Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit






The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:

. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
. Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
. Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
. Quantify, wherever possible.
. If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
. "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
. Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, is it testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?

Additional issues are

. Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.
. Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

. Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
. Argument from "authority".
. Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
. Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
. Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
. Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
. Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
. Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
. Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
. Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
. Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
. Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
. Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
. Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
. Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
. Confusion of correlation and causation.
. Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
. Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
. Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"

http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html

What are you going to do AAF, add your own ideas to this list and teach a course to budding anti-science novices?

Cincirob: What are you going to do AAF, add your own ideas to this list and teach a course to budding anti-science novices?



AAF: In the foggy world of scientific discoveries, all explorers are novices even if they think of themselves otherwise; do you agree, Cincirob? Now, I think that the "argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision)" is a valid argument and that Sagan was wrong in labeling it as a fallacy. Also, President Eisenhower was right in expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!

It is not quite clear from where President Eisenhower got the information that
fully 'half of all Americans have below average intelligence'.

Look at the IQ Bell Curve!



It doesn't say the half of the population has below average intelligence.
It says only that the vast majority of the population has average intelligence
and that a small minority is above average and another small minority is below average.

And that is it.

I see you don't understand statistics.

Cincirob: I see you don't understand statistics.


AAF: You're just like the 'President' confusing the statistical average with the median value. It is not surprising, therefore, that you got your first book on Relativity almost at the same time General Ike made his alarming conclusion about the National Average IQ!

Normal or average intelligence is a range of (90-110), not one single value:
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQBasics.aspx

AAF: You're just like the 'President'.........

cinci: Thanks for the compliment.
**************************

AAF:..........confusing the statistical average with the median value.

cinci: For a normal distribution they are the same.
**********************************

AAF: It is not surprising, therefore, that you got your first book on Relativity almost at the same time General Ike made his alarming conclusion about the National Average IQ!


cinci: The difference between us is that I understood the book.
*************************************

AAF: Normal or average intelligence is a range of (90-110), not one single value:
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQBasics.aspx

cinci: Apparently you didn't make the cut.
**********************

Cincirob: I see you don't understand statistics.



AAF: You're just like the 'President' confusing the statistical average with the median value. It is not surprising, therefore, that you got your first book on Relativity almost at the same time General Ike made his alarming conclusion about the National Average IQ!
Normal or average intelligence is a range of (90-110), not one single value:
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQBasics.aspx



Cincirob: Thanks for the compliment. For a normal distribution they are the same. The difference between us is that I understood the book. Apparently you didn't make the cut.



AAF: As far as I can judge you, fairly, you haven't understood the book even after all those long years since the 'Reign of Ike'; and so, I can say, you 'don't make the cut'!

AAF: As far as I can judge you, fairly, you haven't understood the book even after all those long years since the 'Reign of Ike'; and so, I can say, you 'don't make the cut'!


cinci: The problem is that you can't judge me very far....you're confused by all your bad ideas.
************************

Cincirob: Yes, but time after time you have shown that you don't understand either. Thanks for the history lesson. Now you should try to get a little closer to the present, say at least 1905 when we fist began to realize what nature really is. Correct? Well it looks like your mind still works like a cave man's. Some of us evolved.



AAF: The belief in the absurd theory of Relativity is certainly evolving in the backward direction towards the mythologies of the Stone Age and beyond! That is because this false theory of Einstein is illogical and irrational to the ultimate degree. And only persons of the Stone Age and beyond can reach such dazzling and dizzying heights of irrationality and lack of logic.



Cincirob: When I want to know about stone age science, you're the guy I'll ask.



AAF: Thank you; I know that you know I know much more than you know!



Bob S: Let's don't start insulting cave-men AAF, Geico is already doing a good job of that.



AAF: No insult to 'Geico'! There are so many 'Geicos', but I bet you meant this one: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6135689294972885741

AAF: The belief in the absurd theory of Relativity is certainly evolving in the backward direction towards the mythologies of the Stone Age and beyond! That is because this false theory of Einstein is illogical and irrational to the ultimate degree. And only persons of the Stone Age and beyond can reach such dazzling and dizzying heights of irrationality and lack of logic.

Hi, AAF,
My view is the same. But maybe I have in my hands something, which could help to solve full problem. I have functional model of atom by Rutherfords recommendation. I am looking somebody who would able to write with me the paper. Todays physics forgets about Rutherford, who criticized its methods with only word Jokes! Todays physics knows mathematical model only; I know both mathematical and material = functional model. Problem is not about writing only, but also with publication.

I could write something to get prestige in your eyes. About Club Mensa CR - my interesting action there. About my inventions used in industry, The Prize of Rector CVUT University Prague. The Prize of Ministry of education CR. About project Measuring of (alleged) relativistic dilatation of time by rotaring time standards. Searching Emanuel Smejkal (alone or with physics, or science, relativity) is able to illuminate my access.

Criticism of TR is in blind alley. We need some trick. It is not sure, that my trick is the best; but, linked with somebody like you, this path will be one of the realistic possibilities.

AAF: Thank you; I know that you know I know much more than you know!

cinci: Yes, but most of what you know is wrong. I think you should help Emanuel write his paper. You could be the next van Flandern.
************************