

A field guide to bullshit - sgoraya
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028160.200-a-field-guide-to-bullshit.html?full=true&print=true

======
bluekeybox
"Then they insist that there are special people who can see - if only dimly -
through this veil."

I have this pet theory (hey, maybe it's another intellectual black hole) that
all religious, mystical, and irrational beliefs derive from this: we human
brains have this property (either innate or easily acquired due to existing
structure) that leads us to worship other individuals. By "worship" I mean
trust without doubt and with unreasonable admiration. I think that the
following phenomena are all manifestations of this same property: (1)
religious thinking, (2) romantic love, (3) pop culture/culture of cool, (4)
family ties. The third and the fourth one would be the most self-aware forms
of this type of thinking, but the first two (the first one especially) can
take on forms of the self-sustaining "black holes" mentioned in the post.

TL;DR: our idols are within us.

~~~
cschwarm
I would say you're mixing two different things: (1) irrational beliefs, and
(2) worship. Belief in homeopathy, psychic powers, alien abductions are
examples for (1), but lack (2).

There is good evidence that we're predisposed for (1): Our brains seem to have
"interpreters", located mostly in the left brain hemisphere, that are trying
to make "sense" from the input (Gazzaniga, M.S.: The Ethical Brain, 2005).

There are two situations when this gets more obvious:

1\. When the brain input (or the brain connections) is partially broken. For
instance, if one shows split-brain patients the word "Walk" so that only right
brain hemisphere notes it, they stand up and walk. When asked why they did
what they just did, they often come up with an ad hoc explanation: "I just
wanted go get a coke." This is the interpreter working, trying to make sense
from the fact that the person just stood up although the interpreter had no
signal from other parts of the brain about possible reasons.

2\. When the brain input is "unexpected". In psychology, so-called "non-
deterministic" (or non-contingent) experiments make the participant believe
she can influence the results or reactions of a setting, although, in fact,
she can not. In such situations, humans also come up with explanations even if
there's nothing to explain. In other words, they are trying to make sense out
of non-sense input. These experiments go back to B.F. Skinner who was able to
induce superstitious behavior in pigeons. [1]

What's interesting is how resistant some of these beliefs are. Generally
speaking, the more effort is put into an explanation, the more resistant to
change.

Worship, on the other hand, seems to be a more complex and special kind of
belief. It's not just trust without doubt or unreasonable admiration, but also
magical thinking: the idea to be able to influence reality by appealing to a
powerful being.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner#Superstition_in_t...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner#Superstition_in_the_pigeon)

~~~
bluekeybox
Thanks for the response, that was interesting, especially the superstition in
pigeons link. When I wrote about magical thinking, I was more concerned about
worship than the kind of superstition you describe; I wasn't very clear about
that (I'm not a neuroscientist). What you were trying to describe seems to be
how brain generates rationalizations for events. My opinion is that the these
rationalizations you describe as "magical thinking" are in fact the same type
of thought process that also occurs on much higher levels, when scientists
generate hypotheses for example -- except that expert scientists have far more
experience to "ground" these rationalizations correctly (i.e. on evidence that
is empirical and can be replicated and validated).

Although the rationalizations you describe are probably the origin for many
magical beliefs, my opinion is that those beliefs don't perpetuate/last very
long unless they are also associated with worship of some type. My observation
was that most forms of religion and mysticism are concerned about "soul" or
some other supposedly magical property of humans. Homeopathy is probably one
of the few types of magical thinking that doesn't really concern itself with
human beings as being special, but I think that most other types do.

I don't consider worship to be a very complex phenomenon -- I think that it is
simply an innate or readily acquired (at early stages of development)
mechanism that triggers intense pleasure when confronted with individuals or
objects that possess many desired characteristics (above a certain threshold).
When combined with rationalizing magical thinking you describe, worship
results in us placing unreasonable trust in the individuals/objects possessing
those characteristics.

------
gaulinmp
Did anyone else get a sense that this article provided no special insight? It
mentioned repeated examples like "I just know" works for Ted but not flying
saucers. What is the difference between Ted out the window and a saucer? I
felt the author relies heavily on the audience sharing his sense of the
obvious and absurd, but provides no argument to support his claims.

~~~
brudgers
It's not exactly special insight, but presumably all the people involved have
experienced a number of encounters with Ted whereas for flying saucers, it is
generally the case that all parties to the conversation have not had a number
of encounters with flying saucers - unless one has - to a high degree of
probability - entered an intellectual black hole of the sort described in the
article.

The argument is premised on long standing principals of ordinary language
philosophy, i.e. "It's not Ted, because Ted is on holiday," is an appropriate
response whereas, "It's not Ted, but a robotic doppelganger," is a bullshit
response [a recent addition to the philosophical classification of
propositions] in ordinary circumstances.

~~~
kd0amg
_It's not exactly special insight, but presumably all the people involved have
experienced a number of encounters with Ted whereas for flying saucers, it is
generally the case that all parties to the conversation have not had a number
of encounters with flying saucers_

On top of that, there have also been many cases of believing incorrectly that
somebody else is out of town.

------
tokenadult
A good example of applying reality tests to controversial ideas is the
Science-Based Medicine blog,

<http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/>

which corrects quite a few mistaken ideas found in the popular press (and,
thus, here on HN) about medical research.

------
TikiTDO
I feel this article is guilty of exactly what it argues against. Many of the
views he writes off as ridiculous may be the results of countless thought
processes working in any number of contexts. Instead of accepting this, he
simplified each view that contradicts his own down to an obviously ridiculous
claim, then makes use of what is effectively a traditional straw man argument.
Sure, it's true that if your views are rationalized the way he expects them to
be then you have no logical let to stand on. On the other hand should you have
any sort of more complex and rational approach to the matter it appears that
he will still gladly lump you with the lunatics.

That said, I do agree that the issue he is trying to point out is of vital
importance. The fact is that most of the people that believe in mysticism,
religions, UFOs, psychic powers, and other things to that effect are
completely disconnected from the physical reality that they inhabit. However,
I do not think the solution is to tell these people that their views are
ridiculous, before quoting scientific facts the implications of which you
might not even understand yourself. You would be better off establishing a
rapport, and gradually introducing more and more facts that do not agree with
their interpretation of the world. In the end you may both find some wisdom in
the result.

~~~
jerf
"I feel this article is guilty of exactly what it argues against.... Instead
of accepting this, he simplified each view that contradicts his own down..."

Do you know what a "field guide" is? They're not generally full course
textbooks on zoology.

If you want a more full treatment, I hear there's this "Believing Bullshit"
book by, I don't know, some guy or other, I heard about it somewhere. (Haven't
read it, so I can't guarantee it has any given thing, but I bet it's a good
deal longer than that article.)

I think one is generally allowed to allude to belief in extraterrestrial
visitation and psychic powers being a bit on the poorly-grounded side without
popping open a footnote and pouring 150,000 words on the topic into it,
especially in what is basically a sales pitch for a longer work.

~~~
TikiTDO
Sure, if I wanted the full treatment, I also hear there's this "Believing
Bullshit" book. Unfortunately, I recall reading a synopsis, and I get the
feeling that I would be wasting my money were I to buy it. The tone and
content of the article in no way suggested that the book would be anything but
more of the same. This isn't something you could fix with a footnote, or by
writing 150,000 words on the topic. It is, I feel, a fundamental flaw of the
author.

Maybe I'm being too hard on the book, and it is actually much more interesting
than the article gives it credit for. Unfortunately, I'm not particularly
interested in looking into the matter, and that is where the article failed
for me.

------
projectileboy
This is somewhat tangential, but I get mildly irritated reading articles like
this when they equate medicine with hard science. If the physics community
operated like the pharmaceutical community, I think our knowledge of the
universe would be less than it is today, to put it mildly. (As a reference,
check HNSearch for "Prozac" and "placebo".)

~~~
nanerj
The 'need' for breakthroughs in physics isn't quite the same as the 'need' for
medicine.

That said, 'back off man, I'm a scientist'! I just don't think the general
public gives a damn about things that don't directly affect them... things
like CERN. I told my parents the other day about the breakthroughs in quantum
superposition and they could not possibly have cared less. Now if there were
some miracle weight loss breakthrough they'd be all ears!

------
fourk
Isn't most science the result/process of having ridiculous beliefs and
scientifically validating your theories? Remember that, at one point,
Heliocentrism was universally considered to be an utterly absurd idea.

~~~
bad_user
Scientists only have beliefs in falsifiable theories and are always working
towards proving or disproving said theories. But yes, theories that are really
hard to prove either way, like the string theory, quickly become what the
article names _intellectual black holes_ for same people.

On the other hand, believing in homeopathy is tricky as there have been
evidence that it doesn't work that well.

I do take issue with this statement:

    
    
        Any theory, no matter how ludicrous, can be 
        squared with the evidence, given enough ingenuity
    

Well, yeah, but it can take hundreds of years for said evidence to emerge. We
still have no clue about how to predict natural disasters, we barely know the
reasons for why tornadoes happen and we haven't yet fully cracked the human
brain -- we have a long, long way to go before fully understanding the
phenomenons around us.

It's also not only about _ingenuity_ \- sometimes you have that, but don't
have the proper tools yet. Proving Einstein's theory turned out to be quite a
challenge and the theory itself is so groundbreaking that many thought
Einstein is a nutjob.

Personally, I admit theories that have no evidence yet, such theories only
have to pass the falsifiability test.

~~~
StavrosK
You can never _prove_ scientific theories, only _disprove_ them.

------
mikk0j
"-But even scientists admit that they can't explain everything. -There
probably are questions that science cannot answer..."

I would love to get rid of this intellectual appeasement of supernaturalists.
It is only there to avoid accusations of scientism so I find it an
argumentative cop-out.

Sure, science can't answer some questions. Like: "what hair colour is bald?",
"where does god live?" and "what is the meaning of life?".

But is the problem with science or with the question? Always challenge the
question, especially if it contains assumptions.

------
cj
"Intellectual black holes" help a lot of people, in that it gives them a sense
of purpose, security, etc. Religion is comforting to those grieving death.

However, the danger comes when intellectual black holes are propagated within
society and thus accepted as truth, resulting in arbitrary notions of whats
_right_ and _wrong_.

~~~
kylemaxwell
And it depends on the effect of the black hole, as you say. If my neighbor
believes in flying saucers, hey no skin off my nose. But when enough of my
neighbors believe it that they affect space policy, or my even just that one
neighbor starts up a floodlight at night as a signal beacon and thus I can't
sleep, now we have issues.

~~~
wmat
Off topic, but this comment describes how I feel about the Catholic School
Board we have in Canada. Because of historical precedent, in Ontario we have
two school systems, one that is secular and public, and one that is separate,
for people of the Catholic faith. My problem lies in the public funding of
this system. A good article about this was recently published in This
Magazine: [http://this.org/magazine/2011/06/09/abolish-catholic-
schools...](http://this.org/magazine/2011/06/09/abolish-catholic-schools/)

~~~
zwieback
Growing up in Germany we had "Religion" as a first-class citizen in the
curriculum, all the way through 13th grade. Where I grew up we were almost
exactly 50% Protestant, 50% Catholic so we split up in those groups for our
classes. You (your parents) could declare yourself non-religious and skip
those classes but few did, even though almost nobody I knew said they believed
in god. The Religion classes, which were part history, part ethics classes
were actually one of my favorite subjects even though I can't remember ever in
my life believing in a supreme being of any sort.

------
athst
Sometimes an article is worth writing just for the title you can put on top.

