{"id":38153,"date":"2014-01-06T12:00:41","date_gmt":"2014-01-06T12:00:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=38153"},"modified":"2015-05-05T22:20:08","modified_gmt":"2015-05-05T21:20:08","slug":"the-baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagans-rules-for-bullshit-busting-and-critical-thinking","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2014\/01\/the-baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagans-rules-for-bullshit-busting-and-critical-thinking\/","title":{"rendered":"The Baloney Detection Kit: Carl Sagan\u2019s Rules for Bullshit-Busting and Critical Thinking"},"content":{"rendered":"

Necessary cognitive fortification against propaganda, pseudoscience, and general falsehood.<\/i><\/p>\n

Carl Sagan<\/a> was many things \u2014 a cosmic sage<\/a>, voracious reader<\/a>, hopeless romantic<\/a>, and brilliant philosopher<\/a>. But above all, he endures as our era\u2019s greatest patron saint of reason and common sense, a master of the vital balance between skepticism and openness<\/a>. In The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark<\/i><\/b><\/a> (public library<\/i><\/a>) \u2014 the same indispensable volume that gave us Sagan\u2019s timeless meditation on science and spirituality<\/a>, 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

In a chapter titled \u201cThe Fine Art of Baloney Detection,\u201d<\/b> 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<\/a>.) 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

\"carlsagan1\"<\/a><\/p>\n

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      The Demon-Haunted World<\/i><\/b><\/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<\/a>.<\/p>\n

      __________________________________<\/p>\n

      Brain Pickings<\/i><\/a><\/em> is the brain child of Maria Popova<\/a>, an interestingness hunter-gatherer and curious mind at large obsessed with combinatorial creativity who also writes for Wired<\/em> UK<\/a> and The Atlantic<\/em><\/a>, among others, and is an MIT Futures of Entertainment Fellow. She has gotten occasional help from a handful of guest contributors<\/a>.<\/i><\/i><\/p>\n

      Go to Original \u2013 brainpickings.org<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      Necessary cognitive fortification against propaganda, pseudoscience, and general falsehood.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[200],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-38153","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-academia-knowledge-scholarship"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38153","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=38153"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38153\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38153"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38153"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38153"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}