Carl Sagan's "Baloney Detector Kit.": Difference between revisions
m (Text replacement - "--" to " — ") |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
5. "Quantify" (211). | 5. "Quantify" (211). | ||
6. "If there's a chain of argument, ''every'' link in the chain must work (including the premise) | 6. "If there's a chain of argument, ''every'' link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them" (211). | ||
7. "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" (211). | 7. "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" (211). | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
=== Errors to be Avoided === | === Errors to be Avoided === | ||
<div class="hang" style="margin-left:4em"> | <div class="hang" style="margin-left:4em"> | ||
1. "Ad hominem | 1. "Ad hominem — ...attacking the arguer and not the argument" (212). | ||
2. "Argument from authority" (212). | 2. "Argument from authority" (212). | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
3. "Argument from adverse consequences" (212). | 3. "Argument from adverse consequences" (212). | ||
4. "Appeal to ignorance | 4. "Appeal to ignorance — the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true and vice versa" (213). | ||
5. "Special pleading" (213). Sagan does not define this fallacy. He just gives examples of it. Here is a good description: | 5. "Special pleading" (213). Sagan does not define this fallacy. He just gives examples of it. Here is a good description: "Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason.<ref>[https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/163/Special-Pleading ''Logically Fallacious.'']</ref> | ||
6. "Begging the question, also called assuming the answer" (213). | 6. "Begging the question, also called assuming the answer" (213). | ||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
10. "Inconsistency" (214). | 10. "Inconsistency" (214). | ||
11. "''Non sequitur'' | 11. "''Non sequitur'' — Latin for 'it doesn't follow'" (214). | ||
12. "''Post hoc, ergo propter hoc"'' | 12. "''Post hoc, ergo propter hoc"'' — ''Latin for, 'It happened after, so it was caused by'" (215). | ||
13. "Meaningless question" (215). | 13. "Meaningless question" (215). | ||
14. "Excluded middle, or false dichotomy | 14. "Excluded middle, or false dichotomy — considering only the two extremes in a continuum of intermediate possibilities" (215). | ||
15. "Short-term vs. long term" (215). | 15. "Short-term vs. long term" (215). | ||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
17. "Confusion of correlation and causation" (215). | 17. "Confusion of correlation and causation" (215). | ||
18. "Straw man | 18. "Straw man — caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack" (215). | ||
19. "Suppressed evidence, or half-truths" (216). | 19. "Suppressed evidence, or half-truths" (216). | ||
Latest revision as of 12:04, 10 December 2022
Carl Sagan presented a "Baloney Detection Kit" in The Demon Haunted World. Page numbers below are from the first edition of the book.
Sagan's Positive Precepts
1. "Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts" (210).
2. "Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view" (210).
3. "Spin more than one hypothesis" (210).
4. "Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis because it's yours" (210).
5. "Quantify" (211).
6. "If there's a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them" (211).
7. "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" (211).
8. "Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified" (211).
9. "Control experiments are essential" (211).
10. "Variables must be separated" (211).
Errors to be Avoided
1. "Ad hominem — ...attacking the arguer and not the argument" (212).
2. "Argument from authority" (212).
3. "Argument from adverse consequences" (212).
4. "Appeal to ignorance — the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true and vice versa" (213).
5. "Special pleading" (213). Sagan does not define this fallacy. He just gives examples of it. Here is a good description: "Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason.[1]
6. "Begging the question, also called assuming the answer" (213).
7. "Observational selection, also called the enumeration of favorable circumstances, or as the philosopher Francis Bacon described it, counting the hits and forgetting the misses" (213-14).
8. "Statistics of small numbers" (214).
9. "Misunderstanding the nature of statistics" (214).
10. "Inconsistency" (214).
11. "Non sequitur — Latin for 'it doesn't follow'" (214).
12. "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" — Latin for, 'It happened after, so it was caused by'" (215).
13. "Meaningless question" (215).
14. "Excluded middle, or false dichotomy — considering only the two extremes in a continuum of intermediate possibilities" (215).
15. "Short-term vs. long term" (215).
16. "Slippery slope" (215).
17. "Confusion of correlation and causation" (215).
18. "Straw man — caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack" (215).
19. "Suppressed evidence, or half-truths" (216).
20. "Weasel words" (216).