Calling Bullshit: The Art of Scepticism in a Data-Driven World
Rate it:
7%
Flag icon
Crows recognize human faces and hold grudges against those who have threatened or mistreated them. They even pass these grudges along to their fellow crows.
8%
Flag icon
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It’s what separates us from the animals …. Except the weasel.”
8%
Flag icon
the most important principle in bullshit studies is Brandolini’s principle.
9%
Flag icon
“The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than [that needed] to produce it.”
9%
Flag icon
So here we have a hypothesis that has been as thoroughly discredited as anything in the scientific literature. It causes serious harm to public health. And yet it will not go away.
9%
Flag icon
This is Brandolini’s principle at work.
14%
Flag icon
The computer security professional posting to a tech forum could be a kid in his mom’s basement. A fourteen-year-old girl in a chat room could be an undercover cop. The oil heiress in your in-box is undoubtedly a scam artist.
21%
Flag icon
what if someone argued that smoking doesn’t cause cancer—but rather that cancer causes smoking? Crazy as it sounds, this is precisely what Ronald A. Fisher, one of the greatest statisticians of all time, tried to argue.
22%
Flag icon
If migrating geese arrive in early September every year and coho salmon begin to run later in the month, we might assume that the geese have something to do with calling the fish up the rivers.
33%
Flag icon
While accurate, you’re unlikely to hear a talking reptile say something like this in a Super Bowl commercial.fn3
34%
Flag icon
most likely, the majority of your friends have more friends than you do. This is not true merely because you are the kind of person who reads a book about bullshit for fun;
48%
Flag icon
What are the consequences of using training data that treats sexual preference as binary (gay or straight) instead of as a continuum?
52%
Flag icon
In addition to passing their genes to their offspring, parents sometimes pass a second layer of nongenetic information about what genes to activate, when. This became known as epigenetics.
58%
Flag icon
“Astronaut’s DNA No Longer Matches That of His Identical Twin, NASA Finds,”
58%
Flag icon
On Twitter, Scott Kelly joked, “What? My DNA changed by 7%! Who knew? I just learned about it in this article.
58%
Flag icon
A chimpanzee’s genome is only 2 percent different from a human’s. In fact, Kelly’s genes themselves didn’t change. The way his genes were expressed did. In other words, there were persistent changes in the rates at which about 7 percent of his (unchanged) genes were being translated into proteins.
64%
Flag icon
At a May 2018 hearing of the US House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Representative Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) speculated that perhaps rising sea levels could be attributed to rocks falling into the ocean.
64%
Flag icon
It is comforting that like Aesop’s crow,fn6 Representative Brooks understands the consequences of putting rocks in water.
65%
Flag icon
when the candidate is a woman, letter writers are more likely to hedge in their assessments, more likely to mention the candidate’s personal life, and less likely to describe the candidate as standing out above other applicants. These gender differences in recommendation letters could be driving some of the gender inequality
65%
Flag icon
writers use words associated with exceptionalism and research ability when describing men, and words associated with diligence, teamwork, and teaching when describing women.
72%
Flag icon
What’s a well-actually guy? It’s the guy who interrupts a conversation to demonstrate his own cleverness by pointing out some irrelevant factoid that renders the speaker incorrect on a technicality.