How to detect baloney the Carl Sagan way | Michael Shermer | Big Think
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 січ 2018
- How to detect baloney the Carl Sagan way
Watch the newest video from Big Think: bigth.ink/NewVideo
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive videos: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1995, just a few months before his death, astrophysicist Carl Sagan published The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. In that book, he wrote a chapter called 'The Fine Art of Baloney Detection', and from it sprang what skeptics call the 'baloney detection kit'. This is a set of tools for critical thinking that has continued to develop since Sagan's death, 22 years ago. Here, skeptic and science writer Michael Shermer explains key lessons from Sagan, and from his own college freshman course 'Skepticism 101', where teaches students ten basic questions that will help them debunk untruths, and call out baloney when they see it.
1. How reliable is the source of the claim?
2. Does the source make similar claims?
3. Have the claims been verified by somebody else?
4. Does this fit with the way the world works?
5. Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?
6. Where does the preponderance of evidence point?
7. Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?
8. Is the claimant providing positive evidence?
9. Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?
10. Are personal beliefs driving the claim?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SHERMER:
Dr. Michael Shermer is the Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine, a monthly columnist for Scientific American, and Presidential Fellow at Chapman University.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
Michael Shermer: Back in the late '90s we introduced the Baloney Detection Kit, inspired by Carl Sagan’s 'Demon-Haunted World' where he had a chapter on the Baloney Detection Kit. He had his set of questions; I kind of developed my own because I started encountering other people that disagreed with me, you know, “we never went to the moon” people, conspiracy people, whatever, and I thought okay so: How do we know-if I don’t know what’s coming down the pike in ten years from now, if I am going to teach my students how to think critically, what are the key points, like just basic questions they can ask?
So it begins with one: how reliable is the source of the claim? Here’s the claim, how reliable is it? What’s the evidence for it? What’s the quality of the evidence? Where does it come from? Who said that? Is this some fake news alternative site thing or is it the Wall Street Journal or The New York Times? I mean, the source really matters.
Has anyone tried to disprove the claim? This is super important because everybody thinks they’re right and every website has testimonials about this product or that idea; the question is not what do your supporters think but what do the people who don’t agree with you think? Because that’s what I want to know.
Has anyone run experiments to try to disprove your theory? In science, this is as basic as it gets. Karl Popper called this the principle of falsification, that is we can’t ever prove a theory correct, but we can disprove it by having an experiment that shows it’s wrong.
If you can’t falsify it, what are you really doing? And my favorite story on this, by the way-let me just have a little sidetrack here from Carl Sagan, he’s got this great little section in his book 'Demon-Haunted World': “There is a dragon in my garage. I have a dragon in my garage. Do you want to see it? Let me show you.” So I pull up the garage door I go, “Look. Can you see the dragon?” And you look in there and you go, “I don’t see anything.”
“Oh, sorry, this is an invisible dragon.”
“An invisible dragon?”
“Yeah, yeah he’s invisible.”
“Well, what if we put some flour on the ground and then we’ll get the footprints of the dragon.”
“Well, no, see, this is a special dragon that hovers above the ground, it floats. It’s an invisible floating dragon.”
“An invisible floating dragon. Okay. Wait, I have some infrared cameras here we can detect the heat of the dragon.”
”No, see this is a cold-blooded dragon. It doesn’t give off any heat.”
“What about the fire? We can detect the fire that the dragon spits out.”
“No, it spits out cold fire.”
You see the problem? If there’s no way for me to falsify that there’s a dragon there, what’s the difference between an invisible floating heatless dragon and no dragon at all? None.
And of course we can apply this to god or any other supernatural/paranormal-type phenomenon. If I can’t debunk it, if I can’t falsify it, if there’s no way to test it, then how will we ever know...
Read the full transcript at bigthink.com/videos/michael-s...
Want to get Smarter, Faster?
Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/GetSmarter
I would really love for Big Think editors to follow this "Baloney Detector" advice. Most of what is presented at Big Think is pretty good, but some need to go through this question set one more time.
Tesla referenced human energy 🌬👻jesus christ referenced living waters 💎👩🎓👨🎓science described water memory 🌊🎭psalms16:24 k,j proverbs27:19 existence psychologically god bless fight the good fight 💖👻💎💖👻💎👩🎓👨🎓🤍🗽💎⚖🌪🚬🌬
can we disprove solipsism? are we a boltzmann brain?
PFFT you obviously didn't have Oscar Mayer periodic tables. Bologium is an element I will not hear ANOTHER word
Yes, our school system should teach critical thinking, I liked the reference to the "Big Bang" that is now being questioned by science
I've been saying for over twenty years that critical thinking needs to be somewhere in the public school K-12 curriculum. Teaching kids HOW to think is, in my opinion, far more valuable than teaching them WHAT to think.
Obviously, teaching kids about their preferred pronouns is far more important, NYT called it 'exhilarating', and how can you argue against such a reliable source as that ?
@@newdefsys
yeah NYT and the people advocating for trans rights aren’t the ones arguing against critical thinking and an adherence to science there pal
@@shalizzle793 If that were true, then why is critical thinking absent in schools ?
The whole point of the school system is to detract people from thinking for themselves.
Most young kids don't have brains developed enough to think that deeply. You've got to be age 20 to 25 to start being smart enough to think like that.
My favorite Sagan quote (paraphrased) is that when he was asked to square religion with science his answer was essentially "I find that the older I get, the more tolerant of ambiguity I become. I simply don't have to know all the answers." If we all didn't insist on having to be right all the time about our beliefs, it would indeed be a kinder gentler world.
Somewhat like my thoughts. To use a Bob Dylan song title "I Used to Care, but Things have Changed". The 'big' questions about the universe and society are interesting, but I'll wait until the scientists and specialists sort it out. The small things are really nothing to worry about.
Carl Sagan
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: "If we have been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We are no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we have been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back”.
That’s the bamboozler’s confession.
Reminds me of the quote "It's easier to fool someone than convince them that they have been fooled." It's a weird, sad observation on group think in humans. I go around stating this fact: Capitalism is socially, environmentally and economically unsustainable. I challenge and welcome anyone to disprove it. None have been able to. Instead, seems like 9 out of 10 times I state the fact, I get upset, bamboozled people pointing fingers at me and at everything except the fact of the statement. They would rather try to defend their false understanding than accept the challenge or evidence and then go to the next step of asking follow up critical questions like: Since capitalism is unsustainable, what are the viable alternatives? How can we transition out of this?
That's what I'd like to see more of. Real critical thinking and critical discussion.
The bamboozler is mistaken.
Perfect example of this in the UK since the Brexit referendum.
Like bolson@ro supporters in Brasil
Sounds like the theory of Trump. The master bamboozler.
I was lucky enough to have a lecturer in Uni that often said; “Prove me wrong” & “Question everything”… basically teaching us these lessons. Those 2 comments have been more important in my life than all the theories and textbooks we had to study!
unfortunately this is also the approach of conspiratards ... it's all very well to be open-minded, just not so much that your brain falls out.
Then why is the big bang, evolution, and climate change taught in school?
@@janicebeams2389 Because it's based on information we have to date. In the future, as we discover new information, the theories could change.
@@bwenluck9812 Fake information. You don't have a future without Christ.
@@janicebeams2389 Those things are taught in school for one simple reason - scientists questioned them, and found out after questioning them that they couldn’t be disproven. While on the other hand, the competing hypotheses were disproven. Thus, we teach the best of knowledge that we know because we could verify it.
I grew up during the whole climate change thing when it was only known as global warming. Well, first it was known as climate change, then global warming, and now climate change again. But I heard all the arguments against it starting in the late 1970s and 1980s, through the 90s and 00s and 2010s, etc. The arguments against climate change always primarily came down to “but the prediction models disagree with each other!” True, they did. But they didn’t disagree about the trend, only about the specifics and about the exact timelines of those specifics. They all agreed that the trend was toward a warming global climate. The other primary arguments were that “the predictions were wrong!” True, but they were only wrong about the timeline and specific effects that they predicted - they were never wrong about _what_ they were predicting.
Furthermore, at no point during any of those preceding decades were there _any_ models that predicted a non-warming climate, nor that didn’t show a warming trend but were more accurate in all of their other predictions. Such models do not exist, and they don’t exist because the evidence doesn’t support that the climate isn’t warming, nor that the effects of that warming climate won’t be catastrophic and cost trillions of dollars of damage. It simply isn’t true that climate change isn’t true.
The best you can find are a handful of studies that show things like “there was no warming trend for the previous 17 years”. The problem with such a claim was hidden in its specificity. First off, that 17 years has long since passed now, and it didn’t remain true - the trend ended at that 17 year mark. Second, do you find it odd that it was a 17 year period? Why not a 15 year period? Why not a 10 year period? Why not a 20 year period? You never heard any of those claims that were cited with scientifically valid research or evidence. The only such claim that was ever supported by any scientifically valid evidence was that 17 year period. The reason it was 17 years is that there were a very specific set of 17 consecutive years in which the annualized warming trend was small enough to be categorized as “statistically insignificant” - meaning that you couldn’t differentiate it from noise, or pure chance using statistical math - the confidence interval wasn’t high enough based on the available sample sizes.
However, what you CAN do with those 17 years is look at the trend with your eyeballs and see that the temperature trend was still rising - just at too low a rate to be statistically significant. Another thing you could do is look at the years prior to those 17 years, in which case the temperature increase ceased to be statistically insignificant, and could be positively identified as not just noise and not just random chance. And after that 17 year period, you could do the same by including any of the years after that 17 year period, and also identify a statistically significant warming trend. As a matter of fact, if you chose _any_ group of years or _any_ length since the records have been kept, you would find that those 17 years are _the only set of sequential years_ in which the warming trend wasn’t quite at the level of statistical significance. It’s literally the only period of time since the post-world war industrial revolution where you couldn’t identify the warming trend with statistical significance.
So what do you call it when there’s only one very narrowly defined piece of evidence against the theory? It’s called cherry picking, and that’s what the anti-climate change side has always had to engage in (besides outright lying, bribery, or fraud) in order to cast doubt on the theory of climate change. There are ZERO anti-climate change models that more accurately predict what we’re seeing. They simply do not exist. If climate change weren’t an established scientific fact, then such models would exist, because science by its very nature is to prove that something isn’t true - it’s literally impossible to prove anything else, so all of science and scientific knowledge is the result of trying to prove every theory wrong until all you have left are theories you can’t prove wrong anymore and that reliably answer the most questions and accurately predict the most things that can be tested.
The same can be said about the big bang and about evolution, and there are myriad books written by thousands of scientists who’ve dedicated their entire lives to proving them wrong until they couldn’t prove them wrong anymore, and tens of thousands of research papers of all the work and all the details of how all of those people have tried and failed to prove them wrong, or to come up with a better fitting, testable theory for how reality actually works.
School isn’t about teaching beliefs. It’s about teaching what can be objectively proven, and learning how to discover what can’t be disproven but also accurately and reliably predicts as many things that are testable as possible.
It's all in Carl Sagan's book 'The Demon-Haunted World'. One of the best and informative books I've read.
I agree! I bought the book almost 20 years ago and have re-read it a number of times. Highly recommended.
Have never heard of it. Thanks for sharing!!!!👍😊
@@wildman2012 Same here bro. It's essential to keeping your perspective tight.
Exactly, he's so eloquent.
Love that book.
1. Reliability of source, Evidence, & Quality of evidence.
2. Has anyone tried to disprove the claim/theory; has it been tested or replicated?
3. Do personal beliefs influence the evidence? Is there an agenda?
4. Does the new idea being proposed account for the ideas of the old idea and the new anomalies?
5. Does the claimant play by the rules of science?
Keep in mind that the rules of science assume that a scientist cannot influence the outcome of an experiment, yet nothing in science explains human consciousness or has seriously questioned its ability to modify the environment. The history of scientific research is loaded with experienters unable to replicate studies of others until after a respected publication published the results. I'm of the opinion that once enough scientists are persuaded that antigravity is theoretically possible, an engineer will already have filed a patent on it, from his beach house on Mars.
P Schmied the experiment must be replicable and under the same circunstances, environment, variables, etc, you must be able to predict and therefore obtain the same results as the claiming scientist; before we got to the Moon , Newton's law predicted that gravity there sholud be 1/6th of Earth's gravity and this was verified on landing in lunar surface; another consecuence is that of the universality of natural laws; it's going to work here on Earth, there on Moon and everywhere in Cosmos
Thank you for the summary!
This comment should be pinned, thank you
I'm not so sure about the formulation of the last point on the list - more so of its spirit, though. I'd pe happier if those rules were explicitly stated, or else, everybody might assume his own set of rules.
Things were just as bad in Sagan's day. His own writings reveal this. He recalls a childhood experience of going to the library to find a book about the stars. The librarians gave him a volume on Hollywood Celebrities.
Well played 👏👏👏👏
He should have been more specific. Because Hollywood stars are just as real as interstellar stars. Sagan should have been aware some words have multiple meanings and different definitions.
@@MrT------5743 right but scientism deceivers always try to manipulate idiots into thinking their dogmas are not dogmas and the only valid view of things, a religious and very dangerous dogma
"We're all in this greenhouse together."~CS
"Demon Haunted World" changed my life it put the final nail in the coffin of my remaining religious beliefs.
I guess I've been doing this my whole life without realizing it. They didn't like all my questions in church when I was little and I could never figure out why I was the only one asking them.
Evilgelicals and RepubliCONs (a lot of overlap) don't like asking questions. You might find out the truth.
@@ryankibler7973 Demoncrat?
@@timnail844 independent but vote "liberal" and "progressive" just like Jesus
Awesome comment
You're not alone. I remember a Sunday school session where my fundamentalist teacher told the story of God creating Adam and Eve who begat Cain and Abel. Later Cain and Abel took wives and I got in trouble for asking "Wait a minute, where did the wives come from? There's nothing saying they were created!" I got thrown out of the room.
I teach at a local college, and it still blows me away how few of my students understand WHAT constitutes EVIDENCE (even after giving them the rules WITH correct & incorrect examples).
Surely the trick is to teach critical thinking, not necessarily “examples” but more “can you prove/disprove this?”
@@Showmetheevidence- What makes you think I don’t teach both?
Perhaps introduce them to the works of Edward De Bono and of the Meta Model...
@@brucesekulic5443 I already own 3 of his books.
You don't know the scientific method. Lots of things are taught as fact with no scientific support.
We need another Carl Sagan, and NOW.
The ill-educated, knuckle-dragging mouth breathers are taking over.
Both Sagan and Asimov warned us about the upcoming "culture of ignorance" but neither of them could ever imagine it would ever get so bad.
too bad there are too many culturally "trendy" idiots like ben shapiro who would happily "debunk" scientists like neil degrasse tyson.
this is beyond a culture of ignorance. this is the age of regression.
I agree I think the rise of atheism has led us back to the dark ages
Rick Smith why would you think that? Atheism has been growing because of more skepticism and critical thinking. If anything atheism is a sign of improvement compared to credulous citizens.
Someone detected the baloney about Micheal Mann's hockey stick graph: ua-cam.com/video/8BQpciw8suk/v-deo.html
gabe why do you assume the growth of atheism is due to skepticism?
Carl Sagan was just one of those legendary scientists. I doubt if our grandchildren's grandchildren won't hear about him. Baloney test indeed! It sort of sounds like what I know of as 'Empirical Method'. Every theory is valid until it is disproved. Many unsuccessful attempts to disprove a theory may give a consensus of accuracy but an innovative experiment may still topple a beloved and long-standing theory.
what realy made carl a great man was simple, he told the truth..
@@8repeels8 Um, so...if a person tells you something is happening in your living room and you look into your living room and see the thing happening just as you were told, did that person not tell you the truth?
I mean, of course people can tell the truth, people tell the truth all the time. What people can't do is make other people accept that what they were told is true.
@@Dwayne_Bearup umm. If I trust the source of the condition of my, um, living room, um, assuming I have a living, um, room,um, then um then um then um... Then I don't have to look on my living room. Um. That is, umm, the whole point of being able to trust 3rd party sources...... Um.
@@8repeels8 Hahaaa, nice, post a comment stating nobody tells the truth, then delete the comment after someone replies to it so you can respond to that comment with nonsense in an effort to make yourself look like less of an idiot. (It didn't work, but A for effort.)
@@Dwayne_Bearup I owe you something?
@@Dwayne_Bearup why are there so many people like you? Who are you arguing with? Why? Later I'll delete this to forget that I ever had this convo.
Sagan’s Demon Haunted World is my favourite and possibly the greatest book ever written.
Wow, so many people got hooked on the Wall Street Journal comment that they didn't bother listening to the rest of the video or even understand what the comment meant :S He didn't say "Believe the Wall Street Journal", he was saying "The Source Matters" & then goes on to ask questions like, "Would this source have an agenda?", "Is there a way to verify the claims independently?". He teaches a skepticism course for gods sake! And to those crying "fake news", there's a world of difference between "fake news" (false claims) & bad journalism (most journalism). Most of us have been aware of the inadequacies of journalism for donkey's years. If your old enough not to be a millennial & it's a new concept to you, then "fake news" isn't your biggest problem.
p00ky76 all "news" real or fake is designed to get at peoples emotions. Its social control. It works on groups as small as the "flat earthers to the 2+ billion Christians. Its been used throughout human history. Edward Bernays perfected it.
They lack critical thinking it’s okay don’t help them focus on science and become better
Here's why it's important. He's supposed to be explaining methods to detect "bologna", but he thinks the WSJ and NY Times are legit sources. I mean, it's just contradictory. It's like getting work out advice from someone who looks like a marshmallow or diet advice from an obese person. Like having a man with 3 missing fingers teach you how to use a circular saw. You get the gist.
JustAGuy that’s just your bias
"FOX news has an agenda... and maybe there's some on the left with an agenda... um... um... maybe NPR?"
LOL! We all have blind spots, do the best you can to eliminate them.
Everyone complaining about the examples he used are missing the point. He wasn't saying the WSJ or NYT are the most reliable sources he was comparing them to no name blogs, conspiracy sites, and others that don't have the same level of scrutiny and accountability. No, I do not trust the WSJ 100% of the time but given the choice between them and a random UA-camr the choice is pretty simple.
Those commenters show up to every Big Think video--en masse--like they're part of a newsletter. I wouldn't put too much stock in them.
Overdose yes, you choose the youtuber and see if his thinking and facts are rigorous. Easier to do it with a youtuber than any popular journal, since those are kinda screwy with their sources, oftentimes provide none at all, while youtubers tend to at least mention a name or show the source on screen.
i trust styxhexenhammer666 over any american msm channel
Right here are some of the issues discussed. People take some of the problems of mainstream media and extrapolated them to extreme proportions. Instead of being more skeptical the narrative has become "all msm is biased, corrupt, and nothing can be trusted." A silly conclusion to reach, but gets reinforced by following only those you want to believe like the UA-camr mentioned by Richard Siegers. That channel promotes easily debunked ideas, but because people have developed such distrust for anything mainstream they are more susceptible to misleading information.
Once someone has lied to you tend to distrust them. When they lie to you every time they speak, you tend to disassociate with them entirely. MSM lies continuously. Whether it be blatant, phrasing, context, ignoring large parts of topics, or constructing false narratives to fill their production and attract your attention.
Sagan, Randi, even Carlin were all great bullshit detectors and I miss all of them even though Randi is still alive but ill.
THe Great Randi will be sorely missed when he is gone. I had hoped to make his personal acquaintance some day. Sadly it doesn't look promising.
Ahhhh Carlin. The big circle jerk that runs the world
😀
Carl Sagan was so brilliant for coming up with his baloney detection kit. among his many brilliant achievements.
A very good way to spot conspiracies is to ask "how many people would have to keep silent if the theory is real?".
The more people the less likely to be real it is.
It's not like conspiracies are all garbage, some elements of truth might be lurking in there, though most of the stuff is made up most of the time.
yes i ask them where all the whistle blowers are!
Another good question is "How does the individual benefit by believing it?" I'm willing to "believe" god is real if the benefit is that I won't get burned at the stake by the Inquisition. I'm willing to believe a man who barely knew one end of a gun from the other made not one but two (and possibly three) incredibly difficult shots that killed the president of the United States IF the benefit is that I think I can trust my government to always tell me the truth.
A conspiracy only requires cooperation, not a factual basis or legitimate purpose. There's a conspiracy in Washington DC to keep American voters believing that they have a representative government.
Sheldon Robertson the entire reason you know about that is because someone didn't keep quiet. Thanks for providing Bold Chocolate Man a perfect example that proves his point.
Myself and thousands of other employees working at corporation XYZ agree to keep company secrets under threat of some sort of punishment. Myself and the others agree telling the secret isn't worth losing a decent paycheck, so we agree to keep quiet about it.
Conspiracies (for certain definitions) can get bigger than people like to imagine with good enough incentives and punishments in place.
"Broca's Brain", by Carl, was one of the most inspirational books I ever read, back in the day,,,,the insights and concepts within this book have never faded all these decades later.
Carl, and others, taught me the difference between "smart" and "wise"...he was both, and very rare among those as, "celebrity experts". Most in that category are smart, but only a tiny fragment are wise.
Richard Feynman, ranks up there with Carl....both of these men, not only were expert in their fields, but pure genius in teaching others how to achieve "critical thinking" skills.
Don't confuse performance ability with genius. Don't believe that "smart" and "clever" are related, or that either is a prerequisite for wisdom. There are "bil-yuns" of people wise enough to distrust scientists who don't consider negative consequences before searching for "truth", but not smart enough to know when they are lied to.
@@psdaengr911 Far too late this response, but for all the kids still watching, I have to bite.
What is genius without performance? Is a genius mind that sits idle truly a genius?
Smart and clever are related, but they may not exist 1:1. A smart person knows things, a clever person thinks things. What does a wise person do? I bet you can't define it without including those terms. Sure, a wise person adds philosophy, but that's just smart. He can apply it to situations in profound ways, that's just clever.
I think your distortion of these terms invalidates your conclusion. What is a negative consequence that can result from searching for truth? Isn't that just a matter of perspective? I don't see how that has anything to do with smart, clever, or wisdom.
Scientists do not need to know if they are being lied to or not. The scientific method eliminates bias by means of providing the opportunity to test ideas and to cross-examine and retest. If it's real science, it can be proven wrong by the scientific method, or found to hold up against scrutiny. Your last sentence attempts to discredit science by completely mischaracterizing the scientist, and doesn't even touch on science itself. That is neither wise, smart, nor clever.
Great video, thank you! I do take issue with comparing Fox with NPR though.
Or perhaps NPR to Fox.
I did an actual fucking double take when he said that LMFAO
Well NPR is definitely not progressive friendly...
Open your eyes
I agree, it’s a false equivalency. Politically NPR is center center left; Fox is right far right and frequently lies and misinforms.
"Every blockhead is thoroughly persuaded that he is in the right, and every one who is all too firmly persuaded is a blockhead, and the more erroneous is his judgment the greater is the tenacity with which he holds it.", Mark Twain.
yea I believe or understandit to mean their pride gets in the way, we all have a ego problem me included and it can be difficult to humble ourselves and be modest (recognize ourlimitations). that takes cultivation.
This is a very underrated topic. We now live in a world where nothing is considered to be true but just an opinion, e.g. flatearth. Critical thinking is not something that should taken optionally at the collegic level, but mandatory in junior high.
Did you use critical thinking during the Covid scare and take the jab, wear two masks and get a booster?
The consequences of which are, what is now termed Sudden Adult Death Syndrome... look it up.
I agree. Critical thinking is the most important skill to possess for any lifelong learner. Critical thinkers are nearly impossible to control, because they know how to question everything and find facts, follow logic and reason.
I would agree Critical Thinking should be a required class in Junior High. I know it is an option in some Junior Highs, and while I have reasons why I think it should be mandatory, just like PE should be for up to Grade 12, because of the clear evidence of the benefits of movement and exercise for thinking and growth - I also know why that expectation is very hard to follow through with.
The public school system is mostly set up to create obedient workers, and not real critical thinkers. Public education, like healthcare, badly underfunded and supported to make everybody stressed and juggling behaviour and severe learning challenges before they can even hope to focus on critical thinking.
So, I would like to see progress on this. But those who DO choose to be critical thinkers, I would say, maybe be bold and start the class with this statement:
"Capitalism is socially, environmentally and economically unsustainable." Work on understanding and trying to disprove this statement. Possibly one of the most important critical thinking exercises of our time.
Flat Earth is actually one of the pinnacles of skepticism. I've lived in the west coast of America all my life, so from my perspective, I can't really say that anything but California exists. I haven't really been anywhere outside of California, so I can't say with absolute certainty that anything outside of the the state really exists. Well, that and everything between where I live and Las Vegas. Other than that, the rest of the world really could be one big conspiracy that doesn't exist, and I might really be living on a flat world since I've never circled the planet.
Now before you say I am an ignorant flat Earther...I do have a STEM degree in computer engineering. So I know quite a bit about how the world works. Just saying that unless I see something with my own two eye balls, it could be real, or it could be all made up. Just because I see something on tv, the internet, books, etc, etc, does not guarantee that it is true, regardless of how prestigious the source is.(I am not a flat Earther btw, just saying there is some merit to their arguments from a "what is reality, really?" perspective.)
The New York Times as a reliable source?
@@TyrianHaze the funny thing is you say you 'NEED to see with your own two eyeballs otherwise it could be false or fake'.. Human senses are not a very reliable source and if you have a degree in STEM, you should already know that. Trusting in your eyes only is a bad way to be scientific. Scientists make reliable tools that take the unreliability out of human senses out of the equation.
Going back to your example of nothing outside of California exists cause You have not seen it....What about good trusted friends of yours. If they all independently state they all left California and has pictures and accurate maps of other places and hundreds or millions of others can state the same, then at some point you not seeing it for yourself becomes a moot point.
Bottom line, no one person has first hand knowledge of all of humanity information. It is a process of building on previous breakthroughs and continuing the pursuit of further knowledge.
Please watch pale blue dot by Carl Sagan
Mihir Sawant beautiful
I am 70 and a hard-bitten old cynic. Pale Blue Dot is the first thing that has really moved me for years. Great loss. Just imagine what the planet would be like if we were all like him.
You mean 'read'?
MizaT11 ua-cam.com/video/W5c59qUUnAY/v-deo.html
The quote comes from the book of the same name.
Appreciate the quick critical thinking revision course. I always try to apply a healthy dose of skepticism (especially when someone wants my money or my vote). One important exception though, human experience usually cannot be proved, tested or measured. A family member of mine was an amputee who experienced 'phantom limb pain' and asked what could be done to address it. The doctor could have said 'I can prove to you that I amputated that limb one month ago. What proof can you offer that it hurts?' Nowadays, maybe an MRI or brain scan could 'prove' the experience of pain, but for centuries before, no proof could be offered. We were grateful to the doctors who used the scientific method to devise 'mirror therapy' for phantom limb pain. This therapy can drastically reduce the need for pain medication. Just an example of an exception.
very good
The video literally says there's no way to apply skepticism to personal experiences
That mirror techniques as far as I'm aware worked once & could not be repeated.
Since you are already very skeptical of people wanting money, I wonder if you've gone a step further to question the system itself? How about capitalism? Is there any evidence that capitalism is healthy and sustainable? Are most people sitting pretty, with no debt and no need to have their labor exploited for the profit of a small group of owners? Is poverty eliminated because it's been technically possible to do that for decades? Is war profitable? Is that an incentive of capitalism? Ask the big questions about the system. Find the data. Are life support systems on Earth in decline or ascent? Are there incentives in capitalism to treat the world's resources like a "Going Out of Business Sale"?
Then, once those critical questions have been asked and pursued. What are the logical alternative systems to capitalism we could adopt? What transition methods could we use?
I'd like to see that kind of critical thinking take place more in schools and public discourse, in general.
The invisible, floating, cold hearted dragon in my garage turned out to be Jeff Bezos selling newspapers.
Carl Sagan- my favourite person. Everyone's favourite person.
Pranay Ramesh Probably Carl Sagan was Carl Sagan's favorite person
my favorite corpse. newton 2nd. jesus 3rd
nah he was just the mikius kaku and neil degrasse of his era. the popularist propaganda pusher for pseudoscience.
notaras1985
What do you mean by "Pseudo-science" of Carl Sagan. Which topic of his do you disagree?
notaras1985
off yourself
One of the most profound author’s most profound works. I bought a hard
Back when it came out and afterwards gave copies as gifts.
Should have given me one.
Utterly fresh and necessary in 2021! Thank you.
My parents also has an enormous invincible invisible dragon. I’m possessed, for not believing all of the sudden, thank you for making me feel sane
I came back to view the video again and noticed Carl Sagan was holding mortadella, that’s high-quality baloney.
Carl Sagan was brilliant, probably one of the most intelligent mind's in recent times. he was a great source of inspiration to me, he is greatly missed.
He had away with words.
@@MrFossil367ab45gfyth Yes, I guess if I could understand so well what he said, then yes he definitely had a way with words.
Carl Sagan was delusional, though he did have a soothing voice good for putting you to sleep.
@@janicebeams2389 Your a moron, Carl Sagan was one of the most brilliant scientists we have ever had. you say that because you are delusional.
The ignorance in this one thread is unsettling. Plurals don't take an apostrophe, one mind two minds.
Mr. F. did away with words for they didn't suit him and won't take a hint.
Carl had a nice voice, yes but he spoke in simple terms anyone could understand and if you didn't, you just weren't paying attention.
Janice embraces her ignorance like a warm pillow, and spits out a gem while falling. He was delusional, he thought humanity was worth saving.
Hey Elon You call that a rocket?
Rockets don't land like that, it's fake!
The film is reversed!
Thanks for a clear outline of the issue
Right on. Thanks for sharing.
I love people that think that you can make a machine that makes energy from nothing. It makes me smile every time.
YES! Demon Haunted World is my favorite book. It should be required reading in High School for critical thinking.
If everyone had a boloney detection kit, there would be no fake news, it wouldn't spread to begin with.
Another book you might like is "You Know What They Say" which debunks numerous items of conventional wisdom.
I think that is too optimistic. Some ideas simply don't yield to the instruments of critical thinking.
It’s nice to think that would be the case…. but it’s so disappointing to see that professionals who may apply this thinking in their professional lives, when they leave the office in the evening for personal life as a regular citizen may completely abandon it. They may turn on the evening news and watch it slack jawed and drooling and believing just like everyone else.
29 /11 22 You get tell tale whiffs of it - given off by BS. Sometimes you can play a game countering by returning your own whiffs. You can double your advantage by manoeuvreing upwind of your opponent !
I've been teaching students to ask these questions and find answers in freshman composition courses for 25+ years.
These are things that need to be taught starting in primary school not late in college.
@@maythesciencebewithyou I agree. Critical thinking skills can be levelled down and up for each age group starting around 5 when kids are FULL of profound, curious, important questions. Unfortunately, our economic system crushes people's curiosity and critical thinking skills with poverty, crime, fear and debt, so that families are stressed, kids get stressed, so are teachers and staff. It's an unsustainable, unhealthy system. That should be the big critical question: Why are we still living in an unhealthy, unjust, unsustainable system of monetary-market capitalism? And why don't we stand up, together, to demand a change?
I read the Carl's Sagan book back in the early 2000, my University had every single book ever written by him, I must have read all plus I remember finding the book who gave birth to the TV series "Cosmos" the Jacob Bronowski's "The Ascent of man" (both had the same producer actually, and the influence of Bronowski style of presentation is clearly visible in Sagan's work.
Humes fork goes something like: it’s either a falsifiable matter-of-fact; or self-referencing assertions, any of which have dubious connection to physical evidence. In both cases you are forked.
Love what you're saying. Trouble is, we live in a world where ego Trumps caring for humanity.
I see what you did there.
Thanks Michael.
This is what we need today instead of pre judging issues!
Ultimately though unless you know a lot of stuff about a lot of different subjects you will always be up for grabs by the delusional or dishonest.
No way around that, so get studying. Learn the key points of the base fields, such as biology, chemistry, physics etc. And then go from there. You will start to notice when something doesn't fit in with the larger picture. And that's when you need to take a closer look and search for other sources confirming the information.
Thank you for this helpful video :) We needed this cause a lot of people fall to a lot of scams like cults/religion/gods without evidence
You forgot the biggest scam: SCIENTISM
Scientism is a cult where stupid people, damaged by catholicism or derivatives into hating anything non material, do the same thing they learned in catholicism and derivatives while thinking it's the opposite
It's amazing how the invisible and non existent are indistinguishable.
Yep. Thank you for that.
Carl Sagan - Um homem com clareza de mente e de espírito. E ficará na memória de muita gente, pelas suas conferências, livros e vídeos: - Fez-nos pensar que o que estava "longe" afinal está mais perto e o que estava "perto", afinal estava longe!....Um despertar de consciências.
These baloney detection courses should start when the first year of school starts and last into the years that you teach at the very least.
First they teach you to pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth.
This is what I want for Christmas!
0:37 baloney detection kit key questions
1. Reliability: How reliable is the source of the claim? What is the evidence for the claim and what is its quality? Who made the claim?
2. Falsification: Has anyone tried to disprove the claim? This is the core of the kit.
3. Agenda: Does the claimant’s personal beliefs come into play?
4. Explainability: Does the new idea improve on the explanatory ability of the old idea?
5. Does the claimant play by the rules of field, e.g., science?
Michael Shermer discussing Carl Sagan.....makes for a good video!
I must have read Demon haunted world twice now. I suspect I'll continue to extrapolate even more wisps of wisdom form Carl. Thank you Carl for being alive in my lifetime! You'll continue to live on by all of those whom understand just what critical thinking is all about!
Much needed in 2021 !
This video was therapy for me!
Great points there, I wish that they taught it in every school and college. It would lower the amount of insane ideas going around I should think.
Mmmmm - not sure about that- often things are taught in school but kids just don't listen or ignore what's being taught.
They don't teach it because they want you to believe guys like these, not question them.
THIS IS GOLD!!
THANK YOU @Lyra Serpentine. I felt inspired to add/mod your list.
1. Historical reliability of the source, is there evidence, & what is the quality of evidence?
- To what extent do personal beliefs/ business interests influence the evidence that they are offering you? To the best of your ability, what is their agenda, or reason for providing you with this information in the first place?
- So when examining info from source XYZ, as honestly as you can, consider that source's potential influences and biases. Who owns the organization? Will this story, or the way it is framed, affect their wallet size? Why might they want you to know or believe this versus a different angle or story altogether? Who actually is most likely to benefit in the short, medium, and long term? Most mainstream media outlets are no longer news, so it's probably best, in general, to concentrate on more independent sources that take true journalism seriously, rather than opinion or outright dog-bologna masquerading as "fact-based news". However, the MSM (and some indies) can often be useful training tools on how to spot glaring examples of agenda-loaded, strategically-framed, thinly-guised propaganda, helping us to learn how to spot BS, and to separate the ‘more-likely-2B-bologna” from the “less-likely-2B-bologna”.
2. Has anyone tried to disprove the claim/theory; has it been tested or replicated?
3. Does the new idea being proposed account for the ideas of the old idea and the new anomalies?
4. Does the claimant play by the rules of science? Or is it based mostly on belief? Dogma? Fear? Speculation? Deference to authority? Dramatic presentation style designed to trigger your emotional response, which by default reduces your rational capacities in the momnent (e.g. Is there menacing music playing?, explosions,?, loud and forceful voices? facial expressions and body language that stoke fear or intimidation? Ridicule, mocking and name-calling inserted vigorously into the “factual information” presented?...
Beautiful tie!
I tried out my new baloney detector. It worked! It was in the fridge all along!
Cool
What a coincidence - I have a floating cold blooded dragon in my shed, too.
Must be a juvenile. It will get bigger as it ages and then move into your garage.
That's my dragon, you stole it!
Great info. We need to use this on everything we believe today. Great idea.
“Play by the rules” is NOT the same thing as “experience or expertise”. Expertise is related to foundational knowledge. “Playing by the rules” refers to an adherence to conventional wisdom or methods in the field.
But you can be an expert who “breaks the rules”. In fact, almost all progress in any field was made by people who “broke the rules”- but just breaking them isn’t sufficient - foundational knowledge is essential for understanding if and when “breaking the rules” (ie taking an unorthodox approach to a problem or trying to prove something that seems counterintuitive) makes sense.
Michael Shermer is awesome! I just watched him today on the Joe Rogan podcast and it is well worth a view. thanks for posting.
Shammer. Fixed it for ya.
Wish my dad could see this. He told me that people can be raised from the dead... because he “saw it” on UA-cam. 🤦🏼♀️ Wish I was making this up but nope, he’s new to the internet and has fallen down the rabbithole.
Depends on your definition of “dead”. 🤔😂😳
Fantastic Applications of Carl Sagan 👍🏻
I saw him speak years ago, brilliant man.
I recall asking about a replacement for a tire on my bike. (When I was in college) I asked for a Dunlop tire to replace what I had bought several times before. I was told they weren't sold there because of the low quality they afforded. I asked why they had sold me those in the past then. They said the quality had gone down slowly and had not recognized it. It sounded remarkably like the description that Michael Shermer gave of the dragon. First he's in the garage. Then he's invisible. Then he hovers just over the ground so he won't leave footprints! Later I worked at that same store - it was a load of old crap.
You took a job in a business you considered dishonest? Says more about you than anything else.
@@duderama6750 all businesses are dishonest, to some degree you have to work somewhere to get money to eat.
The source of the claim *never* matters. Carl Sagan would have been the very first person to call that out as having no place in science. ALL that ever matters - ever - is the evidence.
I think he means that if you go into a flat earth discord server, you ought to be more skeptical than going into a neutral server because it's likely the flat earth guys have an agenda. They're likely not going for truth - they're going to talk about and link things that only point to their beliefs.
Counterpoint: if Big Gas funds research that claims that gas wells don't leak much methane, one might double check it.
If Syracuse University funds research that claims that Orangutan enjoy oranges, I might accept that without a fuss.
But ultimately you are correct, nature decides.
The quality of the source matters a lot in saving time. Or are you saying we all need to dive into every rabbit hole we encounter? Cause if you do, none of us would ever make it as far as the mailbox on any given day.
@@bjornlangoren3002 "We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from about our mysterious and lovely solar system, and the history of our study of the solar system shows clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong; and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources." -- Carl Sagan, Cosmos
@@Tinfoilnation That does not in any way support your claim that the source of a claim never matters. As a matter of practicality we have to take almost every claim at face value based entirely on the quality of the source and a bit of our own experience and rational thought. A very tiny portion of the population get the chance, time, or resources to challenge conventional wisdom, established science, or even what they read in the news. It is absolutely crucial to forge new paths, but if we did not accept any fact as given or trust any source, not even Einstein would have come up with any worthwhile discoveries.
Your sportcoat, shirt, and necktie make me want to run to the closest haberdasher. That is a very dapper look. The information was also wonderful.
“The negative judgment is the height of mentality.” - Alfred Korzybski
I think that statement is true, and I think falsifiability and willingness to change your mind are essential for realizing you are wrong.
Might have to send conspiracy theorists here, it says things I would struggle to put into the right words...
Noticed your SKEPTIC pin. I need one that says GULLIBLE! I tend to believe anything for which i observe the slightest scrap of evidence. For instance, if i were to experience any evidence for the existence of a god i would likely and overnight become the most pious and devoutly religious person in Virginia Beach. Yet here i sit waiting
Jeff Jones Evidence that good exists? Don't hold your breath....
If you wait for evidence, that makes you a skeptic. Gullibility is what faith requires.
It depends on what you are willing to accept as evidence and how you define god. If you accept that the universe had a beginning as virtually every scientist does, and you believe that everything that happens on a galactic scale has a cause as very scientist does, It's easy. Call the cause, "god". There is only a problem when the cause is anthropomorphized and religion replaces reason. If you can accept that "god" might not be aware of our universe, that humans exist, let alone are significant in any way, then there is no problem accepting "god" as a theory.
Here is something for you to consider. Can you think of something that cannot be thought of? If not can you think of something that does not exist?..
I read one of your great books. Thanks.
Does anyone else enjoy the irony of the fact that one of the best opportunities for using this “baloney detection” method is to look at the ad(s) that typically run following this video on UA-cam?
I feel so refreshed by these types of videos as now more than ever we hear such conspiracy and primitive thinking
You can’t be serious. Sure, there are some ridiculous conspiracy theories and there always have been. But you’re aware that almost all of the information deemed conspiracy by the establishment only turns out to be 100% correct a few weeks, months, years later? You get that now, right? The last 2 years would be enough to wake up even the most hypnotized sheep. You understand that the establishment narrative is almost 100% the opposite of the truth, right?
Can someone explain how his first point would not fall under "fallacy of origins"?
His point was the quality of the source. When multiple generally reliable or ONE VERY reliable source is reporting something the likelihood is much higher that the claim is true.
Love this
I propose an additional question: "Does this new claim contradict well established information?" If it does, then you should be skeptical of it unless a lot of research subsequently supports it. For example, it is well established that most instances of kidnapping children involve a parent or guardian. If someone tells you or you see a study or article claiming "new research shows most kidnapping cases are perpetrated by strangers who first saw them earlier that day", then you should initially disbelieve it unless there is a lot if subsequent studies concluding the same.
A related question is: "If there is a proposed mechanism to explain something, does it contradict the laws of physics or well established knowledge?" There are a lot of scams that promise things you want to be true. And these scams will propose a reason why this thing works in order to sound plausible, but the proposed explanation contradicts well known facts. For example, there are scam adds on the internet that target young men who are incels. These adds promise to teach them how to get any attractive girl to date or even have sex with them. There's usually no explanation for how this could be possible but you can infer that the method has to somehow override any girl's freewill, and bypass the fact that she doesn't want to be near an out of shape, broke, uncharismatic guy. Furthermore, it's well understood that everyone is different and has different tolerances for pain, different responses to exercise, sun exposure, entertainment, food (i.e. there are people with high metabolisms that can eat a lot and stay thin), progresses at a different rate during the same training, etc. The idea that "one simple trick" can reliably work on any girl, regardless of her background or demographic, or personal characteristics, contradicts everything we know about human diversity.
Kinda sounds like the scientific method.
Over 40 years ago I took an introductory Marxism class and came away with the idea that the term "liberal" would not qualify as a political left designation. For me liberal meant freedom and such. It also meant advocates of the welfare state as opposed to outright fascism or crippling capitalist social structures.
Then Fox TV became an obvious political tool for Republican party which has gravitated to truly right-wing politics of the most vulgar sort. So today I look back at what I call "Bulger Marxism" in the political left and wonder how someone can call NPR "left." But that's the way it is these days. It seems that Manichaeism, a dualistic worldview, has become part of her political consciousness.
What's important, though, is that we don't lose sight of objectivity as it applies to science and evidence-based facts. I expect right-wing nut cases to label science they disagree with as "liberal" or left-wing. This is not to say that science cannot be used to serve right or left-wing agendas, but at its core it is objective and that it is falsifiable and can be replicated.
But marxism and objectivity have nothing in common
Amazing
Well I disagree with the false equivocation of NPR and Fox News.
I do appreciate everything else to say. Thank you Michael. I've definitely appreciate everything that you've taught me over the years.. Being logical was a book that changed my life.
I love how Shermer defers to experts instead is pretending to be an expert in everything.
"Baloney"?
Nonsense , horseshit , crazytalk , bullshit , woo-woo , bollocs , crap
Bologna
You detect it by whether or not it curls up around the edges when you fry it.
Beautiful.
Now, if only Michael Schermer was even a fraction of the honest man that Sagan was, then this would be great.
It's the whackos that everbody thinks aren't whacko that are the problem in science.
My top pick for a person who has a permanent setting which just says "No," no matter what the question.
Thank you so much for such a great video. Can you recommend some non-fictions? I am done with The Demon-haunted World. What to read next?
"The Scientific Attitude" by Lee McIntyre;
"Touching a Nerve" by Patricia Churchland;
"Evolving Brains, Emerging Gods" by E. Fuller Torrey;
"The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins;
"The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins;
"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins;
"God is not Great" by Christopher Hitchens
That should get you started. 😊✌️
NPR is a liberal news source? I feel like they do a good job at being unbiased.
just a bit.. but they work to be legit his point is SOME belive in the left bias
I watch Fox News and feel they do a good job at being unbiased. If I listened to NPR half the time and you watched Fox News half the time we could probably agree that both are biased and support our own biased views.
"We have members from all over the globe" - The Flat Earth Society
Carl Sagan holding a slice of bologna is the picture that just made me want to use gifs
As Carl Sagan said, Big Bang, Dark Matter, Black Holes and Dark Energy are interesting hypothesis, but not anything more than that. As an astrophysicist I agree completely.
That invisible levitating, cold blooded dragon that spots cold fire reminds me of God.
"The values of science and the values of democracy are concordant, in many cases indistinguishable. Science and democracy began - in their civilized incarnations - in the same time and place, Greece in the seventh and sixth centuries BC. Science confers power on anyone who takes the trouble to learn it (although too many have been systematically prevented from doing so). Science thrives on, indeed requires, the free exchange of ideas; its values are antithetical to secrecy. Science holds to no special vantage points or privileged positions. Both science and democracy encourage unconventional opinions and vigorous debate. Both demand adequate reason, coherent argument, rigorous standards of evidence and honesty. Science is a way to call the bluff of those who only pretend to knowledge. It is a bulwark against mysticism, against superstition, against religion misapplied to where it has no business being. If we're true to its values, it can tell us when we're being lied to. It provides a mid-course correction to our mistakes. The more widespread its language, rules and methods, the better chance we have of preserving what Thomas Jefferson and his colleagues had in mind. But democracy can also be subverted more thoroughly through the products of science than any pre-industrial demagogue ever dreamed." ~CS
The quote is a perfect illustration of the false expertise syndrome, where an authority in one subject assumes that makes him a universal expert. Its revisionist history written by someone who didn't study it. Greece in the seventh and sixth centuries BC was not a democracy. Slavery was a common practice. During that period Greek governance wasn't static. It varied between a tyranny, an oligarchy, and a plutocracy. Sometimes consideration was given to opinions within the power groups but NOT democratically in any modorrn sense of the word..
Democracy is a theoretical form of government that has NEVER existed beyond small tribes and villages, and not for long because it does not work.
If a society were an actual democracy, its values would the those of all the people, with equal weight given to the opinions and belief of the lease well informed and educated and the most expert and knowledgeable. Assuming that the values of such a society would be "concordant" with anything that you would find reasonable and acceptable is ridiculous.
AMAZING.
That is a picture of Mortadella. Good content thanks.