#bs detection

Richard Feynman said that the fundamental principle of science is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. Scientists like Feynman understand the value of good reasoning, skepticism, logic and rationality. Yet as Carl Sagan argued the benefits of such traits and tools aren’t merely benefits to science, they apply just as necessarily and just as effectively to everyday life.

The intention of this post is to be a guide to encouraging scientific thinking and skepticism within your normal life, to inducting the tools into your mental toolkit. In the previous post I argued that while the most intellectually responsible thing to do is to vet each piece of information you encounter, in practical terms this is not possible. It is simply not feasible to look up every last claim that passes your way. There is a real, tangible benefit to having good heuristics, to having a finely honed BS detector.

This post will be broken into three parts - The first portion is Carl Sagan’s Nine Principles for scientific and skeptical reasoning, from The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. The second is a list of common logical or rhetorical fallacies, these are in no particular order, but they are what I have found to be the most common. The final part is 12 questions that you can ask of a claim to help determine how likely it is to be viable (its chance of being BS), adapted from work done by Skeptic magazine.

 Part 1 – Principles for Scientific and Skeptical Reasoning

 Here are Sagan's Principles for sound reasoning and scientific thinking:

1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”

(Try to see if a source other than the source making the claim has verified/reported the facts in question. The more sources you can find independently verifying these facts the better, as a single source might be biased .)

2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

3. 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.

(No doubt we can all think of authority figure who is wrong about something. Though I should note that this does not mean that experts should just be dismissed out of hand, they are more reliable than not as they have spent their lives investigating a topic, just be sure not to take expert opinions are set in stone fact.)

4. 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.

5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s 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.

(Acknowledge the bias you have for ideas that are yours or that you hold dear. If you leave it up to others, you will be expose… and then laughed at.)

6. 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.

7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them. A single weak link in the logical chain can doom the entire theory.

8. 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.

(Only use Occam’s Razor when two hypothesis explain the data equally well, don’t be tempted to fall for a simpler sounding solution if it explains less.)

9. 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 skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

Part 2 - Common rhetorical or logical fallacies

No doubt you have heard of one of the many logical fallacies observed in the tragic landscape that is internet arguments. There are many logical/rhetorical fallacies out there but the following are (in my perception) some of the most common.

Ad hominem – The ad hominem attack is an attack on the person making the argument, it does not respond to the argument at all. - Ex. Insults and attacks on the person’s character.

Argument form authority – This is the reliance on the fact that the claim came from a perceived authority figure, rather than on good evidence or reasoning. - Ex. “My dad works at Microsoft and he says they are putting chips in all their products that steal your soul!”

(This is something you will often see in claims made by alternative medicine. They will frequently have proposed experts touting the effectiveness of their products but frequently those PhDs were earned in something completely unrelated to any medical or biological fields.)

Appeal to anecdotal evidence – Relying on personal anecdotes as evidence. The argument is often made by someone who believes that their personal experiences reflect the nature of the entire world, not realizing they are not statically representative of the world. - Ex. “My neighbor hates road noise and still would never vote for a city noise ordinance.”

Appeal to ignorance – An argument that if something is not known to be false, it must be true. - Ex. “There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist.”

Argument from adverse consequences - Saying that because the implications of a statement being true would create negative results, it must not be true. - Ex. “Legislation to reduce greenhouse gases would negatively impact certain companies, therefore greenhouse gases do not negatively impact the environment.”

Weasel Words - The usage of vague, non-specific terminology or references. "They don't want you to know about this…" "Some people have gained massive benfits from our products..." Who’s “They”? Which people, specifically?

(Frequently used to make outrageous claims without having to provide a specific example, especially if it would seem dubious or improbable if a concrete example were offered.)

Special pleading – When the maker of the claim argues for special considerations for a particular premise of theirs. Usually this is because in order for the argument to work, they need to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency. Very frequently the sign that an argument is logically foundering. – Ex. “People who drive drunk should receive prison time, but you should overlook it in my case since I am usually such a good person.”

Observational selection - Focusing on evidence that supports your case while ignoring evidence that disproves it. This is a form of selection bias, where you count the hits and forgetting the misses. – Ex. When a person notices something they never noticed before and wrongly assume that the frequency has increased.

Misunderstanding the nature of statistics – Simply not understanding how statistics work. - Ex. Being surprised that half of all Americans have an IQ that is below average of 100 when 100 was set as the average score in the first place.

Confusion of correlation and causation – Simply put, correlation does not imply causation. Two things can be correlated without having any causal relationship between them. - Ex. If a friend of yours came to you telling you about this awesome new hydra repellant they bought, and they know it works because they haven’t seen a single hydra since buying it, they are confusing correlation and causation… you should also probably stop talking to them.

(Related is the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, which is thinking that something caused something else simply because one thing came first chronologically.)

Excluded middle or False dichotomy – Asserting that there can be no middle ground between two options, that you can only pick one option or the other. – Ex. “Buy our product and live, or don’t buy it and die horribly.” And most famously, “You are either with us or against us.”

Suppressed evidence and half-truths – Suppressing or leaving out relevant information when making a claim. Frequently seen in the debate surrounding global climate change. Climate change deniers like to argue that there is still debate amongst scientists over whether anthropogenic global warming is real. This may be true but it is 99% of scientists debating that last 1%. What was ignored is that the overwhelming consensus on the issue is that global climate change is a very real phenomenon.

Slippery slope – Condemning something that is loosely related to something that is morally wrong via asserting that negative consequences will necessarily result from allowing the first thing. – Ex. “If we continue to allow legalized abortion, soon we will be euthanizing people under 18 years of age.”

Tu quoque – “You do it too!” Claiming that since the source of an argument has acted in ways inconsistent with the argument it must be wrong. This focuses on the hypocrisy of an individual rather than dealing with the argument the individual made. A person may have sincere beliefs and good reasoning/evidence to back up their position, but still not be able to follow through on it due to lack of willpower.

Strawman – Making a dishonest characterization of somebody’s argument, misrepresenting their argument to make it easier to defeat.

(The internet’s favorite person to argue against.)

As a final note, keep in mind while that an argument may use a logical fallacy this does not mean the conclusion of that argument is wrong. It is possible to get to the correct conclusion of an argument by incorrect means, so don’t completely toss out an argument simply because of the presence of a logical fallacy. However, it does mean that you should pay very close attention if a fallacy is spotted.

Part 3 - Skeptical questions to ask about a claim:

Does it align with the way the world usually functions:

Is someone offering you something extraordinary for little to nothing in return? Has someone contacted you offering to give you 100,000 dollars if only you’ll pay them 500 to help them get across the country? There’s very rarely such a thing as a free lunch, and if it sounds too good to be true it probably is. Beyond that remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 Approximately how reliable is the source of the claim?:

Learn about the source of the claim. If they show you a bunch of data and there are errors in the data or claim (and there often is), the errors shouldn't skew in one particular direction or another. They should not be making incorrect claims but only on one side of the argument for example. Keep an eye out for potential bias and potential conflicts of interest.

 Have claims been independently verified by someone else?:

Remember that scientific claims should be, if at all possible, testable and repeatable. Likewise facts and reports should be independently confirmed by others unrelated to the person or group making the claim, to eliminate possible biases and confabulation amongst like-minded group members. If there’s a hot new item out on the market making really bold claims, but nobody else seems to have tested or reviewed it yet, you should be suspicious and you probably want to hold onto your money for a while.

 Have people tried to disprove the claim?:

What are the counterarguments to the claim? Remember that scientific claims should be, if at all possible, testable and repeatable. If other people have managed to replicate an experiment, you can be more assured of its veracity. Remember that science works by trying to disprove a claim, the more people have tried to disprove it but it survives, the more likely it is to be true. There are countless tests of the theory of gravity everyday, and nobody goes on about it being “just a theory”.

 Is there a preponderance of evidence?:

There should be many multiple pieces of evidence, not just one. Look for concordance between varying fields of study. One of the reasons the theory of evolution is so compelling is because it is supported by multiple fields of investigation. It isn’t backed up by only the fossil record, it’s backed up by DNA research and morphology. The more evidence you can find coming from more places, the better off you are.

 Are the people making the claim providing positive evidence?:

“My inability to disprove your theory is not at all the same thing as you having proved it true.”

The people making the claim need to have actual positive evidence of their own. If they are simply just dismissing evidence presented to them and unwilling or unable to present evidence of their own, that should raise serious questions about the validity of their claim. Consider how hard it is to prove a negative. I can’t prove that the interior of Neptune is not filled with mole-like robots, but that does not mean you should suppose that claim to be true. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

Do personal beliefs influence the claim being made?: People have biases, including scientists. (And me.) But science tries to do all it can to help account for those biases. This is the reason for anonymous peer review boards and  double blind studies. Watch out for claims being made that seem to be pushed forward by personal agendas.

 Does the source often make claims of a similar sort?:

Very often people who make extraordinary claims tend to believe in other extraordinary things. A Bigfoot hunter may not only believe in Bigfoot, but also Nessie and hundreds of other cryptids as well, all of which have a low likelihood of actually existing. In addition they may believe in UFOs and alien abductions. This suggests they are unlikely to be following a trail of evidence to a conclusion, but are instead cherry-picking data which supports favored and similar phenomena to support a particular worldview.

 Are the individuals making the claim behaving in a scientific manner?:

Are those behind the claim behaving like scientists? Are they testing their claim, trying to falsify it? Is it falsifiable? One of the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory is that it is, by its nature, not falsifiable. Any evidence levied against it can always be waved away as part of the conspiracy. Someone who is behaving in a scientific manner is always open to reviewing evidence that might contradict or falsify their claim. Scientists are always trying to find alternative explanations for a phenomenon. Pseudoscience often looks for evidence then fits the evidence into the theory they want to support.

 Does the new theory being proposed account for as much phenomena as the old theory?:

In any theory there may be a few things that are mysteries or unexplained phenomena. Science will continue to try and improve on the theory to account for these discrepancies. Yet often a new theory that may one phenomena at the expense of all the other currently explained phenomena, which means it is not as good of a theory.

 Is there a reliance on jargon or obfuscation?

If something has many unfamiliar words or phrases, or else seems to contain a lot of scientific sounding terms in inappropriate contexts you ought to be suspicious. One of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is that it often has scientific trappings. As an example, in physics the term “energy” only means an  objects ability to “do work” – to move something or affect a change. Yet a lot of, shall we say, new age-y types tend to use the term energy to refer to some form of mystical vitality or lifeforce. There is similar abuse of the word “quantum”. To be clear this does not mean whenever there is a term you do not understand that you should be suspicious, merely that you should exercise caution if terms are misused or else a passage seems to be constructed with a deliberate attempt to confuse/mislead.

 Is it too simple?

Let’s propose that somebody came to you selling a mysterious black box that claimed to fix everything wrong with your car. Would you but it? No, you wouldn’t because you understand that the various things wrong with your car each have their own unique cause and need to be addressed individually. Similarly, it would not be a good idea to buy a cure-all potion that promises to fix all your health problems. The world is a complex place, there are no cure-alls. Once again, if it seems too good be true, it probably is.

 ---