Greetings and A 21st Century Baloney Detection kit.

epicurious · 11th November 2009, 01:08 AM

Good afternoon, all. (I was thinking opening with "take me to your leader" but decided it was probably not a good idea in this place)

This is my first post here, so I'll try to not to make a bad impression. I'd hate to start off on the wrong foot with you lot, as its not often I get involved in discussions with others who actually seem to like thinking. It gets lonely out here!

From a more practical standpoint, its doubtless unwise to antagonize a forum full of hardened critics.

Anyway, to the point: I have carefully read Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit. I appreciate the effort to provide the layman (such as myself) with a set of tools by which one may dismantle fallacies, rhetoric and many other forms of baloney.

It even provides some positive direction by default, in the sense that having dismissed obviously misleading paths, whats left is probably worth investigating.

Now, I can't see anything wrong with the Kit and along with a good deal of common sense (though I amaze myself with how commonly I lack it) its probably all one needs to sort most wheat from the chaff.

My problem here, is one of speed. If the kit shows its age at all, its here, in that over the last decade, the world has gone through massive changes in the volumes and preferred mediums of communication.

The consequence is that misinformation/bunk-memes propagate about the globe at incredible speed. It takes time to dismantle such information and during that time they frequently do much damage - and that, I suspect, is why rhetoric and propaganda remain such powerful and popular tools.

So, my essential question is, how would one go about building a 21st century B.D. Kit?

What tools or components for tools - and what methods - are there by which one may rapidly check source data, such as the peer-review and intra-industry reputation of the source-authors, the statistics behind the alleged facts, their relevance and so on.. ?

Obviously, search engines provide a lot of this, however its not always as easy as you might think, to extract relevant and useful info through the zillions of results you get from a given 'googling,' especially if its a contentious issue.

I guess a more fundamental question then, is how can one 'sharpen' the focus of these kinds of investigations?

I'm curious to see what methods other thinking people use, please don't assume anything is too obvious to add, as said, I am very much a layman and am forever discovering my own shortcomings, especially in terms of methodological thought.

rjh01 · 11th November 2009, 01:59 AM

If someone is trying to promote something here are some questions to ask
1. Does this overturn a lot of what is known to be true?
2. Is it rather vague about how it works?
3. Uses lots of jargon, especially quantum.
4. Is it one person working alone making the discovery?
5. What is the evidence that it works? Or is it a case of 'no one can prove it does not work?'
6. Involves a massive conspiracy.

If any of the above is true then it probably is rubbish.

I have not read the book you mention. And welcome.

epicurious · 11th November 2009, 08:30 PM

Thanks rjh01.

The C. Sagan book is actually "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark." The baloney kit was an excerpt from that.

Pure_Argent · 11th November 2009, 08:44 PM

Also, if the person making the discovery/argument constantly tries to dodge questions, that's probably a BS warning.

ferd burfle · 11th November 2009, 09:06 PM

Originally Posted by epicurious

So, my essential question is, how would one go about building a 21st century B.D. Kit?

What tools or components for tools - and what methods - are there by which one may rapidly check source data, such as the peer-review and intra-industry reputation of the source-authors, the statistics behind the alleged facts, their relevance and so on.. ?

Welcome, epicurious! I think the guidelines Sagan set forth still pertain, so if I understand your point, the issue is chiefly one of speed. While I think there are other good answers to your question, here's mine.

When I see or hear something that sets off my baloney detector, the quickest way I know to learn more is to come here and see what the folks on this forum have to say about it. It's rare that someone hasn't already started a thread on that issue by the time I get here. I get the benefit of hundreds of smart, skeptical people who are tapped into the internet, and often some of the posters have experience or education specific to the topic. They will often provide links to the source material in the evidence they provide for their claims.

The quote attributed to Mark Twain "A lie is halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its shoes on" becomes literally true in the internet age but the internet also provides the antidote.

Short answer to your question, "It's the JREF Forum!"

Regards,

ferd

Yes, I know the truth doesn't literally wear shoes :-)

rjh01 · 11th November 2009, 09:24 PM

To expand a bit on ferd's answer one option is to Google the organization's or the person's name. It probably has been discussed somewhere. Just about every scam has been. If that turns up nothing it could be that they have changed their name recently. This in itself a warning. So you can try Googling key words.

godofpie · 11th November 2009, 09:31 PM

I'm with Ferd. My daughter showed me a video on youtube today that had her upset about being vaccinated. I told her before she got too worried we should take a look at the JREF forum and see if anyone had brought up this topic. We searched the girls name using the JREF google search and that led us here and a post in that thread led us here. And Dr Novella has twice updated his original blog. This place is a wealth of knowledge.

rjh01 · 12th November 2009, 12:44 AM

This may be slightly off topic however it may be useful for people who want to try Ferd's method.
If you want to search the public area of the forum, and use Google to do so (rather than the forum's search) add this to the search in Google
site:http://forums.randi.org

Please note there no spaces in the above.

11th November 2009, 01:08 AM	#1
epicurious New Blood Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 3	Greetings and A 21st Century Baloney Detection kit. Good afternoon, all. (I was thinking opening with "take me to your leader" but decided it was probably not a good idea in this place) This is my first post here, so I'll try to not to make a bad impression. I'd hate to start off on the wrong foot with you lot, as its not often I get involved in discussions with others who actually seem to like thinking. It gets lonely out here! From a more practical standpoint, its doubtless unwise to antagonize a forum full of hardened critics. Anyway, to the point: I have carefully read Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit. I appreciate the effort to provide the layman (such as myself) with a set of tools by which one may dismantle fallacies, rhetoric and many other forms of baloney. It even provides some positive direction by default, in the sense that having dismissed obviously misleading paths, whats left is probably worth investigating. Now, I can't see anything wrong with the Kit and along with a good deal of common sense (though I amaze myself with how commonly I lack it) its probably all one needs to sort most wheat from the chaff. My problem here, is one of speed. If the kit shows its age at all, its here, in that over the last decade, the world has gone through massive changes in the volumes and preferred mediums of communication. The consequence is that misinformation/bunk-memes propagate about the globe at incredible speed. It takes time to dismantle such information and during that time they frequently do much damage - and that, I suspect, is why rhetoric and propaganda remain such powerful and popular tools. So, my essential question is, how would one go about building a 21st century B.D. Kit? What tools or components for tools - and what methods - are there by which one may rapidly check source data, such as the peer-review and intra-industry reputation of the source-authors, the statistics behind the alleged facts, their relevance and so on.. ? Obviously, search engines provide a lot of this, however its not always as easy as you might think, to extract relevant and useful info through the zillions of results you get from a given 'googling,' especially if its a contentious issue. I guess a more fundamental question then, is how can one 'sharpen' the focus of these kinds of investigations? I'm curious to see what methods other thinking people use, please don't assume anything is too obvious to add, as said, I am very much a layman and am forever discovering my own shortcomings, especially in terms of methodological thought.
epicurious New Blood Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 3

11th November 2009, 08:30 PM	#3
epicurious New Blood Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 3	Thanks rjh01. The C. Sagan book is actually "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark." The baloney kit was an excerpt from that.
epicurious New Blood Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 3

11th November 2009, 08:44 PM	#4
Pure_Argent Certified Castlevania Fanboy Join Date: May 2009 Location: The Clock Tower Boss Room Posts: 3,819	Also, if the person making the discovery/argument constantly tries to dodge questions, that's probably a BS warning.
	__________________ "What is a man? Just a miserable little pile of secrets!" - Dracula, Castlevania "The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head." - Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

11th November 2009, 09:06 PM	#5
ferd burfle Thinker Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Wintering in the People's Republic Posts: 215	Originally Posted by epicurious So, my essential question is, how would one go about building a 21st century B.D. Kit? What tools or components for tools - and what methods - are there by which one may rapidly check source data, such as the peer-review and intra-industry reputation of the source-authors, the statistics behind the alleged facts, their relevance and so on.. ? Welcome, epicurious! I think the guidelines Sagan set forth still pertain, so if I understand your point, the issue is chiefly one of speed. While I think there are other good answers to your question, here's mine. When I see or hear something that sets off my baloney detector, the quickest way I know to learn more is to come here and see what the folks on this forum have to say about it. It's rare that someone hasn't already started a thread on that issue by the time I get here. I get the benefit of hundreds of smart, skeptical people who are tapped into the internet, and often some of the posters have experience or education specific to the topic. They will often provide links to the source material in the evidence they provide for their claims. The quote attributed to Mark Twain "A lie is halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its shoes on" becomes literally true in the internet age but the internet also provides the antidote. Short answer to your question, "It's the JREF Forum!" Regards, ferd Yes, I know the truth doesn't literally wear shoes :-)
	__________________ Seeking suitable sig material, no experience necessary. Last edited by ferd burfle; 11th November 2009 at 09:37 PM. Reason: punctuation and clarification, and uh, grammar

11th November 2009, 09:31 PM	#7
godofpie Chief Cook & Bottle Washer Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: south of the mason dixon Posts: 649	I'm with Ferd. My daughter showed me a video on youtube today that had her upset about being vaccinated. I told her before she got too worried we should take a look at the JREF forum and see if anyone had brought up this topic. We searched the girls name using the JREF google search and that led us here and a post in that thread led us here. And Dr Novella has twice updated his original blog. This place is a wealth of knowledge.
	__________________ king of all that is pizza http://www.stopsylvia.com/ http://www.stopsylvia.com/ http://www.stopsylvia.com/ _{"You only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out" - Warren Buffett} Last edited by godofpie; 11th November 2009 at 09:38 PM.

11th November 2009, 01:59 AM	#2
rjh01 Fire Warden Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 9,811	If someone is trying to promote something here are some questions to ask 1. Does this overturn a lot of what is known to be true? 2. Is it rather vague about how it works? 3. Uses lots of jargon, especially quantum. 4. Is it one person working alone making the discovery? 5. What is the evidence that it works? Or is it a case of 'no one can prove it does not work?' 6. Involves a massive conspiracy. If any of the above is true then it probably is rubbish. I have not read the book you mention. And welcome.

11th November 2009, 09:24 PM	#6
rjh01 Fire Warden Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 9,811	To expand a bit on ferd's answer one option is to Google the organization's or the person's name. It probably has been discussed somewhere. Just about every scam has been. If that turns up nothing it could be that they have changed their name recently. This in itself a warning. So you can try Googling key words.

12th November 2009, 12:44 AM	#8
rjh01 Fire Warden Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 9,811	This may be slightly off topic however it may be useful for people who want to try Ferd's method. If you want to search the public area of the forum, and use Google to do so (rather than the forum's search) add this to the search in Google site:http://forums.randi.org Please note there no spaces in the above.