{"id":4489,"date":"2020-04-22T14:23:18","date_gmt":"2020-04-22T19:23:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.dankohn.info\/?p=4489"},"modified":"2020-08-17T17:32:44","modified_gmt":"2020-08-17T17:32:44","slug":"the-baloney-detection-kit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/blog.dankohn.info\/index.php\/2020\/04\/22\/the-baloney-detection-kit\/","title":{"rendered":"The Baloney Detection Kit"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

from: POCKET<\/a>
by: Brain Pickings | Maria Popova<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Carl Sagan\u2019s rules for critical thinking offer cognitive fortification against propaganda, pseudoscience, and general falsehood.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Carl Sagan<\/strong> (November 9, 1934\u2013December 20, 1996) was many things \u2014 a cosmic sage, voracious reader, hopeless romantic, and brilliant philosopher. But above all, he endures as our era\u2019s greatest patron saint of reason and critical thinking, a master of the vital balance between skepticism and openness. In The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark<\/em><\/strong><\/a> (public library<\/em><\/a>) \u2014 the same indispensable volume that gave us Sagan\u2019s timeless meditation on science and spirituality, published mere months before his death in 1996 \u2014 Sagan shares his secret to upholding the rites of reason, even in the face of society\u2019s most shameless untruths and outrageous propaganda. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"\/<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In a chapter titled \u201cThe Fine Art of Baloney Detection,\u201d<\/strong> Sagan reflects on the many types of deception to which we\u2019re susceptible \u2014 from psychics to religious zealotry to paid product endorsements by scientists, which he held in especially low regard, noting that they \u201cbetray contempt for the intelligence of their customers\u201d and \u201cintroduce an insidious corruption of popular attitudes about scientific objectivity.\u201d (Cue in PBS\u2019s Joe Hanson on how to read science news.) But rather than preaching from the ivory tower of self-righteousness, Sagan approaches the subject from the most vulnerable of places \u2014 having just lost both of his parents, he reflects on the all too human allure of promises of supernatural reunions in the afterlife, reminding us that falling for such fictions doesn\u2019t make us stupid or bad people, but simply means that we need to equip ourselves with the right tools against them. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n \n Through their training, scientists are equipped with what Sagan \ncalls a \u201cbaloney detection kit\u201d \u2014 a set of cognitive tools and \ntechniques that fortify the mind against penetration by falsehoods:\n \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n \n The kit is brought out as a matter of course whenever new \nideas are offered for consideration. If the new idea survives \nexamination by the tools in our kit, we grant it warm, although \ntentative, acceptance. If you\u2019re so inclined, if you don\u2019t want to buy \nbaloney even when it\u2019s reassuring to do so, there are precautions that \ncan be taken; there\u2019s a tried-and-true, consumer-tested method.\n \n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n \n But the kit, Sagan argues, isn\u2019t merely a tool of science \u2014 \nrather, it contains invaluable tools of healthy skepticism that apply \njust as elegantly, and just as necessarily, to everyday life. By \nadopting the kit, we can all shield ourselves against clueless guile and\n deliberate manipulation. Sagan shares nine of these tools:\n \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the \u201cfacts.\u201d<\/li>
  2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.<\/li>
  3. Arguments\n from authority carry little weight \u2014 \u201cauthorities\u201d have made mistakes \nin the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way \nto say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there \nare experts.<\/li>
  4. Spin more than one \nhypothesis. If there\u2019s something to be explained, think of all the \ndifferent ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by \nwhich you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What \nsurvives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian \nselection among \u201cmultiple working hypotheses,\u201d has a much better chance \nof being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea\n that caught your fancy.<\/li>
  5. Try not to get \noverly attached to a hypothesis just because it\u2019s yours. It\u2019s only a way\n station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the \nidea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find \nreasons for rejecting it. If you don\u2019t, others will.<\/li>
  6. Quantify.\n If whatever it is you\u2019re explaining has some measure, some numerical \nquantity attached to it, you\u2019ll be much better able to discriminate \namong competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to \nmany explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many \nqualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more \nchallenging.<\/li>
  7. If there\u2019s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) \u2014 not just most of them.<\/li>
  8. Occam\u2019s\n Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two \nhypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.<\/li>
  9. Always\n ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. \nPropositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. \nConsider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just \nan elementary particle \u2014 an electron, say \u2014 in a much bigger Cosmos. But\n if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not \nthe idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions \nout. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your \nreasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same \nresult.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n
    \"carlsagan1.jpg\"\/<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    \n \n Just as important as learning these helpful tools, however, is \nunlearning and avoiding the most common pitfalls of common sense. \nReminding us of where society is most vulnerable to those, Sagan writes:\n \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n \n In addition to teaching us what to do when evaluating a \nclaim to knowledge, any good baloney detection kit must also teach us \nwhat not to do. It helps us recognize the most common and perilous \nfallacies of logic and rhetoric. Many good examples can be found in \nreligion and politics, because their practitioners are so often obliged \nto justify two contradictory propositions.\n \n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    \n \n He admonishes against the twenty most common and perilous ones \u2014 many rooted in our chronic discomfort with ambiguity<\/a> \u2014 with examples of each in action:\n \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    1. ad hominem<\/strong>\n \u2014 Latin for \u201cto the man,\u201d attacking the arguer and not the argument \n(e.g., The Reverend Dr. Smith is a known Biblical fundamentalist, so her\n objections to evolution need not be taken seriously)<\/li>
    2. argument from authority<\/strong>\n (e.g., President Richard Nixon should be re-elected because he has a \nsecret plan to end the war in Southeast Asia \u2014 but because it was \nsecret, there was no way for the electorate to evaluate it on its \nmerits; the argument amounted to trusting him because he was President: a\n mistake, as it turned out)<\/li>
    3. argument from adverse consequences<\/strong>\n (e.g., A God meting out punishment and reward must exist, because if He\n didn\u2019t, society would be much more lawless and dangerous \u2014 perhaps even\n ungovernable. Or: The defendant in a widely publicized murder trial \nmust be found guilty; otherwise, it will be an encouragement for other \nmen to murder their wives)<\/li>
    4. appeal to ignorance<\/strong>\n \u2014 the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and \nvice versa (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not \nvisiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist \u2014 and there is intelligent life\n elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other \nworlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth,\n so we\u2019re still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity\n can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of\n absence.<\/li>
    5. special pleading,<\/strong> often \nto rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical trouble (e.g., How can a \nmerciful God condemn future generations to torment because, against \norders, one woman induced one man to eat an apple? Special plead: you \ndon\u2019t understand the subtle Doctrine of Free Will. Or: How can there be \nan equally godlike Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the same Person? \nSpecial plead: You don\u2019t understand the Divine Mystery of the Trinity. \nOr: How could God permit the followers of Judaism, Christianity, and \nIslam \u2014 each in their own way enjoined to heroic measures of loving \nkindness and compassion \u2014 to have perpetrated so much cruelty for so \nlong? Special plead: You don\u2019t understand Free Will again. And anyway, \nGod moves in mysterious ways.)<\/li>
    6. begging the question,<\/strong> also called assuming the answer<\/strong>\n (e.g., We must institute the death penalty to discourage violent crime.\n But does the violent crime rate in fact fall when the death penalty is \nimposed? Or: The stock market fell yesterday because of a technical \nadjustment and profit-taking by investors \u2014 but is there any independent\n evidence for the causal role of \u201cadjustment\u201d and profit-taking; have we\n learned anything at all from this purported explanation?)<\/li>
    7. observational selection,<\/strong> also called the enumeration of favorable circumstances,<\/strong>\n or as the philosopher Francis Bacon described it, counting the hits and\n forgetting the misses (e.g., A state boasts of the Presidents it has \nproduced, but is silent on its serial killers)<\/li>
    8. statistics of small numbers<\/strong>\n \u2014 a close relative of observational selection (e.g., \u201cThey say 1 out of\n every 5 people is Chinese. How is this possible? I know hundreds of \npeople, and none of them is Chinese. Yours truly.\u201d Or: \u201cI\u2019ve thrown \nthree sevens in a row. Tonight I can\u2019t lose.\u201d)<\/li>
    9. misunderstanding of the nature of statistics<\/strong>\n (e.g., President Dwight Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on\n discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average \nintelligence);<\/li>
    10. inconsistency <\/strong>(e.g.,\n Prudently plan for the worst of which a potential military adversary is\n capable, but thriftily ignore scientific projections on environmental \ndangers because they\u2019re not \u201cproved.\u201d Or: Attribute the declining life \nexpectancy in the former Soviet Union to the failures of communism many \nyears ago, but never attribute the high infant mortality rate in the \nUnited States (now highest of the major industrial nations) to the \nfailures of capitalism. Or: Consider it reasonable for the Universe to \ncontinue to exist forever into the future, but judge absurd the \npossibility that it has infinite duration into the past);<\/li>
    11. non sequitur<\/strong>\n \u2014 Latin for \u201cIt doesn\u2019t follow\u201d (e.g., Our nation will prevail because \nGod is great. But nearly every nation pretends this to be true; the \nGerman formulation was \u201cGott mit uns\u201d). Often those falling into the non\n sequitur fallacy have simply failed to recognize alternative \npossibilities;<\/li>
    12. post hoc, ergo propter hoc<\/strong>\n \u2014 Latin for \u201cIt happened after, so it was caused by\u201d (e.g., Jaime \nCardinal Sin, Archbishop of Manila: \u201cI know of \u2026 a 26-year-old who looks\n 60 because she takes [contraceptive] pills.\u201d Or: Before women got the \nvote, there were no nuclear weapons)<\/li>
    13. meaningless question<\/strong>\n (e.g., What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable \nobject? But if there is such a thing as an irresistible force there can \nbe no immovable objects, and vice versa)<\/li>
    14. excluded middle<\/strong>, or false dichotomy<\/strong>\n \u2014 considering only the two extremes in a continuum of intermediate \npossibilities (e.g., \u201cSure, take his side; my husband\u2019s perfect; I\u2019m \nalways wrong.\u201d Or: \u201cEither you love your country or you hate it.\u201d Or: \n\u201cIf you\u2019re not part of the solution, you\u2019re part of the problem\u201d)<\/li>
    15. short-term vs. long-term<\/strong>\n \u2014 a subset of the excluded middle, but so important I\u2019ve pulled it out \nfor special attention (e.g., We can\u2019t afford programs to feed \nmalnourished children and educate pre-school kids. We need to urgently \ndeal with crime on the streets. Or: Why explore space or pursue \nfundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?);<\/li>
    16. slippery slope,<\/strong>\n related to excluded middle (e.g., If we allow abortion in the first \nweeks of pregnancy, it will be impossible to prevent the killing of a \nfull-term infant. Or, conversely: If the state prohibits abortion even \nin the ninth month, it will soon be telling us what to do with our \nbodies around the time of conception);<\/li>
    17. confusion of correlation and causation<\/strong>\n (e.g., A survey shows that more college graduates are homosexual than \nthose with lesser education; therefore education makes people gay. Or: \nAndean earthquakes are correlated with closest approaches of the planet \nUranus; therefore \u2014 despite the absence of any such correlation for the \nnearer, more massive planet Jupiter \u2014 the latter causes the former)<\/li>
    18. straw man <\/strong>\u2014\n caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack (e.g., Scientists \nsuppose that living things simply fell together by chance \u2014 a \nformulation that willfully ignores the central Darwinian insight, that \nNature ratchets up by saving what works and discarding what doesn\u2019t. Or \u2014\n this is also a short-term\/long-term fallacy \u2014 environmentalists care \nmore for snail darters and spotted owls than they do for people)<\/li>
    19. suppressed evidence<\/strong>, or half-truths<\/strong>\n (e.g., An amazingly accurate and widely quoted \u201cprophecy\u201d of the \nassassination attempt on President Reagan is shown on television; but \u2014 \nan important detail \u2014 was it recorded before or after the event? Or: \nThese government abuses demand revolution, even if you can\u2019t make an \nomelette without breaking some eggs. Yes, but is this likely to be a \nrevolution in which far more people are killed than under the previous \nregime? What does the experience of other revolutions suggest? Are all \nrevolutions against oppressive regimes desirable and in the interests of\n the people?)<\/li>
    20. weasel words<\/strong> (e.g., \nThe separation of powers of the U.S. Constitution specifies that the \nUnited States may not conduct a war without a declaration by Congress. \nOn the other hand, Presidents are given control of foreign policy and \nthe conduct of wars, which are potentially powerful tools for getting \nthemselves re-elected. Presidents of either political party may \ntherefore be tempted to arrange wars while waving the flag and calling \nthe wars something else \u2014 \u201cpolice actions,\u201d \u201carmed incursions,\u201d \n\u201cprotective reaction strikes,\u201d \u201cpacification,\u201d \u201csafeguarding American \ninterests,\u201d and a wide variety of \u201coperations,\u201d such as \u201cOperation Just \nCause.\u201d Euphemisms for war are one of a broad class of reinventions of \nlanguage for political purposes. Talleyrand said, \u201cAn important art of \npoliticians is to find new names for institutions which under old names \nhave become odious to the public\u201d)
      <\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

      \n \n Sagan ends the chapter with a necessary disclaimer:\n \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n \n Like all tools, the baloney detection kit can be misused, \napplied out of context, or even employed as a rote alternative to \nthinking. But applied judiciously, it can make all the difference in the\n world \u2014 not least in evaluating our own arguments before we present \nthem to others.\n \n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

      The Demon-Haunted World<\/em><\/strong><\/a> is a timelessly fantastic read in its entirety, timelier than ever in a great many ways amidst our present media landscape of propaganda, pseudoscience, and various commercial motives. Complement it with Sagan on science and \u201cGod\u201d. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      from: POCKETby: Brain Pickings | Maria Popova Carl Sagan\u2019s rules for critical thinking offer cognitive fortification against propaganda, pseudoscience, and general falsehood. Carl Sagan (November 9, 1934\u2013December 20, 1996) was many things \u2014 a cosmic sage, voracious reader, hopeless romantic, … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4489","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/blog.dankohn.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4489","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/blog.dankohn.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/blog.dankohn.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blog.dankohn.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blog.dankohn.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4489"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/blog.dankohn.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4489\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4584,"href":"http:\/\/blog.dankohn.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4489\/revisions\/4584"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/blog.dankohn.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4489"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blog.dankohn.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4489"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blog.dankohn.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4489"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}