Michael Shermer once said that there's a lot of baloney out there and to detect it we need a kit. That kit is usually called science.
This is the 5th part in my series on tracking down pseudoscience. Here are the previous posts in this series:
1. How Reliable is Your Source
2. Tracking Down Pseudoscience - Part 2
3. Tracking Down Pseudoscience - Part 3
4. Tracking Down Pseudoscience - Part 4
Generic Introduction
For those wanting to become educated in critical thinking, for those who want to be able to spot the baloney and the potential intentions towards deception in other people's claims and arguments, and for people who are interested in solid reasoning, Carl Sagan and Michael Shermer propose their baloney detection kit, a set of questions that one should ask when in doubt.
Today I'm going to focus on questions 8 and 9 from the baloney detection kit, leaving the remaining questions for future posts in this series.
Baloney Detection - Points 8 and 9
Question 8 - Is the claimant providing an explanation for the observed phenomena or merely denying the existing explanation?
As I wrote previously:
"A strategy that is often employed by many when debating is to criticize opposition instead of providing strong support for their beliefs."
Let me reformulate an example of Michael Shermer to provide context for this question. Hard core creationists cannot explain how life emerged on Earth; they only maintain that 'God did it!'.
Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against religion of any kind. Each one of us has the right to hold any beliefs we desire. Problems arise when non-scientific arguments are pushed as if they were supported by science.
One step further from hard-core creationists are those who support an Intelligent Design theory. As Michael Shermer says, they are no better as they try to cherry-pick weaknesses in science theories - parts of theories that have yet to be found explanations for but which may eventually be elucidated.
Some supporters of intelligent design are scientists with great track records in their careers. It is of wonder to me how they can isolate their 'creationists' (often reductionist) beliefs from their 'scientific' thinking. But we know from behavioral psychology that people have no trouble maintaining dissonant thoughts in their minds.
You may find yourself in a very tricky position when exposed to such arguments. You tend to offer credibility to a person's erroneous beliefs just because they have proven themselves good thinkers in other domains of life.
My suggestion is to stay away from a fixated impression you have of a person just because they have been good at something. Take every argument into its appropriate context and be ready to update your opinion of someone when necessary. Since this is against our natural tendencies, you have to understand it takes effort to spot and act upon when in such a situation.
Question 9 - If the claimant proffers a new explanation, does it account for as many phenomena as the old explanation did?
Science and the scientific method are not without flaws; and they do not purpose to be. Arguments and theories may often be incomplete or inconsistent. Scientific arguments are always up for updates (think Bayesian) as good evidence becomes available.
So, anomalies and inconsistencies may be part of good science theories - like the theory of evolution for example. Scientists do not refrain from acknowledging that. However, pseudoscientists, quacks and people who want to deceive you will focus on such inconsistencies by taking them out of context, twisting them to fabricate new and often 'innovative' arguments. You can often hear claims like:
"Newton was wrong!
Darwin was wrong!
Einstein was wrong!
And I am right! My new theory explains the world."
When you face someone making such claims, ask them:
Well, if your theory holds true and if you're right about the barely existent inconsistencies in Einstein's theory, can your theory explain everything else that Einstein's theory explain and for which we have undeniable evidence? (i.e. general relativity)
"According to general relativity, objects in a gravitational field behave similarly to objects within an accelerating enclosure. For example, an observer will see a ball fall the same way in a rocket (left) as it does on Earth (right), provided that the acceleration of the rocket is equal to 9.8 m/s2 (the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the Earth)." [source]
I suspect that they will not be able to do so...
But are you skillful enough to know and to ask such a question?
Ending thoughts
Can you see how difficult it may be not to fall victim to deception and quackery?!
It may be even more difficult to spot a quack/charlatan; often they repeat to themselves their fabrications of reality until they cannot make a distinction between fact and fantasy - thus appearing more genuine.
More dangerous than a quack is a self-absorbed quack...
You need solid critical thinking skills to stay away from deceptions of this kind. Thus, I remind you once again, train yourself in cognitive fallacies, irrationality, and behavioral psychology, otherwise you may not be able to safely make it out of the flood of misinformation you're being bombarded with 24/7.
To stay in touch with me, follow @cristi
Credits for Images: [Adapted from mayrena via Pixabay] and [Pbroks13 and Markus Poessel, CC-BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons].
#science #psychology #practical
Cristi Vlad, Self-Experimenter and Author
https://steemit.com/physics/@l0k1/the-geometry-of-gravity-and-the-geometry-of-linear-acceleration
I have been working on a novel model of gravity physics, for some time. You can see in my comments, if you were not sufficiently illuminated by the text, that I have been in all aspects trying to stick to really solid science. I have personally applied some of the math over the years in computer programs as well, I have great respect for the work of the elders such as Newton, Einstein, and the more recent attempts to integrate functional and useful quantum physics with relativity and the pre-20th century work.
The thing is, all of them work, in some respect, but their disagreements with each other are so stark, as to be an ongoing issue, and something that religionists, in particular, like to throw at people. My hypothesis is not pseudoscience, nor is it aimed to deceive, at all, but rather, I am trying to find a model that blends everything together, keeps all we know, but explains why it seemed so contradictory.
from what you are saying, it seems to be consistent with good science conduit.
how on earth would science advance if not challenged with unconventional theories and experiments? of course, most of them do not stand the test of time and rigorousity. but the few that thrive make it into dogma.
I hope you are onto something :)
I don't understand why it is not generally understood. I want a real way to control gravity, why would I make up nonsense? Dollars mean nothing to me. I'll go back to living on the street rather than cook up some nonsense to attract idiots. I have a long history in dealing with reality, and I am proud and happy to accept what that means today. But I will work my ass off to get people to know about the obvious, though it was only obvious to me.
If you want to replace a largely admitted theory by a new one, you must at least explain as good as the former theory all the phenomena the former theory explains. That is it.
(I already answered that somewhere on Steemit, but I do not remember whether it was to your post... my comment seems to be appropriate anyhow :p )
PS: very nice series!
well, you got to know this sort of thing quite well as you're a scientist :)
That was in response to one of mine @lemouth but still, the point is valid.
Thanks for this series. We all need to stay vigilant of falling into these traps.
thank you for resteeming! :)
You're welcome:)
It is not correct to say that a scientific theory cannot be challenged unless the challenger provides a superior theory – it’s enough to show that a part or an assumption in the theory is wrong.
Pseudo-science is alive and well, of course, but the label is being used to discredit true (but politically incorrect) scientific criticism. The ideological motivations are usually easy to spot. Some examples:
Cold Fusion. First ridiculed as pseudo-science by the hot fusion people. Now called LENR. The criticisms were mostly about the money.
CAGW. Anthropogenic global warming has been thoroughly debunked, but people that point that out are called ‘deniers’ and worse. AGW is an ideological movement that condemns two great enemies of the modern left – capitalism for its drive to improve the world, and (Western) Man himself as a despoiler of the environment.
Darwinism. Darwinism has three legs – natural selection, heritability, and random mutation. But random mutation has been shown to be a dead end in terms of driving evolution, and everyone in the business knows it (and ignores it). Darwinism isn’t even science anymore. See The Death of Darwinism Part I. Darwinism is clung to because it is suppose to deal a fatal blow to religion, a project of the left since at least the French Revolution.
I feel that it needs to be known: whether there is a fly in the ointment, or if the ointment is the cause of the fly...
so please, riddle me this, because idk
This is an interesting series and a nice post! :)
@cristi
Excellent series. Keep it up mate. You are one of the few people that shed light in a rather tinfoiled tethered platform.
thank you!