The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and
detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:
o Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the
facts
o Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable
proponents of all points of view.
o Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are
no "authorities").
o Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first
idea that caught your fancy.
o Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's
yours.
o Quantify, wherever possible.
o If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
o "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the
data equally well choose the simpler.
o 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
o Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind"
experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of
the test and control subjects.
o Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.
Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric
o Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
o Argument from "authority".
o Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the
decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an
"unfavourable" decision).
o Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence).
o Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
o Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question
is phrased).
o Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the
misses).
o Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from
inadequate sample sizes).
o Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower
expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half
of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
o Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case
scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers
thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
o Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
o Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused
by" - confusion of cause and effect.
o Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force
meets an immovable object?).
o Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of
possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really
is).
o Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue
fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
o Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted
extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a
mile).
o Confusion of correlation and causation.
o Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it
easier to attack..
o Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
o 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"
Above all - read the book!
Further resources:
o The Critical Thinking Community
o CSICOP/Skeptical Inquirer
o Australian Skeptics
o Quackwatch
o Carl Sagan Productions Ann Druyan's comment on this web page:
"I have no problems whatsoever with your efforts to spread
the word on critical thinking. It was Carl's dream and mine
that each and everyone of us would have that baloney
detection kit inside our heads. I salute your efforts in
this direction.
With best wishes,
Ann Druyan"
Less serious sites:
o Journal of Irreproducible Results
o The Annals of Improbable Research. (with the Ignobel Awards)
Prepared by Michael Paine for
The Planetary Society Australian Volunteer Coordinators.
27 January 1998.
Original file name: Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection
This file was converted with TextToHTML - (c) Logic n.v.