method (below) to collect and evaluate evidence that can support or disprove the hypothesis.

This is a very simplified version of the Scientific Method, which will help us to learn about it, however, the full scope of the formal Scientific Method is quite meticulous and elaborate, so after reading our toned down version, it may interest you to expand upon this education and research the entire Scientific Method process that some fantastic scientific minds have continuously refined over time.

How do we evaluate the credibility of evidence?

There are many different types of evidence we can use to determine the nature of things, and some of the major ones are listed below. They've been categorized into 'first-hand' (implying that you yourself are the observer) and 'second-hand' (implying that you received information from someone else).
Color Table:

Strong counter-evidence Weak counter-evidence Not useful Weak evidence Good evidence Strong evidence Not applicable

First-hand Evidence

Type of Evidence Our instincts consider this to be.. The Scientific Method considers this to be..

Tangibility
Can you directly see, hear, touch, smell, taste, or otherwise sense it with technology? ..virtually 100% credible, with practically no doubt that the 'thing' exists, and is what it appears to be. ..very credible, but leaving room for the possibility that there may be errors or omissions in the observations. (e.g. optical illusions, technical glitches in observation equipment, etc.)

Influence
For intangible items, can we indirectly determine the nature of the 'thing' by the influence it has on its surroundings. ..very credible; for example, if there are giant footprints left behind, then the 'thing' obviously was here and therefore it most likely exists. ..somewhat credible. It's extremely difficult to accurately determine the nature of something based upon a limited set of clues. (e.g., Someone could have faked the footprints, or the footprints are merely natural indentations that just look like footprints)

Interpretation
Can the 'thing' be accurately and completely described? ..very credible. It's heavy, yellow, and metallic; must be gold. ..somewhat credible. Need as much data as possible; it could be copper pyrite (fool's gold).

Intuition
Based upon the evidence provided, can a solid, exclusive answer be given? ..very credible. If the shoe fits, then it must be the answer. ..not always reliable. There may be many equally valid alternatives that the evidence also supports. It's important to identify as many possible alternatives as possible and then individually assess each of those alternatives in their own Scientific Method evaluation.

Desire
Are there any emotional reasons to support the hypothesis? ..somewhat credible. I want so badly for there to be gold in that chest, that I'm just going to say that there is. ..most likely misleading. Instincts (the source of emotions) are the single worst type of supportive evidence because they are only equipped for assisting reproduction of the species. Any application of the emotions/desires in a scientific context is of purely random accuracy, and therefore completely unreliable.

Second-Hand Information Credibility

Type of Information Our instincts consider this to be.. The Scientific Method considers this to be..

Distinguished Source
Did the information come from a reputable source that values credibility? Do they adhere to the Scientific Method? Do they re-evaluate their information as new information comes in? Is their motivation largely to educate? Is their information subject to heavy scrutiny from knowledgeable peers? ..virtually 100% credible. Any information from this source must be the absolute truth. ..very credible, but leaving room for the possibility that there still may be errors or omissions in their information, or perhaps a hidden agenda.

Agenda Source
Does the information appeal to the cravings of the instincts (e.g., greed, ego, lust, altruism, fear appeasement, etc.)? Does your acceptance of their information grant the source more money, power, or control of people? Do they make room for error in their information? Do they refuse to subject their information to the Scientific Method? ..very credible. They are offering piles of gold and the ability to overcome my fears. Who cares if their information doesn't pass the Scientific Method? The Scientific Method isn't always right! What if the Scientific Method is wrong in this case and I miss out on this prize? ..most likely misleading. Any information that promises that which we desire, without being able to support those claims by demonstrating the Scientific Method approach to verifying their information, is most likely the very old, 'too good to be true' trap, and is probably false.

Mass Support
Do a lot of people believe this information is true? ..very credible. Do you think you're smarter than all those other people? ..worthless without other evidence. Everyone used to think the world was flat, and they were all completely wrong. It doesn't mean that this type of mass information is always wrong, but it does mean that it will be impossible to determine the credibility of this or any information, based upon mass-adoption alone.

Hearsay, Rumor, or Opinion
Did someone tell you this information? ..fairly credible. Depends on how well you know this person. ..worthless without other evidence. Even the most educated and intelligent person is still a fallible human being. Any claims made by individuals still need to pass the Scientific Method in order for their information to have merit.

You may have noticed from the charts above that, unlike your instincts (who love to believe in absolutes), the Scientific Method does not consider 'any' kind of evidence to be absolute proof (not to be confused with things like 1 + 1 = 2, which is a definition, not a proof). Even the most tangible and undeniable evidence will not be able to irrefutably 'prove' something to be true. The Scientific Method, at best, can only suggest that something is 'very likely' to be true, but there will always be at least a tiny lingering fraction that allows for 'room for error'. This is one of the most important aspects to being an atheist, accepting that there are no absolutes, about anything. Everything is subject to error, no matter how unlikely it may seem.
Likewise, by the same reasoning, the Scientific Method cannot absolutely prove that something 'doesn't' exist, however, the Scientific Method demands that the hypothesis be carefully constructed so that it must extend upon what is currently strongly supported by the Scientific Method, and doesn't make any unproven assumptions, for example, it would be incorrect to create the hypothesis: "Galgitrons can fly because they have wings", when there's absolutely no evidence that Galgitrons exist.
Another important point is that the Scientific Method requires you to have a hypothesis 'first', meaning that the Scientific Method is only useful for helping to support or disprove 'theories'. What the method cannot do is 'create' a theory for you because the Scientific Method cannot generate answers to questions, it can only help you to test what you believe may be the answers. Thus, for some questions, there may never be an answer, simply because we can't imagine a testable hypothesis that could answer those questions (e.g., where did Bether come from?). This is another very important aspect of being atheist, accepting that some questions might never be answered.
Yet another very important point is that the accuracy of the hypothesis 'changes' as more evidence surfaces. This means that even though an initial Scientific Method assessment of a hypothesis may have suggested that it has little scientific merit, accumulating more evidence can significantly improve (or decrease) the accuracy of the hypothesis. No hypothesis evaluation is ever locked in stone.
In the end, the Scientific Method is merely a probability mechanism. It will help you to best gauge the 'real' accuracy of any hypothesis based upon the available evidence, and to determine its probability from "extremely unlikely", to "inconclusive", to "some possibility", all the way to "almost certain", so you will know whether your hypothesis has 'true' merit. It's not perfect, and not always correct, but it's the best tool we have for seeking the unbiased truth; much more reliable than our self-serving instincts can ever be.
Please review the various case studies (links at top) to see the Scientific Method in action. We encourage you to read them in sequence as they tend to build upon each other.
� BetterHuman.org

First-hand Evidence
Type of Evidence	Our instincts consider this to be..	The Scientific Method considers this to be..
Tangibility Can you directly see, hear, touch, smell, taste, or otherwise sense it with technology?	..virtually 100% credible, with practically no doubt that the 'thing' exists, and is what it appears to be.	..very credible, but leaving room for the possibility that there may be errors or omissions in the observations. (e.g. optical illusions, technical glitches in observation equipment, etc.)
Influence For intangible items, can we indirectly determine the nature of the 'thing' by the influence it has on its surroundings.	..very credible; for example, if there are giant footprints left behind, then the 'thing' obviously was here and therefore it most likely exists.	..somewhat credible. It's extremely difficult to accurately determine the nature of something based upon a limited set of clues. (e.g., Someone could have faked the footprints, or the footprints are merely natural indentations that just look like footprints)
Interpretation Can the 'thing' be accurately and completely described?	..very credible. It's heavy, yellow, and metallic; must be gold.	..somewhat credible. Need as much data as possible; it could be copper pyrite (fool's gold).
Intuition Based upon the evidence provided, can a solid, exclusive answer be given?	..very credible. If the shoe fits, then it must be the answer.	..not always reliable. There may be many equally valid alternatives that the evidence also supports. It's important to identify as many possible alternatives as possible and then individually assess each of those alternatives in their own Scientific Method evaluation.
Desire Are there any emotional reasons to support the hypothesis?	..somewhat credible. I want so badly for there to be gold in that chest, that I'm just going to say that there is.	..most likely misleading. Instincts (the source of emotions) are the single worst type of supportive evidence because they are only equipped for assisting reproduction of the species. Any application of the emotions/desires in a scientific context is of purely random accuracy, and therefore completely unreliable.

Second-Hand Information Credibility
Type of Information	Our instincts consider this to be..	The Scientific Method considers this to be..
Distinguished Source Did the information come from a reputable source that values credibility? Do they adhere to the Scientific Method? Do they re-evaluate their information as new information comes in? Is their motivation largely to educate? Is their information subject to heavy scrutiny from knowledgeable peers?	..virtually 100% credible. Any information from this source must be the absolute truth.	..very credible, but leaving room for the possibility that there still may be errors or omissions in their information, or perhaps a hidden agenda.
Agenda Source Does the information appeal to the cravings of the instincts (e.g., greed, ego, lust, altruism, fear appeasement, etc.)? Does your acceptance of their information grant the source more money, power, or control of people? Do they make room for error in their information? Do they refuse to subject their information to the Scientific Method?	..very credible. They are offering piles of gold and the ability to overcome my fears. Who cares if their information doesn't pass the Scientific Method? The Scientific Method isn't always right! What if the Scientific Method is wrong in this case and I miss out on this prize?	..most likely misleading. Any information that promises that which we desire, without being able to support those claims by demonstrating the Scientific Method approach to verifying their information, is most likely the very old, 'too good to be true' trap, and is probably false.
Mass Support Do a lot of people believe this information is true?	..very credible. Do you think you're smarter than all those other people?	..worthless without other evidence. Everyone used to think the world was flat, and they were all completely wrong. It doesn't mean that this type of mass information is always wrong, but it does mean that it will be impossible to determine the credibility of this or any information, based upon mass-adoption alone.
Hearsay, Rumor, or Opinion Did someone tell you this information?	..fairly credible. Depends on how well you know this person.	..worthless without other evidence. Even the most educated and intelligent person is still a fallible human being. Any claims made by individuals still need to pass the Scientific Method in order for their information to have merit.