Evaluating Claims

[aggle-rithm]

I've been thinking about how (hypothetically) I might introduce the topic of skepticism to young people, and thought a good starting point would be to describe the thought process when a skeptic evaluates a claim. Speaking for myself, I usually ask a few questions:

1. Do I care whether the claim is true or not?

(this might depend on the circumstances...if someone says they have a dog, I'll say "sure, whatever", but if they use the dog as an alibi when I accuse them of stealing something from me, the question of whether they actually have a dog or not becomes a little more important.)

2. Where is the claim on the ordinary/extraordinary scale?

Ordinary: "I have a dog."
Less ordinary: "I have a horse."
Extraordinary: "I have a unicorn."

3. Is there a rational basis for the claim?

If they can explain how they worked out their reasoning, great. If they say they learned it on the Discovery channel, not as good, but I'll usually accept it. If they heard the Professor on Gilligan's Island say it....

I've tried to arrange these the way you would arrange a boolean expression in programming, so that if a crucial test fails early you don't have to check the rest of them. So, if I don't care about a claim, I won't bother with the others (although a really extraordinary claim will usually make me care about it). Also, if it's an ordinary claim, I don't really need to worry about the rational basis. "You have a dog? Well, if you say so."

Are there any others I'm leaving out?

 

[GeneMachine]

I think your point 3) is a bit problematic, since you seem to focus on how they, personally, arrived at their conclusion. Now, while there are obviously batguano-crazy ways of reasoning, it is still possible to be right for the wrong reasons. One should check if a claim is consistent with a scientific explanation of the world regardless how the person making the claim arrived there. (At least for non-obviously dingbat claims, that is).

 

[Dinwar]

Here's my way:

1) Do I care?
--No: You're done.
--Yes: Move to #2.

2) Does it make sense?
--Yes: You can accept the claim, or move on to #3; your choice.
--No: Move on to #3.

3) Is there evidence?
--No: Toss out claim.
--Yes: Examine evidence, move to #1.

 

[RelativeSpace]

Well said, though as another pointed out, #3 is a little rough- the process of determining validity is more complex than that.

I would say, as part of determining validity:

1. Does it conflict with logic? (Internal contradictions) If so, it is false.
2. Does is conflict with known science? (relativity, quantum physics, etc.) If so, it is so probably false that it's not worth my time unless they have serious evidence that proves known science is wrong.
3. Is it probable? Do they have any evidence whatsoever of the claim? Is there any motivation to falsify said evidence?



With your steps, I usually stop at step 'do I care?'

I think when a claim is really extraordinary- like having a unicorn- it makes us care out of mere curiosity. Or, we care because we feel insulted that the person actually thinks we'll buy the claim. Or, we care because we're concerned that the person in question is mentally ill and might be dangerous.

Plenty of reasons why an extraordinary claim would make us care.



For me, bigfoot? It's difficult for me to care. If I learned that it was true after all, it would give me all of thirty seconds of pause to consider it.

While the magical thinking itself is a bad habit, It's not causing people (directly) to not get vaccinated/allow their children to be, it's not posing as medicine and killing people because they refuse to seek real treatment, it's not causing wars, etc. At least, I don't think anybody has killed or been killed in the name of bigfoot...

Moreover, it's on the edge of possible, being merely unlikely, rather than supernatural-proper things like ESP.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to have a limit to that which we care about investigating. Other things will get my attention right and proper, but I tend to sweep cryptozoology under the rug by virtue of not caring.

But maybe somebody can give me a reason to care about it? (I'm open to the possibility of caring about it)

 

[aggle-rithm]

With your steps, I usually stop at step 'do I care?'

I think when a claim is really extraordinary- like having a unicorn- it makes us care out of mere curiosity. Or, we care because we feel insulted that the person actually thinks we'll buy the claim. Or, we care because we're concerned that the person in question is mentally ill and might be dangerous.

Plenty of reasons why an extraordinary claim would make us care.

Makes me think of a commercial I saw this morning claiming that the combination of a girdle and special cream would start a chemical reaction that would allow you to lose inches off your waist without diet or exercise. I was yelling "********!" at the TV screen, which is probably a reliable indication that I care.

This is similar to the bigfoot type of claim...it's been made so many times that it's gotten boring. Except that this is a blatant violation of the law, and people can be hurt by it.

Still...should I care? It's only hurting people with poor critical thinking skills. On the other hand, is it their fault that they haven't learned how to think? But on the other hand....

(Oh, and welcome to the forum.)

 

[RelativeSpace]

Thanks or the welcome!

Still...should I care? It's only hurting people with poor critical thinking skills. On the other hand, is it their fault that they haven't learned how to think? But on the other hand....

(Oh, and welcome to the forum.)

Ah, a daily battle- to re-humanize those who seek to dehumanize themselves by ignoring their own capacities to think and learn.

I think: Yes. We should care, because they are still living feeling beings. The same reason we should care about other non-rational creatures (they still experience pain and emotion, if not complex thought)