Baloney Detection Kit
Carl Sagan, in his brilliant book "The Demon Haunted World", provided a chapter called "The Baloney Detection Kit". Here is how you can sift through arguments to separate the "woo" from the reality :
- 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 hypothesis 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, is is it 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 "unfavourable" 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.
- Straw man - 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"
The world misses Carl Sagan more than ever.
= new reply since forum marked as read
that attaches to a baby carrier or perhaps it is a special baby carrier, that has an arm that hangs over the carrier where an iWhatever can be attached. It will dangle above the baby's face, playing music or videos. 
PEACE! 
Great list.
Word.
particularly if one applies it equally the "anti-woo" side of the current discussions. The label "woo" as it is being used on DU relies heavily on the excluded middle, the slippery slope, straw men, and observational selection (to the extent it applies different criteria to categorize alternative medicine as "woo," than it applies to traditional medicine).
Top more specifically address the last point, I would add applying different standards to evaluate the validity of a position based on whether you agree with it or not.
I evaluate all medical care by the same standards - and am fully aware that much of my traditional medical care is not evidence based (in the sense of being supported by double blind placebo based research). Much off label use of drugs isn't, much surgery isn't, much of the treatment for rare conditions isn't, participation in clinical studies certainly isn't. The majority of the anti-woo arguments seem completely unaware of this reality yet treat traditional medical care as presumptively supported by the evidence (requiring proof that it is not safe or effective before rejecting it as "woo" and alternative care as presumptively not supported by the evidence (requiring proof that it is safe and effective before treating those who use it with respect).
The two are not equal in terms of the availability of evidence supporting the efficacy and safety - mostly because there is more money to be made in traditional medicine (availability of insurance to pay for it, the price of medication, etc.), and money pays for research. That makes my personal default, most of the time, traditional medicine - because I do significant research on any out-of-the-ordinary condition and treatment before treatment (aside from emergencies), and trustworthy research is easier to access with traditional medicine and, in most instances, there are quality controls which govern the contents of traditional medication - and even if the medication hasn't been proven effective for the particular condition for which it is being prescribed - it has been for some other condition.
Whether or not there is not scientifically rigorous proof the suggested treatment (traditional or alternative) is effective and safe is an important factor to consider. But even in traditional medicine, the answer inquiry is often that there is not - and when there is not, you have to do the best research and reasoning you can about what evidence there is. That often means that you move forward without solid proof. You might be moving forward with traditional medicine - you might be moving forward with alternative medicine - or you might be moving forward with a combination. All of those choices, in the presence of responsible scientific inquiry but the absence of absolute proof, ought to be treated respectfully - and not met with cries of "Woo kills" when "woo" is only applied to the choice to move forward with alternative medicine without solid evidence but not the choice to move forward with traditional medicine without solid evidence.
lots of baloney being posted at DU3 since we became self-policing with Hosts and juries, instead of moderators.
Sid
