SGU Episode 39

Introduction
You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.

Skeptical Tools (26:42)
S: All right; let's move on to e-mails. Again, we have more e-mails than we can talk about on the show. We are going to be upgrading our website eventually to be able to post all of the e-mails that we get for feedback on the website, but in the meantime we'll be reading a select few each week. We have a few for this week. E-mail number one begins: Greetings. I love the show. This show is a fantastic resource for someone like me. While I have the skeptical mindset, I do not have the tools to deconstruct some of the paranormal things that I hear about. This show helps me give me the ability to take bunk theories apart. I'd like to suggest a segment to your show. I would love it if you took time out of every show to describe a tool in the skeptic toolbox. You could talk about a part of the scientific method, a logical fallacy with examples or point of view that will help the listener become a better skeptic. Keep up the great work, Cecil. Thank you, Cecil. We do try to sort of roll into our discussions some skeptical tools, like we will specifically mention logical fallacies or explain things like empiricism and naturalism, etc. So we do try to fill up that skeptical toolbox every chance that we get, in the context of&mdash;

J: Cecil, Cecil, the truth is, we just copied that stuff from another website; we don't even know what those logical fallacies are.

(laughter)

E: Logical what?

S: We do have our favorite logical fallacies on the website, for example. And we do talk about and other principles of skepticism. But your suggestion is interesting, and the bottom line is, we'll think about it. I mean, we are thinking about adding new segments to the show and do send us your suggestions and that may be a new segment that we'll be bringing on soon.

J: Well, Steve, if you remember, we actually&mdash;you know, off&mdash;not on a show, but off-air, we did discuss taking one of those logical fallacies a show and just talk about it; explain it; give examples.

S: Yeah. I-I&mdash;

J: I think that'd be an interesting thing to do.

R: Think it's a good idea.

S: So keep an eye out for that in the future.

Evaluating Scientific Claims (28:23)
S: Email number two is actually... there's a very long preamble, which basically, again, is more praise for our podcast. And then at the end, she asks a question. She says: Finally my question. In my line of work, I am constantly confronted with scientists who essentially prostitute themselves and the truth out to the highest bidder. I would really enjoy hearing your perspectives on that. Superficially, they often appear to be true to the scientific method and are even considering the same raw data as other studies. However, their use of that data and the statistical analysis performed can, of course, dramatically affect the final outcome, the answer. Given this, how does the average person really evaluate the legitimacy of medical claims, environmental issues, health studies, constituents in food, pesticides, etc. One could make the effort to determine who the study was funded by, but how? Sincerely, Kim So, Kim, thank you for your e-mail. Again, the full e-mail will be on our notes page; I just read the question part of her e-mail. And that is an excellent question. You know, how does the lay person assess scientific claims when different experts are making opposite claims? We just wrestled with this with the global warming and the polar icecap issue. You have different scientists making different claims; who's right, you know? There is no hard and fast or easy answer to that question, and it does depend upon the subject matter itself. I think there are some rules of thumb, however. One is: trust a consensus over an individual scientist's opinion. Individual scientists are quirky individuals. They are people; they have their biases. They may have lots of reasons why they may be more compelled by something. It may be greedy; it may be financial, or it may just be that they desire a more successful career for themselves. Or they may just be wrong. They may just have a wrong idea in their head. But those kind of things tend to get worked out when an idea is discussed amongst the community of scientists. The community is not going to have, generally, the same biases, the same financial concerns. They're not going to have the same ties to one outcome or another. So when there is a robust consensus among scientists, especially among disparate disciplines, that is something that I think has a very degree of reliability. The other time to consider is how overall plausible is the claim? And if it's something which seems to be fairly consistent with mainstream science, again, it's more likely to be true. If it's something which is out on the fringe and seems to be exceptionally wacky, I would be more cautious about the people who are promoting it.

E: It's a little Occam's Razor piece there for you.

S: Absolutely. Otherwise, it's hard to know. You know, outside of your own field of scientific expertise, you basically have to trust the experts to some degree. It really&mdash;it's hard to know.

E: But beware the arguments from authority from those experts.

S: I think, again, what I would say is you can't invest authority in any individual, but large numbers of scientists building a consensus by hammering out their differences&mdash;there is some authority that you can invest in that.

R: So Steve, you expect us to take that advice on faith, then?

P: (chuckles)

S: On my personal authority, you should accept that advice.

R: Just making that clear.

P: Very good.