Re: Electrifying Times

["Rich Weiss" <richheidi@techheadnet.com>]

I like this post as well as John Wayland's. There are too many attacks going
on in the press, media, and everyday discussions, recently. Please let's be
tolerant and open minded.

Virtually no scientific advance has been achieved without challenging the
status quo.

Rich

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee A. Hart" <leeahart@earthlink.net>
To: <ev@listproc.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: Electrifying Times


> I've met Bruce Meland, and he is indeed a wonderful person. He is
> steadfast, hard-working, intelligent, and well-read. However, what he
> reads is a bit different than what you might find in the popular press.
>
> Someone once said, "Be careful what you read, because once you get it
> into your head, it is damned difficult to get it out." Given bad facts,
> even the brightest individual will come to bad conclusions.
>
> Critical thinking is vital. Fiction is easier to write than fact, and it
> sells better. *Most* of what you read and hear is likely to be fiction.
> It is essential to maintain a healthy skepticism, and treat *everything*
> as unproven until gets past your BS filter.
>
> In Carl Sagen's excellent book "The Demon-Haunted World -- Science as a
> Candle in the Dark" he gives some excellent rules for critical thinking.
> Given the recent events, it is worthwhile for all of us to keep them in
> mind. Here is his "BS (Baloney Sandwich :-) detection kit":
>
> 1. There must be *independent* confirmation of facts.
>    The same "fact" repeated by 10 different sources doesn't count.
>
> 2. Encourage substantive debate, by knowledgeable proponents of all
>    points of view. That means listening to *both* sides of the argument.
>
> 3. Arguments from authority carry little weight. It's not true because
>    "X" says so. You want to hear from experts, not authorities.
>
> 4. Spin more than one hypotheses. List *all* the possibilities, and
>    then try to prove each one false. The hypothesis that survives is
>    more likely to be right than your first guess.
>
> 5. Don't form an opinion before you have the facts. Those that do tend
>    to exaggerate facts that support their opinion, and ignore facts that
>    contradict it.
>
> 6. Quantify. Numbers are more precise than words. Many arguments
>    disappear once the protagonists figure out that "17" is being
>    called "many" by one side, and "few" by the other.
>
> 7. Faulty logic: There aren't just two possibilities; there are MANY.
>    If there's a chain of arguments, every link in the chain has to work.
>
> 8. Occam's Razor: When faced with two hypotheses that explain things
>    equally well, the simpler one is more likely to be true.
>
> 9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be falsified. Is it untestable,
>    and impossible to confirm? Then it is little more than an interesting
>    idea; not something you can base action upon.
>
> He also gives some common errors to beware of.
>
> 1. Argument ad hominem (Latin for "to the man."); attacking the argurer
>    and not the argument.
>
>    "The Reverend Dr. Smith is a known biblical fundamentalist, so her
>    objections to evolution need not be taken seriously."
>
> 2. Argument from authority, not expertise:
>
>    "President Richard Nixon should be re-elected because he has a secret
>    plan to end the war."
>
> 3. Argument from adverse consequenses: We must do this because the
>    only alternative is worse.
>
>    "God must exist, because if he didn't, society would be even more
>    lawless and dangerous than it is."
>
> 4. Arguments from ignorance:
>
>    "There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the
>    Earth; therefore they must exist."
>
> 5. Arguments based on special pleadings to the divine or unknowable:
>
>    "How could God permit such cruelty? Because God moves in mysterious
>    Ways."
>
> 6. Begging the question; i.e. assuming the answer without evidence:
>
>    "The stock market fell today due to profit-taking by investors."
>
> 7. Counting the hits and ignoring the misses:
>
>    "Our war on drugs is working because we have put thousands in jail."
>
> 8. Lying with statistics:
>
>    "Half of all arabs are of below-average intelligence."
>
> 9. Inconsistency:
>
>    "It is prudent to plan for the worst threat our opponents can offer."
>    "There is no point in spending money on environmental dangers because
>    the threat has not been proven."
>
> 10. non sequitor (Latin for "it doesn't follow):
>
>    "Our nation will prevail because God is on our side."
>
> 11. post hoc, ergo propter hoc (Latin for "it happened first, therefore
>     it was the cause")
>
>    "We never would have had nuclear weapons if women hadn't gotten the
>    right to vote."
>
> 12. The fallacy of the excluded middle (allowing only the extremes,
>     with no compromises):
>
>    "America -- love it or leave it"
>    "You're either with us, or against us."
>
> 13. Short-term vs. long-term: Really a variation of the excluded middle
>     but so common that it needs special attention:
>
>    "We don't have money to fight poverty; it's urgently needed to
>    fight crime on the streets."
>
> 14. The slippery slope, also related to the excluded middle:
>
>    "If we let them win in Viet Nam, they'll take over the world."
>
> 15. Mixing up correlation and causation:
>
>    "Studies show that more college graduates are homosexual than
>    those with less education; therefore college makes people gay."
>
> 16. The straw man: Caricaturing your enemy as stupid or subhuman to
>     make him easier to attack:
>
>    (endless examples of this one in the news lately)
>
> 17. Half-truths: Telling lies by selective use of the facts.
>
>    "I saw him yelling at the woman. She ran away. He chased her down,
>    still yelling, and tore off her clothes. Then he threw her on the
>    ground, and got on top of her and rolled her around." A detail was
>    omitted; her clothes were on fire.
>
> 18. Weasel words:
>
>    "Police action. Armed incursion. Pacification. Safeguarding American
>    interests. Freedom fighters. Collateral damage."
>
> Sorry if this got a bit off-topic, but I think is is important. We need
> to pay more attention to people who show us HOW to think than to those
> that tell us WHAT to think.
> --
> Lee A. Hart                Ring the bells that still can ring
> 814 8th Ave. N.            Forget your perfect offering
> Sartell, MN 56377 USA      There is a crack in everything
> leeahart_at_earthlink.net  That's how the light gets in - Leonard Cohen
>
>