Michael Shermer once said that there's a lot of baloney out there and to detect it we need a kit. That kit is usually called science.
This is the 5th part in my series on tracking down pseudoscience. Here are the previous posts in this series:
1. How Reliable is Your Source
2. Tracking Down Pseudoscience - Part 2
3. Tracking Down Pseudoscience - Part 3
4. Tracking Down Pseudoscience - Part 4
Generic Introduction
For those wanting to become educated in critical thinking, for those who want to be able to spot the baloney and the potential intentions towards deception in other people's claims and arguments, and for people who are interested in solid reasoning, Carl Sagan and Michael Shermer propose their baloney detection kit, a set of questions that one should ask when in doubt.
Today I'm going to focus on questions 8 and 9 from the baloney detection kit, leaving the remaining questions for future posts in this series.
Baloney Detection - Points 8 and 9
Question 8 - Is the claimant providing an explanation for the observed phenomena or merely denying the existing explanation?
As I wrote previously:
"A strategy that is often employed by many when debating is to criticize opposition instead of providing strong support for their beliefs."
Let me reformulate an example of Michael Shermer to provide context for this question. Hard core creationists cannot explain how life emerged on Earth; they only maintain that 'God did it!'.
Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against religion of any kind. Each one of us has the right to hold any beliefs we desire. Problems arise when non-scientific arguments are pushed as if they were supported by science.
One step further from hard-core creationists are those who support an Intelligent Design theory. As Michael Shermer says, they are no better as they try to cherry-pick weaknesses in science theories - parts of theories that have yet to be found explanations for but which may eventually be elucidated.
Some supporters of intelligent design are scientists with great track records in their careers. It is of wonder to me how they can isolate their 'creationists' (often reductionist) beliefs from their 'scientific' thinking. But we know from behavioral psychology that people have no trouble maintaining dissonant thoughts in their minds.
You may find yourself in a very tricky position when exposed to such arguments. You tend to offer credibility to a person's erroneous beliefs just because they have proven themselves good thinkers in other domains of life.
My suggestion is to stay away from a fixated impression you have of a person just because they have been good at something. Take every argument into its appropriate context and be ready to update your opinion of someone when necessary. Since this is against our natural tendencies, you have to understand it takes effort to spot and act upon when in such a situation.
Question 9 - If the claimant proffers a new explanation, does it account for as many phenomena as the old explanation did?
Science and the scientific method are not without flaws; and they do not purpose to be. Arguments and theories may often be incomplete or inconsistent. Scientific arguments are always up for updates (think Bayesian) as good evidence becomes available.
So, anomalies and inconsistencies may be part of good science theories - like the theory of evolution for example. Scientists do not refrain from acknowledging that. However, pseudoscientists, quacks and people who want to deceive you will focus on such inconsistencies by taking them out of context, twisting them to fabricate new and often 'innovative' arguments. You can often hear claims like:
"Newton was wrong!
Darwin was wrong!
Einstein was wrong!
And I am right! My new theory explains the world."
When you face someone making such claims, ask them:
Well, if your theory holds true and if you're right about the barely existent inconsistencies in Einstein's theory, can your theory explain everything else that Einstein's theory explain and for which we have undeniable evidence? (i.e. general relativity)
"According to general relativity, objects in a gravitational field behave similarly to objects within an accelerating enclosure. For example, an observer will see a ball fall the same way in a rocket (left) as it does on Earth (right), provided that the acceleration of the rocket is equal to 9.8 m/s2 (the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the Earth)." [source]
I suspect that they will not be able to do so...
But are you skillful enough to know and to ask such a question?
Ending thoughts
Can you see how difficult it may be not to fall victim to deception and quackery?!
It may be even more difficult to spot a quack/charlatan; often they repeat to themselves their fabrications of reality until they cannot make a distinction between fact and fantasy - thus appearing more genuine.
More dangerous than a quack is a self-absorbed quack...
You need solid critical thinking skills to stay away from deceptions of this kind. Thus, I remind you once again, train yourself in cognitive fallacies, irrationality, and behavioral psychology, otherwise you may not be able to safely make it out of the flood of misinformation you're being bombarded with 24/7.
To stay in touch with me, follow 
Credits for Images: [Adapted from mayrena via Pixabay] and [Pbroks13 and Markus Poessel, CC-BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons].
#science #psychology #practical
Cristi Vlad, Self-Experimenter and Author