posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 02:33 PM
reply to post by dreadphil
Good advice is to be skeptical of everything related to the subject, especially of anything you see on television.
Remember, skeptical doesn't mean you cant believe in something if you so choose.
Skeptical means that you are taking an objective consideration of the evidence presented before forming any belief.
While on the subject, I must admit that ATS sometimes baffles me.
The resident ATS dogma readily dismisses the "MSM" as lies and governmental propaganda, using television to control the will of the "sheeple".
Unless its Ancient Aliens or Monsterquest, then its o.k.
There is another thread discussing the ETH where the subject of Carl Sagan's "Baloney detector kit" came up.
While not agreeing on the subject at hand, everyone seemed in agreement that the baloney detector was a good general guideline.
I believe it would be appropriate to repeat here as well...
Warning signs that suggest deception. Based on the book by Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World. The following are suggested as tools for testing
arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:
Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts.
Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
Quantify, wherever possible.
If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
Occam's razor - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can
others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?
Additional issues are:
Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control
Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.
Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric
Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
Argument from "authority".
Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavorable" decision).
Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have
below average intelligence!)
Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because
they are not "proved").
Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
Confusion of correlation and causation.
Caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.
Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art
of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"
I hope this helps.