A solid system of beliefs, belief structure or theory will probably exhibit certain features from a set of positive signs, or green flags, and almost certainly exhibit very few features from a set of negative signs, or "red flags".
As a disclaimer, this method is of course not the ultimate arbiter of truth. It may be possible, (although it is probably very unlikely) that something showing many red flags and few green ones is actually true. This is consistent with the "fallacy fallacy": just because your opponent has committed a logical fallacy, it does not automatically mean he or she is wrong.
Also, this is my own list and by no means an exhaustive one. Still I would Say that overall it is a usable guide to deciding whether some idea is potentially OK to subscribe to or whether there should be serious doubts about its legitimacy.
Green flags:
1) Developing a viable mechanism for how the model, idea or belief comes into being in objective reality
2) Making positive arguments for your case as well as negative arguments against your opponent's case
3) Actively investigating where your own claims lead, the validity of the conclusions and what issues this may cause in the future
4) The idea can (at least in theory) be disproved by further study
5) Making clearly defined and testable predictions from your model, the outcomes of which, if not favourable, result in criticism of and possible amendment to the model, and not just criticism of the predictions themselves
6) Entertaining the possibility that you could be wrong; accepting valid criticism
7) Engaging with dissenters in a constructive manner; not resorting to insults
8) If fellow subscribers to the idea wish to change their minds and leave the group, for any reason, they are allowed to do so and not pressured or threatened into staying
9) Always being concerned about "how you know what you know"
10) Being open and transparent about your reasons for subscribing to the belief, even if they include vested interests
11) Not holding up any particular individual as the ultimate paragon who is much greater than his or her peers
Red Flags:
1) Not being interested in developing a viable mechanism for how the model, idea or belief comes into being in objective reality
2) Failing to make positive arguments for your case, and only making negative arguments against your opponent's case OR Only espousing your own ideas without justifying how they are fundamentally different to another's
3) Not being interested in investigating where your own claims lead, how valid the conclusions may be or what issues this may cause in the future
4) The idea cannot be disproved by further study, no matter if much more investigation is carried out
5) Not making predictions from your model, or only making poorly defined or untestable predictions, the outcomes of which, if not favourable, only result in criticism of the predictions themselves (equivocation) and no change in thought surrounding the central premises
6) Not entertaining the possibility that you could be wrong - you MUST be right and any criticism can never be justified
7) Refusing to engage with dissenters; or engaging in a non-constructive manner - resorting to insults or worse
8) If fellow subscribers to the idea wish to change their minds and leave the group, for any reason, they are strongly discouraged from doing so and may be pressured or threatened into staying
9) Being reliant on saying "I just know!" without making substantial efforts to demonstrate how you do in fact know what you claim to know
10) Pretending that you subscribe to a belief because you believe it and not because it is in line with other ideologies or interests you may hold.
11) Asserting that a particular individual is much greater than anyone else, and must be obeyed above all others
---
I wanted to do a quick analysis of a few different ideas to show some of the areas in which they struggle, and how other ideas seem to possess more healthy characteristics.
For example, science as a whole generally displays all the green flags, and when done properly, none of the red ones. Scientology, by contrast, appears to be the complete opposite.
Note that phenomena such as cults display many red flags. Cults tend to involve self-reinforcing belief systems which can become very difficult, if not impossible, to escape from once you have become invested. Hence I like to refer to cults as "Intellectual Quick Sand". I also argue throughout this blog that Religions tend to be other forms of "Intellectual Quick Sand".
Conspiracy theories:
Beliefs like the 9/11 attacks being an inside job, or mankind not really landing on the moon, or vaccines being intentionally dangerous, do not stand up to the available evidence, and yet you can come across legions of people who believe these things with all sincerity.
Of course, one of the central problems with conspiracy theories is the amount of international collusion which is often required for them to hold together. Authorities usually require more competence to do this, than if the official explanation were actually true in the first place.
"I have a theory that dolphins are actually alien spies from the planet Neptune - it is impossible to disprove that to me, since I can always develop some rationalisation to counter any problem you may raise." However, that does not mean that is reasonable to hold the dolphin belief, nor that there is, or could be, any plausible way in which it could have come into being.
It seems to me that the ultimate "theory that never dies" is simply one that can't be disproved. If it can't be disproved, you'll never know if it's wrong. I'd like conspiracy advocates to try and disprove that theory (!)
Conspiracy theories tend to be awful on most of the points, particularly 4, 7 and 10 , displaying big red flags there.
Creationism:
Creationism goes by various guises including "Intelligent design". It is an alternate story of the creation of life, and deeply mired in religious belief.
Creationists assert that life cannot come from non-life, however, this has neither been proven to be the case, nor is it logically necessary. There is just the interaction between groups of atoms, common to inorganic and organic chemistry. And of course using the labels of "life" and "non-life" is chicanery in itself - since biology is just the chemistry of complex biological molecules.
The problems inherent with claiming things have been designed should be obvious. How do we tell if something is designed? Termite mounds and crystal formations look designed, yet they are not. In the thought experiment of finding a wristwatch on a beach, the creationist must answer the question of how we tell the difference between the human design of the watch, and of the grains of sand, which are "God's design" by their own admission. The point of course is that we can't reliably tell if something is designed or not, just by looking at it.
The truth is that evolution just finds solutions in biological systems that work i.e. lead to greater chance of survival for the organism- they are not "designed". On the flags model, creationism often displays big red flags on the first 6 or so items at least, and the tenth.
I deal with other aspects of creationism elsewhere on this blog. Note that the recent much-anticipated debate between scientist Bill Nye and creationist Ken Ham is available to view on YouTube - and I insert it below - I recommend that you watch it, and decide for yourself who is being more coherent, and more honest.
Finally, other ideas are more difficult to qualify on this scale. For example, political ideologies are blurred by the fact that they change so much with time, and play off one another - the left wing almost requires the existence of the right wing in order to provide a counter position. It's clear to me that both the very far extreme ends of the spectrum are best avoided: radicalism usually results from surrounding oneself with groupthink.
To me, feminism scores intermediately well on the flags scale. The first five points are definitely green flags, the last four probably are mostly green, whilst points 6-8 can sometimes be red. I have seen examples of this myself.
The problem of "Skepticism of skepticism"
There is an inherent problem with on one hand claiming that you're skeptical (of anything, but especially of skepticism itself) and then asserting that there is "more to the universe than science can detect" which is one of spiritualism's central tenets. How do you know this? Everything that we do understand, requires no paranormal explanations and nothing outside of the physical world in order to explain. Of course, if religion or spirituality holds, there must be more to the universe than science detects, and so some people just won't let it go.
Skepticism of skepticism, if taken to its "logical" conclusion, can to lead to woo-woo beliefs and even "intellectual quick sand" like conspiracy theories or creationism. If someone is following evidence where it leads, is aware of the pitfalls of Red Flags, and attempting to steer clear of intellectual potholes such as confirmation bias, then they are being skeptical and applying critical thinking. Just asserting that you're "skeptical" of this approach may not automatically mean you're wrong, but neither does it mean that you are really being as skeptical as you claim.
No comments:
Post a Comment