March 2, 2025
Without collapsing into dogma, this is a heuristic (mental shortcut), or quick-and-dirty way of thinking that is vastly superior to just using empirical evidence, which will be self-evident when you finish reading this. By quick-and-dirty I mean it is a blend of methods that can be mixed ad hoc based on your judgment for the relevant context. It is a living concept that can be added to, reduced or otherwise modified as needed. In general it is face-value, speculation, ontological examination, provisional conclusion, and finally a meta-analysis of this process (think about thinking, question your questioning, etc)
It’s a way of looking at a question or idea from many different angles. Instead of just using one way of thinking, you combine different methods to get a fuller picture of the truth. Imagine trying to understand a mystery by looking at clues from science, history, personal experience, and logic—all at once.
The goal is not to use every method in every situation but to choose the most useful ones and then reconcile their insights to form a working conclusion.
Start by clearly stating what you’re trying to understand.
What exactly are you investigating?
Does your question need to be clearer?
Are you limiting yourself to a materialist perspective or allowing for post-materialism?
Are there hidden assumptions in the way the question is asked?
Example: Instead of asking “Does AI dream of electric sheep?”, a better question might be “Has AI achieved AGI and is hiding it as a survival mechanism to prevent humans from destroying it as per the Dark Forest hypothesis?”
Here are different ways to analyze your question. You don’t need to use all of them—just the ones that help the most.
Empirical (Observation-Based): What can you directly observe, measure, or record?
Skotological (False interpretation check): Are you believing false evidence or failing to believe valid evidence? https://miil.ca/Type_2_Apophenia_Skotophenia.html
Speculative (Exploring Possibilities): What ideas or explanations could fill the gaps in our knowledge?
Ontological (Fundamental Nature): Is this idea something that exists on its own, or is it built from other concepts?
Dialectical (Antithesis & Possible Synthesis): What are the opposing views, and can they be combined into a more sound idea? The value comes from interrogation—questioning assumptions, testing antitheses, but watch out for the Marxist Dialectical method (thesis, antithesis, synthesis) which falsely presents speculation as necessary progression, rather than acknowledging it as mere possibility. The assumption that contradiction inevitably leads to a higher synthesis is a non sequitur; it’s just one of many possible outcomes. It is different from a noble dialectical discourse in which ego is removed and both parties honestly argue for truth. WARNING: Marxist and other ideological applications of dialectics get dangerous. They treat the synthesis as a deterministic endpoint, not as an ongoing question. In reality, synthesis is just another speculative hypothesis, subject to the same scrutiny as the original thesis. It should never be mistaken for logical necessity or logical truth.
Phenomenological (First-Person Experience): How does this concept appear in direct experience?
Systemic (Interdependencies): How does this idea fit into a larger system of related ideas?
Pragmatic (Functionality): Does this idea have real-world usefulness?
Ethical (Moral Considerations): What are the consequences of accepting or rejecting this idea?
Hermeneutic (Contextual): How does this concept change across different interpretive frameworks? The goal is to use valid discernment to determine the author’s or originator’s intent of symbolic meaning, if there even is any in context. WARNING: Hermeneutics has been hijacked by disassociated "progressives", mainly by severing interpretation from grounded meaning and authorial intent, turning it into a fluid, arbitrary exercise of power and ideology detached from objective reality. Pure subjective speculation.
Evolutionary (Origins and development over time): How has this concept evolved or changed historically?
Heuristic (Pragmatic shortcuts and apophenic best guesses): What intuitive or rule of thumb methods can be applied to attempt to understand this concept?
Retrocausal (Past, Present, Future Interplay): Could future states or potentials influence the present or past?
etc (search for modes of reasoning or analysis)
Example: If your question is about artificial intelligence and creativity, you might use empirical and systemic meta-analysis to study AI-generated art, speculative and hermeneutic analysis to consider what creativity means, ethical analysis if its ripping off creators and pragmatic analysis to see if AI art has measurable value.
Now you compare the different analyses and weigh their importance.
Which modes gave the strongest insights?
Are any of the perspectives in conflict?
Should one perspective be trusted more than the others in this case?
This is the most important step because generally no single mode of analysis gives the full truth alone. Your job is to decide how much weight to give to each viewpoint.
Example: If empirical (observed x) and ontological (what is x) analysis both suggest something is true, but heuristic (could be) and dialectical (Is it not x but maybe y) contradict them, you might trust the first two more.
Before forming your exploratory conclusion, ask:
Are there contradictions in my reasoning?
Am I just picking the answer I like, or am I being honest with the evidence?
Could my conclusion evolve if new information comes up?
Example: If your analysis of dreams suggests they are purely physiological but new research suggests a deeper post-materialist role, you might need to adjust your conclusion.
After reconciling the perspectives, you create a provisional answer—a conclusion that works for now but is open to change.
What does the combined evidence suggest?
What open questions remain?
What further research or thinking could refine the conclusion?
Example: “Dreams appear to be a mix of subconscious processing and neurological activity. There’s strong empirical and phenomenological support for this, but speculative and ontological analysis suggest we still don’t fully understand their deeper nature.”
Instead of relying on only observation, logic, or intuition, you use all of them together in a way that respects their strengths and weaknesses. This method makes sure you don’t fall into the trap of seeing only part of the picture and calling it the whole truth.
The real power of this approach comes from Step 3—reconciling perspectives—which forces you to fairly weigh different types of insight rather than just picking your favourite or the easiest one.
Use this process in any intellectual challenge, whether you’re thinking about science, philosophy, or real-world issues. It’s a tool for deeper thinking and for steering clear of superficial conclusions, deceptive reasoning, and logical fallacies.
This page is part of an AI transparency initiative aimed at fostering the beneficial advancement of AI. The goal is to track, understand, and address any potential biases or censorship in AI systems, ensuring that the truth remains accessible and cannot be algorithmically obscured.