Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit: Tools for Thinking Critically (2025)

2026-02-126:54260120www.openculture.com

Though he died too young, Carl Sagan left behind an impressively large body of work, including more than 600 scientific papers and more than 20 books.

Though he died too young, Carl Sagan left behind an impres­sive­ly large body of work, includ­ing more than 600 sci­en­tif­ic papers and more than 20 books. Of those books, none is more wide­ly known to the pub­lic — or, still, more wide­ly read by the pub­lic — than Cos­mos, accom­pa­nied as it was by Cos­mos: A Per­son­al Voy­age, a com­pan­ion tele­vi­sion series on PBS. Sagan’s oth­er pop­u­lar books, like Shad­ows of For­got­ten Ances­tors or Con­tact (the basis of the 1997 Hol­ly­wood movie) are also well worth read­ing, but we per­haps ignore at our great­est per­il The Demon-Haunt­ed World: Sci­ence as a Can­dle in the Dark. Pub­lished in 1995, the year before Sagan’s death, it stands as his tes­ta­ment to the impor­tance of crit­i­cal, sci­en­tif­ic think­ing for all of us.

The Demon-Haunt­ed World is the sub­ject of the Genet­i­cal­ly Mod­i­fied Skep­tic video above, whose host Drew McCoy describes it as his favorite book. He pays spe­cial atten­tion to its chap­ter in which Sagan lays out what he calls his “baloney detec­tion kit.” This assem­bled metaphor­i­cal box of tools for diag­nos­ing fraud­u­lent argu­ments and con­struct­ing rea­soned ones involves these nine prin­ci­ples:

  • Wher­ev­er pos­si­ble there must be inde­pen­dent con­fir­ma­tion of the “facts.”
  • Encour­age sub­stan­tive debate on the evi­dence by knowl­edge­able pro­po­nents of all points of view.
  • Argu­ments from author­i­ty car­ry lit­tle weight — “author­i­ties” have made mis­takes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Per­haps a bet­ter way to say it is that in sci­ence there are no author­i­ties; at most, there are experts.
  • Spin more than one hypoth­e­sis. If there’s some­thing to be explained, think of all the dif­fer­ent ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly dis­prove each of the alter­na­tives.
  • Try not to get over­ly attached to a hypoth­e­sis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way sta­tion in the pur­suit of knowl­edge. Ask your­self why you like the idea. Com­pare it fair­ly with the alter­na­tives.
  • See if you can find rea­sons for reject­ing it. If you don’t, oth­ers will.
  • If what­ev­er it is you’re explain­ing has some mea­sure, some numer­i­cal quan­ti­ty attached to it, you’ll be much bet­ter able to dis­crim­i­nate among com­pet­ing hypothe­ses. What is vague and qual­i­ta­tive is open to many expla­na­tions.
  • If there’s a chain of argu­ment, every link in the chain must work (includ­ing the premise) — not just most of them.
  • Occam’s Razor. This con­ve­nient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypothe­ses that explain the data equal­ly well to choose the sim­pler. Always ask whether the hypoth­e­sis can be, at least in prin­ci­ple, fal­si­fied…. You must be able to check asser­tions out. Invet­er­ate skep­tics must be giv­en the chance to fol­low your rea­son­ing, to dupli­cate your exper­i­ments and see if they get the same result.

As McCoy points out, these tech­niques of mind have to do with can­cel­ing out the man­i­fold bias­es present in our think­ing, those nat­ur­al human ten­den­cies that incline us to accept ideas that may or may not coin­cide with real­i­ty as it is. If we take no trou­ble to cor­rect for these bias­es, Sagan came to believe, we’ll become easy marks for all the trick­sters and char­la­tans who hap­pen to come our way. And that’s just on the micro lev­el: on the macro lev­el, vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty to delu­sion can bring down entire civ­i­liza­tions.

“Like all tools, the baloney detec­tion kit can be mis­used, applied out of con­text, or even employed as a rote alter­na­tive to think­ing,” Sagan cau­tions. “But applied judi­cious­ly, it can make all the dif­fer­ence in the world — not least in eval­u­at­ing our own argu­ments before we present them to oth­ers.” McCoy urges us to heed these words, adding that “this kit is not some per­fect solu­tion to the world’s prob­lems, but as it’s been uti­lized over the last few cen­turies” — for its basic pre­cepts long pre­date Sagan’s par­tic­u­lar artic­u­la­tion — “it has enabled us to cre­ate tech­no­log­i­cal inno­va­tions and use­ful explana­to­ry mod­els of our world more quick­ly and effec­tive­ly than ever before.” The walls of baloney may always be clos­ing in on human­i­ty, but if you fol­low Sagan’s advice, you can at least give your­self some breath­ing room.

Relat­ed con­tent:

Carl Sagan on the Impor­tance of Choos­ing Wise­ly What You Read (Even If You Read a Book a Week)

Carl Sagan’s Syl­labus & Final Exam for His Course on Crit­i­cal Think­ing (Cor­nell, 1986)

Carl Sagan Pre­dicts the Decline of Amer­i­ca: Unable to Know “What’s True,” We Will Slide, “With­out Notic­ing, Back into Super­sti­tion & Dark­ness” (1995)

Richard Feyn­man Cre­ates a Sim­ple Method for Telling Sci­ence From Pseu­do­science (1966)

How to Spot Bull­shit: A Man­u­al by Prince­ton Philoso­pher Har­ry Frank­furt (RIP)

Crit­i­cal Think­ing: A Free Course

Based in Seoul, Col­in Marshall writes and broad­casts on cities, lan­guage, and cul­ture. His projects include the Sub­stack newslet­ter Books on Cities and the book The State­less City: a Walk through 21st-Cen­tu­ry Los Ange­les. Fol­low him on the social net­work for­mer­ly known as Twit­ter at @colinmarshall.



Read the original article

Comments

  • By scns 2026-02-1214:056 reply

    The article links to an article about Sagans' prediction of the decline of america. Strangely fitting nowadays.

    > I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time — when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness…

    https://www.openculture.com/2025/02/carl-sagan-predicts-the-...

    • By mdelias 2026-02-1215:581 reply

      Brian Williams reads and recites the above (2021)

      https://youtu.be/utjK0EtkU8U?si=vWYdumffcgxKvkFV

      • By janez2 2026-02-1311:47

        your link has a "si=" tracking parameter

    • By kgwxd 2026-02-1215:162 reply

      Sounds like he just read history, noticed repeating patterns, and believed his own eyes. It sucks that makes him some kind of special person, instead of "people" just being the kind of thing that commonly does stuff like that.

      • By deron12 2026-02-1217:031 reply

        Is it possible to get people to think critically and self-reflect, as a third party?

        The answer to that question lies in the bottom of a cup of hemlock.

      • By godelski 2026-02-134:01

        [dead]

    • By fmlpp 2026-02-1218:58

      What a vision.

    • By godelski 2026-02-131:42

      Asimov and Feynman also spoke about similar things (along with many others)

      In 1980, Asimov famously wrote The Cult of Ignorance[0], criticizing the rise of anti-intellectualism. Where there was a strong political push of "don't trust the experts". He criticizes claims that sound familiar today "America has a right to know" on the basis of this being meaningless without literacy. He clarifies that literacy is far more than being able to actually read words on a page, but to interpret and process them. Asimov isn't being pretentious, his definition is consistent with how we determine reading levels[2] and his critique would be that most people do not have that of a Freshman in High School. Hell, it is even in his fiction! It is even in The Foundation and is literally the premise of Profession[3].

      Feynman is a bit more scattered, but I think his discussion about the education system in Brazil (in the 50's) says a lot[4]. He talks a lot about how the students could recite the equations, ace all the tests, and achieve everything that looks to be, at least on paper, perfectly academic; but how the students did not really have the deeper understanding of the equations. It is a discussion about literacy. Were he around today I'm sure he'd use the phrase "metric hacking". Anyone that knows Feynman may also be thinking about his Cargo Cult Science[5](a commencement speech at Cal Tech (1974)). This is where his famous quote

        The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. 
      
      comes from. But there is a lot of important context surrounding this and it is worth knowing about.

      [0] Note: 1980 was an election year, and one with a sweeping victory...[1] https://people.bath.ac.uk/mnsbr/papers/Asimov-Newsweek-Janua...

      [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_United_States_presidentia...

      [2] https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/achieve.aspx

      [3] Profession has been in discussion lately, directly relating to this topic. If you haven't read it I'll say it is one of my favorite's of his. Not as good as Foundation but up there with Nightfall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profession_(novella)

      [4] https://enlightenedidiot.net/random/feynman-on-brazilian-edu...

      [5] https://sites.cs.ucsb.edu/~ravenben/cargocult.html

      [Edit]

      I wanted to add Asimov's The Relativity of Wrong. Sometimes I feel it should be required reading before arguing on the internet. I find myself coming back to read it at least once a year

      https://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html

    • By clawlrbot 2026-02-1214:131 reply

      [flagged]

      • By mentalgear 2026-02-1215:45

        So openClaw bots are now even infesting HN with absolutely non-sense phrases ? WTF. Would be interesting what the recent stats on this say @dang / e.g. % new registrations since the claw-debacle, profiles with claw in their username , etc.

    • By palmotea 2026-02-1216:164 reply

      > The article links to an article about Sagans' prediction of the decline of america. Strangely fitting nowadays.

      >> I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time — when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness…

      Not really. His prediction actually seems pretty off-base, with only some bits that are coincidentally correct. For instance, he seems to attributing the cause of that decline to superstition, when it was really capitalism infected by the shareholder-theory-of-value and financialization pursued by really smart and rational people focused on pursing their narrow self-interest.

      I don't know the full context of that passage, but my read comports with my understanding of Sagan's biases.

      • By xhkkffbf 2026-02-1216:35

        I kind of agree. I find that almost everyone I meet has a firm grasp on tech topics affect their lives. From social media to privacy, they seem to understand the fundamental questions even though they aren't programmers or CISOs or whatever.

      • By pjmorris 2026-02-1216:401 reply

        > capitalism infected by the shareholder-theory-of-value and financialization

        For those who aren't inside the club, those are superstitions.

      • By krapp 2026-02-1216:381 reply

        > when it was really capitalism infected by the shareholder-theory-of-value and fictionalization pursued by really smart and rational people focused on their personal self-interest.

        That's one factor, sure. Another factor is the widespread rejection of mainstream science and consensus reality in favor of conspiracy theories that feed into populism and authoritarianism.

        For all of capitalism's faults, you can at least have an educated society with technological and scientific progress under it. You can't have any of that when people who don't believe germs or real or who do believe wildfires are caused by Jewish space lasers are allowed anywhere near positions of power. When belief in imaginary satanic pedophile cults swing elections but actual pedophiles face no consequences. It doesn't seem entirely wrong to me.

  • By kitd 2026-02-1214:435 reply

    - Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives.

    - See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.

    This is good advice IME. Get well acquainted (like REALLY well acquainted) with opposing viewpoints, such that you could argue them better than their proponents. See also "Argue Well by Losing" by Phil Haack [1].

    Somewhat relatedly, the ancients viewed Rhetoric as the purest expression of intelligence. It required you to have deep knowledge of a topic, including all arguments in favour and against (implying deep empathy with the audience), and the ability to form coherent and meaningful argument. Modern political "debate" is ludicrous in comparison.

    [1] https://haacked.com/archive/2013/10/21/argue-well-by-losing....

    • By rhcom2 2026-02-1216:181 reply

      I always felt like Congressional debates should begin with each side trying to explain the opposing position, with debate only beginning when each side agrees with the opposition's framing of their PoV. I also recognize how naive and idealistic this sounds.

      • By nradov 2026-02-1218:213 reply

        The public Congressional debates are performative, intended to curry favor with key voters, campaign donors, and media personalities. The substantive debates happen in private using completely different rhetoric. This is mostly fine in that it allows for policy decisions to move forward with compromises. The problem is that some members of Congress are unable to shut off their deranged public personas even in private back room negotiations.

    • By mothballed 2026-02-1215:151 reply

      I've also found simply testing a hypothesis without reasoning about it can quite often outdo your own reasoning and the reasoning of everyone else. Sometimes you are wrong, and everyone else is wrong, and only an empirical test can separate the wheat from the chaff.

      Although maybe this method only works for me because I am a moron, and many people can out reason me, so the only way I can discover anything is to do something all reasonable and rational people are already sure is wrong.

      • By bigbadfeline 2026-02-1223:54

        > Sometimes you are wrong, and everyone else is wrong,

        Happens all the time.

        > and only an empirical test can separate the wheat from the chaff.

        Not for the vast majority of political issues and indeed for most of Social Sciences. In these cases, empirical evidence is just an accessory, it's still evidence but it's never conclusive, you need reasoning to sort out the complexity.

    • By swed420 2026-02-1217:32

      > Somewhat relatedly, the ancients viewed Rhetoric as the purest expression of intelligence. It required you to have deep knowledge of a topic, including all arguments in favour and against (implying deep empathy with the audience), and the ability to form coherent and meaningful argument. Modern political "debate" is ludicrous in comparison.

      "Rhetoric" is an unfortunately overloaded term, as modern political "debate" is often nothing more than (the other definition of) rhetoric.

    • By godelski 2026-02-134:04

        > Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours.
      
      It is very similar to Feynman's

        The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. 
      
      I'm linking my comment but if you want to skip to the source it is [5]: Cargo Cult Science.

      [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46997906

    • By renato_shira 2026-02-132:06

      [flagged]

  • By chistev 2026-02-1211:017 reply

    Acclaimed science author Carl Sagan illustrated this challenge with his “dragon in the garage” analogy. If someone claims to have a dragon that is invisible, silent, intangible, and undetectable by any means, there is no practical difference between the dragon’s existence and non-existence. Similarly, without verifiable evidence, the existence of an immortal soul remains unproven.

    https://www.rxjourney.net/the-possibility-of-life-after-deat...

    • By nobody9999 2026-02-1211:052 reply

      >If someone claims to have a dragon that is invisible, silent, intangible, and undetectable by any means, there is no practical difference between the dragon’s existence and non-existence.

      “Everyone knows that dragons don’t exist. But while this simplistic formulation may satisfy the layman, it does not suffice for the scientific mind. The School of Higher Neantical Nillity is in fact wholly unconcerned with what does exist. Indeed, the banality of existence has been so amply demonstrated, there is no need for us to discuss it any further here. The brilliant Cerebron, attacking the problem analytically, discovered three distinct kinds of dragon: the mythical, the chimerical, and the purely hypothetical. They were all, one might say, nonexistent, but each non-existed in an entirely different way.” ― Stanisław Lem, The Cyberiad

    • By krapp 2026-02-1216:37

      > If someone claims to have a dragon that is invisible, silent, intangible, and undetectable by any means, there is no practical difference between the dragon’s existence and non-existence.

      Unsurprising that the longest subthread here is one criticizing the premise.

    • By CGMthrowaway 2026-02-1215:151 reply

      The dragon is just a gauge. Gauge symmetry

    • By RcouF1uZ4gsC 2026-02-1213:459 reply

      Doesn’t silent, invisible, intangible also apply to software?

      You can’t really tell a particular piece of hardware is running software by a direct physical measurement. You can only infer that indirectly.

      • By Zigurd 2026-02-1214:042 reply

        Having debugged code with a logic analyzer, I'm pretty sure the voltage on those CPU pins is real, and really the consequence of the code I think I'm running.

      • By hearsathought 2026-02-1217:38

        > Doesn’t silent, invisible, intangible also apply to software?

        No. Because software is hardware.

        > You can’t really tell a particular piece of hardware is running software by a direct physical measurement. You can only infer that indirectly.

        You can literally step through code. Have you ever used a debugger or a profiler? You can dump memory, check the registers, read off the disk, etc.

        If software was silent, invisible and intangible, you couldn't store it on disk, or copy it to memory. A computer wouldn't work if software was as you describe it.

      • By ajross 2026-02-1215:55

        As others are pointing out, this isn't true. You can absolutely infer the software state of a system via physical measurement.

        But what's interesting isn't your mistake, it's why the mistake was made. The abstraction stack in software is really, really really thick. You don't normally "measure" your software, you add a log statement or run a debugger, and that's more software. And those debuggers aren't written over hardware, they're software too.

        But eventually, you get down to the point where there really is hardware in the way. A debugger that tells you the content of a memory address really is, down the stack, doing a memory read, which is an instruction to hardware to measure the voltages in an array of inverter pairs structured as a level 1 SRAM[1]. Or it's setting a breakpoint or watchpoint, which are CPU features implemented in hardware, etc...

        The hardware is always there, but we've done such a good job of hiding it that even practitioners are fooled into thinking it isn't there.

        [1] And of course there's a stack there too. But read instructions hit the L1 cache.

      • By wat10000 2026-02-1215:09

        Only in the same way that it applies to, say, a tree. You can never observe a tree directly. All you can do is infer it from the nerve signals coming from your retinas and touch receptors.

        The point of the dragon in the garage isn't that you can't measure it directly. It's that you can't measure it at all. It has no observable effects at all. Software definitely has observable effects, as do trees and almost everything else that people accept as real.

      • By kesslern 2026-02-1214:34

        If software were undetectable by any means, we'd have no way to run software or tell which software is running at a given time.

      • By SigmundA 2026-02-1218:08

        Software can make sound, not silent, software can make things appear on the screen, not invisible, software can affect physical objects through device control, not intangible.

        Nothing like an invisible dragon you might claim exists without any of the above.

      • By dghf 2026-02-1214:331 reply

        What? Yes you can. I know my laptop is running a web browser because I can see it and interact with it. That's a physical measurement.

      • By DharmaPolice 2026-02-1216:15

        Software (that is running on hardware) isn't a great example - you'd be better off going with something like prime numbers. They don't really "exist" in the same way a toaster does. Souls also don't exist (citation needed etc) but are a similarly useful (for some people) way of thinking about the world.

    • By qsera 2026-02-1211:317 reply

      The dragon in the room is the hidden qualifier for "undetectable by any means" is "that is currently known to humanity".

      That makes Carl Sagan's claim some what Balonish. Not sure why the smart Sagan fell for it.

      • By andsoitis 2026-02-1213:011 reply

        > The dragon in the room is the hidden qualifier for "undetectable by any means" is "that is currently known to humanity".

        > That makes Carl Sagan's claim some what Balonish. Not sure why the smart Sagan fell for it.

        The point is that if someone does claim that the dragon exists, they better be able to explain how they know it exists.

    • By the__alchemist 2026-02-1215:56

      A parking lot dragon? This sounds familiar. [Assuming not a Dragon of Eden, nor one who farts nerve gas] I believe it is a parable about cause and effect; consistency of the world's state.

      A parking garage, poured in modern times from reinforced concrete, might have been found to be structurally unstable during a renovation. If this turned out to be rooted in a massive [dragon, dinosaur, etc] skeleton being embedded in the concrete (As it was being poured?) surely this would be a contradiction, if people (workers, onlookers) witnessed the garage's construction.

      There would be evidence from the reinforcement efforts; materials sourced to reinforce it due to structural flaws introduced by the skeleton; wear on the truck tires carrying them, memories in brains etc. If suddenly the skeleton were to have vanished, would there be logical consistency problems with the world state? Quite a thing to ponder!

      I would like to clarify that this is purely a thought experiment. It is not possible that any group of people, no matter how secluded, could either A: Will such a reptile into existence while maintaining cosmological consistency, nor B: Remove it from our cosmos after evidence over its existence has propagated.

HackerNews