|
The
HAX Test--Who
can you not believe?
A fair
question to ask
me is this: Imagine that I was railing away on any topic
and you
ask: Hey Carl,
where did you come up with this stuff?Carl Weisbrod 2004 - 2007 And I respond: Well, gee, I just kinda made it up. That would fall into the category of hyperbole wouldn't it? Hyperbole, simply put, tends to be BS. Of course you would need to be informed enough to tell the difference between hyperbole and inforrmed facts.[1] If, on the other hand, I answered your question by saying My Uncle Fred told me...and, believe me, ol' Fred is really smart! ...that would fall under the category of anecdotal. If I said It was documented by a famous scientist and holy man that lives in the Alps. ...that would fall under the category of a beyond-reproach expert. Introducing!! ta-daaa!!! The HAX Validity Test! "H" is for Hyperbole, "A" is for Anecdotal, and "X" is for eXpert. I'll bet if you use this HAX Test you'll end up with less miracle pills, elixirs, and enzyme flakes on your shelf (among other things). Hyperbole, anecdotal evidence, and questionable experts rarely produce useful information. Anecdotal information often is the last ditch argument for an insupportable claim. A far more difficult system, but one (that should be) chosen by the professional, is the HCR system: H=Hypotheses--a well defined starting point; C=Consensus--an agreement among recognized authorities based on solid evidence, and; R=Results--evaluation and data collection without bias. It's no coincidence that this is a brief outline of the Scientific Method. The more common approach is the Inductive System, in which the belief system precedes the collection of data, and the data is selected to back-up the entrenched belief. An inductive debate invariably depends on one or more parts of the HAX system. When someone using a HAX system is in a debate with someone using an HCR system, the HAXer will often become angry and fall back on a technique called "Kill the Messenger." This happens as a HAXer attacks the opponent on a personal level. Refer to the eBook, Obnoxious Two-Value Tricks. The Parsimonious Factor: In science, parsimony suggests that things are usually connected in the most economical manner. Simplicity, therefore, is a goal within the scientific investigation. Consider that many complex theories can be refined down into a short formula such as (E=MC2). Your computer, as complex as it seems, only understands the numbers "0" and "1". Concepts that require a skeptical look are those that require an entire book to explain, especially when they rely on anecdotal evidence to make their point. Keep in mind that anecdotal evidence is the best argument for an insupportable claim. Far too much HAX is used within political debates. Sadly, I'm beginning to observe increasing amounts of HAX in pharmaceutical ads--of course, snake-oil preparations are completely dependent on a HAX selling system. HAX is ubiquitous in ads for the work-at-home e-commerce businesses. Many important issues appear more confusing than they need to be and HAX certainly contributes to some of this confusion. Uncle Fred isn't always that smart! Reproduced from Chapter 2, The Australopithecine Diet - Carl Weisbrod. ~
~ ~
How
about putting the Shoe on the Other Foot?
Have you ever
started a debate by yelping something like:"That's crazy! You
can't seriously believe that!
That's the H for hyperbole, is it
not?
And what if you go on to say something like: Talk to Joe Smith--he'll straighten you out ...you've then covered the A for anecdotal evidence. And if you go on to talk about someone's lengthy experience in such matters, you've added the X for a beyond-reproach expert--especially if you bestow the "expert" title on yourself. If your adversary is also following a HAX-like system, the discussion will most likely deteriorate into an angry yelling match with no points made and nothing learned. On the other hand, if your debating partner is following a deductive (HCR) debating system, he or she will consider your HAX conversation not worthy of their time and will probably extract themselves from the conversation. You will become a much more effective conversationalist if you first ask for clarification of an opposing opinion. It's better to hold off just a bit before expressing your opinion or position until it can be put forth in a clear and concise manner. Character assassination, a raised voice, or sarcasm will destroy effective communication. Add hyperbole, anecdotal evidence, and expert as your part of the debate and you'll likely be wasting a useful learning experience. ~
~ ~
Return to the HomePage: >click< |