By David William Jedell Updated December 19, 2024
Baloney detection kit.
World Renown Scientist and Author of the World's Most Viewed Documentary "Cosmos", Carl Sagan, presents a set of tools for skeptical thinking that he calls the "baloney detection kit." Skeptical thinking consists both of constructing a reasoned argument and recognizing a fallacious or fraudulent one. In order to identify a fallacious argument, Sagan suggests employing such tools as independent confirmation of facts, debate, development of different hypotheses, quantification, the use of Occam's razor, and the possibility of falsification. Sagan's "baloney detection kit" also provides tools for detecting "the most common fallacies of logic and rhetoric", such as argument from authority and statistics of small numbers. Through these tools, Sagan argues the benefits of a critical mind and the self-correcting nature of science can take place.
Carl Sagan advice is pertinent to today's emersion into propaganda:
There must be independent confirmation of the facts given when possible.
Encourage debate on the evidence from all points of view.
Realize that an argument from authority is not always reliable. Sagan supports this by telling us that 'authorities" have made mistakes in the past and they will again in the future.
Consider more than one hypothesis. Sagan adds to this by telling us that we must think of the argument from all angles and think all the ways it can be explained or disproved. The hypothesis that then still hasn't been disproved has a much higher chance of being correct.
Try your best to not purely stick to a hypothesis that is your own and become biased. Sagan tells us to compare our own hypothesis with others to see if we can find reasons to reject our own hypothesis.
Quantify. Sagan tells us that if whatever we are trying to explain has numerical value or quantitative data related to it, then we'll be much more able to compete against other hypotheses.
If there is a chain of argument, every link in that chain must be correct.
The use of Occam's razor, which tells us to choose the hypothesis that is simpler and requires the least amount of assumptions.
Ask if a given hypothesis can be falsified. Sagan tells us that if a hypothesis cannot be tested or falsified then it is not worth considering.
Logical fallacies
Ad hominem. An arguer attacks the opposing arguer and not the actual argument.
Argument from authority. Someone expects another to immediately believe that a person of authority or higher knowledge is correct.
Argument from adverse consequences. Someone says that something must be done a certain way or else there will be adverse consequences.
Appeal to ignorance. One argues a claim in that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa.
Special pleading. An arguer responds to a deeply complex or rhetorical question or statement by, usually, saying "oh you don't understand how so and so works."
Begging the question. An arguer assumes the answer and makes a claim such as, this happened because of that, or, this needs to happen in order for that to happen.
Observational selection. Someone talks about how great something is by explaining all of the positive aspects of it while purposely not mentioning any of the negative aspects.
Statistics of small numbers. Someone argues something by giving the statistics in small numbers, which isn't very reliable.
Misunderstanding of the nature of statistics. Someone misinterprets statistics given to them.
Fallacy of inconsistency. An arguer is very inconsistent in their claims.
Non sequitur. This is Latin for "it doesn't follow." A claim is made that doesn't make much sense, such as "Our nation will prevail because God is great."
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Latin for "it happened after, so it was caused by." An arguer claims that something happened because of a past event when really it probably didn't.
The excluded middle. An arguer only considers or mentions the two opposite extremes of the conversation and excludes the aspects in between the two extremes.
Examine the Apparently Suspect Propaganda Examples from the Media
Reject the source entirely when you hear or read "What you should know..." or "Experts say..." or "Fact check..." or "Most people believe..." "Polls indicate..." or "Scientists believe such and such MIGHT be true ..." or "Protestors complain about..." or "Doctor gives medical advice (the Dr. is a Ph.d in English literature, ha!) ..." or "The good news is...' or "what you need to know"... or "everything to know about". See, The Press: Equivocal, https://time.com/archive/6766558/the-press-equivocal/
Copyright © 2024 by David William Jedell
Email: d.w.jedell@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment