The Baloney Detection Kit

[|iR|Focalor]

what is the HVAC industry anyway?

I HAVE NO IDEA. Glad I could be of assistance.

[|iR|Focalor]

The original author of the so-called Baloney Detection Kit was Carl Sagan in his book The Demon Haunted World.

The 9 tools in the Baloney Detection Kit part 1...

• There must be independent confirmation of the facts given when possible.
• Encourage debate on the evidence from all points of view.
• Realize that an argument from authority is not always reliable. Sagan supports this by telling us that "authorities" have made mistakes in the past and they will again in the future.
• Consider more than one hypothesis. Sagan adds to this by telling us that we must think of the argument from all angles and think all the ways it can be explained or disproved. The hypothesis that then still hasn't been disproved has a much higher chance of being correct.
• Try to avoid clinging obdurately to your own hypothesis and so become biased. Sagan tells us to compare our own hypothesis with others to see if we can find reasons to reject our own hypothesis.
• Quantify. Sagan tells us that if whatever we are trying to explain has numerical value or quantitative data related to it, then we'll be much more able to compete against other hypotheses.
• If there is a chain of argument, every link in that chain must be correct.
• The use of Occam's razor, which says to choose the hypothesis that is simpler and requires the fewest assumptions.
• Ask if a given hypothesis can be falsified. Sagan tells us that if a hypothesis cannot be tested or falsified then it is not worth considering.

Part 2 - 20 logical fallacies that must be avoided...

• Ad hominem. An arguer attacks the opposing arguer and not the actual argument.
• Argument from authority. (aka appeal to authority) Someone expects another to immediately believe that a person of authority or higher knowledge is correct.
• Argument from adverse consequences. Someone says that something must be done a certain way or else there will be adverse consequences.
• Appeal to ignorance. One argues a claim in that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa.
• Special pleading. An arguer responds to a deeply complex or rhetorical question or statement by, usually, saying "oh you don't understand how so and so works."
• Begging the question. An arguer assumes the answer and makes a claim such as, this happened because of that, or, this needs to happen in order for that to happen.
• Observational selection. Someone talks about how great something is by explaining all of the positive aspects of it while purposely not mentioning any of the negative aspects.
• Statistics of small numbers. Someone argues something by giving the statistics in small numbers, which isn't very reliable.
• Misunderstanding of the nature of statistics. Someone misinterprets statistics given to them.
• Fallacy of inconsistency. An arguer is very inconsistent in their claims.
• Non sequitur. This is Latin for "it doesn't follow". A claim is made that doesn't make much sense, such as "Our nation will prevail because God is great."
• Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Latin for "it happened after, so it was caused by". An arguer claims that something happened because of a past event when really it probably didn't.
• Meaningless question. Someone asks a question that has no real meaning or doesn't add to the argument at all.
• The excluded middle. An arguer only considers or mentions the two opposite extremes of the conversation and excludes the aspects in between the two extremes.
• Short-term vs. long-term. A subset of the excluded middle, but so important it was pulled out for special attention.
  
• 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…).
• Confusion of correlation and causation. The latter causes the former.
• Straw man. Caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack. This is also a short-term/long-term fallacy.
• Suppressed evidence, or half-truth.
• Weasel word (aka anonymous authority) A word or phrase aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague, ambiguous, or irrelevant claim has been communicated. The terms may be considered informal. Examples include the phrases "some people say", "it is thought", and "researchers believe".

With all of the podcasters and people on social media these days having such... interesting... opinions and theories about things, these tools are now more necessary than ever. Just because someone is charismatic and speaks confidently doesn't mean they really know what they're talking about.