Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

openculture.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–129 of 129 posts

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

#121

Post by nradov »

bigbadfeline wrote: post #102
nradov wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The public Congressional debates are performative, intended to curry favor with key voters, campaign donors, and media personalities. The substantive debates happen in private using completely different rhetoric. This is mostly fine in that it allows for policy decisions to move forward with compromises. The problem is that some members of Congress are unable to shut off their deranged public personas even in private…

> The public Congressional debates are performative, > The substantive debates happen in private using completely different rhetoric. If we can't hear the substantive debates, voting becomes meaningless and performative too. Are we supposed to believe that we vote better when we don't know the truth? > This is mostly fine Is it?

Well what's the alternative? We obviously can't prevent legislators from talking with each other in private.

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

#122

Post by illithid0 »

claytongulick wrote: post #96
illithid0 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, man. I'm at a point where not even the tangible effects on me that the policies and decisions some members of my family endorse are enough to get them to think twice. I can sit right in front of them and describe the problems I'm now dealing with and point out the exact legislative changes that caused them and it's like their brains turn off until the subject changes. More than happy to pray for me, tho…

Do you think there's a possibility that while they may love you and sympathize with your struggles, they recognize that with any policy some people will be negatively affected? The idea is to have political policy that minimizes harm and maximizes benefit, for the most people. Is it possible that this is the way they are viewing it, and that perhaps you are the one who isn't thinking critically because you're being d…

Normally I'm pretty good at extending intellectual generosity. But for them, it's at the level of voting for a candidate who supports cuts to Medicaid and then wondering why it's suddenly infinitely harder for me to get through to anyone about assistance (not even for myself, for them) following staffing cuts.

"This isn't what I voted for" is a common utterance. They can't help themselves, so I do my best to help, while they undercut my options to help them.

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

#123

Post by eafer »

jgoewert wrote: post #119
eafer wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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?

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.

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

#124

Post by eafer »

pu_pe wrote: post #116
eafer wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think "made up" is fair. I can't know what his process was and everybody makes mistakes, but almost every single thing he said about history was wrong in a way that was convenient to his narrative, and it's not like he ever retracted anything. Surely if he wrote a whole book about dealing with bullshit he could have used that opportunity for some reflection about his past mistakes, now that would have been interest…

Do you have a specific source for this claim? I have read through what someone else posted in this thread ( https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2020/02/05/carl-sagan-was-... ) and while some details are indeed incorrect, a lot of it is nitpicking or common misconceptions from his time.

You think it's nitpicking because you don't care much about truth when it comes to history, and that's perfectly fine. But it's weird to complain about other people's baloney while spreading your own, and I think in his position as a trusted science communicator he should have been more responsible about this stuff.

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

#125

Post by vizzier »

nradov wrote: post #121
bigbadfeline wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The public Congressional debates are performative, > The substantive debates happen in private using completely different rhetoric. If we can't hear the substantive debates, voting becomes meaningless and performative too. Are we supposed to believe that we vote better when we don't know the truth? > This is mostly fine Is it?

Well what's the alternative? We obviously can't prevent legislators from talking with each other in private.

Actually, in this world of technology, we 100% can.

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

#126

Post by akramachamarei »

palmotea wrote: post #79
akramachamarei wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain what it means for capitalism to "serve money"? That sounds exactly backwards to me; money serves capitalism, that is, it is the breath expelled when people speak the language of prices to understand each others' values. I think it's also worth dilating on this notion of "unrestrained capitalism". Capitalism is after all a product of restraints, namely the enforcement of property, contracts, and the va…

> Can you explain what it means for capitalism to "serve money"? That sounds exactly backwards to me; money serves capitalism, that is, it is the breath expelled when people speak the language of prices to understand each others' values. Capitalism doesn't work to satisfy the wants and needs of the people in a society, generally. It works to satisfy the wants and needs of the people who have money, in proportion to t…

> If you desperately need something, but a rich guy kinda-sorta wants it, rich guy gets it if he's willing to pay more.

I share this concern about access to scarce goods, though I'm not sure what these scarcity catastrophes look like in practice. To generalize your example, if there is some scarce resource, at most some number N of the wealthiest demanders (which can include corporations such as unions or communes, not just individuals) can access it. I certainly agree that this is a failing of a capitalism, but it's not clear to me how you would propose adjusting it's tenets to recover these drawbacks, and at what additional cost. Like, if the issue is we want to ensure everyone can get what they need to survive, I imagine you can't allow buyers and sellers to negotiate prices, there has to be some neutral third party to do this. And if this modification to prices disincentivizes extraction, production, or delivery of these goods how you would force people to do those jobs.

I hope this doesn't sound like a strawman, I'm just honestly unclear on what should replace what are seemingly basic and natural rights, namely property, physical autonomy, contracts, whatever. I won't pretend that in e.g. the US these rights haven't been abridged whilst the sky remains suspended above us, but my imagination fails me on the question what it looks like when we shave away more of those rights, versus restoring them. Though I'd also imagine that your policy prescriptions would probably include both abridgements and restorations of these rights, so don't let me speak for you.

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

#127

Post by Arun2009 »

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.

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

#128

Post by pu_pe »

eafer wrote: post #124
pu_pe wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a specific source for this claim? I have read through what someone else posted in this thread ( https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2020/02/05/carl-sagan-was-... ) and while some details are indeed incorrect, a lot of it is nitpicking or common misconceptions from his time.

You think it's nitpicking because you don't care much about truth when it comes to history, and that's perfectly fine. But it's weird to complain about other people's baloney while spreading your own, and I think in his position as a trusted science communicator he should have been more responsible about this stuff.

No, I think it's nitpicking because it truly is in some cases. Science communication is about simplifying things and making shortcuts while keeping things engaging. Of course Sagan didn't go into a tangent about the first use of the word barbarians or whether ancient greeks would define robots the same way we do. That's pedantic.

There are a few good examples of significant errors in the link I cited which I think are substantial - the portrayal of Hypatia is a big one. I just wondered whether there were more discussions about other history topics he got wrong, since you yourself mentioned that "almost every single thing" he said was wrong.

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

#129

Post by jhbadger »

Fricken wrote: post #105
eafer wrote: post #41

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.

"As I write, the number-one videocassette rental in America is the movie Dumb and Dumber. “Beavis and Butthead” remain popular (and influential) with young TV viewers. The plain lesson is that study and learning—not just of science, but of anything—are avoidable, even undesirable.” Mike Judge's satire was lost on Sagan. Carl took his knee-jerk reaction and ran with it.

I think it was lost on a lot of the audience at the time as well, who saw Beavis and Butthead as cool rather than a critique of anti-intellectualism. That's the problem with satire in general -- no position is so absurd that somebody won't take it at face value rather than satire.
Post reply on HN