On learning, critical thinking, disagreeing and bullshit.

brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,289
When I read this little story I thought right away of AMT and some of the things we’ve discussed here and the way we’ve discussed them. It just seems to fit and maybe some of you will feel the same way. And if nothing else, it has a funny ending. Derrick Jensen is describing here an early meeting with a writing class he is teaching. Or actually, not teaching. He says to the class:

"My style doesn’t work for everyone. And the fact that it doesn’t work for everyone is not a reflection on either me or you- it’s like having two books on a shelf, one of which is red and the other green. They just don’t match. But if you’re willing to ride the wave, and let the wave ride you, if you want to write from the gut, from the soul, then reach deep into the tiger’s fur and hold on tight, because we’re all in for a wild ride."

Nobody moves.

"Since it’s my experience that, as Carl Rogers wrote, the only real learning is self- discovered, self-appropriated learning, I won’t try to teach you anything. It’s my job instead to create an atmosphere where you can teach yourself.

And one of the skill that is oh-so-necessary in these days of decaying mythologies and rampant corporate and governmental doublespeak is the ability to think critically. To question authority, to question everything. My friend Jeannette Armstrong says, ‘We all have cultural, learned behavior systems that have become embedded in our subconscious. These systems act as filters for the way we see the world. They affect our behaviors, our speech patterns and gestures, the words we use, and also the way we gather our thinking. We have to find ways to challenge that continuously. To see things from a different perspective is one of the most difficult things we have to do.’

She continues, “I have to constantly school myself in the deconstruction of what I believe and perceive to be the way things are, to continuously break down in my own mind what I believe, and continuously add to my knowledge and understanding. In other words, never to be satisfied that I’m satisfied. That sounds like I’m dissatisfied, but it doesn’t mean that. It means never to be complacent and think I’ve come to a conclusion about things, to always question my own thinking. I always tell my writing class to start with and hold on to the attitude of saying
bullshit to everything. And to be joyful and happy in the process. Because most of the time its fear that creates old behaviors and old conflicts. It’s not necessarily that we believe those things, but we know them and so we continue those patterns and behaviors because they’re familiar.’

So it’s wonderfully acceptable, I say, to disagree with me. It’s wonderfully acceptable to disagree with anyone. Just be agreeable, at all times respectful, in the way you disagree. Be full of thought, and thoughtful in your disagreement."

Silence.

"Any questions so far?"

A young man raises his hand.

I nod.

He says, ‘You said the word
bullshit in class.’

"Yes?"

“Will you say that again? I’ve never heard a teacher say that before.”

"Bullshit", I say.


From Derrick Jensen's Walking on Water, pages 20-21.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"

"Try to not spook the horse."
-Neil Young













Comments

  • AnnafalkAnnafalk Sweden Posts: 4,004
    edited September 2014
    That was interesting thank you, critical thinking feels important. I wonder how the teaching continued..
  • hedonisthedonist Posts: 24,524
    brianlux said:

    So it’s wonderfully acceptable, I say, to disagree with me. It’s wonderfully acceptable to disagree with anyone. Just be agreeable, at all times respectful, in the way you disagree. Be full of thought, and thoughtful in your disagreement."

    The whole thing reminds me of Tool's Lateralus...and particularly dig the part I quoted - not to mention its preceding paragraph.

    Everyone should have at least one teacher like Jensen.

  • badbrainsbadbrains Posts: 10,255
    hedonist said:

    brianlux said:

    So it’s wonderfully acceptable, I say, to disagree with me. It’s wonderfully acceptable to disagree with anyone. Just be agreeable, at all times respectful, in the way you disagree. Be full of thought, and thoughtful in your disagreement."

    The whole thing reminds me of Tool's Lateralus...and particularly dig the part I quoted - not to mention its preceding paragraph.

    Everyone should have at least one teacher like Jensen.

    "Think for yourself, question authority."
    TL
  • Walking the milesWalking the miles Toronto Posts: 548
    brianlux said:


    She continues, “I have to constantly school myself in the deconstruction of what I believe and perceive to be the way things are, to continuously break down in my own mind what I believe, and continuously add to my knowledge and understanding. In other words, never to be satisfied that I’m satisfied. That sounds like I’m dissatisfied, but it doesn’t mean that. It means never to be complacent and think I’ve come to a conclusion about things, to always question my own thinking. .

    Nailed it! Nice share Brian. I had a High School teacher like that, funny enough with a similar name. Rene Jansen. He just had a way of speaking through the bullshit, and spoke to his students like adults. I had a few good teachers, but he was a stand out and always pops back in my mind from time to time.
    "Feel the path of everyday....which road you taking?"

    Barrie, ON '98
    Toronto, ON '00/'03/'06/'09/'11/'16(x2)
    Hamilton, ON '05/'11
    Newark, NJ '10
    London, ON '13
    Buffalo, NY '13
    Detroit, MI '14
    Ottawa, ON '16
  • hedonisthedonist Posts: 24,524
    badbrains said:

    hedonist said:

    brianlux said:

    So it’s wonderfully acceptable, I say, to disagree with me. It’s wonderfully acceptable to disagree with anyone. Just be agreeable, at all times respectful, in the way you disagree. Be full of thought, and thoughtful in your disagreement."

    The whole thing reminds me of Tool's Lateralus...and particularly dig the part I quoted - not to mention its preceding paragraph.

    Everyone should have at least one teacher like Jensen.

    "Think for yourself, question authority."
    TL
    :-c
  • justamjustam Posts: 21,412
    There's no mention of how old the students are.
    As I was reading this I half-expected the joke to be that they were pre-schoolers. :P

    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,289
    justam said:

    There's no mention of how old the students are.
    As I was reading this I half-expected the joke to be that they were pre-schoolers. :P

    College aged but really, Jensen's thoughts on education (he's mainly a writer- activist, however) would apply on many levels.

    Later in the book he talks about how, because it is geared to create automatons, our educational system "destroys student's souls". He quotes dean of education at Stanford, Elwood P Cubberley (for whom, get this, my high school was named!):

    Schools should be factories in which the raw products, children, are shaped and formed into finished products... manufactured like nails, and the specifications for manufacturing will come from government and industry. (p. 37)

    Lovely, eh?
    hedonist said:

    brianlux said:

    So it’s wonderfully acceptable, I say, to disagree with me. It’s wonderfully acceptable to disagree with anyone. Just be agreeable, at all times respectful, in the way you disagree. Be full of thought, and thoughtful in your disagreement."

    The whole thing reminds me of Tool's Lateralus...and particularly dig the part I quoted - not to mention its preceding paragraph.

    Everyone should have at least one teacher like Jensen.

    This was the part of the quote that I thought might be useful here.

    Jensen's Walking on Water is one of the best books I think I've ever read. Actually, I'm pretty sure I say that every time I read one of his books. :-)



    "Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
    -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"

    "Try to not spook the horse."
    -Neil Young













  • Walking the milesWalking the miles Toronto Posts: 548
    I think I'll pick it up the book then. I need a new book to read on the train. From what year was that Cubberley quote from? The 1920's? Geesh.
    "Feel the path of everyday....which road you taking?"

    Barrie, ON '98
    Toronto, ON '00/'03/'06/'09/'11/'16(x2)
    Hamilton, ON '05/'11
    Newark, NJ '10
    London, ON '13
    Buffalo, NY '13
    Detroit, MI '14
    Ottawa, ON '16
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,289

    I think I'll pick it up the book then. I need a new book to read on the train. From what year was that Cubberley quote from? The 1920's? Geesh.

    Even earlier, walking- 1906. And here we are 108 years later and the vast majority of our schools are still in the worker-bee production business. Yeah, it's a great book. It's one of his shorter books (just a ccouple hundred pages) but if you like it and want to really dig into Jensen maybe check out A Language Older Than Words or the massive and excellent two volume Endgame which starts out with Jensen's twenty premises seen here:

    http://www.derrickjensen.org/work/endgame/endgame-premises-english/
    "Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
    -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"

    "Try to not spook the horse."
    -Neil Young













  • Walking the milesWalking the miles Toronto Posts: 548
    brianlux said:

    I think I'll pick it up the book then. I need a new book to read on the train. From what year was that Cubberley quote from? The 1920's? Geesh.

    Even earlier, walking- 1906. And here we are 108 years later and the vast majority of our schools are still in the worker-bee production business. Yeah, it's a great book. It's one of his shorter books (just a ccouple hundred pages) but if you like it and want to really dig into Jensen maybe check out A Language Older Than Words or the massive and excellent two volume Endgame which starts out with Jensen's twenty premises seen here:

    http://www.derrickjensen.org/work/endgame/endgame-premises-english/
    Eye opening. Especially premise # 12, and 20, and 20, and 20, and 20, and 20 again.
    Thank you Brian
    "Feel the path of everyday....which road you taking?"

    Barrie, ON '98
    Toronto, ON '00/'03/'06/'09/'11/'16(x2)
    Hamilton, ON '05/'11
    Newark, NJ '10
    London, ON '13
    Buffalo, NY '13
    Detroit, MI '14
    Ottawa, ON '16
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,289

    brianlux said:

    I think I'll pick it up the book then. I need a new book to read on the train. From what year was that Cubberley quote from? The 1920's? Geesh.

    Even earlier, walking- 1906. And here we are 108 years later and the vast majority of our schools are still in the worker-bee production business. Yeah, it's a great book. It's one of his shorter books (just a ccouple hundred pages) but if you like it and want to really dig into Jensen maybe check out A Language Older Than Words or the massive and excellent two volume Endgame which starts out with Jensen's twenty premises seen here:

    http://www.derrickjensen.org/work/endgame/endgame-premises-english/
    Eye opening. Especially premise # 12, and 20, and 20, and 20, and 20, and 20 again.
    Thank you Brian
    You're very welcome! Yeah, #20 is excellent. I especially like the last two revisions:

    Re-modification of Premise Twenty: Social decisions are founded primarily (and often exclusively) on the almost entirely unexamined belief that the decision-makers and those they serve are entitled to magnify their power and/or financial fortunes at the expense of those below.

    Re-modification of Premise Twenty: If you dig to the heart of it—if there were any heart left—you would find that social decisions are determined primarily on the basis of how well these decisions serve the ends of controlling or destroying wild nature.


    The one I have the hardest time with, that I struggle hugely with- both because I do not want to believe it and because, deep down, I do believe it- is number 6. What I would give to see this one proven false:

    Premise Six: Civilization is not redeemable. This culture will not undergo any sort of voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living. If we do not put a halt to it, civilization will continue to immiserate the vast majority of humans and to degrade the planet until it (civilization, and probably the planet) collapses. The effects of this degradation will continue to harm humans and nonhumans for a very long time.

    "Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
    -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"

    "Try to not spook the horse."
    -Neil Young













  • Walking the milesWalking the miles Toronto Posts: 548
    Civilization as a whole, I would have to agree with the premise unfortunately. We can only affect within the civilization, I think. Wide scale?, I don't know
    "Feel the path of everyday....which road you taking?"

    Barrie, ON '98
    Toronto, ON '00/'03/'06/'09/'11/'16(x2)
    Hamilton, ON '05/'11
    Newark, NJ '10
    London, ON '13
    Buffalo, NY '13
    Detroit, MI '14
    Ottawa, ON '16
  • hedonisthedonist Posts: 24,524

    Civilization as a whole, I would have to agree with the premise unfortunately. We can only affect within the civilization, I think. Wide scale?, I don't know

    Wide-scale, meaning beyond us? Look what we've done to animals.

  • Walking the milesWalking the miles Toronto Posts: 548
    No. My point would be as individuals we can affect or redeem each other somewhat. But civilization, i think, as a whole is f*cked. I wish it wasn't.
    "Feel the path of everyday....which road you taking?"

    Barrie, ON '98
    Toronto, ON '00/'03/'06/'09/'11/'16(x2)
    Hamilton, ON '05/'11
    Newark, NJ '10
    London, ON '13
    Buffalo, NY '13
    Detroit, MI '14
    Ottawa, ON '16
  • hedonisthedonist Posts: 24,524
    Baby steps, I guess...individually, then maybe collectively.

    Be the change you want to see and all that. Hopefully others do the same.
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,289
    I always go back to the idea that hope is doing what makes sense. And yes, Hedonist, it starts with each of us. Good reminder.
    "Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
    -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"

    "Try to not spook the horse."
    -Neil Young













  • badbrains said:

    hedonist said:

    brianlux said:

    So it’s wonderfully acceptable, I say, to disagree with me. It’s wonderfully acceptable to disagree with anyone. Just be agreeable, at all times respectful, in the way you disagree. Be full of thought, and thoughtful in your disagreement."

    The whole thing reminds me of Tool's Lateralus...and particularly dig the part I quoted - not to mention its preceding paragraph.

    Everyone should have at least one teacher like Jensen.

    "Think for yourself, question authority."
    TL
    Question Everything!

    Very interesting thread Brian. Awesome!
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,289

    badbrains said:

    hedonist said:

    brianlux said:

    So it’s wonderfully acceptable, I say, to disagree with me. It’s wonderfully acceptable to disagree with anyone. Just be agreeable, at all times respectful, in the way you disagree. Be full of thought, and thoughtful in your disagreement."

    The whole thing reminds me of Tool's Lateralus...and particularly dig the part I quoted - not to mention its preceding paragraph.

    Everyone should have at least one teacher like Jensen.

    "Think for yourself, question authority."
    TL
    Question Everything!

    Very interesting thread Brian. Awesome!
    Thanks, backseat. The only problem is, when I come across this kind of thing it gets my brain kicked into overdrive and I don't get enough sleep- oh well, sleep is over-rated anyway, LOL :-)

    "Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
    -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"

    "Try to not spook the horse."
    -Neil Young













  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 39,249
    I call bullshit on this.

    :-t [-X :))
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,289
    mickeyrat said:

    I call bullshit on this.

    :-t [-X :))

    Yeah, well I call bullshit on that smiley that is supposedly calling time-out. I still say it's an angry rock hound with a geologists hammer! [-( :))

    "Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
    -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"

    "Try to not spook the horse."
    -Neil Young













  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 39,249
    edited October 2022
    ran across this article on my browser homepage. It seems helpful.....

    bought the audiobook....



    In a chapter titled “The Fine Art of Baloney Detection,” Sagan reflects on the many types of deception to which we’re susceptible — from psychics to religious zealotry to paid product endorsements by scientists, which he held in especially low regard, noting that they “betray contempt for the intelligence of their customers” and “introduce an insidious corruption of popular attitudes about scientific objectivity.” (Cue in PBS’s Joe Hanson on how to read science news.) But rather than preaching from the ivory tower of self-righteousness, Sagan approaches the subject from the most vulnerable of places — having just lost both of his parents, he reflects on the all too human allure of promises of supernatural reunions in the afterlife, reminding us that falling for such fictions doesn’t make us stupid or bad people, but simply means that we need to equip ourselves with the right tools against them.

    Through their training, scientists are equipped with what Sagan calls a “baloney detection kit” — a set of cognitive tools and techniques that fortify the mind against penetration by falsehoods:

    The kit is brought out as a matter of course whenever new ideas are offered for consideration. If the new idea survives examination by the tools in our kit, we grant it warm, although tentative, acceptance. If you’re so inclined, if you don’t want to buy baloney even when it’s reassuring to do so, there are precautions that can be taken; there’s a tried-and-true, consumer-tested method.

    But the kit, Sagan argues, isn’t merely a tool of science — rather, it contains invaluable tools of healthy skepticism that apply just as elegantly, and just as necessarily, to everyday life. By adopting the kit, we can all shield ourselves against clueless guile and deliberate manipulation. Sagan shares nine of these tools:

    1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
    2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
    3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
    4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
    5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
    6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.
    7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
    8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.
    9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

    Just as important as learning these helpful tools, however, is unlearning and avoiding the most common pitfalls of common sense. Reminding us of where society is most vulnerable to those, Sagan writes:

    In addition to teaching us what to do when evaluating a claim to knowledge, any good baloney detection kit must also teach us what not to do. It helps us recognize the most common and perilous fallacies of logic and rhetoric. Many good examples can be found in religion and politics, because their practitioners are so often obliged to justify two contradictory propositions.

    He admonishes against the twenty most common and perilous ones — many rooted in our chronic discomfort with ambiguity — with examples of each in action:

    1. ad hominem — Latin for “to the man,” attacking the arguer and not the argument (e.g., The Reverend Dr. Smith is a known Biblical fundamentalist, so her objections to evolution need not be taken seriously)
    2. argument from authority (e.g., President Richard Nixon should be re-elected because he has a secret plan to end the war in Southeast Asia — but because it was secret, there was no way for the electorate to evaluate it on its merits; the argument amounted to trusting him because he was President: a mistake, as it turned out)
    3. argument from adverse consequences (e.g., A God meting out punishment and reward must exist, because if He didn’t, society would be much more lawless and dangerous — perhaps even ungovernable. Or: The defendant in a widely publicized murder trial must be found guilty; otherwise, it will be an encouragement for other men to murder their wives)
    4. appeal to ignorance — the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist — and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we’re still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
    5. special pleading, often to rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical trouble (e.g., How can a merciful God condemn future generations to torment because, against orders, one woman induced one man to eat an apple? Special plead: you don’t understand the subtle Doctrine of Free Will. Or: How can there be an equally godlike Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the same Person? Special plead: You don’t understand the Divine Mystery of the Trinity. Or: How could God permit the followers of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam — each in their own way enjoined to heroic measures of loving kindness and compassion — to have perpetrated so much cruelty for so long? Special plead: You don’t understand Free Will again. And anyway, God moves in mysterious ways.)
    6. begging the question, also called assuming the answer (e.g., We must institute the death penalty to discourage violent crime. But does the violent crime rate in fact fall when the death penalty is imposed? Or: The stock market fell yesterday because of a technical adjustment and profit-taking by investors — but is there any independent evidence for the causal role of “adjustment” and profit-taking; have we learned anything at all from this purported explanation?)
    7. observational selection, also called the enumeration of favorable circumstances, or as the philosopher Francis Bacon described it, counting the hits and forgetting the misses (e.g., A state boasts of the Presidents it has produced, but is silent on its serial killers)
    8. statistics of small numbers — a close relative of observational selection (e.g., “They say 1 out of every 5 people is Chinese. How is this possible? I know hundreds of people, and none of them is Chinese. Yours truly.” Or: “I’ve thrown three sevens in a row. Tonight I can’t lose.”)
    9. misunderstanding of the nature of statistics (e.g., President Dwight Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence);
    10. inconsistency (e.g., Prudently plan for the worst of which a potential military adversary is capable, but thriftily ignore scientific projections on environmental dangers because they’re not “proved.” Or: Attribute the declining life expectancy in the former Soviet Union to the failures of communism many years ago, but never attribute the high infant mortality rate in the United States (now highest of the major industrial nations) to the failures of capitalism. Or: Consider it reasonable for the Universe to continue to exist forever into the future, but judge absurd the possibility that it has infinite duration into the past);
    11. non sequitur — Latin for “It doesn’t follow” (e.g., Our nation will prevail because God is great. But nearly every nation pretends this to be true; the German formulation was “Gott mit uns”). Often those falling into the non sequitur fallacy have simply failed to recognize alternative possibilities;
    12. post hoc, ergo propter hoc — Latin for “It happened after, so it was caused by” (e.g., Jaime Cardinal Sin, Archbishop of Manila: “I know of … a 26-year-old who looks 60 because she takes [contraceptive] pills.” Or: Before women got the vote, there were no nuclear weapons)
    13. meaningless question (e.g., What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? But if there is such a thing as an irresistible force there can be no immovable objects, and vice versa)
    14. excluded middle, or false dichotomy — considering only the two extremes in a continuum of intermediate possibilities (e.g., “Sure, take his side; my husband’s perfect; I’m always wrong.” Or: “Either you love your country or you hate it.” Or: “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem”)
    15. short-term vs. long-term — a subset of the excluded middle, but so important I’ve pulled it out for special attention (e.g., We can’t afford programs to feed malnourished children and educate pre-school kids. We need to urgently deal with crime on the streets. Or: Why explore space or pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?);
    16. slippery slope, related to excluded middle (e.g., If we allow abortion in the first weeks of pregnancy, it will be impossible to prevent the killing of a full-term infant. Or, conversely: If the state prohibits abortion even in the ninth month, it will soon be telling us what to do with our bodies around the time of conception);
    17. confusion of correlation and causation (e.g., A survey shows that more college graduates are homosexual than those with lesser education; therefore education makes people gay. Or: Andean earthquakes are correlated with closest approaches of the planet Uranus; therefore — despite the absence of any such correlation for the nearer, more massive planet Jupiter — the latter causes the former)
    18. straw man — caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack (e.g., Scientists suppose that living things simply fell together by chance — a formulation that willfully ignores the central Darwinian insight, that Nature ratchets up by saving what works and discarding what doesn’t. Or — this is also a short-term/long-term fallacy — environmentalists care more for snail darters and spotted owls than they do for people)
    19. suppressed evidence, or half-truths (e.g., An amazingly accurate and widely quoted “prophecy” of the assassination attempt on President Reagan is shown on television; but — an important detail — was it recorded before or after the event? Or: These government abuses demand revolution, even if you can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Yes, but is this likely to be a revolution in which far more people are killed than under the previous regime? What does the experience of other revolutions suggest? Are all revolutions against oppressive regimes desirable and in the interests of the people?)
    20. weasel words (e.g., The separation of powers of the U.S. Constitution specifies that the United States may not conduct a war without a declaration by Congress. On the other hand, Presidents are given control of foreign policy and the conduct of wars, which are potentially powerful tools for getting themselves re-elected. Presidents of either political party may therefore be tempted to arrange wars while waving the flag and calling the wars something else — “police actions,” “armed incursions,” “protective reaction strikes,” “pacification,” “safeguarding American interests,” and a wide variety of “operations,” such as “Operation Just Cause.” Euphemisms for war are one of a broad class of reinventions of language for political purposes. Talleyrand said, “An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public”)

    Sagan ends the chapter with a necessary disclaimer:

    Like all tools, the baloney detection kit can be misused, applied out of context, or even employed as a rote alternative to thinking. But applied judiciously, it can make all the difference in the world — not least in evaluating our own arguments before we present them to others.





    Post edited by mickeyrat on
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,289
    mickeyrat said:
    ran across this article on my browser homepage. It seems helpful.....

    bought the audiobook....



    In a chapter titled “The Fine Art of Baloney Detection,” Sagan reflects on the many types of deception to which we’re susceptible — from psychics to religious zealotry to paid product endorsements by scientists, which he held in especially low regard, noting that they “betray contempt for the intelligence of their customers” and “introduce an insidious corruption of popular attitudes about scientific objectivity.” (Cue in PBS’s Joe Hanson on how to read science news.) But rather than preaching from the ivory tower of self-righteousness, Sagan approaches the subject from the most vulnerable of places — having just lost both of his parents, he reflects on the all too human allure of promises of supernatural reunions in the afterlife, reminding us that falling for such fictions doesn’t make us stupid or bad people, but simply means that we need to equip ourselves with the right tools against them.

    Through their training, scientists are equipped with what Sagan calls a “baloney detection kit” — a set of cognitive tools and techniques that fortify the mind against penetration by falsehoods:

    The kit is brought out as a matter of course whenever new ideas are offered for consideration. If the new idea survives examination by the tools in our kit, we grant it warm, although tentative, acceptance. If you’re so inclined, if you don’t want to buy baloney even when it’s reassuring to do so, there are precautions that can be taken; there’s a tried-and-true, consumer-tested method.

    But the kit, Sagan argues, isn’t merely a tool of science — rather, it contains invaluable tools of healthy skepticism that apply just as elegantly, and just as necessarily, to everyday life. By adopting the kit, we can all shield ourselves against clueless guile and deliberate manipulation. Sagan shares nine of these tools:

    1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
    2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
    3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
    4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
    5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
    6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.
    7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
    8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.
    9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

    Just as important as learning these helpful tools, however, is unlearning and avoiding the most common pitfalls of common sense. Reminding us of where society is most vulnerable to those, Sagan writes:

    In addition to teaching us what to do when evaluating a claim to knowledge, any good baloney detection kit must also teach us what not to do. It helps us recognize the most common and perilous fallacies of logic and rhetoric. Many good examples can be found in religion and politics, because their practitioners are so often obliged to justify two contradictory propositions.

    He admonishes against the twenty most common and perilous ones — many rooted in our chronic discomfort with ambiguity — with examples of each in action:

    1. ad hominem — Latin for “to the man,” attacking the arguer and not the argument (e.g., The Reverend Dr. Smith is a known Biblical fundamentalist, so her objections to evolution need not be taken seriously)
    2. argument from authority (e.g., President Richard Nixon should be re-elected because he has a secret plan to end the war in Southeast Asia — but because it was secret, there was no way for the electorate to evaluate it on its merits; the argument amounted to trusting him because he was President: a mistake, as it turned out)
    3. argument from adverse consequences (e.g., A God meting out punishment and reward must exist, because if He didn’t, society would be much more lawless and dangerous — perhaps even ungovernable. Or: The defendant in a widely publicized murder trial must be found guilty; otherwise, it will be an encouragement for other men to murder their wives)
    4. appeal to ignorance — the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist — and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we’re still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
    5. special pleading, often to rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical trouble (e.g., How can a merciful God condemn future generations to torment because, against orders, one woman induced one man to eat an apple? Special plead: you don’t understand the subtle Doctrine of Free Will. Or: How can there be an equally godlike Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the same Person? Special plead: You don’t understand the Divine Mystery of the Trinity. Or: How could God permit the followers of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam — each in their own way enjoined to heroic measures of loving kindness and compassion — to have perpetrated so much cruelty for so long? Special plead: You don’t understand Free Will again. And anyway, God moves in mysterious ways.)
    6. begging the question, also called assuming the answer (e.g., We must institute the death penalty to discourage violent crime. But does the violent crime rate in fact fall when the death penalty is imposed? Or: The stock market fell yesterday because of a technical adjustment and profit-taking by investors — but is there any independent evidence for the causal role of “adjustment” and profit-taking; have we learned anything at all from this purported explanation?)
    7. observational selection, also called the enumeration of favorable circumstances, or as the philosopher Francis Bacon described it, counting the hits and forgetting the misses (e.g., A state boasts of the Presidents it has produced, but is silent on its serial killers)
    8. statistics of small numbers — a close relative of observational selection (e.g., “They say 1 out of every 5 people is Chinese. How is this possible? I know hundreds of people, and none of them is Chinese. Yours truly.” Or: “I’ve thrown three sevens in a row. Tonight I can’t lose.”)
    9. misunderstanding of the nature of statistics (e.g., President Dwight Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence);
    10. inconsistency (e.g., Prudently plan for the worst of which a potential military adversary is capable, but thriftily ignore scientific projections on environmental dangers because they’re not “proved.” Or: Attribute the declining life expectancy in the former Soviet Union to the failures of communism many years ago, but never attribute the high infant mortality rate in the United States (now highest of the major industrial nations) to the failures of capitalism. Or: Consider it reasonable for the Universe to continue to exist forever into the future, but judge absurd the possibility that it has infinite duration into the past);
    11. non sequitur — Latin for “It doesn’t follow” (e.g., Our nation will prevail because God is great. But nearly every nation pretends this to be true; the German formulation was “Gott mit uns”). Often those falling into the non sequitur fallacy have simply failed to recognize alternative possibilities;
    12. post hoc, ergo propter hoc — Latin for “It happened after, so it was caused by” (e.g., Jaime Cardinal Sin, Archbishop of Manila: “I know of … a 26-year-old who looks 60 because she takes [contraceptive] pills.” Or: Before women got the vote, there were no nuclear weapons)
    13. meaningless question (e.g., What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? But if there is such a thing as an irresistible force there can be no immovable objects, and vice versa)
    14. excluded middle, or false dichotomy — considering only the two extremes in a continuum of intermediate possibilities (e.g., “Sure, take his side; my husband’s perfect; I’m always wrong.” Or: “Either you love your country or you hate it.” Or: “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem”)
    15. short-term vs. long-term — a subset of the excluded middle, but so important I’ve pulled it out for special attention (e.g., We can’t afford programs to feed malnourished children and educate pre-school kids. We need to urgently deal with crime on the streets. Or: Why explore space or pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?);
    16. slippery slope, related to excluded middle (e.g., If we allow abortion in the first weeks of pregnancy, it will be impossible to prevent the killing of a full-term infant. Or, conversely: If the state prohibits abortion even in the ninth month, it will soon be telling us what to do with our bodies around the time of conception);
    17. confusion of correlation and causation (e.g., A survey shows that more college graduates are homosexual than those with lesser education; therefore education makes people gay. Or: Andean earthquakes are correlated with closest approaches of the planet Uranus; therefore — despite the absence of any such correlation for the nearer, more massive planet Jupiter — the latter causes the former)
    18. straw man — caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack (e.g., Scientists suppose that living things simply fell together by chance — a formulation that willfully ignores the central Darwinian insight, that Nature ratchets up by saving what works and discarding what doesn’t. Or — this is also a short-term/long-term fallacy — environmentalists care more for snail darters and spotted owls than they do for people)
    19. suppressed evidence, or half-truths (e.g., An amazingly accurate and widely quoted “prophecy” of the assassination attempt on President Reagan is shown on television; but — an important detail — was it recorded before or after the event? Or: These government abuses demand revolution, even if you can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Yes, but is this likely to be a revolution in which far more people are killed than under the previous regime? What does the experience of other revolutions suggest? Are all revolutions against oppressive regimes desirable and in the interests of the people?)
    20. weasel words (e.g., The separation of powers of the U.S. Constitution specifies that the United States may not conduct a war without a declaration by Congress. On the other hand, Presidents are given control of foreign policy and the conduct of wars, which are potentially powerful tools for getting themselves re-elected. Presidents of either political party may therefore be tempted to arrange wars while waving the flag and calling the wars something else — “police actions,” “armed incursions,” “protective reaction strikes,” “pacification,” “safeguarding American interests,” and a wide variety of “operations,” such as “Operation Just Cause.” Euphemisms for war are one of a broad class of reinventions of language for political purposes. Talleyrand said, “An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public”)

    Sagan ends the chapter with a necessary disclaimer:

    Like all tools, the baloney detection kit can be misused, applied out of context, or even employed as a rote alternative to thinking. But applied judiciously, it can make all the difference in the world — not least in evaluating our own arguments before we present them to others.






    Fascinating!  Sagan was one of those writer that always kindles thought processes.  A brilliant man.

    Also interesting is seeing this thread pop up.  Started over 8 years ago?  My, how time flies!
    "Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
    -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"

    "Try to not spook the horse."
    -Neil Young













  • SpunkieSpunkie i come from downtown. Posts: 6,705
    "My friend Jeannette Armstrong says, ‘We all have cultural, learned behavior systems that have become embedded in our subconscious. These systems act as filters for the way we see the world. They affect our behaviors, our speech patterns and gestures, the words we use, and also the way we gather our thinking. We have to find ways to challenge that continuously. To see things from a different perspective is one of the most difficult things we have to do.’

    She continues..."

    Ahh, Jeanette Armstrong is an Indigenous Advocate who throws her voice in the campus near where I live. I asked her to supervise me in grad school at one point...

    Reread that passage with this in mind...
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,289
    tish said:
    "My friend Jeannette Armstrong says, ‘We all have cultural, learned behavior systems that have become embedded in our subconscious. These systems act as filters for the way we see the world. They affect our behaviors, our speech patterns and gestures, the words we use, and also the way we gather our thinking. We have to find ways to challenge that continuously. To see things from a different perspective is one of the most difficult things we have to do.’

    She continues..."

    Ahh, Jeanette Armstrong is an Indigenous Advocate who throws her voice in the campus near where I live. I asked her to supervise me in grad school at one point...

    Reread that passage with this in mind...
    We have to find ways to challenge that continuously. To see things from a different perspective is one of the most difficult things we have to do.’
    What a great statement!  I worked with a prof for 4 years at our local community college and one of the things she emphasized frequently in our program (Human Services/ Counseling training) was the importance of being conscientious of perspective- understanding our own biases, being aware of other's perspectives, understanding that we all see the world through our own biases and perspectives.  She's a brilliant woman and I was so very fortunate to be able to work with her.
    "Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
    -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"

    "Try to not spook the horse."
    -Neil Young













  • brianlux said:
    tish said:
    "My friend Jeannette Armstrong says, ‘We all have cultural, learned behavior systems that have become embedded in our subconscious. These systems act as filters for the way we see the world. They affect our behaviors, our speech patterns and gestures, the words we use, and also the way we gather our thinking. We have to find ways to challenge that continuously. To see things from a different perspective is one of the most difficult things we have to do.’

    She continues..."

    Ahh, Jeanette Armstrong is an Indigenous Advocate who throws her voice in the campus near where I live. I asked her to supervise me in grad school at one point...

    Reread that passage with this in mind...
    We have to find ways to challenge that continuously. To see things from a different perspective is one of the most difficult things we have to do.’
    What a great statement!  I worked with a prof for 4 years at our local community college and one of the things she emphasized frequently in our program (Human Services/ Counseling training) was the importance of being conscientious of perspective- understanding our own biases, being aware of other's perspectives, understanding that we all see the world through our own biases and perspectives.  She's a brilliant woman and I was so very fortunate to be able to work with her.
    What a great statement and all the suppressing of others thoughts lately, even if they are wrong, comes to mind.


  • @badbrains and @hedonist commented on this.

    2 people very missed on these pages.  Nart is still around though.  I talk to that asshole every now and again.  lol
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,289
    @badbrains and @hedonist commented on this.

    2 people very missed on these pages.  Nart is still around though.  I talk to that asshole every now and again.  lol

    Good dude, that Nart!
    "Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
    -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"

    "Try to not spook the horse."
    -Neil Young













  • brianlux said:
    @badbrains and @hedonist commented on this.

    2 people very missed on these pages.  Nart is still around though.  I talk to that asshole every now and again.  lol

    Good dude, that Nart!
    Shhh, he might believe that!!! @badbrains
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,289
    brianlux said:
    @badbrains and @hedonist commented on this.

    2 people very missed on these pages.  Nart is still around though.  I talk to that asshole every now and again.  lol

    Good dude, that Nart!
    Shhh, he might believe that!!! @badbrains

    Haha!
    "Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
    -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"

    "Try to not spook the horse."
    -Neil Young













Sign In or Register to comment.