Listen folks, especially you young and interested contributors. Carl Sagan was a popularizer of Science, one of the best. His books are great, as is his video series, Cosmos. He left us a Baloney Detection Kit, which should be required reading for all posters.
MODERATORS: Please make this post a sticky!!!

Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit

I don't give Bigfoot posts and aliens building the pyramid posts and so on, any of my time.

I skim over them at first glance .

I agree with nearly 90% of what Mr. Shumer is discussing about Carl Sagans baloney detection kit .

There are however two major flaws with it .

1. Skepticism is a belief that can affect your result .

2. He is unclear how to address phenomena that are yet unproven like the Big B@ang , the Higgs Boson and so on .

Trusting scientists who don't know the answer themselves will achieve nothing either .



And what exactly do you have against old people anyway ? The younger crowd should be improving on the ideas of the older generation, this is true, just don't write us off for dead afterward till we are dead , thank you very much.

And ( almost forgot ) I hate repetitive posts about exploding Turkeys and such as much as the next person but, this is the MYTHbusters science and MYTH questions forum , not the " boring list of facts we already know " forum.

I shall name the person. It was myself.

Firstly, it was phrased as a question, not a statement. Then it was part of a sarcastic remark, demonstrating the ad hominem.

The second set was calling you out for framing him as an "authority," when, in the baloney kit, there are "no authorities." Definition #4 and #8 of the word "authority," as defined by Encarta, are respectively as follows:
source of reliable information: a source of reliable information on a subjet;
obvious knowledge and experience: knowledge, skill, or experience worthy of respect.

Now, by saying "one of the best" in your first post, you obviously matched the criteria for #8, and through some roundabout way you argueably matched the criteria for #4.

The third paragraph was a clarification of what a "popularizer of science" is. Which, as I'll explain again, is an interpreter of science for the average joe. Dumbing down the actual science so the general population can understand it. The second definition of "popularizer" as defined by Encarta is as follows:
make understandable: to make something accessible and comprehensible to a wide audience.

As previously posted, the downfall with personal interpretation is the over-abundance of falsities through misinterpretation. This misinterpretation can be done by the person giving the initial interpretation, or even down the line misinterpreting the interpretation.

The next paragraph was the knowledge that there is never a truely independant party. The independant party is always subject to obvious or subliminal bias, as was stated in the deleted post.

The final 2 sentences were asking you to do some research, with an example of what you may never have learned by following the kit. (elephants are afraid of mice)

quote:

Originally posted by angelkiha31:

The final 2 sentences were asking you to do some research, with an example of what you may never have learned by following the kit. (elephants are afraid of mice)

I guess I missed this thread , it is not unlikely , I don't think my preferences here are correct .

I did see this episode , although I had to watch it again on Youtube , which I don't normally do, because an important part of the test was omitted here ( I think by a local advertiser still not sure ).

My question to you is , has anyone determined WHY elephants are afraid of mice ?

At least as best as you can answer within " baloney kit " requirements.