How to detect baloney the Carl Sagan way | Michael Shermer | Big Think
How to detect baloney the Carl Sagan way
Watch the newest video from Big Think: https://bigth.ink/NewVideo
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive videos: https://bigth.ink/Edge
———————————————————————————-
In 1995, just a few months before his death, astrophysicist Carl Sagan published The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. In that book, he wrote a chapter called ‘The Fine Art of Baloney Detection’, and from it sprang what skeptics call the ‘baloney detection kit’. This is a set of tools for critical thinking that has continued to develop since Sagan’s death, 22 years ago. Here, skeptic and science writer Michael Shermer explains key lessons from Sagan, and from his own college freshman course ‘Skepticism 101’, where teaches students ten basic questions that will help them debunk untruths, and call out baloney when they see it.
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?
———————————————————————————-
MICHAEL SHERMER:
Dr. Michael Shermer is the Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine, a monthly columnist for Scientific American, and Presidential Fellow at Chapman University.
———————————————————————————-
TRANSCRIPT:
Michael Shermer: Back in the late ’90s we introduced the Baloney Detection Kit, inspired by Carl Sagan’s ‘Demon-Haunted World’ where he had a chapter on the Baloney Detection Kit. He had his set of questions; I kind of developed my own because I started encountering other people that disagreed with me, you know, “we never went to the moon” people, conspiracy people, whatever, and I thought okay so: How do we know—if I don’t know what’s coming down the pike in ten years from now, if I am going to teach my students how to think critically, what are the key points, like just basic questions they can ask?
So it begins with one: how reliable is the source of the claim? Here’s the claim, how reliable is it? What’s the evidence for it? What’s the quality of the evidence? Where does it come from? Who said that? Is this some fake news alternative site thing or is it the Wall Street Journal or The New York Times? I mean, the source really matters.
Has anyone tried to disprove the claim? This is super important because everybody thinks they’re right and every website has testimonials about this product or that idea; the question is not what do your supporters think but what do the people who don’t agree with you think? Because that’s what I want to know.
Has anyone run experiments to try to disprove your theory? In science, this is as basic as it gets. Karl Popper called this the principle of falsification, that is we can’t ever prove a theory correct, but we can disprove it by having an experiment that shows it’s wrong.
If you can’t falsify it, what are you really doing? And my favorite story on this, by the way—let me just have a little sidetrack here from Carl Sagan, he’s got this great little section in his book ‘Demon-Haunted World’: “There is a dragon in my garage. I have a dragon in my garage. Do you want to see it? Let me show you.” So I pull up the garage door I go, “Look. Can you see the dragon?” And you look in there and you go, “I don’t see anything.”
“Oh, sorry, this is an invisible dragon.”
“An invisible dragon?”
“Yeah, yeah he’s invisible.”
“Well, what if we put some flour on the ground and then we’ll get the footprints of the dragon.”
“Well, no, see, this is a special dragon that hovers above the ground, it floats. It’s an invisible floating dragon.”
“An invisible floating dragon. Okay. Wait, I have some infrared cameras here we can detect the heat of the dragon.”
”No, see this is a cold-blooded dragon. It doesn’t give off any heat.”
“What about the fire? We can detect the fire that the dragon spits out.”
“No, it spits out cold fire.”
You see the problem? If there’s no way for me to falsify that there’s a dragon there, what’s the difference between an invisible floating heatless dragon and no dragon at all? None.
And of course we can apply this to god or any other supernatural/paranormal-type phenomenon. If I can’t debunk it, if I can’t falsify it, if there’s no way to test it, then how will we ever know…
Read the full transcript at https://bigthink.com/videos/michael-shermer-basic-questions-for-improving-critical-thinking-skills
@bigthink
August 19, 2025 at 11:04 pm
Want to get Smarter, Faster?
Subscribe for DAILY videos: https://bigth.ink/GetSmarter
@sidwhite7744
August 19, 2025 at 11:04 pm
Your mention of NPR as a "left-leaning" was interesting.
Why are all people who seek the TRUTH considered Liberal?
@vpapale2190
August 19, 2025 at 11:04 pm
If you still think the NYT and WSJ are reputable news sources, you need to think more critically
@andyw8984
August 19, 2025 at 11:04 pm
Trouble is now the baloney comes from the previously trusted sources, ie New York Times , case in point.
@osbjmg
August 19, 2025 at 11:04 pm
The USSR didn't claim the USA never went to the moon. Interesting.
@3rdeye399
August 19, 2025 at 11:04 pm
it is funny that you mention … the Big Bang and the theory of Evolution when 6 years later these very basic Theories are now being questioned. I am a Truther and the absolute truth is my only mission…my gut is now my 3rd eYe , it seems to me that the masses have failed to develop their instinctive senses and fail miserably to see anomalies. The USA is one of the biggest Conspiracies ever and no-one seems to realise it…300 M in 248 years and counting…your eyes are wide shut…you were built up , for reason and now are being dismantled and you don't see it…..when the clues are in full view…
@is-ness
August 19, 2025 at 11:04 pm
“Is it the Wall Street News or the New York Times”.
You could not be further in the machine and not know it.
Do you need a looooong list of lies proven to be lies over time from these outlets or are you happy in your illusion teaching others to hunt illusion. 🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️
Be careful folks. Don’t think because someone claims authority in truth skills that they have it.
Mortgages have to be paid and illusion runs deep.
@hansenmarc
August 19, 2025 at 11:04 pm
0:37 baloney detection kit key questions
1. Reliability: How reliable is the source of the claim? What is the evidence for the claim and what is its quality? Who made the claim?
2. Falsification: Has anyone tried to disprove the claim? This is the core of the kit.
3. Agenda: Does the claimant’s personal beliefs come into play?
4. Explainability: Does the new idea improve on the explanatory ability of the old idea?
5. Does the claimant play by the rules of field, e.g., science?
@Demetrenos
August 19, 2025 at 11:04 pm
About the Moon landing. Take a close look at the Moon landing module. Do you think this trashcan, hold together with tape, landed on the Moon?
@jasondoyle8702
August 19, 2025 at 11:04 pm
good video
@DrAlexVasquezICHNFM
August 19, 2025 at 11:04 pm
Controlled opposition
@EyeLean5280
August 19, 2025 at 11:04 pm
Try this with someone who claims that Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, Edward de Vere, etc., wrote Shakespeare's works. You'll find their evidence for their theories is about as good as the invisible, floating, heatless dragon in the garage.
@burgercide
August 19, 2025 at 11:04 pm
Everyone has an agenda. It's impossible not to have an agenda whether you're conscious of it or not.
@musicauthority674
August 19, 2025 at 11:04 pm
Carl Sagan was so brilliant for coming up with his baloney detection kit. among his many brilliant achievements.
@kellanaldous7092
August 19, 2025 at 11:04 pm
Line about looking to reputable sources and ignoring independent media sure didn't age well. I haven't heard this guys takes in quite a while, wonder where he landed on the issues.
@robot7759
August 19, 2025 at 11:04 pm
I'm ever so sorry to disappoint, but the Wall Street journal and New York times are full of bs as well. Apart from that, I like baloney on rye 😆
@scrabbleking1965
August 19, 2025 at 11:04 pm
Yet Michael Shermer refuses to look at the mountains of factual evidence that Oswald didn't act alone. He is so stuck on the fact that some theories of the assassination are wrong, he refuses to follow the evidence to see where it leads. Anyone with an open mind that takes the time to do so will see that the official story of the Warren Commission is TOTAL BALONEY!!!
@nebulousy
August 19, 2025 at 11:04 pm
This guy believes Liz Cheney is a beacon of integrity. His baloney detector is broken. Where is Carl Sagan?
@torguttormsyvertsen9088
August 19, 2025 at 11:04 pm
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”
― W.C. Fields (1880-1946)
@PUMPADOUR
August 19, 2025 at 11:04 pm
New yourk time males BS all the time.
@Kulis747
August 19, 2025 at 11:04 pm
"Is it the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times?" I think he was confused in how much fake news comes out of these two organizations that used to be reputable.
@theinspector7882
August 19, 2025 at 11:04 pm
3:30 are you afraid to call them out? cnn, msnbc, abc,
Anyway, the answer to the big question was posed by W. Churchil "there's not to reason WHY but to and die into the valley of death" ✍️
@Lord_Problematic
August 19, 2025 at 11:04 pm
Shermer is baloney
Comments are closed.