Baloney Detection Kit
Warning signs that suggest deception. Based
on the book by Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World.
The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting
fallacious or fraudulent arguments:
·
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 (in science there are no
"authorities").
·
Spin more
than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your
fancy.
·
Try not to
get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
·
Quantify,
wherever possible.
·
If there is
a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
·
Occam's
razor - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well choose
the simpler.
·
Ask whether
the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by
some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate
the experiment and get the same result?
Additional issues are:
·
Conduct
control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the
person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.
·
Check for
confounding factors - separate the variables.
·
Common
fallacies of logic and rhetoric
·
Ad hominem -
attacking the arguer and not the argument.
·
Argument
from "authority".
·
Argument
from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing
out dire consequences of an "unfavorable" decision).
·
Appeal to
ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
·
Special
pleading (typically referring to god's will).
·
Begging the
question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
·
Observational
selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
·
Statistics
of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
·
Misunderstanding
the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and
alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average
intelligence!)
·
Inconsistency
(e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections
on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not
"proved").
·
Non sequitur
- "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
·
Post hoc,
ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" -
confusion of cause and effect.
·
Meaningless
question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable
object?).
·
Excluded
middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making
the "other side" look worse than it really is).
·
Short-term
v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental
science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
·
Slippery
slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects
(give an inch and they will take a mile).
·
Confusion of
correlation and causation.
·
Caricaturing
(or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.
·
Suppressed
evidence or half-truths.
·
Weasel words
- for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to
get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of
politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have
become odious to the public"
(excerpted from The Planetary Society
Australian Volunteer Coordinators Prepared by Michael Paine )
No comments:
Post a Comment