vickers
NES Member
I stumbled on this today and thought it was interesting. This was written by Carl Sagan in the book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark published a short while before his death.
https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/ It's not a long article but my summarization follows...
He outlines several examples of invalid arguments or strategies that are red flags that Baloney is afoot. I think the anti gun crowd uses many if not all of these in their attacks on the second amendment, hunting and general gun ownership. My take on these are in the parens.
- ad hominem attack (attacking the arguer not the argument)
- argument from authority (the "because I am an expert/politician/celebrity and I say so" argument)
- argument from adverse consequences (You have to do SOMETHING because otherwise bad things will happen)
- appeal to ignorance (if it hasn't been proven false, it must be true or vice versa)
- special pleading (if you point out a logical inconsistency the response is "You don't understand/appreciate <something>...)
- assuming the answer (kind of a causation vs.correlation argument. If this is true, this <thing i claim> must be true.)
- observational selection (cherry picking examples or data favorable to your argument)
- statistics of small numbers
- misunderstanding the nature of statistics (both of these deal with misunderstanding and/or cherry picking statistical analysis)
- inconsistency (penny wise, pound foolish. reacting differently to similar issues or events depending on ideology/agenda)
- non sequitur (disconnects in logic)
- post hoc, ergo propter hoc (causation vs. correlation)
- meaningless question (unanswerable question designed to confuse the argument)
- false dichotomy (consider extremes but ignore the possibility of other or more likely realities or outcomes)
- short term vs. long term (failure to consider all options/effects over time)
- slippery slope (exaggerated if...Then arguments)
- confusion of correlation vs. causation (observation of one truth pattern doesn't mean that truth applies in all cases)
- straw man (building a false premise in order to tear it down)
- suppressed evidence (missing details, half truths, statistics without full context)
- weasel words (intentionally misleading names or words used to confuse or hide the real intent)
In response to those, he outlines some tests which help you uncovering BS.
- 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 — “authorities” 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.
- Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s 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.
- Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s 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’t, others will.
- If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations.
- If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
- Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified…. 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.
https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/ It's not a long article but my summarization follows...
He outlines several examples of invalid arguments or strategies that are red flags that Baloney is afoot. I think the anti gun crowd uses many if not all of these in their attacks on the second amendment, hunting and general gun ownership. My take on these are in the parens.
- ad hominem attack (attacking the arguer not the argument)
- argument from authority (the "because I am an expert/politician/celebrity and I say so" argument)
- argument from adverse consequences (You have to do SOMETHING because otherwise bad things will happen)
- appeal to ignorance (if it hasn't been proven false, it must be true or vice versa)
- special pleading (if you point out a logical inconsistency the response is "You don't understand/appreciate <something>...)
- assuming the answer (kind of a causation vs.correlation argument. If this is true, this <thing i claim> must be true.)
- observational selection (cherry picking examples or data favorable to your argument)
- statistics of small numbers
- misunderstanding the nature of statistics (both of these deal with misunderstanding and/or cherry picking statistical analysis)
- inconsistency (penny wise, pound foolish. reacting differently to similar issues or events depending on ideology/agenda)
- non sequitur (disconnects in logic)
- post hoc, ergo propter hoc (causation vs. correlation)
- meaningless question (unanswerable question designed to confuse the argument)
- false dichotomy (consider extremes but ignore the possibility of other or more likely realities or outcomes)
- short term vs. long term (failure to consider all options/effects over time)
- slippery slope (exaggerated if...Then arguments)
- confusion of correlation vs. causation (observation of one truth pattern doesn't mean that truth applies in all cases)
- straw man (building a false premise in order to tear it down)
- suppressed evidence (missing details, half truths, statistics without full context)
- weasel words (intentionally misleading names or words used to confuse or hide the real intent)
In response to those, he outlines some tests which help you uncovering BS.
- 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 — “authorities” 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.
- Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s 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.
- Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s 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’t, others will.
- If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations.
- If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
- Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified…. 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.
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
