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

91–100 of 129 posts

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

#91

Post by krapp »

eafer wrote: post #90
RichardCA wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sagan made solid contributions to Planetary Science in the 60's and 70's. His role as PBS educator, SF author, etc. needs to be considered as a separate thing. I also loved James Burke and his Connections series, but as it got into the later seasons the so-called "connections" got tenuous and sometimes quite strained. You can go through all the classic PBS science shows and find problems, Stephen Hawking's Universe w…

People like Sagan have a worldview in which we are all either rational robots that only believe in "science", or else silly magic-believers that can't think by themselves. Of course Sagan himself proves that this is wrong: you can be a great scientist while believing a lot of silly nonsense about the ancient world, and about crab evolution apparently.

Believing silly nonsense which is still plausible isn't the same category of error as believing in magic.

Also I don't think skeptics hold the worldview you ascribe to them. You seem to have a particular grudge against Sagan.

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

#92

Post by eafer »

krapp wrote: post #91
eafer wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People like Sagan have a worldview in which we are all either rational robots that only believe in "science", or else silly magic-believers that can't think by themselves. Of course Sagan himself proves that this is wrong: you can be a great scientist while believing a lot of silly nonsense about the ancient world, and about crab evolution apparently.

Believing silly nonsense which is still plausible isn't the same category of error as believing in magic. Also I don't think skeptics hold the worldview you ascribe to them. You seem to have a particular grudge against Sagan.

I actually kinda like Sagan, Cosmos is seriously gorgeous (though Vangelis does a lot of the heavy lifting there). I'm just kinda tired of the whole "Library of Alexandria" myth that comes up constantly around nerdy forums such as this one.

> Believing silly nonsense which is still plausible isn't the same category of error as believing in magic.

Eh, hard to say what is magic and what is not. Sagan's beliefs about the ancient world could have been fixed with a five minute conversation with an expert. He just didn't care enough to do that, and for some reason that attitude is common among so-called skeptics when it comes to history.

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

#93

Post by RichardCA »

eafer wrote: post #90
RichardCA wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sagan made solid contributions to Planetary Science in the 60's and 70's. His role as PBS educator, SF author, etc. needs to be considered as a separate thing. I also loved James Burke and his Connections series, but as it got into the later seasons the so-called "connections" got tenuous and sometimes quite strained. You can go through all the classic PBS science shows and find problems, Stephen Hawking's Universe w…

People like Sagan have a worldview in which we are all either rational robots that only believe in "science", or else silly magic-believers that can't think by themselves. Of course Sagan himself proves that this is wrong: you can be a great scientist while believing a lot of silly nonsense about the ancient world, and about crab evolution apparently.

A lot to unpack here. He espoused a worldview where human beings are "star stuff", a way for the Universe to be self-aware.

And this worldview does not exclude spiritual thinking, it just channels it in a specific direction.

Yes, he said our brains are made from the same matter as everything else, but it does not follow that he espoused any sort of strict materialism.

The truth is more subtle and nuanced than that.

If you are interested in getting inside his head, I recommend reading the Mr. X article.

https://marijuana-uses.com/mr-x/

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

#94

Post by krapp »

eafer wrote: post #92
krapp wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Believing silly nonsense which is still plausible isn't the same category of error as believing in magic. Also I don't think skeptics hold the worldview you ascribe to them. You seem to have a particular grudge against Sagan.

I actually kinda like Sagan, Cosmos is seriously gorgeous (though Vangelis does a lot of the heavy lifting there). I'm just kinda tired of the whole "Library of Alexandria" myth that comes up constantly around nerdy forums such as this one. > Believing silly nonsense which is still plausible isn't the same category of error as believing in magic. Eh, hard to say what is magic and what is not. Sagan's beliefs about th…

>Eh, hard to say what is magic and what is not.

I don't think it is?

I had to look up what specifically Sagan's errors about history were and yes it looks like he popularized a lot of bad mythology (I referenced this site[0]). I have to admit I believed a lot of this myself at one time. But I think there's a difference between the plausible but wrong and the impossible. If he'd said he thought Atlantis was real, or gone on about Tartaria or the great Ice Wall, that would be a lot closer to magical thinking.

Although it is a lot easier to be led astray by plausible lies than implausible ones. It seems like Sagan is certainly guilty of not being critical about narratives that reinforced his worldview.

[0]https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2020/02/05/carl-sagan-was-...

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

#95

Post by Brian_K_White »

mingus88 wrote: post #38
kgwxd wrote: post #18

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.

Spot on. I just finished reading the demon haunted world to my daughter. She’s 13 and we have been very concerned about her going on social media. I framed it as being more important than ever to be skeptical of what you see. Everything online is fake in some way. Every picture is touched up at best, AI slop at worst. You need to question everything. I honestly fear her generation is just cooked. They were forced int…

More than just question everything, but also develop a facility to answer the questions.

Otherwise it just means don't believe anything, which is more or less the same as believe everything, or believe & disbelieve things at random or according to wish.

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

#96

Post by claytongulick »

illithid0 wrote: post #88
deron12 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 directly negatively affected?

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

#97

Post by philipallstar »

kgwxd wrote: post #51
philipallstar wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The people for whom this stuff isn't glaringly obvious, relatively early in life, will never get it How do you know this?

I spoke in absolutes. Guess I'll say I've never observed it happening in anyone after maybe late teens. Some learn to keep quiet about whatever they're bought into, because they've learned it will scare a lot of people off. Or they end up pseudo intellectuals with a podcast. Or scamming their way into huge money and political positions. So they can be pretty good at "winning". But most of them are just sad and lonely…

What I'm getting at is you also don't seem to be applying the balony detection kit to what you're saying. I could be wrong, but you seem to be describing people with center or right wing views. That seems like tribalism rather than anything reasoned, as while the right has people like that, the left does too, and perhaps currently with more fundamental reasoning issues.

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

#98

Post by eafer »

krapp wrote: post #94
eafer wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually kinda like Sagan, Cosmos is seriously gorgeous (though Vangelis does a lot of the heavy lifting there). I'm just kinda tired of the whole "Library of Alexandria" myth that comes up constantly around nerdy forums such as this one. > Believing silly nonsense which is still plausible isn't the same category of error as believing in magic. Eh, hard to say what is magic and what is not. Sagan's beliefs about th…

>Eh, hard to say what is magic and what is not. I don't think it is? I had to look up what specifically Sagan's errors about history were and yes it looks like he popularized a lot of bad mythology (I referenced this site[0]). I have to admit I believed a lot of this myself at one time. But I think there's a difference between the plausible but wrong and the impossible. If he'd said he thought Atlantis was real, or g…

>> Eh, hard to say what is magic and what is not.

> I don't think it is? I think there's a difference between the plausible but wrong and the impossible.

I find that the word "magic" is very overused by smart people online as a sort of thought-terminating cliché. It's a vague concept and I'm not always sure what they mean by it.

It's often extremely hard, even for top minds, to tell apart magic and science ahead of time. Think of Einstein mocking quantum physicists for believing in "spooky action at a distance". Of course if you still don't believe in quantum entanglement today then you are being irrational, but that's only because science has (mostly) settled the question, nothing to do with how magical or plausible the concept may sound.

Someone defending astrology will tell you that the gravity of the moon affects their bloodstream like it affects the tides of the ocean. That doesn't hold water if you sit down and do the math of course, but the same is true if you bother to check the dates for events in ancient history.

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

#99

Post by nrb »

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…

Definitely reasonable to question oneself in this way. But realistically, if someone is unwilling to engage with you about policies that negatively affect you, but instead offer their prayers, that "perhaps..." is working overtime.

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

#100

Post by tunesmith »

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?

Post reply on HN