Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit (The Demon Haunted World)

• Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the ‘facts’.

• Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledge able 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’ 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 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 sceptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

Advertisements

About bensagan

Co-founder of the West Cumbrian Skeptics

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Cumbrian Sky

Just another WordPress.com weblog

SusCoGroup2013

Sustainable Cockermouth Group - exploring the sensible expansion of a gem town

Hmmmm

Just another WordPress.com weblog

robives.com

Idle jottings

TheSkepticMag

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Manchester FABLAB

Where anyone can make almost anything

jimsamson16

Cumbrian geology

West Cumbria SitP

Drinking Skeptically

Faith and Skepticism

Where nothing is off limits

Exposing PseudoAstronomy

Talking about bad astronomy everywhere it rears its ugly head.

%d bloggers like this: