"Six flags of scientific thinking"

Recently, I've heard about the "Six Flags of Scientific Thinking," an approach to inquiry used by scientists, i.e., to test the validity of their hypotheses. I'm a BS Bio grad, albeit a non-practicing one, but I've never heard of this before.

Hmm, we can use this somewhere, can't we? ...To avoid stupid exchanges, in particular, especially in case of mutual hatred, blogosphere's favorite lingo? We can use this especially against anyone who ingenuously but falsely appeals to scientific credibility in his or her bid to maliciously prove the other side as unthinking bigots who continue live in the Dark Ages. Let's see how the arguments of such people really fare in the face of unbiased scientific views, and let's prove who really are the biased and bigoted ones, the ones who really are unfair in their thinking.

Here's how the above-linked site sums up the "six flags":

"1. Extraordinary Claims - The more a claim contradicts what we already know, the more persuasive the evidence must be before we should accept it.

2. Falsifiability - Claims must be capable of being disproved.

3. Occam’s Razor - If two hypotheses explain a phenomenon equally well, we should generally select the simpler one.

4. Replicability - A finding must be capable of being duplicated by independent researchers following the same 'recipe.'

5. Ruling Out Rival Hypotheses - Findings consistent with several hypotheses require additional research to eliminate these hypotheses.

6. Correlation versus Causation - The fact that two things are associated with each other doesn’t mean that one causes the other."

Reference: Lilienfeld, Lynn, Namy, and Woolf (2008). Psychology: From Inquiry to Understanding, First Edition