The Baloney Detection Kit

[_Some Schmo]

The Baloney Detection Kit: How does Mormonism hold up?

LOL... not very well at all.




______________

[_beastie]

Thanks for this link. I love Shermer and loved this little lecture. For the benefit of folks who don't want to spend fourteen minutes listening to him, here are the bullet points in the baloney detection kit:

1. How reliable is the source of the claim?
2. Does the source make similar claims?
3. Have the claims been verified by someone else?
4. Does this fit with the way the world works?
5. Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?
6. Where does the preponderance of evidence point?
7. Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?
8. Is the claimant providing positive evidence?
9. Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?
10. Are personal beliefs driving the claim?

[_harmony]

Geez. I've always just used a simple test: does it smell good? If the answer's no, throw it away. If yes, put it between two slices of worthless white bread that's slathered with Miracle Whip and eat it.

I didn't realize baloney was so complicated.

[_Some Schmo]

Thanks for this link. I love Shermer and loved this little lecture. For the benefit of folks who don't want to spend fourteen minutes listening to him, here are the bullet points in the baloney detection kit:

1. How reliable is the source of the claim?
2. Does the source make similar claims?
3. Have the claims been verified by someone else?
4. Does this fit with the way the world works?
5. Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?
6. Where does the preponderance of evidence point?
7. Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?
8. Is the claimant providing positive evidence?
9. Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?
10. Are personal beliefs driving the claim?

Thank for capturing those here, beastie. I've long been a fan of Shermer's too, especially after watching him patiently debate Kent Hovind (the most insane creationist ever). Here's the quick list on Mormonism put to the test:

1. Joe Smith's character is constantly called into question. Not too reliable.
2. He claimed he could magically find lost treasure.
3. The claims haven't been verified by anyone reliably (if it doesn't work for everyone, it's not reliable).
4. No. If it fit with the way the world works, most people would be Mormon, not laugh at it.
5. Ad nausium, and successfully too.
6. The preponderance of evidence points toward Joseph Smith being a con man looking for sex and power.
7. Science?! LOL
8. Hidden plates. Hearsay... Not even close.
9. To even call it a new theory is far too generous.
10. A resounding YES!!

It is absolutely amazing that any serious thinking individual could possibly give it any consideration at all.

[_beastie]

I particularly enjoyed the conclusion of his lecture:

Science is the best tool ever devised for understanding how the world works. And everybody knows that, because they all go to doctors, and if someone’s flying at thirty thousand feet in a plane, they’re not skeptical of math and engineering, they know this is the best design possible, and so on. So most of us, when we’re playing with our Ipods or are using our google search engine and we’re on the internet watching our high def televisions and so on, we love science, we know science works, and we know the basis of it is sound, and all that stuff. It only comes to a few things, like when it comes to “what’s the meaning of life”, “where do we come from”, “what does it all mean”, “what’s the future”, there we start to think, well, maybe I should be skeptical of science. In fact, really, science is the best thing ever devised for understanding how the world works, we should love it.

I’ve often referred to this concept in exchanges on the internet. I’ve asked people who emphasize the flaws of science and assert that “revelation” can fill that gap, if they had life threatening cancer, and had to choose between two treatment methods, which would they choose:

A – going to a top doctor with excellent credentials and access to the latest medical technology
Or

B – going to a religious healer of your choice

- we all know the answer would be A. That’s why I say science has already won the “battle” between science and religion. Another piece of evidence that it has already won is that people who defend religious claims often cloak their defense in the language of science. They know that the language of science bestows authority. Why? Because, as Michael Shermer stated, we all really know that science is the best thing devised for understanding how the world works.

Religionists sometimes read my posts like this one and assert that I now worship science, that I think science is flawless, beyond bias and error. That is complete nonsense. I am well aware of the flaws of science. I am well aware that scientists are human beings, subject to the same flaws of reasoning that the rest of us are subject to. But I am also aware that science provides a method for minimizing the impact of those human problems, and it works better than anything else.

[_Some Schmo]

Religionists sometimes read my posts like this one and assert that I now worship science, that I think science is flawless, beyond bias and error. That is complete nonsense. I am well aware of the flaws of science. I am well aware that scientists are human beings, subject to the same flaws of reasoning that the rest of us are subject to. But I am also aware that science provides a method for minimizing the impact of those human problems, and it works better than anything else.

The great advantage that science has is that it encourages criticism. Part of the methodology is to question current beliefs at all times. Scientists are hugely rewarded for overturning the current beliefs with proof, predictability and repeatable experimentation.

Clearly, religion does not have the built in mechanisms to destroy dogma, and is not really subject to bottom-up revisions (societal pressures to change current dogma have to be huge in order to really change something, and even then, it may not work - look how the Pope is still discouraging condom use, after all this time and the accumulated evidence, for instance).

[_Daniel Peterson]

Thanks for the reference. I'll be on a panel with Shermer in Las Vegas in a couple of weeks.

[_beastie]

Thanks for the reference. I'll be on a panel with Shermer in Las Vegas in a couple of weeks.

What's the topic?

[_Daniel Peterson]

What's the topic?

Sacred texts. I'll be speaking about the Book of Mormon.

[_beastie]

Sacred texts. I'll be speaking about the Book of Mormon.

Is it going to be shared online?