Baloney Detection

[elderbear]

Scientific American, November and December 2001 (slightly redacted)

 

Baloney Detection

How to draw boundaries between science and pseudoscience

By MICHAEL SHERMER

 

When lecturing on science and pseudoscience at colleges and universities, I am inevitably asked, after challenging common beliefs held by many students, “Why should we believe you?â€ÂÂ

 

My answer: “You shouldn’t.â€ÂÂ

 

I then explain that we need to check things out for ourselves and, short of that, at least to ask basic questions that get to the heart of the validity of any claim. This is what I call baloney detection, in deference to Carl Sagan, who coined the phrase “Baloney Detection Kit.†To detect baloneyâ€â€Âthat is, to help discriminate between science and pseudoscienceâ€â€ÂI suggest 10 questions to ask when encountering any claim.

 

1. How reliable is the source of the claim? Pseudoscientists often appear quite reliable, but when examined closely, the facts and figures they cite are distorted, taken out of context or occasionally even fabricated. Of course, everyone makes some mistakes. And as historian of science Daniel Kevles showed so effectively in his book The Baltimore Affair, it can be hard to detect a fraudulent signal within the background noise of sloppiness that is a normal part of the scientific process. The question is, Do the data and interpretations show signs of intentional distortion? When an independent committee established to investigate potential fraud scrutinized a set of research notes in Nobel laureate David Baltimore’s laboratory, it revealed a surprising number of mistakes. Baltimore was exonerated because his lab’s mistakes were random and nondirectional.

 

2. Does this source often make similar claims? Pseudoscientists have a habit of going well beyond the facts. Flood geologists (creationists who believe that Noah’s flood can account for many of the earth’s geologic formations) consistently make outrageous claims that bear no relation to geological science. Of course, some great thinkers do frequently go beyond the data in their creative speculations. Thomas Gold of Cornell University is notorious for his radical ideas, but he has been right often enough that other scientists listen to what he has to say. Gold proposes, for example, that oil is not a fossil fuel at all but the by-product of a deep, hot biosphere (microorganisms living at unexpected depths within the crust). Hardly any earth scientists with whom I have spoken think Gold is right, yet they do not consider him a crank. Watch out for a pattern of fringe thinking that consistently ignores or distorts data.

 

3. Have the claims been verified by another source? Typically pseudoscientists make statements that are unverified or verified only by a source within their own belief circle. We must ask, Who is checking the claims, and even who is checking the checkers? The biggest problem with the cold fusion debacle, for instance, was not that Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman were wrong. It was that they announced their spectacular discovery at a press conference before other laboratories verified it. Worse, when cold fusion was not replicated, they continued to cling to their claim. Outside verification is crucial to good science.

 

4. How does the claim fit with what we know about how the world works? An extraordinary claim must be placed into a larger context to see how it fits. When people claim that the Egyptian pyramids and the Sphinx were built more than 10,000 years ago by an unknown, advanced race, they are not presenting any context for that earlier civilization. Where are the rest of the artifacts of those people? Where are their works of art, their weapons, their clothing, their tools, their trash? Archaeology simply does not operate this way.

 

5. Has anyone gone out of the way to disprove the claim, or has only supportive evidence been sought? This is the confirmation bias, or the tendency to seek confirmatory evidence and to reject or ignore disconfirmatory evidence. The confirmation bias is powerful, pervasive and almost impossible for any of us to avoid. It is why the methods of science that emphasize checking and rechecking, verification and replication, and especially attempts to falsify a claim, are so critical.

 

6. Does the preponderance of evidence point to the claimant’s conclusion or to a different one? The theory of evolution, for example, is proved through a convergence of evidence from a number of independent lines of inquiry. No one fossil, no one piece of biological or paleontological evidence has “evolution†written on it; instead tens of thousands of evidentiary bits add up to a story of the evolution of life. Creationists conveniently ignore this confluence, focusing instead on trivial anomalies or currently unexplained phenomena in the history of life.

 

7. Is the claimant employing the accepted rules of reason and tools of research, or have these been abandoned in favor of others that lead to the desired conclusion? A clear distinction can be made between SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) scientists and UFOlogists. SETI scientists begin with the null hypothesis that ETIs do not exist and that they must provide concrete evidence before making the extraordinary claim that we are not alone in the universe. UFOlogists begin with the positive hypothesis that ETIs exist and have visited us, then employ questionable research techniques to support that belief, such as hypnotic regression (revelations of abduction experiences), anecdotal reasoning (countless stories of UFO sightings), conspiratorial thinking (governmental cover-ups of alien encounters), low-quality visual evidence (blurry photographs and grainy videos), and anomalistic thinking (atmospheric anomalies and visual misperceptions

by eyewitnesses).

 

8. Is the claimant providing an explanation for the observed

phenomena or merely denying the existing explanation? This is a classic debate strategyâ€â€Âcriticize your opponent and never affirm what you believe to avoid criticism. It is next to impossible to get creationists to offer an explanation for life (other than “God did itâ€ÂÂ). Intelligent Design (ID) creationists have done no better, picking away at weaknesses in scientific explanations for difficult problems and offering in their stead “ID did it.†This stratagem is unacceptable in science.

 

9. If the claimant proffers a new explanation, does it account for

as many phenomena as the old explanation did? Many HIV/AIDS skeptics argue that lifestyle causes AIDS. Yet their alternative theory does not explain nearly as much of the data as the HIV theory does. To make their argument, they must ignore the diverse evidence in support of HIV as the causal vector in AIDS while ignoring the significant correlation between the rise in AIDS among hemophiliacs shortly after HIV was inadvertently introduced into the blood supply.

 

10. Do the claimant’s personal beliefs and biases drive

the conclusions, or vice versa? All scientists hold social, political and ideological beliefs that could potentially slant their interpretations of the data, but how do those biases and beliefs affect their research in practice? Usually during the peer-review system, such biases and beliefs are rooted out, or the paper or book is rejected. Clearly, there are no foolproof methods of detecting baloney or drawing the boundary between science and pseudoscience.

 

Yet there is a solution: science deals in fuzzy fractions of certainties and uncertainties, where evolution and big bang cosmology may be assigned a 0.9 probability of being true, and creationism and UFOs a 0.1 probability of being true. In between

are borderland claims: we might assign superstring theory a 0.7 and cryonics a 0.2. In all cases, we remain open-minded and flexible, willing to reconsider our assessments as new evidence rises. This is, undeniably, what makes science so fleeting and frustrating to many people; it is, at the same time, what makes science the most glorious product of the human mind.

 

Michael Shermer is founding publisher of Skeptic magazine and author of The Borderlands of Science.

[DarthMarley]

Good one.

Can you provide a link to the full article, or is it a membership required thing?

 

The "confirmation bias" is an improtant thing to recognize. A worthwhile thing to read up on.

 

[elderbear]

Good one.

Can you provide a link to the full article, or is it a membership required thing?

 

The "confirmation bias" is an improtant thing to recognize. A worthwhile thing to read up on.

 

It costs $$$ to get more than the abstract. But the $39.95/yr digital subscription allows you access to PDF archives of all issues back to 1993. Hmmm ... I can smell a torrent idea coming on!

 

November Issue

 

December Issue

[TetsuoShima]

Nice summary of of methods! Nothing I didn't know allready, but probably very helpfull for the younger, less scientifically experienced members! ;)

[GeneralLee]

Interesting article, but hard core skeptics and skeptism only go so far with me.

 

I particularly have an issue with the last half of this entry;

 

7. Is the claimant employing the accepted rules of reason and tools of research, or have these been abandoned in favor of others that lead to the desired conclusion? A clear distinction can be made between SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) scientists and UFOlogists. SETI scientists begin with the null hypothesis that ETIs do not exist and that they must provide concrete evidence before making the extraordinary claim that we are not alone in the universe. UFOlogists begin with the positive hypothesis that ETIs exist and have visited us, then employ questionable research techniques to support that belief, such as hypnotic regression (revelations of abduction experiences), anecdotal reasoning (countless stories of UFO sightings), conspiratorial thinking (governmental cover-ups of alien encounters), low-quality visual evidence (blurry photographs and grainy videos), and anomalistic thinking (atmospheric anomalies and visual misperceptions by eyewitnesses).

 

and see it as a fair amount of dis-information, and from a highly skeptical viewpoint.

 

Doubt everything and anything anyone tells you, or that you read, etc., untill you find out for yourself what the truth is, is certainly a wise thing to do.

 

When I was 18 years old, back in 1975, this man, proved to be my balony detector, or, I should say, the person who first helped me realize indirectly, what I already knew at the time.

 

http://www.tatfoundation.org/bio.htm

 

Richard Rose is one of the most profound and unusual spiritual teachers this country has ever produced. A native son from the hills of West Virginia, Mr. Rose underwent a cataclysmic spiritual experience at the age of thirty that left him with an intimate understanding of the secrets of life and death. He is often referred to as a "Zen Master" by the people who know him because of the depth of his wisdom and the spiritual system he conveys to his students. But he does not expound traditional Zen, or any other traditional teachings. What he teaches is unique because it springs from his direct personal experience of the Truth.

 

 

[maverick]

Good one.

Can you provide a link to the full article, or is it a membership required thing?

 

The "confirmation bias" is an improtant thing to recognize. A worthwhile thing to read up on.

 

It costs $$$ to get more than the abstract. But the $39.95/yr digital subscription allows you access to PDF archives of all issues back to 1993. Hmmm ... I can smell a torrent idea coming on!

 

November Issue

 

December Issue

 

 

if anyone wants scientific journal articles let me know whrer from and if my uni subscribes to it (i think anout a thousand) i will post the magazine.

 

or if there are any specific topics you would like, lemme know.

your wish is my command - and you can buy me a beer

[elderbear]

Interesting article, but hard core skeptics and skeptism only go so far with me.

 

I particularly have an issue with the last half of this entry;

 

7. Is the claimant employing the accepted rules of reason and tools of research, or have these been abandoned in favor of others that lead to the desired conclusion? A clear distinction can be made between SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) scientists and UFOlogists. SETI scientists begin with the null hypothesis that ETIs do not exist and that they must provide concrete evidence before making the extraordinary claim that we are not alone in the universe. UFOlogists begin with the positive hypothesis that ETIs exist and have visited us, then employ questionable research techniques to support that belief, such as hypnotic regression (revelations of abduction experiences), anecdotal reasoning (countless stories of UFO sightings), conspiratorial thinking (governmental cover-ups of alien encounters), low-quality visual evidence (blurry photographs and grainy videos), and anomalistic thinking (atmospheric anomalies and visual misperceptions by eyewitnesses).

 

and see it as a fair amount of dis-information, and from a highly skeptical viewpoint.

 

Doubt everything and anything anyone tells you, or that you read, etc., untill you find out for yourself what the truth is, is certainly a wise thing to do.

 

When I was 18 years old, back in 1975, this man, proved to be my balony detector, or, I should say, the person who first helped me realize indirectly, what I already knew at the time.

 

http://www.tatfoundation.org/bio.htm

 

Richard Rose is one of the most profound and unusual spiritual teachers this country has ever produced. A native son from the hills of West Virginia, Mr. Rose underwent a cataclysmic spiritual experience at the age of thirty that left him with an intimate understanding of the secrets of life and death. He is often referred to as a "Zen Master" by the people who know him because of the depth of his wisdom and the spiritual system he conveys to his students. But he does not expound traditional Zen, or any other traditional teachings. What he teaches is unique because it springs from his direct personal experience of the Truth.

 

 

The title of the article is harsh - IMHO, the incorrect claim implied by that harsheness leads to your discomfort.

 

The "Baloney Detector" semantics imply that anything which cannot be empirically validated is baloney. I would strongly disagree. I would, however, hold them in a lower category of "truth" - far more subjective, and more likely to be misinterpreted. Whatever they are, as true as they are, they are not "Science." And that's OK - Goedel tells us that not all that is true can be proven, and that not all that is false can be disproven.

 

But I think the guidelines are good ones for Scientific discourse.

 

[BorisP]

3. Have the claims been verified by another source? Typically pseudoscientists make statements that are unverified or verified only by a source within their own belief circle. We must ask, Who is checking the claims, and even who is checking the checkers? The biggest problem with the cold fusion debacle, for instance, was not that Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman were wrong. It was that they announced their spectacular discovery at a press conference before other laboratories verified it. Worse, when cold fusion was not replicated, they continued to cling to their claim. Outside verification is crucial to good science.

 

I disagree with this. I don't think the guy has thought thru all of the ramifications. They publicly announced their results so that no other scientist could steal the work. This man makes it sound like there is no good reason for a public announcement. Also, what about the political implications? Cold Fusion would destroy the power industry. Electrical, Coal, Natural Gas,Nuclear. Those people have a monetary interest in portraying these men as having made a mistake.

 

8. Is the claimant providing an explanation for the observed

phenomena or merely denying the existing explanation? This is a classic debate strategyâ€â€Âcriticize your opponent and never affirm what you believe to avoid criticism.

.

 

This sounds familiar.

 

 

9. If the claimant proffers a new explanation, does it account for

as many phenomena as the old explanation did? Many HIV/AIDS skeptics argue that lifestyle causes AIDS. Yet their alternative theory does not explain nearly as much of the data as the HIV theory does. To make their argument, they must ignore the diverse evidence in support of HIV as the causal vector in AIDS while ignoring the significant correlation between the rise in AIDS among hemophiliacs shortly after HIV was inadvertently introduced into the blood supply.

 

Look carefully at what this man says. He does not say their argument is meaningless. He very carefully says that their theory "does not explain as much". Well, so what? It doesn't explain as much. That is much different than saying "Lifestyle plays no part in AIDS".

[Beawulf]

9. If the claimant proffers a new explanation, does it account for

as many phenomena as the old explanation did? Many HIV/AIDS skeptics argue that lifestyle causes AIDS. Yet their alternative theory does not explain nearly as much of the data as the HIV theory does. To make their argument, they must ignore the diverse evidence in support of HIV as the causal vector in AIDS while ignoring the significant correlation between the rise in AIDS among hemophiliacs shortly after HIV was inadvertently introduced into the blood supply.

 

Look carefully at what this man says. He does not say their argument is meaningless. He very carefully says that their theory "does not explain as much". Well, so what? It doesn't explain as much. That is much different than saying "Lifestyle plays no part in AIDS".

 

he is only giving an example of a situation where we should take note that a concept hasnt fully been examined. It isnt his intention to totally debunk the theory. An underlying theme in the article is to retain an open mind and a logical approach.

 

 

there is also a significant difference between "lifestyle is not the cause of aids" and "lifestyle plays no part in aids"

[elderbear]

3. Have the claims been verified by another source? Typically pseudoscientists make statements that are unverified or verified only by a source within their own belief circle. We must ask, Who is checking the claims, and even who is checking the checkers? The biggest problem with the cold fusion debacle, for instance, was not that Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman were wrong. It was that they announced their spectacular discovery at a press conference before other laboratories verified it. Worse, when cold fusion was not replicated, they continued to cling to their claim. Outside verification is crucial to good science.

 

I disagree with this. I don't think the guy has thought thru all of the ramifications. They publicly announced their results so that no other scientist could steal the work. This man makes it sound like there is no good reason for a public announcement. Also, what about the political implications? Cold Fusion would destroy the power industry. Electrical, Coal, Natural Gas,Nuclear. Those people have a monetary interest in portraying these men as having made a mistake.

 

Often times public announcements are made w/o replication by other labs or scientists. That is not a problem, in and of itself. The real problem happens when something unexpected cannot be replicated.

 

In 1998 we generated strong heater induced plasma line echos from a sporadic E-layer at Arecibo. We have radar and imaging coverage of this event. It will likely never be repeated because getting a strong enough sporadic E cloud at the right aspect angle for heating and radar diagnostics is very rare.

 

In 1998 we also observed collapse of the lower ionosphere durin a 97% solar eclipse. These results will never be replicated - because there's only one radar in the world powerful and sensitive enough to make the measurements - Arecibo - and no solar eclipses are expected there in the forseeable future.

 

Both of these "irreproduceable events" are consistent with theory and other observations. They are now accepted as mainstream science.

 

The problem with "cold fusion" is that it defied scientific theory and it could not be replicated by others. Thus, it has not been verified by the scientific method.

 

That doesn't make it true or untrue - but in the sciences, results contrary to theory that nobody else can replicate are suspect.

 

Was it a conspiracy of energy companies that kept "cold fusion" from being replicated. Probably not. Too many scientists were interested. The DoD was interested. Not enough people were on the dole from big energy to shut the research down. It simply couldn't be replicated.