Final answer:
To test the plausibility of events A over B, one should formulate a hypothesis, make predictions, and seek evidence. Skeptical hypotheses need to be considered, and direct or indirect factual verification methods must be employed. Critical examination of premises and counterarguments is essential.
Step-by-step explanation:
To ascertain whether event A is more plausible than event B, one should apply critical thinking and the scientific method. First, formulate a hypothesis: If event A is indeed more plausible, what evidence would support this? Consider what observations or data would be expected if this were the case. Next, conduct an empirical examination. Does the evidence align with what was anticipated? If there is a mismatch, this may indicate that the hypothesis needs to be reevaluated. In assessing the evidence, it is crucial to avoid confirmation bias (D.), which involves looking only for evidence that supports the idea. Instead, actively seek out information that could both confirm and refute the hypothesis, thus testing its strength. Skeptical hypotheses (SH) play a role in this process. If event A's plausibility can't be justified when considering the possibility of SH, then one might not be justified in believing the plausibility of event A over B.
Factual verification often requires interpretation of direct or indirect evidence, and in some cases, like with extremely large or small phenomena, one must rely on scientific and deductive reasoning rather than direct experience. For instance, to verify the claim, "There is a container of milk in the refrigerator," one simply checks the refrigerator. This direct method is not always applicable, especially concerning larger claims about the universe or subatomic particles, which necessitate inference from scientific discoveries and theories. Finally, consider any counterarguments and alternative explanations.