Fire Up the Baloney Detector

A "baloney detector" is simply the ability to think critically and to recognize deliberate misleading or unintentional mistakes in reasoning or argumentation. Carl Sagan coined the term in his book The Demon-Haunted World.

The following is a selected series of baloney slices--logical fallacies and irrational or incorrect arguing. Many can be understood as very human attempts to shore up cherished core beliefs.

1. Selective use of evidence. Any attempt to explain reality should try to account for all the data. It is wrong—and poor science—to appeal just to the evidence that fits your theory. It is wrong to suppress data that contradicts or does not fit your theory. It is even more wrong to “fill in the gaps” with supposition and present it as fact.

2. Appeals to authority. While human authorities may be (and frequently are) correct in their opinions and explanations, they are not guaranteed to be so. Per Sagan: “In science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.” A well-designed experiment trumps any pronouncement of an expert. In fact, the history of science is rife with examples of so-called experts whose dogmatic statements have been overturned by the results of experimental demonstration (although this did not always defeat the “experts” immediately).

3. Ad hominem arguments. There are several different types of ad hominem arguments; some are valid, but the one under consideration here is not. This is an attempt to discredit an argument by impugning the character of the one making the argument. Of course, it is legitimate to point out bias, for that has a direct effect on the validity of an argument.

4. Straw man arguments. These are deliberate distortions or misrepresentations of the argument of one’s opponent, often in order to make it easier to defeat the argument (or seem to). This is a dishonest attempt to maintain the appearance of superiority in a debate.

5. Begging the question/circularity. A cardinal logical fallacy—assuming one’s conclusion, or assuming the very point under debate. This can be deceptively easy to do when the debate centers on a conflict in worldview, as we have a hard time loosing ourselves from our fundamental assumptions and axioms.

6. Lack of testability. One of the basic characteristics of a truly scientific hypothesis is testability or falsifiability—it must be subject to verification or disqualification by experiment. Many things that scientists say are outside of this realm. Now, a statement may easily be true but not falsifiable. This is characteristic of axioms. The problem with evolution is that it has become axiomatic for most biologists, true by definition, and therefore not subject to question. The theory is no longer framed in such terms that it is at risk of falsification (unlike Darwin’s original proposal).

7. Vague language and equivocation. A failure carefully to define one’s terms and imprecise use of language such that words have one meaning here and another there without making a redefinition. In the evolution debate, the most important initial task is to establish a precise meaning for “evolution.” Hardly anybody has a problem with so-called microevolution, or the ability of organisms to change and adapt to environmental pressures. Recall the discussion about selective breeding. This is valid as an example of microevolution (although not of a non-directed, purposeless process, because intelligent design is all over it) but not of macroevolution.

8. Personal bias. This is so basic to human temperament that one has to take extra steps to avoid it. We all naturally want our beliefs to “check out,” to conform to reality. One must constantly guard against the temptation to put the best spin on the evidence or automatically accept outcomes that give one the desired outcome.