Carl Sagan: "We are the Way for the Cosmos to Know Itself"

Carl Sagan, one of our class heroes, possessed an extraordinary mind. Space program? He helped design it and briefed every astronaut. Writer? He won a Pulitzer Prize. Teacher? He taught astronomy and related courses and. . .critical thinking. There was a waiting list for that class. Articulate? He worked to solve the mysteries of the cosmos, then wrote about them so that Everyman and Woman could understand them. Check out this website for more information about this contemporary giant. This American hero.
www.carlsagan.com
from the above, here is Carl Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit"

Warning signs that suggest deception. Based on the book by Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World. The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:

Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts.

Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").

Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.

Quantify, wherever possible.

If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.

Occam's razor - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.

Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?

Additional issues are:

Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.

Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.

Argument from "authority".

Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavorable" decision).

Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).

Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).

Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).

Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).

Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).

Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)

Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").

Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.

Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).

Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).

Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").

Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).

Confusion of correlation and causation.

Caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.

Suppressed evidence or half-truths.

Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"

Begging the Question

Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" produces conversations like this one:

nterviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference."
Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference."
Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?"
Bill: "Certainly. I can vouch for her."

or:

Tom: What makes heroes heroes?
Don: Because they are great
Tom: What makes them great?
Don: Because they are heroes.

Have you run up against this one?

The Value of Key Values

Note: This post was written some time ago: due to operator ineptitude, it went in the draft files rather than the web. It still relates, though.

You worked hard asserting, defending, defining, and understanding the various values that make up the class web of belief. I could see that my larger class (of 23 people) took longer and worked harder to come up with its core web values than did my smaller class (of 7 people0. We had to find words and ways to compile 23 different webs into 5 and then into 1. The other class compiled 7 webs into two, then into 1. I am sure there is a mathematical formula or a psychological theory that explains why more people equals more complexity. The benefit is that we had some interesting questions, alluring insights, and, perhaps, a glimpse of unknown territory. Both classes engaged in deep and thoughtful discussions. If our webs of belief are our protection and means to sustenance (Hey, that FLY is HAPPINESS!) then it makes sense to take some time to really understand them. Test drive that car. Bounce on that web.
Integrity. Trust. Caring. Respect. Structure.
Integrity. Contentment. Faith. Respect. Survival.

Does Moral behavior fit in somewhere? Duty? Obligation? Mercy? Forgiveness? Justice?

Oh, yes: the birdcage drawing is by Kurt Vonnegut, one of my heroes. He drew it with a felt-tip pen. It was the only image on the official Kurt Vonnegut webpage after he died. It speaks for itself. If you know about Kilgore Trout's canary in Breakfast of Champions, it speaks for that, too. And so it goes.

Webs of Belief

One morning this weekend I had the teakettle heating water for coffee. I saw something MOVE on the handle, and realized it was a medium sized tan spider. On the teakettle? After escorting Spidey outside to a pleasant new home in a bush, I went back in and really LOOKED at the teakettle, which was approaching a roaring boil. In the spout was a fresh spiderweb. No wonder the spider wanted out! But what did he want in the first place? Coffee moths? Bad planning.

Ever see a spider revise his/her web? Repair it, yes, but I don't know if they do any web editing. . .

Our webs of belief, however, seem to do a lot of changing through the years, at least around the sometimes tattered edges. How about those core beliefs? Do we ever even review those? Find some outdated, ragged, irrelevent? Do we replace them with something else?

Spiders DO reinforce their webs, however, and conduct maintenance checks to see that the web is holding strong and true. Some of our spiders make the strategic error of building webs exactly where they shouldn't.


If you can observe a spider please do so and share what you observe with us.

Euthyphro

Here we have Socrates waiting in court to face his judges and accuser. What is his crime?
"Socrates. Oh, he [Socrates' accuser Meletus] brings a wonderful accusation against me! At first hearing it may surprise you. He says that I am a poet or maker of gods, and that I invent new gods and deny the existence of old ones. That's the basis of his charge.

Euthyphro. I see, Socrates. He's attacking you for the familiar sign that sometimes, as you say, comes to you. He thinks you're a heretic, and he's going to have you tried for it."

What is a "familiar sign"? It is that inner voice - the inner voice that leads to poetry, (note that - Poet or Maker of Gods) or insight, or mystical vision. Euthyphro considers himself to be a prophet. He, too, has an inner voice, and his tells him what piety is. No wonder Socrates wants Euthyphro to enlighten him on the nature of piety. It might save his life!

But Socrates' questions reveal that Euthyphro is one of those spiritual materialists, one of those who wear the trappings of goodness and virtue on the outside, but are shallow and confused on the inside. Not evil - not one of those Jeckyll-and-Hyde hypocrites, but rather someone so intellectually immature ("unexamined") that he takes the stories of Kronos and Zeus literally, and thinks that in order to be pius he must follow in the footsteps of the god's son who took down his father god.

Euthyphro wants, above all, to be pious. He loves his Gods, and believes that piety is the way to express that. But what about loyal to a parent? The Gods think that is good, too. Prosecuting a murderer, that is definitelly pious. Talk about an ethical dilemma!

Socrates' questions help Euthyphro see (rather unwillingly, don't you think?) that his reasoning is superficial and won't stand up to scrutiny. That doesn't help Socrates.

Do you think Euthyphro proceeds with his prosecution of his father? He was in a big hurry to leave. . .

And what does it have to do with critical thinking?

No, this is not about the Monday night TV show, although we might get around to talking about Hiro and Sylar eventually. . . This blog is for the Humanities 115 students at Wake Technical Community College who are taking a summer course entitled "Critical Thinking." Since thinking goes on 24/7 with humans, awake or asleep, this blog is for you thinkers who might want to contribute outside classroom time.

So what makes a hero, anyway?

We have 5 weeks to figure it out.

bb