[Vision2020] Scientist Carl Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit"

[Ted Moffett]

A good example, among many presented, of "baloney" from Sagan's
"Baloney Detection Kit:"

inconsistency (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're not "proved".)
--------------------------------------------------------
http://planetforlife.com/aboutpfl/baloney.html

>From website above:

Carl Sagan (astronomer and science writer) wrote something he called
the "Baloney Detection Kit," which is quoted in full here. It can be
applied in many different situations. Carl is a real scientist and
this is your chance to see how the mind of a scientist works:

What skeptical thinking boils down to is the means to construct, and
to understand, a reasoned argument and -- especially important -- to
recognize a fallacious or fraudulent argument. The question is not
whether we like the conclusion that emerges out of a train of
reasoning, but whether the conclusion that emerges out of a train
follows from the premise of starting point and whether that premise is
true.

Among the tools:

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. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in
this Darwinian selection among "multiple working hypotheses," has a
much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply
run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

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.

Quantify. 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. Of course there are the truths to be
sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but
finding them is more challenging.

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. 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 -- an electron, say -- 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.

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. Among these fallacies are:

ad hominem -- Latin for "to the man," 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);

argument from authority (e.g., President Richard Nixon should be
re-elected because he has a secret plan to end the war in Southeast
Asia -- 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);

argument from adverse consequences (e.g., A God meting out punishment
and reward must exist, because if He didn't, society would be much
more lawless and dangerous – 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);

appeal to ignorance -- 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 --
and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may
be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the
moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the
Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the
phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

special pleading, 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't understand the subtle Doctrine of Free
Will. Or: How can there be an equally godlike Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost in the same Person? Special plead: You don't understand the
Divine Mystery of the Trinity. Or: How could God permit the followers
of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- each in their own way enjoined
to heroic measures of loving kindness and compassion -- to have
perpetrated so much cruelty for so long? Special plead: You don't
understand Free Will again. And anyway, God moves in mysterious ways.)

begging the question, also called assuming the answer (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? Or:
The stock market fell yesterday because of a technical adjustment and
profit-taking by investors -- but is there any independent evidence
for the causal role of "adjustment" and profit-taking; have we learned
anything at all from this purported explanation?);

observational selection, also called the enumeration of favourable
circumstances, 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);

statistics of small numbers -- a close relative of observational
selection (e.g., "They 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." Or: "I've thrown three sevens in a row. Tonight I can't
lose.");

misunderstanding of the nature of statistics (e.g., President Dwight
Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully
half of all Americans have below average intelligence);

inconsistency (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're not "proved". 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. 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);

non sequitur -- Latin for "It doesn't follow" (e.g., Our nation will
prevail because God is great. But nearly every nation pretends this to
be true; the Germans formulation was "Gott mit uns"). Often those
falling into the non sequitur fallacy have simply failed to recognize
alternative possibilities;

post hoc, ergo propter hoc - Latin for "It happened after, so it was
caused by" (e.g., Jaime Cardinal Sin, Archbishop of Manila: "I know of
... a 26-year old who looks 60 because she takes [contraceptive]
pills." Or: Before women got the vote, there were no nuclear weapons);

meaningless question (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);

excluded middle, or false dichotomy -- considering only the two
extremes in a continuum of intermediate possibilities (e.g., "Sure,
take her side; my husband's perfect; I'm always wrong." Or: "Either
you love your country or you hate it." Or: "If you're not part of the
solution, you're part of the problem");

short-term vs. long-term -- a subset of the excluding middle, but so
important I've pulled it out for special attention (e.g., We can't
afford programs to feed malnourished children and educate pre-school
kids. We need to urgently deal with crime on the streets. Or: Why
explore space or pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a
budget deficit?);

slippery slope, related to excluded middle (e.g., If we allow abortion
in the first week of pregnancy, it will be impossible to prevent the
killing of a full-term infant. 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);

confusion of correlation and causation (e.g., A survey shows that more
college graduates are homosexual than those with lesser education;
therefore education makes people gay. Or: Andean earthquakes are
correlated with closest approaches of the planet Uranus; therefore --
despite the absence of any such correlation for the nearer, more
massive planet Jupiter -- the latter causes the former);

straw man -- caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack
(e.g., Scientists suppose that living things simply fell together by
chance -- a formulation that wilfully ignores the central Darwinian
insight, that Nature ratchets up by saving what works and discarding
what doesn't. Or -- this is also a short-term/long-term fallacy --
environmentalists care more for snail darters and spotted owls than
they do for people);

suppressed evidence, or half-truths (e.g., An amazingly accurate and
widely quoted "prophecy" of the assassination attempt on President
Regan is shown on television; but – an important detail -- was it
recorded before or after the event? Or: These government abuses demand
revolution, even if you can't make an omelette without breaking some
eggs. 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?);

weasel words (e.g., The separation of powers of the U.S. Constitution
specifies that the United States may not conduct a war without a
declaration of 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
-- "police actions," "armed incursions," "protective reaction
strikes," "pacification," "safeguarding American interests," and a
wide variety of "operations," such as "Operation Just Cause."
Euphemisms for war are one of a broad class of reinventions of
language for political purposes. Talleyrand said, "An important art of
politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old
names have become odious to the public").
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett