My Baloney Detection Kit1
My Baloney Detection Kit
Table of Contents:
Page 2Intellectual Standards / Intellectual Traits
Page 3Do I Believe It? The Three S Guide To Evaluating Claims
Source, Statement, Self
Page 4-5How To Evaluate Claims – Tips and Tricks – Traps to Avoid
Carl Sagan’s Fine Art Of Baloney Detection
Page 6-7The Ten Deadly Fallacies
Examples of the Ten Fallacies
Page 8References
Do I believe it? The three S’s: a guide to evaluating knowledge claims
Source / Statements / Self- Does the source have any recognizable motive for conscious or unconscious deception?
- Does the source have a reputation for being honest and accurate?
- Does the eyewitness seem to have senses which function normally for an act of observation and which are free from the influence of substances that might affect perception?
- Is the source an expert relevant to the topic under consideration?
- Does the source acknowledge counter-claims or limitations of its own knowledge?
- Is the source in accord with, or consistent with, other sources with which its claims can be checked?
- What is the context of the knowledge claims – their social context, for example, or their publication or web context? Does the context give you any insight into whether the goal of the knowledge claim is to report or to persuade?
- Are the background, values, and goals of the writer or speaker openly stated? Are values observable in the selection of details, emphasis placed on those details, or connotations of word choice in the knowledge claims?
- Do the claims use any graphs, photographs, paintings, or other visual accompaniments? Are they relevant? Are they emotionally affecting?
- Are the claims supported by evidence?
- Are the claims internally consistent, free from contradictions and logical errors?
- Do I recognize in myself an inclination to believe or reject a particular source or statement?
- Do I apply critical thinking to what I want to believe as well as what I do not want to believe?
- If I use my own past experience and understanding as a basis on which to judge the plausibility of new statements, how reliable is that past experience?
- Is it possible to separate my beliefs into private beliefs, based on whatever justification convinces me personally, and public beliefs, based on justification which must convince others as well?
- What is my attitude toward belief? Should “Do I believe it?” be instead “Should I believe it?” Is there an ethical dimension to what one should believe or reject?
How to evaluate claims:
Look for independent confirmation.
Include input from knowledgeable proponents from all points of view.
Don’t automatically trust the word of authorities.
Develop alternative hypotheses.
Be willing to give up your hypothesis.
Quantify or measure if possible.
Consider each the elements of the argument logically (in sequence). Do all the parts make sense?
Consider the possible motivation of the claim’s author.
Occam’s Razor. When faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well – choose the simpler.
Ask if the hypothesis can be falsified. Can a test be conducted to disprove the hypothesis?
Some other tips for considering evidence:
There is good reason to doubt a proposition if it conflicts with other propositions we have good reason to believe.
The more background information a proposition conflicts with, the more reason there is to doubt it.
When there is a good reason to doubt a proposition, we should proportion our belief to the evidence.
There is a good reason to doubt a proposition if it conflicts with expert opinion.
Just because someone is an expert in one field, it doesn’t mean that he or she is an expert in another.
Just because a large number of people believe something, it doesn’t mean that it is true.
If we have no reason to doubt what’s disclosed to us through perception, introspection, memory or reason, then we’re justified in believing it.
When evaluating a claim, look for the disconfirming as well as confirming evidence.
When evaluating a claim, look at all the relevant evidence, not just the psychologically available evidence.
Traps to avoid:
Ad hominem – an argument which attacks the person, not the argument.
Argument from authority – blind trust because of the person’s position or status.
Argument from adverse consequences – you better believe this or else…
Argument ad ignorantium (Appeal to ignorance) – the claim that since the argument cannot be proved false, then it must be true.
Special pleading – the attempt to rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical trouble.
Begging the question – assuming the answer as part of the argument.
Observational selection – the enumeration of favorable circumstances (counting the hits, ignoring the misses).
Statistics of small numbers - 4 out of 5 dentists is a very small representative sample if only 5 dentists are surveyed.
Misunderstanding / misapplying statistics – “proven to be 20% more effective…” How was “effectiveness measured?”
Inconsistency – applying reasoning and evidence inconsistently to the proposition.
Non-sequitor – arguments which don’t follow and not logically related to each other..
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc – “it happened after, so it was caused by”
Meaningless questions – misapplication of words, language or ideas.
Excluded middle – false dichotomy – not including intermediate possibilities.
Short term vs. long term – one at the expense of the other.
Slippery slope – once you start, there is no stopping…
Confusion of correlation and causation – mis applying a cause and effect relationship.
Straw man – simplifying (caricaturizing) a position to make it easier to attack.
Suppressed evidence and half truths – inaccurate or missing details.
Weasel words – reinvention of words for political (or other) purposes.
The Ten Deadly Fallacies
Ad Ignorantium / Claiming something is true because it cannot be proved to be false.Hasty generalization / Generalizing from insufficient evidence.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc / Confusing a correlation with a causal connection.
Ad hominem / Attacking or supporting the person rather than the argument.
Circular reasoning / Assuming the truth of what you are supposed to be proving.
Special pleading / Using double standards to excuse an individual or group.
Equivocation / Using language ambiguously
False analogy / Assuming that because two things are alike in some respects they are alike in other respects.
False dilemma / Assuming that only two black and white alternatives exist.
Loaded question / A question that is biased because it contains a built-in assumption.
Examples of the Ten Fallacies
References:
Dombrowski, E., Rotenberg, L., Bick, M. (2007) Theory of Knowledge Course Companion
Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2008) The Miniature Guide To Critical Thinking
Sagan, C. (1996) The Demon Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark
Schick, T., Vaughn, L. (2002) How to Think About Weird Things
Van de Lagamaat, R. (2005) Theory of Knowledge