How to evalute claims:



My Baloney Detection Kit

Table of Contents:

Page 2 Intellectual Standards / Intellectual Traits

Page 3 Do I Believe It? The Three S Guide To Evaluating Claims

Source, Statement, Self

Page 4-5 How To Evaluate Claims – Tips and Tricks – Traps to Avoid

Carl Sagan’s Fine Art Of Baloney Detection

Page 6-7 The Ten Deadly Fallacies

Examples of the Ten Fallacies

Page 8 References

[pic]

[pic]

Do I believe it? The three S’s: a guide to evaluating knowledge claims

|Source |Statements |Self |

|Does the source have any recognizable |What is the context of the knowledge claims – their |Do I recognize in myself an inclination to |

|motive for conscious or unconscious |social context, for example, or their publication or |believe or reject a particular source or |

|deception? |web context? Does the context give you any insight |statement? |

|Does the source have a reputation for |into whether the goal of the knowledge claim is to |Do I apply critical thinking to what I want |

|being honest and accurate? |report or to persuade? |to believe as well as what I do not want to |

|Does the eyewitness seem to have senses |Are the background, values, and goals of the writer |believe? |

|which function normally for an act of |or speaker openly stated? Are values observable in |If I use my own past experience and |

|observation and which are free from the |the selection of details, emphasis placed on those |understanding as a basis on which to judge |

|influence of substances that might affect |details, or connotations of word choice in the |the plausibility of new statements, how |

|perception? |knowledge claims? |reliable is that past experience? |

|Is the source an expert relevant to the |Do the claims use any graphs, photographs, paintings,|Is it possible to separate my beliefs into |

|topic under consideration? |or other visual accompaniments? Are they relevant? |private beliefs, based on whatever |

|Does the source acknowledge counter-claims|Are they emotionally affecting? |justification convinces me personally, and |

|or limitations of its own knowledge? |Are the claims supported by evidence? |public beliefs, based on justification which|

|Is the source in accord with, or |Are the claims internally consistent, free from |must convince others as well? |

|consistent with, other sources with which |contradictions and logical errors? |What is my attitude toward belief? Should |

|its claims can be checked? | |“Do I believe it?” be instead “Should I |

| | |believe it?” Is there an ethical dimension |

| | |to what one should believe or reject? |

How to evaluate claims:

❑ Look for independent confirmation.

❑ Include input from knowledgeable proponents from all points of view.

❑ Don’t automatically trust the word of authorities.

❑ Develop alternative hypotheses.

❑ Be willing to give up your hypothesis.

❑ Quantify or measure if possible.

❑ Consider each the elements of the argument logically (in sequence). Do all the parts make sense?

❑ Consider the possible motivation of the claim’s author.

❑ Occam’s Razor. When faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well – choose the simpler.

❑ Ask if the hypothesis can be falsified. Can a test be conducted to disprove the hypothesis?

Some other tips for considering evidence:

❑ There is good reason to doubt a proposition if it conflicts with other propositions we have good reason to believe.

❑ The more background information a proposition conflicts with, the more reason there is to doubt it.

❑ When there is a good reason to doubt a proposition, we should proportion our belief to the evidence.

❑ There is a good reason to doubt a proposition if it conflicts with expert opinion.

❑ Just because someone is an expert in one field, it doesn’t mean that he or she is an expert in another.

❑ Just because a large number of people believe something, it doesn’t mean that it is true.

❑ If we have no reason to doubt what’s disclosed to us through perception, introspection, memory or reason, then we’re justified in believing it.

❑ When evaluating a claim, look for the disconfirming as well as confirming evidence.

❑ When evaluating a claim, look at all the relevant evidence, not just the psychologically available evidence.

Traps to avoid:

❑ Ad hominem – an argument which attacks the person, not the argument.

❑ Argument from authority – blind trust because of the person’s position or status.

❑ Argument from adverse consequences – you better believe this or else…

❑ Argument ad ignorantium (Appeal to ignorance) – the claim that since the argument cannot be proved false, then it must be true.

❑ Special pleading – the attempt to rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical trouble.

❑ Begging the question – assuming the answer as part of the argument.

❑ Observational selection – the enumeration of favorable circumstances (counting the hits, ignoring the misses).

❑ Statistics of small numbers - 4 out of 5 dentists is a very small representative sample if only 5 dentists are surveyed.

❑ Misunderstanding / misapplying statistics – “proven to be 20% more effective…” How was “effectiveness measured?”

❑ Inconsistency – applying reasoning and evidence inconsistently to the proposition.

❑ Non-sequitor – arguments which don’t follow and not logically related to each other..

❑ Post hoc, ergo propter hoc – “it happened after, so it was caused by”

❑ Meaningless questions – misapplication of words, language or ideas.

❑ Excluded middle – false dichotomy – not including intermediate possibilities.

❑ Short term vs. long term – one at the expense of the other.

❑ Slippery slope – once you start, there is no stopping…

❑ Confusion of correlation and causation – mis applying a cause and effect relationship.

❑ Straw man – simplifying (caricaturizing) a position to make it easier to attack.

❑ Suppressed evidence and half truths – inaccurate or missing details.

❑ Weasel words – reinvention of words for political (or other) purposes.

The Ten Deadly Fallacies

|Ad Ignorantium |Claiming something is true because it cannot be proved to be false. |

|Hasty generalization |Generalizing from insufficient evidence. |

|Post hoc ergo propter hoc |Confusing a correlation with a causal connection. |

|Ad hominem |Attacking or supporting the person rather than the argument. |

|Circular reasoning |Assuming the truth of what you are supposed to be proving. |

|Special pleading |Using double standards to excuse an individual or group. |

|Equivocation |Using language ambiguously |

| | |

|False analogy |Assuming that because two things are alike in some respects they are |

| |alike in other respects. |

|False dilemma |Assuming that only two black and white alternatives exist. |

|Loaded question |A question that is biased because it contains a built-in assumption. |

Examples of the Ten Fallacies

[pic]

[pic]

References:

Dombrowski, E., Rotenberg, L., Bick, M. (2007) Theory of Knowledge Course Companion

Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2008) The Miniature Guide To Critical Thinking

Sagan, C. (1996) The Demon Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark

Schick, T., Vaughn, L. (2002) How to Think About Weird Things

Van de Lagamaat, R. (2005) Theory of Knowledge

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download