Matharu's Rants and Raves » baloney http://www.metalvortex.com/blog Kulvinder Matharu's Blog Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:41:57 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4 Astrology is Science http://www.metalvortex.com/blog/2011/02/04/556.html http://www.metalvortex.com/blog/2011/02/04/556.html#comments Fri, 04 Feb 2011 20:36:50 +0000 Kulvinder Matharu http://www.metalvortex.com/blog/2011/02/04/556.html
  • BBC – appalling science reporting?
  • BBC Horizon – Science Under Attack
  • “honour killings” – evil through and through
    • ]]>     According to the Times of India, the Bombay High Court has, in dismissing a case against astrology, been swayed by the arguments that astrology is science. At first I thought that this was a joke. But I suppose the joke is on the court and on India. This is what happens when people do not exercise critical thinking and fall into the trap of superstitions, pseudo science and other baloney.

    I really do wonder if we give too much respect to “not offend”. If we were a bit more direct in calling bullshit “bullshit” then perhaps we wouldn’t have so much of it around.

    Also see http://richarddawkins.net/articles/587946-astrology-is-a-science-bombay-high-court

    Article by Kulvinder Singh Matharu – 2011

    Related posts:

    1. BBC – appalling science reporting?
    2. BBC Horizon – Science Under Attack
    3. “honour killings” – evil through and through

    ]]>     http://www.metalvortex.com/blog/2011/02/04/556.html/feed 0     Degree in homeopathy? Degree in baloney! http://www.metalvortex.com/blog/2010/09/20/478.html http://www.metalvortex.com/blog/2010/09/20/478.html#comments Mon, 20 Sep 2010 20:14:10 +0000 Kulvinder Matharu http://www.metalvortex.com/blog/2010/09/20/478.html
  • Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit
  • Mediums – true, deluded or criminal?
  • New law to protect against fraudsters such as psychics?
    • ]]>     Article from Steven Novella at skepticblog:

    Article by Kulvinder Singh Matharu – 2010

    Related posts:

    1. Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit
    2. Mediums – true, deluded or criminal?
    3. New law to protect against fraudsters such as psychics?

    ]]>     http://www.metalvortex.com/blog/2010/09/20/478.html/feed 0     Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit http://www.metalvortex.com/blog/2008/02/14/62.html http://www.metalvortex.com/blog/2008/02/14/62.html#comments Thu, 14 Feb 2008 01:10:05 +0000 Kulvinder Matharu http://www.metalvortex.com/blog/2008/02/14/62.html Carl Sagan’s book “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a candle in the dark” includes ideas and tools for skeptical thinking.

    The following are recommended as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent reasoning:Candle

    TOOLS

    (1) Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts.
    (2) Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
    (3) Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no “authorities”).

    They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.

    (4) Spin more than one hypothesis – don’t simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

    If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you have simply run the with first idea that caught your fancy.

    (5) Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours.

    It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.

    (6) Quantify, wherever possible.

    If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are thruths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.

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

    (8) Occam’s razor.

    If there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.

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

    Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle – an electron, say – in a much bigger Cosmos.

    No related posts.

    ]]>     http://www.metalvortex.com/blog/2008/02/14/62.html/feed 0