Skip to main content

The Baloney Detection Kit - with Michael Shermer

The Ten Questions

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?


this kit is universal and has many applications
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

"There are other points to consider as well. One of which is: Is the evidence for a thesis falsifiable? If not, it's a poor argument."

I thought I was with you there for a moment but I can't really come to good grips on that one. I can't help myself from substituting verifiable for "falsifiable" and seeing that clearly. Is this one of those logic traps that is going to end up making my head hurt?
quote:
Originally posted by F350:
I thought I was with you there for a moment but I can't really come to good grips on that one. I can't help myself from substituting verifiable for "falsifiable" and seeing that clearly. Is this one of those logic traps that is going to end up making my head hurt?


Falsifiability is a foundation of the scientific method. Most scientists and philosophers agree that a proposition cannot be considered "science" unless it is falsifiable.

"Is it possible that this thesis could be reasonably proven to be false by observation or experiment?"

"All the planets in our solar system revolve around the sun" is a good theory. It is still a theory (in the scientific sense) even though we typically hold it to be fact. The theory is falsifiable because it can be reasonably asserted that one might possibly find that the sun actually does revolve around the planets if you travel outside the solar system and look. That will never happen, of course, but it is within the realm of possibility that we could observe the sun orbiting the earth.

Not falsifiable: Literal Genesis story. It is not even within the realm of possibility to falsify Creationism/Intelligent Design. There is no experiment that you could conduct that could show the hypothesis to be false. The moment you do, one can assert that an infinitely powerful being simply changed your observation (the "moving the goalpost" fallacy.)

In fact, any and all hypotheses that involve a omnipotent super being is wholly UNfalsifiable for that very reason.
Those are good questions. I've never seen them listed that way, but that's how I go about questioning issues, political, social, or religious. A lot of that comes from journalism classes. The 10th question is probably one of the most vital.

Just for the record, I've seen theories and links provided by atheists on this board that has completely failed the baloney test. The Jesus/sun god myth is just one example.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
Those are good questions. I've never seen them listed that way, but that's how I go about questioning issues, political, social, or religious. A lot of that comes from journalism classes. The 10th question is probably one of the most vital.

Just for the record, I've seen theories and links provided by atheists on this board that has completely failed the baloney test. The Jesus/sun god myth is just one example.


Nash, all Gods fail this test. Regards
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Nash, all Gods fail this test. Regards


All but one. It just requires an objective look at it.


The majority of religions believe as you do, and they have the same/equivalent evidence as you do.

I'm curious - how you know the other religions are false?

Regards
Good afternoon!
I just wanted to add my 2¢ into this. The atheist members of this discussion easily win almost all of these discussions because they correctly point out that there is no scientific way to prove the existence of a god. And my hat is off to them; they are one hundred percent correct in their assertions. The problem with many of the arguments put forth by the religionists is that they try to meet these statements head on… they try to use material and secular arguments to turn back the logical deductions of the materialists. (Sorry, I just don’t like using the word atheist, I prefer materialist because it captures a much greater segment of the population). And the failure of these arguments is pretty spectacular.

The way I see it, science and religion are two distinct things. Science is the measurement of the material, while religion, true religion, is the evaluation of the spiritual. Science deals with quantities, physical realities, while religion deals with qualities, more specifically the quality of values. There can really be no real disagreement between science and true religion. They are the two different pieces of the puzzle of continued human cultural and social evolution. Physical evolution of the species of humankind is proceeding somewhat apart from the social and cultural evolution of society. But progressive social and cultural evolution owe their direct lineage to the furtherance of BOTH religious and scientific advancement.

The materialists of this forum do all of mankind a great service with their attacks upon the entrenched superstitions and gross errors of the evolutionary religions of fear. Indeed, one of the goals of science should be to drive out the lingering superstitions which continue to curse and pollute the religious beliefs of even this relatively civilized society. But they go to far when they positively assert that there absolutely is no god. One can not prove the non-existence of god anymore than one can prove the existence of god. And any person who says that they can prove that god either does or does not exist is either a fool (thinking to prove god does not exist) or is missing the real crux of the religious experience. Because religion, true religion, is the relationship of the individual with that ideal which he designates god. And the ideal of God is always the highest concept of goodness, which the individual in question can conceive. And the truth of god is infinitely greater than even the highest concept of the most advanced of men.

This is why it is incorrect for the materialist to go on and on about the words found in “scripture” concerning the wrath of god, the sacrifices required by god or the punishments done by god. For these words were written at a time when the highest concept of god was still that of a wrathful and vengeful deity, a deity not so far removed from the limited minds of his followers. Do not make the mistake of confusing the ideals of primitive men with the truth of the living god! God, if he exists, and I say he does, is far greater than the limited comprehension of even the best of men, and is infinitely greater than the backward views of the ancients, or even the modern fundamentalist.

So, you ask, what “proof” do I offer? I can offer no material proof. I need not offer material proof. There can be no material proof of a supermaterial thing. Instead I offer you the concept of values. There are no values in nature. Nature does not respect the concept of good or evil. Mechanistic machines, inhabiting a mechanistic and non spiritual universe could never hunger for truth, adore beauty of crave goodness. Because truth, beauty and goodness are not material values. They are supermaterial. Just as every mechanist here at this forum craves goodness, so are you supermaterial, and hence, spiritual. And if you are supermaterial, and hence spiritual, then from where came the original spirit? I say it came from god, and that a fragment of this same god indwells every one of us, even the mind of the materialist, even the confused mind of the fundamentalist. But that is only what I say. You are free to make your own interpretations of life.

Al
quote:
Originally posted by 8I:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Nash, all Gods fail this test. Regards


All but one. It just requires an objective look at it.


The majority of religions believe as you do, and they have the same/equivalent evidence as you do.

I'm curious - how you know the other religions are false?

Regards



When you say Christianity has the same amount of evidence as other religions, you mean none, correct?

One can't be convinced to change their mind without something to convince them, some kind of evidence to require them to rethink their previously held view. A large number of Christians weren't always Christians, this is very different than other religions where it is more culturally based.

Is it totally scientific? No. Proving God's existence is no more scientificaly possible than proving the existence of love, beauty, or even evil. There are somethings that are outside the borders of science, but still exist.

How do I know other religions are false? I applied my own version of the baloney test to them.

If you're interested, here is a good lecture explaining things in much better terms than I can.

Link
"One can't be convinced to change their mind without something to convince them, some kind of evidence to require them to rethink their previously held view." -- Nash

You are talking about those governed by reason. Unfortunately, the unwashed masses are convinced by false promises and simplistic answers. They have no intereszt in evidence. Evidence is the enemy of those who base their "knowledge" on wishful thinking.
quote:
Originally posted by davidnmiles:
"One can't be convinced to change their mind without something to convince them, some kind of evidence to require them to rethink their previously held view." -- Nash

You are talking about those governed by reason. Unfortunately, the unwashed masses are convinced by false promises and simplistic answers. They have no intereszt in evidence. Evidence is the enemy of those who base their "knowledge" on wishful thinking.


I can assure you David, folks like C.S. Lewis, John C. Wright, Dr. Francis Collins, Alister McGrath, and many others are governed by reason and bathed regularly.
"I can assure you David, folks like C.S. Lewis, John C. Wright, Dr. Francis Collins, Alister McGrath, and many others are governed by reason and bathed regularly."

You cannot assure me of anything of the kind. If they do not require evidence to believe that a proposition is true, then they have totally rejected reason in accepting the existence of a supernatural being (who isn't even a nice guy).

I stand corrected on their bathing habits. Obviously, when it comes to religion, all reason has been thoroughly scrubbed away.
quote:
Originally posted by davidnmiles:
"I can assure you David, folks like C.S. Lewis, John C. Wright, Dr. Francis Collins, Alister McGrath, and many others are governed by reason and bathed regularly."

You cannot assure me of anything of the kind. If they do not require evidence to believe that a proposition is true, then they have totally rejected reason in accepting the existence of a supernatural being (who isn't even a nice guy).

I stand corrected on their bathing habits. Obviously, when it comes to religion, all reason has been thoroughly scrubbed away.


You're assuming that they suddenly decided no evidence was neccessary to change their mind about a controversial issue. That's a pretty big assumption on your part.

Like I said, it takes quite a bit to convince people that once believed God did not exist that He in fact does. That's a major change in world view, something which can only happen by means of something significant.
"Like I said, it takes quite a bit to convince people that once believed God did not exist that He in fact does. That's a major change in world view, something which can only happen by means of something significant."--Nash

It takes nothing more than a crisis to bring about the need for a crutch to sooth the partially weakened mind. A person of sound mind will not forsake reason and experience for mysticism (communication with the supernatural) and authoritarianism biblical and ecclesiastical decree).

For every scientist like Francis Collins who found it necessary to abandon reason to relieve a certain psychosis, there are thousand who have maintained intellectual equanimity.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
A large number of Christians weren't always Christians, this is very different than other religions where it is more culturally based.


Hah!

I'm curious: If you were born in Yemen, what religion do you think you'd ascribe to?

quote:
Is it totally scientific? No. Proving God's existence is no more scientificaly possible than proving the existence of love, beauty, or even evil.


Malarky.

While the concepts of "love" or "beauty" or "evil" is abstract and debatable, the subject of existence of god is a scientific principal. There are only two answers:

A.) He exists.
B.) He does not.

Only one of the two are possible. Now, for you to assert that He exists and all toher do not, you must prove proof.

I've already refuted your over-used, downright silly idea that "people change therefore god exists." I "changed" when I admitted and embraced by disbelief. I am a better person and a better human for it. How do you explain that?

No, Nash, in order to fool anyone other than yourself, you must prove empirical, logical evidence that a rational mind cannot deny.

So where is it?
quote:
Originally posted by alwilliams767:
Hi David, would you mind responding to what I wrote? I would be interested in your take.

Al


Hi Al, Sorry for the delay. Just noticed this. I assume this is a serious question and not just an excuse for hurling insults. Hence, I will give it serious consideration.

"But they go to far when they positively assert that there absolutely is no god. One can not prove the non-existence of god anymore than one can prove the existence of god. And any person who says that they can prove that god either does or does not exist is either a fool (thinking to prove god does not exist) or is missing the real crux of the religious experience.”

Is a person “going to far when they positively assert that there absolutely is no“: Zeus, tooth fairy, green unicorns--ad infinitum. I say that neither God nor any of the above exist because there is not one shred of evidence that they do. I will say, that if I am presented evidence for their existence, I will become a “knower.” I could say that there is a certain probability that God exists, but that probability is infinitesimally small.

Of course I cannot prove God doesn’t exist. It is impossible to prove that something that doesn’t exist, doesn’t exist. That in itself may be pretty strong evidence for non-existence.

“Because religion, true religion, is the relationship of the individual with that ideal which he designates god. And the ideal of God is always the highest concept of goodness, which the individual in question can conceive.”

God is one of man’s greatest inventions. He can be anything you want him to be, think anything you want him to think, do anything you want him to do. And then when he fails to live up to your expectations, wants and ideals, you can find a myriad of excuses for his actions or inactions.

“And the truth of god is infinitely greater than even the highest concept of the most advanced of men.”

My point exactly. This statement is true solely in your mind. Due to lack of evidence, it is groundless and only a personal belief.

“There are no values in nature. Nature does not respect the concept of good or evil. Mechanistic machines, inhabiting a mechanistic and non spiritual universe could never hunger for truth, adore beauty of crave goodness. Because truth, beauty and goodness are not material values.”

No, they are human values. They are given meaning by the human mind.

“There can really be no real disagreement between science and true religion.”

There is absolute disagreement between science and true religion. The only time that there isn’t disagreement is if by chance a religious proclamation happens to be supported by evidence. Once this happens, it is no longer religion. Religion is the trash bin that contains the rejects from science. Science is objective, religion is subjective; and never the twain shall meet.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×