My Baloney Detection Kit
My Baloney Detection Kit
Table of Contents:
Page 2
Intellectual Standards / Intellectual Traits
Page 3
Do I Believe It? The Three S Guide To Evaluating Claims
Source, Statement, Self
Page 4-5
How To Evaluate Claims – Tips and Tricks – Traps to Avoid
Carl Sagan’s Fine Art Of Baloney Detection
Page 6-7
The Ten Deadly Fallacies
Examples of the Ten Fallacies
Page 8
References
1
My Baloney Detection Kit
2
My Baloney Detection Kit
3
Do I believe it? The three S’s: a guide to evaluating knowledge claims
Source






Does the source
have any
recognizable motive
for conscious or
unconscious
deception?
Does the source
have a reputation for
being honest and
accurate?
Does the
eyewitness seem to
have senses which
function normally for
an act of
observation and
which are free from
the influence of
substances that
might affect
perception?
Is the source an
expert relevant to
the topic under
consideration?
Does the source
acknowledge
counter-claims or
limitations of its own
knowledge?
Is the source in
accord with, or
consistent with,
other sources with
which its claims can
be checked?
Statements





What is the context of the
knowledge claims – their
social context, for
example, or their
publication or web
context? Does the context
give you any insight into
whether the goal of the
knowledge claim is to
report or to persuade?
Are the background,
values, and goals of the
writer or speaker openly
stated? Are values
observable in the selection
of details, emphasis placed
on those details, or
connotations of word
choice in the knowledge
claims?
Do the claims use any
graphs, photographs,
paintings, or other visual
accompaniments? Are
they relevant? Are they
emotionally affecting?
Are the claims supported
by evidence?
Are the claims internally
consistent, free from
contradictions and logical
errors?
Self





Do I recognize in
myself an inclination
to believe or reject a
particular source or
statement?
Do I apply critical
thinking to what I
want to believe as
well as what I do not
want to believe?
If I use my own past
experience and
understanding as a
basis on which to
judge the plausibility
of new statements,
how reliable is that
past experience?
Is it possible to
separate my beliefs
into private beliefs,
based on whatever
justification
convinces me
personally, and
public beliefs, based
on justification which
must convince others
as well?
What is my attitude
toward belief?
Should “Do I believe
it?” be instead
“Should I believe it?”
Is there an ethical
dimension to what
one should believe
or reject?
My Baloney Detection Kit
4
How to evaluate claims:

Look for independent confirmation.

Include input from knowledgeable proponents from all points of view.

Don’t automatically trust the word of authorities.

Develop alternative hypotheses.

Be willing to give up your hypothesis.

Quantify or measure if possible.

Consider each the elements of the argument logically (in sequence). Do
all the parts make sense?

Consider the possible motivation of the claim’s author.

Occam’s Razor. When faced with two hypotheses that explain the data
equally well – choose the simpler.

Ask if the hypothesis can be falsified. Can a test be conducted to disprove
the hypothesis?
Some other tips for considering evidence:

There is good reason to doubt a proposition if it conflicts with other
propositions we have good reason to believe.

The more background information a proposition conflicts with, the more
reason there is to doubt it.

When there is a good reason to doubt a proposition, we should proportion
our belief to the evidence.

There is a good reason to doubt a proposition if it conflicts with expert
opinion.

Just because someone is an expert in one field, it doesn’t mean that he or
she is an expert in another.

Just because a large number of people believe something, it doesn’t mean
that it is true.

If we have no reason to doubt what’s disclosed to us through perception,
introspection, memory or reason, then we’re justified in believing it.

When evaluating a claim, look for the disconfirming as well as confirming
evidence.

When evaluating a claim, look at all the relevant evidence, not just the
psychologically available evidence.
My Baloney Detection Kit
5
Traps to avoid:

Ad hominem – an argument which attacks the person, not the
argument.

Argument from authority – blind trust because of the person’s position or
status.

Argument from adverse consequences – you better believe this or else…

Argument ad ignorantium (Appeal to ignorance) – the claim that since
the argument cannot be proved false, then it must be true.

Special pleading – the attempt to rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical
trouble.

Begging the question – assuming the answer as part of the argument.

Observational selection – the enumeration of favorable circumstances
(counting the hits, ignoring the misses).

Statistics of small numbers - 4 out of 5 dentists is a very small
representative sample if only 5 dentists are surveyed.

Misunderstanding / misapplying statistics – “proven to be 20% more
effective…” How was “effectiveness measured?”

Inconsistency – applying reasoning and evidence inconsistently to the
proposition.

Non-sequitor – arguments which don’t follow and not logically related to
each other..

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc – “it happened after, so it was caused by”

Meaningless questions – misapplication of words, language or ideas.

Excluded middle – false dichotomy – not including intermediate
possibilities.

Short term vs. long term – one at the expense of the other.

Slippery slope – once you start, there is no stopping…

Confusion of correlation and causation – mis applying a cause and effect
relationship.

Straw man – simplifying (caricaturizing) a position to make it easier to
attack.

Suppressed evidence and half truths – inaccurate or missing details.

Weasel words – reinvention of words for political (or other) purposes.
My Baloney Detection Kit
6
The Ten Deadly Fallacies
Ad Ignorantium
Claiming something is true because it
cannot be proved to be false.
Hasty generalization
Generalizing from insufficient
evidence.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Confusing a correlation with a causal
connection.
Ad hominem
Attacking or supporting the person
rather than the argument.
Circular reasoning
Assuming the truth of what you are
supposed to be proving.
Special pleading
Using double standards to excuse an
individual or group.
Equivocation
Using language ambiguously
False analogy
Assuming that because two things
are alike in some respects they are
alike in other respects.
Assuming that only two black and
white alternatives exist.
False dilemma
Loaded question
A question that is biased because it
contains a built-in assumption.
My Baloney Detection Kit
Examples of the Ten Fallacies
7
My Baloney Detection Kit
8
References:
Dombrowski, E., Rotenberg, L., Bick, M. (2007) Theory of Knowledge Course
Companion
Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2008) The Miniature Guide To Critical Thinking
Sagan, C. (1996) The Demon Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark
Schick, T., Vaughn, L. (2002) How to Think About Weird Things
Van de Lagamaat, R. (2005) Theory of Knowledge