Developing Your Nonsense Detector

The Fresh Perspective Podcast - Episode 33

How’s it going everyone? I’m Nick and you are listening to the Fresh Perspective Podcast.

We are, each of us, bombarded every day by the nonsensical claims of advertisers, alternative-medicine gurus, the news media, conspiracy theorists, cult leaders, politicians, and so on. What can we do to sense nonsense before it gets past our defenses? Can we improve our individual powers of nonsense detection? In this episode, we will go over a few things you can do to tune, sharpen, and develop your personal nonsense detection kit, a set of critical thinking skills that allow you to better recognize fraud, woo-woo, BS, baloney, and pseudoscience for what they all really are.

This program is brought to you by the contributing members of the Free Thought Initiative.

We help those in need of an inclusive, supportive, and free-thinking community by hosting public discussions on moral philosophy, healthy living, and science, to improve the cohesion, health, and scientific literacy of our society.

Everyone is welcome, (regardless of personal background, religious belief, political leanings, etc.) to participate (in-person) in these open and civil discussions each week.

To find a Free Thought Forum meeting near you, to start your own local group, or to support this program through monthly donations, please visit freethoughtforum.org. While you’re there, be sure to check out our online store – now with freethought t-shirts, mugs, and other smart-looking swag!

Open-mindedness is an important virtue for a Freethinker. If you are not open to new ideas, then you may be trapped by your own false presuppositions or foolish beliefs. A close-minded person may be unable to see the flaws in their current philosophy or accept better answers as they come along.

On the other hand, skepticism is also an important virtue for a Freethinker. If we carry a predominately credulous perspective and are all-too-eager to believe everything we hear, then we make ourselves fools and easy prey to those who would take advantage of our gullibility. We would soon find ourselves holding tightly to flawed ideas that betray our ignorance, stupidity, or illogic to the world.

The real trick is finding the proper balance between open-mindedness and skepticism. This is an ongoing quest for the Freethinker, Skeptic, Rationalist, or Truth-Seeker. The good news is that you have tools that can aid you in this quest. A legendary hero may be given a magic sword or special armor. Likewise, your inventory will hopefully house a number of tools such as a stack of good books, an understanding of logical fallacies, solid scientific literacy, a group of friends with whom you can freely discuss any and all important issues, and what I like to call a fully-functioning Personal Nonsense Detector.

A nonsense detector can be compared to an EMF meter or metal detector. If it is working, a metal detector will alert you to when something metallic is nearby, even when it is out-of-sight. If it is not working, then it may fail to alert you or alert you randomly and waste your time.

Everyone has a so-called “Nonsense Detector.” It is that line we have. When a claim crosses that line, something like an alarm sounds in our minds and we respond with doubt and distrust. The idea begins to “smell fishy.” It is the skill that allows us to sense when someone is likely lying or spreading an ignorant position. It saves us from falling for a scam and stops us from believing in something nonsensical. However, just because we all have one, doesn’t mean that it is calibrated correctly. In other words, our personal sense of skepticism may be engaged at incorrect times, blocking our minds from important information that is factually accurate and consistent with reality.

Therefore, reality should be the goal. Reality should be our baseline, the reset-point to which all detectors should be configured. A well-functioning nonsense detector will cause someone to raise suspicion when something is not realistic. A poorly-functioning nonsense detector will cause you to be suspicious in error, much like when your body develops an intense allergy to things that are perfectly harmless. Perhaps the first sign that your detector is faulty is that you have to constantly make excuses (and engage in special pleading) for why your beliefs don’t match experienced reality. At that moment when you feel like you have to be dishonest, pause, and ask yourself why you feel compelled to stretch the truth, cover, or compensate for someone or something else.

The following five suggestions on how to develop and improve your personal nonsense detector represent some general principals in science and in formal logic. This list is also inspired by similar ones proposed by Carl Sagan, Michael Shermer, Penn Jillette, and others. These suggestions can also be thought of as five tests, challenges, or gateways passable by only the best of ideas!

1. CONSIDER HOW BADLY YOU WANT THE IDEA TO BE TRUE

There is a critical natural flaw in human thinking. No matter what we are trying to learn, we always have at least a little hope that the truth will end up being exactly what we want it to be. We really want the doctor to tell us that we are perfectly healthy. We really want people to see us as successful, clever, or beautiful. We really want our plans to work, and we really want the last gallon in our car to last for a few more miles.

There is nothing wrong, per se, with strong desire. Sometimes it is a good thing like when we need the motivation to push ourselves or to take on challenges. However, when we are trying to find out what is real, our wants act like a wrench in the machine. It is like giving ourselves blinders or shooting ourselves in the foot. This is one way to understand the distracting and disruptive effects of “bias.”

Bias is a real problem. When we deeply want, hope for, or need one idea to be right, above all others, we are showing a form of cognitive bias. This can lead us to show favoritism to one idea, even in the face of evidence against it. Our deep wants and desires change the way we look at things and change the way we try to find answers. It corrupts our experiments and blurs our ability to see reality as it really is.

So here is a reality check: The act of wanting something to be true itself doesn’t affect how true the thing actually is. Just because you may really want the girl in your English class to have a crush on you, for example, that doesn’t mean that she does! Reality doesn’t care about what we want. You can wish something as hard as you like, but that does not make it true.

This kind of desire (to be right or to have one’s beliefs confirmed) represents a kind of “default factory setting,” in the human mind. It is something that we have to learn to put aside. We need to be comfortable with learning and believing in reality, as it is, warts and all. Now, this may lead to the acceptance of facts that are not pleasant, impressive, or intuitive, but that is ok. We can’t always get the kind of answers we like and we should be totally fine with that. A good scientist will accept the results of a properly structured experiment, even if the results are unpleasant, disappointing, boring, frustrating, or counter-intuitive.

So the next time you find yourself desperately wanting something to be true, recognize that as a sign to tread carefully. When you hear someone pandering to your passions, prejudices, or desires, that should also send up a mental red flag. Scammers will try to flatter you and trick you into thinking that they are on your side. That pandering sounds something like this: “Would you like to quit your job, spend more time with your kids, and make a million dollars from home?” “Are you tired of spending so much money and time on this or that?” “Welcome enlightened one! For you are one of the few people smart enough to have found our brotherhood who knows the real truth about the conspiracy!” “What do they know about it anyway? Don’t listen to the so-called experts. You know, you were right all along!”

Rather than let ourselves be led by comfortable-sounding falsehoods, we should try to be open to all possibilities, even those we don’t necessarily like or want, especially when they don’t support our present views.

2. WHAT ARE THE BEST ARGUMENTS AGAINST IT?

If you are convinced that an idea doesn’t only have merit because of your personal desires, then it is time to see how well it measures up to the most rigorous scrutiny. Has anyone tried to disprove the idea? If so, what was their strongest argument? We shouldn’t just turn to the weak caricatures of the counter-argument. We need to give sincere consideration to the best case presented by the opposition. One way to do this is to go to the source of the counter-argument, rather than relying on a second-hand or third-hand version.

Now that you have looked at all sides of the debate, it can also be telling to consider how the original claimant responded to the refutation. Were all naysayers smeared and branded as heretics, or was their rebuttal considered seriously? Whatever the case, it is a good sign if your idea comes from a source that allows for things like peer review, disagreement, debate, and open discussion.

To get to the true nature of reality, we must often rely on more than just one mind. Ideas should be sent out to be tested in an intellectual gladiatorial arena, stripped of all external protections. It must be allowed to rise or fall based on its own merits. You can think of it this way: Answers to important questions are like players on two dodgeball teams. They all must be submitted to the most brutal game of testing, of arguments and counter-arguments. The last idea standing, the one that outlasts its rivals, is then declared the winner until a more capable challenger comes along.

We can’t just ignore what the “other side” says. We shouldn’t only surround ourselves with yes-men, lest we find ourselves in the same place as the emperor with no clothes. We must be able to entertain more than one hypothesis, let each one be challenged, and be willing to drop good ideas for better ideas.

3. DOES THE IDEA SHOW SIGNS OF LOGICAL FALLACIES?

A good idea will be coherent and internally consistent. If there are several steps to an argument, each step must be valid, work on its own, or “support its own weight.” But here is the problem. At first, all ideas may look like they meet these high standards. They all have a claim to fame. So, much like the judges in a competitive talent show, we can ask each contestant to show us what makes them so special.

The great majority of ideas out there claim to be more reasonable and logical than they really are. But you can develop the skills needed to accurately spot and dismiss the pretenders. With practice, it can be like catching those participants in a talent show who did not actually dedicate enough time and effort in preparation for their performance. They are elevated and popularized mostly by pretense. These pretenses that make ideas sound more palatable, harmless, rational, scientific, reasonable, or more logical than they actually are called, “logical fallacies.”

If you have been listening to this podcast for a while, then you already know that we have a few episodes completely dedicated to common logical fallacies, explored one-by-one. They are some of our most popular podcasts, so if you haven’t yet given them a listen, I’d highly recommend it!

4. OCCAM'S RAZOR

Here is a general rule in logic and philosophy: If two explanations seem equally valid, then the simpler one is usually correct. Look for the explanation that has the fewest steps and makes the fewest assumptions. It is not a perfect or fool-proof rule, but it is a very good test through which you should send any important idea. It is known as Occam’s Razor, named after a Franciscan friar who said something like, “more things should not be used than are necessary.”

The concept that, with all things being equal, the one of two explanations that uses fewer steps is preferred, makes sense to me. When we lie, for example, we tend to add unnecessary steps and complications to what would otherwise be a straight-forward retelling of plain reality. Fraudsters usually claim that their ideas are exceptions to the norm that deserve special treatment. Anyone can make a convoluted word salad to make any idea sound impressive, but all it takes is a critical look below the surface to see the, often simpler, truth.

Did a man in a black hat really jump through the window, steal the cookie, and run off laughing? Or did your four-year-old simply make up a story after they stole from the cookie jar? Are you really being contacted by a Nigerian Prince, or did a scammer just send you some spam?

Connected to this preference for simplicity, in my mind, is a preference for normality. We would do well to ask, “does this idea fit with how the world usually works?” While surprising and rare things do happen, they are surprising and rare for a reason. We can be all-too-willing to accept something that is out-of-the-ordinary. While we may be easy to convince, hopefully, we all know others who generally skeptical and are hard to convince. Therefore, especially for young people, it helps to wonder, “well, what would my parents think?” or “What might my teacher say, if they were here?” before believing, doing, or buying something suspicious.

When faced with something that is not normal, or seems unnecessarily overcomplicated, I think that an appropriate response is to start asking questions. Even if they are dumb questions, or “kill the mood” ask them anyway until you are satisfied. Ask as many questions as you want. When a scam artist or fraud is trying to pull a fast one on you, forcing everyone to slow down and address your questions is a great way to protect yourself. Before you agree to anything, especially if it strikes you as odd or complicated, you owe it to yourself to demand that it is properly explained. You owe it to yourself to only go along with what you can understand.

5. DOES THE IDEA FOLLOW THE RULES OF SCIENCE?

With all this talk about developing your nonsense detection skills, we haven’t yet tried to look at how these important concepts are utilized on a larger scale. How can a community, country, or humanity itself be protected from bad ideas? Well, Humanity does actually have a powerful nonsense detector called MODERN SCIENCE! This is science at its best! This is one of its most important jobs.

When we think of science, we may think it is just a list of strict academic rules that people in a lab must follow. But scientific thinking is something you can implement in everyday life. It is a process that filters-out nonsense and falsehoods, leaving only the best answers behind. We can use this process to make wiser choices about how we handle our money, get a more accurate picture of the nature of our interpersonal relationships, see political arguments and advertisements in a more clear light, live healthier, and more.

Here are some questions you can use to think more like a scientist: Can the idea be quantified, tested, and proven wrong by anyone? How reliable are its sources? Does it actually follow where the preponderance of evidence actually points? Is it the best answer we have so far with the most explanatory and predictive power?

The more of these kinds of tests an idea can survive, the more likely it is to be true.

If you have enjoyed this conversation or have learned something from it, please leave a like, subscribe, and share it with other open-minded people. All of those small things really do make a big difference and help others find our group and our podcast. Thank you!

That is all I have for you today, but the conversation continues across social media and in the comment sections below. Do you agree with today’s message? Am I mistaken about some detail? What feedback or ideas do you have for this program or our organization? Feel free to share your perspective.

A Special Shout-Out goes to Shayne Wissler, Lance Freeman, and Brooke!

Your monthly support makes this all possible. To check out our awesome donor rewards starting at one dollar per month, please visit: freethoughtforum.org/donate.

___

Written By Nicholas Burk, Executive Board Member © 2019 Free Thought Initiative