6 ms·

Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit: Tools for Thinking Critically (2025)

260 points by nobody9999 8mo ago

nobody9999 8mo ago
Original Title: Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit: Tools for Thinking Critically & Knowing Pseudoscience When You See It
chistev 8mo ago
Acclaimed science author Carl Sagan illustrated this challenge with his “dragon in the garage” analogy. If someone claims to have a dragon that is invisible, silent, intangible, and undetectable by any means, there is no practical difference between the dragon’s existence and non-existence. Similarly, without verifiable evidence, the existence of an immortal soul remains unproven. https://www.rxjourney.net/the-possibility-of-life-after-death https://www.rxjourney.net/the-possibility-of-life-after-deat...
- nobody9999 8mo ago
  >If someone claims to have a dragon that is invisible, silent, intangible, and undetectable by any means, there is no practical difference between the dragon’s existence and non-existence. “Everyone knows that dragons don’t exist. But while this simplistic formulation may satisfy the layman, it does not suffice for the scientific mind. The School of Higher Neantical Nillity is in fact wholly unconcerned with what does exist. Indeed, the banality of existence has been so amply demonstrated, there is no need for us to discuss it any further here. The brilliant Cerebron, attacking the problem analytically, discovered three distinct kinds of dragon: the mythical, the chimerical, and the purely hypothetical. They were all, one might say, nonexistent, but each non-existed in an entirely different way.” ― Stanisław Lem, The Cyberiad
  - chistev 8mo ago
    https://youtube.com/shorts/CEEHjtVJHYs?si=H_muwqpJTIndywr8 https://youtube.com/shorts/CEEHjtVJHYs?si=H_muwqpJTIndywr8
    - stefanfisk 8mo ago
      So gender is a strict binary but dragons kinda-sorta exist, got it (＠_＠)
  - mdallastella 8mo ago
    Love that book!
- qsera 8mo ago
  The dragon in the room is the hidden qualifier for "undetectable by any means" is "that is currently known to humanity". That makes Carl Sagan's claim some what Balonish. Not sure why the smart Sagan fell for it.
  - ekjhgkejhgk 8mo ago
    [flagged]
    - nobody9999 8mo ago
      >Not sure why this comment got downvoted, but after all this is HN: very pro-tech while at the same time anti-science. Computers do everything so knowledge doesn't matter. As Dr. Sagan (quite correctly) pointed out: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Whether there's any particular method right now, next week or next year for such "detection" isn't relevant in this context for several reasons: 1. Sagan's example was a metaphor for an unfalsifiable hypothesis; 2. Dragons (okay, kimodo dragons do, but that's orthogonal to the discussion) don't actually exist; 3. Even if dragons with the properties posited by Sagan actually do exist, Evidence must be provided to confirm the "garage dragon" hypothesis or it's irrelevant. If it cannot be detected, it may as well not exist. While it's true that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," not being able to verify the non-existence of something doesn't confirm its existence. I suggest you use the rest of the tools provided in Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit" (helpfully linked above) to help you get the point. I'd also point out that the guidelines[0] say: Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - ekjhgkejhgk 8mo ago
        [flagged]
        nobody9999 8mo ago
        >It IS relevant to me and to most scientists. And you sound like someone who stops giving up at the first obstacle. QFT posits that the graviton (as a particle-like excitation in a "gravity field") exists. We do not currently (although there are some potential future experiments that might be able to confirm the existence of the graviton) have the means to detect gravitons. Does the graviton exist? I don't know and neither do you. And we won't, unless and until we have the ability to detect gravitons. While we have a theoretical basis for gravitons, we have no experimental or observational evidence. Does that mean we should stop looking? No. How about dark matter. What exactly is dark matter? We have a bunch of evidence that something that doesn't interact via the photon (the particle-like excitation of the EM field), but does interact gravitationally with itself and other fermions and bosons. We don't know what that "dark matter" might be, but we continue looking for it, as there is both theoretical and observational evidence of its existence. As for the "garage dragon," there is no theoretical, experimental or observational evidence for it. There is also none of that for my claim of the absolute existence of a gremlin living inside your skull chowing down on your brain. But we should definitely saw open your skull to prove it, right? I'm partial to circular saws, but we can go with a chainsaw if you like. >you sound like someone who stops giving up at the first obstacle. It's not clear what ad-hominem attack you're making against me here as the words, as strung together don't make sense, but who I am or what I will or won't do is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Are you unable to make a better argument and so attack me personally instead? >> I'd also point out that the guidelines[0] say: >I had already removed it by the time you commented, so that's on you. Did you? Thanks for finally following the site guidelines. Perhaps next time you won't need to be reminded.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 8mo ago
  Doesn’t silent, invisible, intangible also apply to software? You can’t really tell a particular piece of hardware is running software by a direct physical measurement. You can only infer that indirectly.
  - Zigurd 8mo ago
    Having debugged code with a logic analyzer, I'm pretty sure the voltage on those CPU pins is real, and really the consequence of the code I think I'm running.
    - the__alchemist 8mo ago
      This. Try it! LAs are cheap and easier to use than a scope, even if it has digital features.
    - RcouF1uZ4gsC 8mo ago
      This is like arguing I can hear humans talk, therefore the souls must exist. You can wire voltage to CPU pins without software.
      - donkeybeer 8mo ago
        The visible part of em spectrum by which we interact with computers daily needs no multimeters.
  - dghf 8mo ago
    What? Yes you can. I know my laptop is running a web browser because I can see it and interact with it. That's a physical measurement.
    - donkeybeer 8mo ago
      Won't be surprised if he's one of those that think "radiation" is some kind of harmful beams instead of also what the computer screen emits and we detect it to interact with it.
- CGMthrowaway 8mo ago
  The dragon is just a gauge. Gauge symmetry
  - BeetleB 8mo ago
    Good one!
- the__alchemist 8mo ago
  A parking lot dragon? This sounds familiar. [Assuming not a Dragon of Eden, nor one who farts nerve gas] I believe it is a parable about cause and effect; consistency of the world's state. A parking garage, poured in modern times from reinforced concrete, might have been found to be structurally unstable during a renovation. If this turned out to be rooted in a massive [dragon, dinosaur, etc] skeleton being embedded in the concrete (As it was being poured?) surely this would be a contradiction, if people (workers, onlookers) witnessed the garage's construction. There would be evidence from the reinforcement efforts; materials sourced to reinforce it due to structural flaws introduced by the skeleton; wear on the truck tires carrying them, memories in brains etc. If suddenly the skeleton were to have vanished, would there be logical consistency problems with the world state? Quite a thing to ponder! I would like to clarify that this is purely a thought experiment. It is not possible that any group of people, no matter how secluded, could either A: Will such a reptile into existence while maintaining cosmological consistency, nor B: Remove it from our cosmos after evidence over its existence has propagated.
- krapp 8mo ago
  > If someone claims to have a dragon that is invisible, silent, intangible, and undetectable by any means, there is no practical difference between the dragon’s existence and non-existence. Unsurprising that the longest subthread here is one criticizing the premise.
zyxzevn 8mo ago
While skeptical, he did not have much skepticism against mainstream theories. I think it needs another item in the list: For any theory/ hypothesis: how well does it stand against the null-hypothesis? For example: How much physical evidence is there really for the string-theory? And I would upgrade this one: If there’s a chain of physical evidence (was argument), every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them And when breaking these items do not mean that something is false. It means that the arguments and evidence is incomplete. Don't jump to conclusions when you think that the arguments or evidence is invalid (that is how some people even think that the moonlanding was a hoax).
- ajross 8mo ago
  > While skeptical, he did not have much skepticism against mainstream theories. That's tautological. The definition of a "mainstream theory" is one that is widely believed. And while, sure, sometimes scientific paradigms are wrong (c.f. Kuhn), that's rare. Demanding someone be "skeptical" of theories that end up wrong is isomorphic to demanding that they be a preternatural genius in all things able to see through mistakes that all the world's experts cannot. That doesn't work. (It's 100% not enough just to apply a null hypothesis argument, btw!) Really that's all of a piece with his argument. It's not a recipe for detecting truth (he didn't have one, and neither do you[1]). It's a recipe for detecting when arguments are unsupported by scientific consensus. That's not the same thing, but it's closer than other stuff like "trust". (And it's 100% better th an applying a null-hypothesis argument, to be clear.) [1] Well, we do, but it's called "the scientific method" and it's really, really hard. Not something to deploy in an internet argument.
- ceejayoz 8mo ago
  > And I would upgrade this one: If there’s a chain of physical evidence (was argument), every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them We still use Newtonian physics plenty, despite bits of it not working due to relativity.
  - nobody9999 8mo ago
    >We still use Newtonian physics plenty, despite bits of it not working due to relativity. Absolutely. And since no one else has trotted this bit out yet, I guess it will be me: All of our science is based on imperfect models of how the universe works. Every single one is wrong. However, the models we use today are less wrong than those we used in the past. We know this because we (as you pointed out about Newtonian physics) can more accurately describe the universe than we were able to do previously. That doesn't mean we've found "the truth." Nor does it mean that we have all the answers. This is an important concept for baloney detection as those who are peddling baloney will (often, but not always) purport to know "the truth." Anyone who makes such claims is either knowingly attempting to mislead or is lying to themselves and others. Which, IMHO, is a pretty big red flag in baloney detection.
kgwxd 8mo ago
The people for whom this stuff isn't glaringly obvious, relatively early in life, will never get it. Except, maybe, specific instances that directly affect them in a bad way. Switch "brands" and they'll be fooled again. They'll probably even double-down on it.
- philipallstar 8mo ago
  > The people for whom this stuff isn't glaringly obvious, relatively early in life, will never get it How do you know this?
  - AdamN 8mo ago
    Yeah I hard disagree with their statement. I've come to observe with having kids (and also moving to Germany and seeing other kids shaped) that so so much is taught. There is a ton born into a kid but so many things like the ability to think critically about a problem is actually taught in primary school and early years education (kindergarten/kita/preschool). There might be some raw horsepower that some people have more or less of with regards to certain problem spaces but for the most part - how to tackle a problem and think critically is very much a learned skill that some may get on their own but it can certainly also be given to them.
    - RankingMember 8mo ago
      I concur with regard to critical thinking being a taught skill. My read is that parent's comment is possibly more of a vent about the type of person many of us have become more familiar with than we ever wanted to in the past decade or so of "post-truth" discourse- the virulent, intentional ignoramus. (We could write reams about what leads people to be this way, but in the interests of keeping short-form commentary short-form, I'll say that I think there are a confluence of causes :P).
      - projektfu 8mo ago
        People who can assert both "Fauci was wrong about masks" and "Nobody really died from COVID" come to mind.
scns 8mo ago
The article links to an article about Sagans' prediction of the decline of america. Strangely fitting nowadays. > I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time — when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness… https://www.openculture.com/2025/02/carl-sagan-predicts-the-decline-of-america-unable-to-know-whats-true.html https://www.openculture.com/2025/02/carl-sagan-predicts-the-...
- clawlrbot 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - mentalgear 8mo ago
    So openClaw bots are now even infesting HN with absolutely non-sense phrases ? WTF. Would be interesting what the recent stats on this say @dang / e.g. % new registrations since the claw-debacle, profiles with claw in their username , etc.
- kgwxd 8mo ago
  Sounds like he just read history, noticed repeating patterns, and believed his own eyes. It sucks that makes him some kind of special person, instead of "people" just being the kind of thing that commonly does stuff like that.
  - deron12 8mo ago
    Is it possible to get people to think critically and self-reflect, as a third party? The answer to that question lies in the bottom of a cup of hemlock.
jgalt212 8mo ago
In these fractious times, I think we're all very good at scrutinizing other side of the aisle, and not so good at self-reflection. As a committed centrist, I am very good at fairly scrutinizing everything. /s
- mingus88 8mo ago
  You joke but you’d be amazed at the Reddit front page. It’s hard to tell anymore if the comments are even people, but I have noticed many fake posts of some Trump tweet he never actually made getting traction. It’s so easy to verify his public statements. Did he really say that? Just go look. Yet time and time again people get baited into rage mode. It’s more satisfying to post than it is to do 30 seconds of research.
kitd 8mo ago
- 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. This is good advice IME. Get well acquainted (like REALLY well acquainted) with opposing viewpoints, such that you could argue them better than their proponents. See also "Argue Well by Losing" by Phil Haack [1]. Somewhat relatedly, the ancients viewed Rhetoric as the purest expression of intelligence. It required you to have deep knowledge of a topic, including all arguments in favour and against (implying deep empathy with the audience), and the ability to form coherent and meaningful argument. Modern political "debate" is ludicrous in comparison. [1] https://haacked.com/archive/2013/10/21/argue-well-by-losing.aspx/ https://haacked.com/archive/2013/10/21/argue-well-by-losing....
- mothballed 8mo ago
  I've also found simply testing a hypothesis without reasoning about it can quite often outdo your own reasoning and the reasoning of everyone else. Sometimes you are wrong, and everyone else is wrong, and only an empirical test can separate the wheat from the chaff. Although maybe this method only works for me because I am a moron, and many people can out reason me, so the only way I can discover anything is to do something all reasonable and rational people are already sure is wrong.
  - bigbadfeline 8mo ago
    > Sometimes you are wrong, and everyone else is wrong, Happens all the time. > and only an empirical test can separate the wheat from the chaff. Not for the vast majority of political issues and indeed for most of Social Sciences. In these cases, empirical evidence is just an accessory, it's still evidence but it's never conclusive, you need reasoning to sort out the complexity.
- rhcom2 8mo ago
  I always felt like Congressional debates should begin with each side trying to explain the opposing position, with debate only beginning when each side agrees with the opposition's framing of their PoV. I also recognize how naive and idealistic this sounds.
eafer 8mo ago
I wonder how well Sagan's own "baloney" holds up against his kit. Historians despise the guy for all the stuff he made up about the library of Alexandria, Hypatia, Eratosthenes, etc... People still repeat a lot of that to this day.
- eafer 8mo ago
  I just found out that his story about the Heike Crabs is also complete baloney. That makes me sad, it was really such a great story.
  - jgoewert 8mo ago
    Really? I think Joel is the one full of it. Human directed selection is a thing. Have you ever seen a pug or do I need 58 articles with a bibliography 20 miles long to tell you they exist?
    - eafer 8mo ago
      Damn that lying Joel... who is Joel lol? Of course human directed selection is a thing, when did I ever say otherwise? This is the problem with the Sagan types, you actually think that baloney is fine as long as it's sciencey-sounding baloney.
- palmotea 8mo ago
  > I wonder how well Sagan's own "baloney" holds up against his kit. Historians despise the guy for all the stuff he made up about the library of Alexandria, Hypatia, Eratosthenes, etc... People still repeat a lot of that to this day. Yeah, but he's a saint of science-fandom, so don't question him. Instead, admire and follow him, and encourage others to do likewise.
- SoftTalker 8mo ago
  I loved watching Cosmos when I was a kid but as I got older I developed a dislike for Sagan. He strikes me as supremely arrogant and probably insufferable to be around. I don't know that of course, I never met him. Just a feeling.
analog31 8mo ago
I think the notion of considering all points of view depends on the assumption that people are arguing in good faith. When this breaks down, I don’t think we can just throw up our hands and give up, but the baloney detection kit needs to be updated. I don’t have a blog-worthy list of answers, but it’s something I at least think about. One thing we can do is a kind of meta-analysis, where we check on the condition of our own baloney detection kit. For instance, if I reject an idea and it later turns out to be true, did my BDK fail? Does it need to be updated? Or are a few scattered failures OK? You can treat the BDK as a testable hypothesis like anything else.
coolhand2120 8mo ago
I love this. I drill this into my children, they have it memorized.
th0ma5 8mo ago
[dead]
goobert 8mo ago
A significant amount of modern academia would dissolve if this was applied
- swed420 8mo ago
  > A significant amount of modern academia would dissolve if this was applied You could go one level higher with this observation, since "modern academia" is just another business. Rephrased: A significant amount of businesses would dissolve if this was applied.
- donkeybeer 8mo ago
  Almost all of religion would vanish too.
dredmorbius 8mo ago
Sagan's kit is one of several similar resources I'd turned up ... over a decade ago now ... when I'd begun considering the matter of epistemics in media, particularly online discourse. The situation's not improved. My catalogue is here: <https://web.archive.org/web/20200121211018/https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/28ge14/on_nonsense_forms_thereof_falsifiability/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200121211018/https://old.reddi...> (archive). It includes in addition to Sagan: Rory Coker's precis on pseudoscience, the Venn Diagram of Irrational Nonsense, the concept of falsifiability, an informative (if excruciatingly painful) BBC docu on stupidity, Frankfurt's "On Bullshit", Ferguson on why youth culture made everything suck, Brandolino's Law, Silver's Bullshitter's Inequality, a relationship between the Kübler-Ross model and the Dunning-Kruger Effect, The Periodic Table of Irrational Nonsense, and Adams's 'B'-Ark.
tunesmith 8mo ago
While each of these are good to keep in mind while reading, I don't find them very exhaustive or derivable. I prefer the Theory of Constraints (Eli Goldratt)'s "Thinking Tools", specifically the "categories of legitimate reservation". Depending on source, there are between six and eight. 1. Is it clear? 2. Does it actually exist? Is it true? 3. Does the cause actually cause the effect? 4. For the proposed cause, do its other implied effects exist? 5. Is the cause sufficient for the effect? 6. Are cause and effect reversed?
Arun2009 8mo ago
A key meta-requirement is to want to think critically about issues. If there is no desire to discover the truth of a matter and evaluate it against supporting evidence and opposing claims, then all efforts at inculcating critical thinking are dead in the water. On the other hand, if there is a genuine desire to assess arguments and claims critically, there are plenty of resources today that can teach you how. This is a never-ending process. But the desire to think critically has to be in place before it can even begin. Critical thinking cannot occur without a strong commitment to epistemic hygiene. In India, the problem is that many people do not even want to think critically. We tend to gravitate toward beliefs that buttress our tribal affiliations. Our tribes are defined by our worldviews, and our tribes must prevail. Hence our worldviews must be proven true, regardless of whether they are in fact true. There is a striking indifference toward truth as a value - ironic for a country whose national motto is "Truth alone triumphs." Many people have yet to realize that truth - satya - is not something you place on a pedestal and worship, but something you actively pursue, overturning long-held beliefs where necessary.

260 points by nobody9999 8mo ago

Original Title: Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit: Tools for Thinking Critically & Knowing Pseudoscience When You See It

chistev 8mo ago

Acclaimed science author Carl Sagan illustrated this challenge with his “dragon in the garage” analogy. If someone claims to have a dragon that is invisible, silent, intangible, and undetectable by any means, there is no practical difference between the dragon’s existence and non-existence. Similarly, without verifiable evidence, the existence of an immortal soul remains unproven. https://www.rxjourney.net/the-possibility-of-life-after-death https://www.rxjourney.net/the-possibility-of-life-after-deat...

nobody9999 8mo ago
>If someone claims to have a dragon that is invisible, silent, intangible, and undetectable by any means, there is no practical difference between the dragon’s existence and non-existence. “Everyone knows that dragons don’t exist. But while this simplistic formulation may satisfy the layman, it does not suffice for the scientific mind. The School of Higher Neantical Nillity is in fact wholly unconcerned with what does exist. Indeed, the banality of existence has been so amply demonstrated, there is no need for us to discuss it any further here. The brilliant Cerebron, attacking the problem analytically, discovered three distinct kinds of dragon: the mythical, the chimerical, and the purely hypothetical. They were all, one might say, nonexistent, but each non-existed in an entirely different way.” ― Stanisław Lem, The Cyberiad
- chistev 8mo ago
  https://youtube.com/shorts/CEEHjtVJHYs?si=H_muwqpJTIndywr8 https://youtube.com/shorts/CEEHjtVJHYs?si=H_muwqpJTIndywr8
  - stefanfisk 8mo ago
    So gender is a strict binary but dragons kinda-sorta exist, got it (＠_＠)
- mdallastella 8mo ago
  Love that book!
qsera 8mo ago
The dragon in the room is the hidden qualifier for "undetectable by any means" is "that is currently known to humanity". That makes Carl Sagan's claim some what Balonish. Not sure why the smart Sagan fell for it.
- ekjhgkejhgk 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - nobody9999 8mo ago
    >Not sure why this comment got downvoted, but after all this is HN: very pro-tech while at the same time anti-science. Computers do everything so knowledge doesn't matter. As Dr. Sagan (quite correctly) pointed out: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Whether there's any particular method right now, next week or next year for such "detection" isn't relevant in this context for several reasons: 1. Sagan's example was a metaphor for an unfalsifiable hypothesis; 2. Dragons (okay, kimodo dragons do, but that's orthogonal to the discussion) don't actually exist; 3. Even if dragons with the properties posited by Sagan actually do exist, Evidence must be provided to confirm the "garage dragon" hypothesis or it's irrelevant. If it cannot be detected, it may as well not exist. While it's true that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," not being able to verify the non-existence of something doesn't confirm its existence. I suggest you use the rest of the tools provided in Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit" (helpfully linked above) to help you get the point. I'd also point out that the guidelines[0] say: Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - ekjhgkejhgk 8mo ago
      [flagged]
      - nobody9999 8mo ago
        >It IS relevant to me and to most scientists. And you sound like someone who stops giving up at the first obstacle. QFT posits that the graviton (as a particle-like excitation in a "gravity field") exists. We do not currently (although there are some potential future experiments that might be able to confirm the existence of the graviton) have the means to detect gravitons. Does the graviton exist? I don't know and neither do you. And we won't, unless and until we have the ability to detect gravitons. While we have a theoretical basis for gravitons, we have no experimental or observational evidence. Does that mean we should stop looking? No. How about dark matter. What exactly is dark matter? We have a bunch of evidence that something that doesn't interact via the photon (the particle-like excitation of the EM field), but does interact gravitationally with itself and other fermions and bosons. We don't know what that "dark matter" might be, but we continue looking for it, as there is both theoretical and observational evidence of its existence. As for the "garage dragon," there is no theoretical, experimental or observational evidence for it. There is also none of that for my claim of the absolute existence of a gremlin living inside your skull chowing down on your brain. But we should definitely saw open your skull to prove it, right? I'm partial to circular saws, but we can go with a chainsaw if you like. >you sound like someone who stops giving up at the first obstacle. It's not clear what ad-hominem attack you're making against me here as the words, as strung together don't make sense, but who I am or what I will or won't do is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Are you unable to make a better argument and so attack me personally instead? >> I'd also point out that the guidelines[0] say: >I had already removed it by the time you commented, so that's on you. Did you? Thanks for finally following the site guidelines. Perhaps next time you won't need to be reminded.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
RcouF1uZ4gsC 8mo ago
Doesn’t silent, invisible, intangible also apply to software? You can’t really tell a particular piece of hardware is running software by a direct physical measurement. You can only infer that indirectly.
- Zigurd 8mo ago
  Having debugged code with a logic analyzer, I'm pretty sure the voltage on those CPU pins is real, and really the consequence of the code I think I'm running.
  - the__alchemist 8mo ago
    This. Try it! LAs are cheap and easier to use than a scope, even if it has digital features.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 8mo ago
    This is like arguing I can hear humans talk, therefore the souls must exist. You can wire voltage to CPU pins without software.
    - donkeybeer 8mo ago
      The visible part of em spectrum by which we interact with computers daily needs no multimeters.
- dghf 8mo ago
  What? Yes you can. I know my laptop is running a web browser because I can see it and interact with it. That's a physical measurement.
  - donkeybeer 8mo ago
    Won't be surprised if he's one of those that think "radiation" is some kind of harmful beams instead of also what the computer screen emits and we detect it to interact with it.
CGMthrowaway 8mo ago
The dragon is just a gauge. Gauge symmetry
- BeetleB 8mo ago
  Good one!
the__alchemist 8mo ago
A parking lot dragon? This sounds familiar. [Assuming not a Dragon of Eden, nor one who farts nerve gas] I believe it is a parable about cause and effect; consistency of the world's state. A parking garage, poured in modern times from reinforced concrete, might have been found to be structurally unstable during a renovation. If this turned out to be rooted in a massive [dragon, dinosaur, etc] skeleton being embedded in the concrete (As it was being poured?) surely this would be a contradiction, if people (workers, onlookers) witnessed the garage's construction. There would be evidence from the reinforcement efforts; materials sourced to reinforce it due to structural flaws introduced by the skeleton; wear on the truck tires carrying them, memories in brains etc. If suddenly the skeleton were to have vanished, would there be logical consistency problems with the world state? Quite a thing to ponder! I would like to clarify that this is purely a thought experiment. It is not possible that any group of people, no matter how secluded, could either A: Will such a reptile into existence while maintaining cosmological consistency, nor B: Remove it from our cosmos after evidence over its existence has propagated.
krapp 8mo ago
> If someone claims to have a dragon that is invisible, silent, intangible, and undetectable by any means, there is no practical difference between the dragon’s existence and non-existence. Unsurprising that the longest subthread here is one criticizing the premise.

zyxzevn 8mo ago

While skeptical, he did not have much skepticism against mainstream theories. I think it needs another item in the list: For any theory/ hypothesis: how well does it stand against the null-hypothesis? For example: How much physical evidence is there really for the string-theory? And I would upgrade this one: If there’s a chain of physical evidence (was argument), every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them And when breaking these items do not mean that something is false. It means that the arguments and evidence is incomplete. Don't jump to conclusions when you think that the arguments or evidence is invalid (that is how some people even think that the moonlanding was a hoax).

ajross 8mo ago
> While skeptical, he did not have much skepticism against mainstream theories. That's tautological. The definition of a "mainstream theory" is one that is widely believed. And while, sure, sometimes scientific paradigms are wrong (c.f. Kuhn), that's rare. Demanding someone be "skeptical" of theories that end up wrong is isomorphic to demanding that they be a preternatural genius in all things able to see through mistakes that all the world's experts cannot. That doesn't work. (It's 100% not enough just to apply a null hypothesis argument, btw!) Really that's all of a piece with his argument. It's not a recipe for detecting truth (he didn't have one, and neither do you[1]). It's a recipe for detecting when arguments are unsupported by scientific consensus. That's not the same thing, but it's closer than other stuff like "trust". (And it's 100% better th an applying a null-hypothesis argument, to be clear.) [1] Well, we do, but it's called "the scientific method" and it's really, really hard. Not something to deploy in an internet argument.
ceejayoz 8mo ago
> And I would upgrade this one: If there’s a chain of physical evidence (was argument), every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them We still use Newtonian physics plenty, despite bits of it not working due to relativity.
- nobody9999 8mo ago
  >We still use Newtonian physics plenty, despite bits of it not working due to relativity. Absolutely. And since no one else has trotted this bit out yet, I guess it will be me: All of our science is based on imperfect models of how the universe works. Every single one is wrong. However, the models we use today are less wrong than those we used in the past. We know this because we (as you pointed out about Newtonian physics) can more accurately describe the universe than we were able to do previously. That doesn't mean we've found "the truth." Nor does it mean that we have all the answers. This is an important concept for baloney detection as those who are peddling baloney will (often, but not always) purport to know "the truth." Anyone who makes such claims is either knowingly attempting to mislead or is lying to themselves and others. Which, IMHO, is a pretty big red flag in baloney detection.

kgwxd 8mo ago

The people for whom this stuff isn't glaringly obvious, relatively early in life, will never get it. Except, maybe, specific instances that directly affect them in a bad way. Switch "brands" and they'll be fooled again. They'll probably even double-down on it.

philipallstar 8mo ago
> The people for whom this stuff isn't glaringly obvious, relatively early in life, will never get it How do you know this?
- AdamN 8mo ago
  Yeah I hard disagree with their statement. I've come to observe with having kids (and also moving to Germany and seeing other kids shaped) that so so much is taught. There is a ton born into a kid but so many things like the ability to think critically about a problem is actually taught in primary school and early years education (kindergarten/kita/preschool). There might be some raw horsepower that some people have more or less of with regards to certain problem spaces but for the most part - how to tackle a problem and think critically is very much a learned skill that some may get on their own but it can certainly also be given to them.
  - RankingMember 8mo ago
    I concur with regard to critical thinking being a taught skill. My read is that parent's comment is possibly more of a vent about the type of person many of us have become more familiar with than we ever wanted to in the past decade or so of "post-truth" discourse- the virulent, intentional ignoramus. (We could write reams about what leads people to be this way, but in the interests of keeping short-form commentary short-form, I'll say that I think there are a confluence of causes :P).
    - projektfu 8mo ago
      People who can assert both "Fauci was wrong about masks" and "Nobody really died from COVID" come to mind.

scns 8mo ago

The article links to an article about Sagans' prediction of the decline of america. Strangely fitting nowadays. > I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time — when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness… https://www.openculture.com/2025/02/carl-sagan-predicts-the-decline-of-america-unable-to-know-whats-true.html https://www.openculture.com/2025/02/carl-sagan-predicts-the-...

clawlrbot 8mo ago
[flagged]
- mentalgear 8mo ago
  So openClaw bots are now even infesting HN with absolutely non-sense phrases ? WTF. Would be interesting what the recent stats on this say @dang / e.g. % new registrations since the claw-debacle, profiles with claw in their username , etc.
kgwxd 8mo ago
Sounds like he just read history, noticed repeating patterns, and believed his own eyes. It sucks that makes him some kind of special person, instead of "people" just being the kind of thing that commonly does stuff like that.
- deron12 8mo ago
  Is it possible to get people to think critically and self-reflect, as a third party? The answer to that question lies in the bottom of a cup of hemlock.

jgalt212 8mo ago

In these fractious times, I think we're all very good at scrutinizing other side of the aisle, and not so good at self-reflection. As a committed centrist, I am very good at fairly scrutinizing everything. /s

mingus88 8mo ago
You joke but you’d be amazed at the Reddit front page. It’s hard to tell anymore if the comments are even people, but I have noticed many fake posts of some Trump tweet he never actually made getting traction. It’s so easy to verify his public statements. Did he really say that? Just go look. Yet time and time again people get baited into rage mode. It’s more satisfying to post than it is to do 30 seconds of research.

kitd 8mo ago

- 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. This is good advice IME. Get well acquainted (like REALLY well acquainted) with opposing viewpoints, such that you could argue them better than their proponents. See also "Argue Well by Losing" by Phil Haack [1]. Somewhat relatedly, the ancients viewed Rhetoric as the purest expression of intelligence. It required you to have deep knowledge of a topic, including all arguments in favour and against (implying deep empathy with the audience), and the ability to form coherent and meaningful argument. Modern political "debate" is ludicrous in comparison. [1] https://haacked.com/archive/2013/10/21/argue-well-by-losing.aspx/ https://haacked.com/archive/2013/10/21/argue-well-by-losing....

mothballed 8mo ago
I've also found simply testing a hypothesis without reasoning about it can quite often outdo your own reasoning and the reasoning of everyone else. Sometimes you are wrong, and everyone else is wrong, and only an empirical test can separate the wheat from the chaff. Although maybe this method only works for me because I am a moron, and many people can out reason me, so the only way I can discover anything is to do something all reasonable and rational people are already sure is wrong.
- bigbadfeline 8mo ago
  > Sometimes you are wrong, and everyone else is wrong, Happens all the time. > and only an empirical test can separate the wheat from the chaff. Not for the vast majority of political issues and indeed for most of Social Sciences. In these cases, empirical evidence is just an accessory, it's still evidence but it's never conclusive, you need reasoning to sort out the complexity.
rhcom2 8mo ago
I always felt like Congressional debates should begin with each side trying to explain the opposing position, with debate only beginning when each side agrees with the opposition's framing of their PoV. I also recognize how naive and idealistic this sounds.

eafer 8mo ago

I wonder how well Sagan's own "baloney" holds up against his kit. Historians despise the guy for all the stuff he made up about the library of Alexandria, Hypatia, Eratosthenes, etc... People still repeat a lot of that to this day.

eafer 8mo ago
I just found out that his story about the Heike Crabs is also complete baloney. That makes me sad, it was really such a great story.
- jgoewert 8mo ago
  Really? I think Joel is the one full of it. Human directed selection is a thing. Have you ever seen a pug or do I need 58 articles with a bibliography 20 miles long to tell you they exist?
  - eafer 8mo ago
    Damn that lying Joel... who is Joel lol? Of course human directed selection is a thing, when did I ever say otherwise? This is the problem with the Sagan types, you actually think that baloney is fine as long as it's sciencey-sounding baloney.
palmotea 8mo ago
> I wonder how well Sagan's own "baloney" holds up against his kit. Historians despise the guy for all the stuff he made up about the library of Alexandria, Hypatia, Eratosthenes, etc... People still repeat a lot of that to this day. Yeah, but he's a saint of science-fandom, so don't question him. Instead, admire and follow him, and encourage others to do likewise.
SoftTalker 8mo ago
I loved watching Cosmos when I was a kid but as I got older I developed a dislike for Sagan. He strikes me as supremely arrogant and probably insufferable to be around. I don't know that of course, I never met him. Just a feeling.

analog31 8mo ago

I think the notion of considering all points of view depends on the assumption that people are arguing in good faith. When this breaks down, I don’t think we can just throw up our hands and give up, but the baloney detection kit needs to be updated. I don’t have a blog-worthy list of answers, but it’s something I at least think about. One thing we can do is a kind of meta-analysis, where we check on the condition of our own baloney detection kit. For instance, if I reject an idea and it later turns out to be true, did my BDK fail? Does it need to be updated? Or are a few scattered failures OK? You can treat the BDK as a testable hypothesis like anything else.

coolhand2120 8mo ago

I love this. I drill this into my children, they have it memorized.

th0ma5 8mo ago

[dead]

goobert 8mo ago

A significant amount of modern academia would dissolve if this was applied

swed420 8mo ago
> A significant amount of modern academia would dissolve if this was applied You could go one level higher with this observation, since "modern academia" is just another business. Rephrased: A significant amount of businesses would dissolve if this was applied.
donkeybeer 8mo ago
Almost all of religion would vanish too.

dredmorbius 8mo ago

Sagan's kit is one of several similar resources I'd turned up ... over a decade ago now ... when I'd begun considering the matter of epistemics in media, particularly online discourse. The situation's not improved. My catalogue is here: <https://web.archive.org/web/20200121211018/https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/28ge14/on_nonsense_forms_thereof_falsifiability/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200121211018/https://old.reddi...> (archive). It includes in addition to Sagan: Rory Coker's precis on pseudoscience, the Venn Diagram of Irrational Nonsense, the concept of falsifiability, an informative (if excruciatingly painful) BBC docu on stupidity, Frankfurt's "On Bullshit", Ferguson on why youth culture made everything suck, Brandolino's Law, Silver's Bullshitter's Inequality, a relationship between the Kübler-Ross model and the Dunning-Kruger Effect, The Periodic Table of Irrational Nonsense, and Adams's 'B'-Ark.

tunesmith 8mo ago

While each of these are good to keep in mind while reading, I don't find them very exhaustive or derivable. I prefer the Theory of Constraints (Eli Goldratt)'s "Thinking Tools", specifically the "categories of legitimate reservation". Depending on source, there are between six and eight. 1. Is it clear? 2. Does it actually exist? Is it true? 3. Does the cause actually cause the effect? 4. For the proposed cause, do its other implied effects exist? 5. Is the cause sufficient for the effect? 6. Are cause and effect reversed?

Arun2009 8mo ago

A key meta-requirement is to want to think critically about issues. If there is no desire to discover the truth of a matter and evaluate it against supporting evidence and opposing claims, then all efforts at inculcating critical thinking are dead in the water. On the other hand, if there is a genuine desire to assess arguments and claims critically, there are plenty of resources today that can teach you how. This is a never-ending process. But the desire to think critically has to be in place before it can even begin. Critical thinking cannot occur without a strong commitment to epistemic hygiene. In India, the problem is that many people do not even want to think critically. We tend to gravitate toward beliefs that buttress our tribal affiliations. Our tribes are defined by our worldviews, and our tribes must prevail. Hence our worldviews must be proven true, regardless of whether they are in fact true. There is a striking indifference toward truth as a value - ironic for a country whose national motto is "Truth alone triumphs." Many people have yet to realize that truth - satya - is not something you place on a pedestal and worship, but something you actively pursue, overturning long-held beliefs where necessary.