#ActInTimeDEADLINETime left to limit global warming to 1.5°C 4YRS121DAYS16:59:24 LIFELINEWorld's energy from renewables14.767566766%Peruvian farmer takes Germany's RWE to court in landmark climate case | German emissions fell 3.4% in 2024, on track for 2030 climate goals | London’s pollution drops after expansion of clean air toll | China unveils plan to boost green equipment manufacturing | Ireland donates $16 million to Brazil's Amazon Fund | Britain to invest £1.8bn on home energy saving upgrades | Scientists identify more than 800 new species in global Ocean Census | A bird last seen by Darwin 190 years ago reappears on a Galapagos island | Report says solar & storage accounted for 84% of new US power added in 2024 | Mexican women defied drug-dealers, fly-tippers & chauvinists to protect the environment | Peruvian farmer takes Germany's RWE to court in landmark climate case | German emissions fell 3.4% in 2024, on track for 2030 climate goals | London’s pollution drops after expansion of clean air toll | China unveils plan to boost green equipment manufacturing | Ireland donates $16 million to Brazil's Amazon Fund | Britain to invest £1.8bn on home energy saving upgrades | Scientists identify more than 800 new species in global Ocean Census | A bird last seen by Darwin 190 years ago reappears on a Galapagos island | Report says solar & storage accounted for 84% of new US power added in 2024 | Mexican women defied drug-dealers, fly-tippers & chauvinists to protect the environment |

Nov 26, 2014

Baloney Detection



1) Is the source reliable?
Errors occur, but if the source's errors tend to be all on one side or bunched together, it should raise a big red flag.
2) Does the source make similar claims on other subjects?
On related (or even marginally tangential) topics, is this source making the same general statements of fact?
3) Have the claims been verified independently?
Can the claimed results be replicated? 
4) How does the claim fit with the way we know the world works?
Too good to be true = prob'ly not true
5) Is the claim falsifiable?
What's the alternative explanation?  What's been done to try to disprove it? 
6) Where does the preponderance of evidence point?
Any claim supported by only a few points, while challenged by lots of other points, is prob'ly bogus.
7) Are you playing by the rules of the scientific method?
UFOlogy vs SETI
8) Is the one making the claim presenting positive evidence?
Or are they just making unsupported denials of an "opposing" theory?
9) Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?
Pointing out a few anomalies or outliers doesn't negate current theory
10) Is the claim being driven by personal belief?
Is Confirmation Bias at work here? Is the claimant pushing a "theory" in support of an ideology and/or religion and/or world view?

No comments:

Post a Comment