As a follow-up to the debate between Buster and Robert below I'd like to say that Robert certainly has the curiosity of a scientist and to me often shows a better grasp of science than Barry but seems a little short in the BS detection department. I will say that Robert is probably one of the most level headed people here and represents the scientific ideal there better than most of the real scientists and engineers here. The commentary below Shermer's baloney detection points are the authors. The comments below the Sagan Baloney Detection kit bullets are mine and more specific to Barry's behavior.

Baloney Detection: How to draw boundaries between science and pseudoscience, Part I

More Baloney Detection: How to draw boundaries between science and pseudoscience, Part II

1. How reliable is the source of the claim?

Pseudoscientists often appear quite reliable, but when examined closely, the facts and figures they cite are distorted, taken out of context or occasionally even fabricated. Of course, everyone makes some mistakes. And as historian of science Daniel Kevles showed so effectively in his book The Baltimore Affair, it can be hard to detect a fraudulent signal within the background noise of sloppiness that is a normal part of the scientific process. The question is, Do the data and interpretations show signs of intentional distortion? When an independent committee established to investigate potential fraud scrutinized a set of research notes in Nobel laureate David Baltimore's laboratory, it revealed a surprising number of mistakes. Baltimore was exonerated because his lab's mistakes were random and nondirectional.

5. Has anyone gone out of the way to disprove the claim, or has only supportive evidence been sought?

This is the confirmation bias, or the tendency to seek confirmatory evidence and to reject or ignore disconfirmatory evidence. The confirmation bias is powerful, pervasive and almost impossible for any of us to avoid. It is why the methods of science that emphasize checking and rechecking, verification and replication, and especially attempts to falsify a claim, are so critical.

7. Is the claimant employing the accepted rules of reason and tools of research, or have these been abandoned in favor of others that lead to the desired conclusion?

A clear distinction can be made between SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) scientists and UFOlogists. SETI scientists begin with the null hypothesis that ETIs do not exist and that they must provide concrete evidence before making the extraordinary claim that we are not alone in the universe. UFOlogists begin with the positive hypothesis that ETIs exist and have visited us, then employ questionable research techniques to support that belief, such as hypnotic regression (revelations of abduction experiences), anecdotal reasoning (countless stories of UFO sightings), conspiratorial thinking (governmental cover-ups of alien encounters), low-quality visual evidence (blurry photographs and grainy videos), and anomalistic thinking (atmospheric anomalies and visual misperceptions by eyewitnesses).

9. If the claimant proffers a new explanation, does it account for as many phenomena as the old explanation did?

Many HIV/AIDS skeptics argue that lifestyle causes AIDS. Yet their alternative theory does not explain nearly as much of the data as the HIV theory does. To make their argument, they must ignore the diverse evidence in support of HIV as the causal vector in AIDS while ignoring the significant correlation between the rise in AIDS among hemophiliacs shortly after HIV was inadvertently introduced into the blood supply.

10. Do the claimant's personal beliefs and biases drive the conclusions, or vice versa?

All scientists hold social, political and ideological beliefs that could potentially slant their interpretations of the data, but how do those biases and beliefs affect their research in practice? Usually during the peer-review system, such biases and beliefs are rooted out, or the paper or book is rejected.

Now Robert go back and apply these questions to the links provided here and tell me how you would qualify Barry’s responses.

Buster may have been thinking of this link CARL SAGAN'S BALONEY DETECTION KIT

- If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.

You can’t use Panspermia to support one part of your stance yet deny it to support another.

- "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.

- Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.

As you noted both sides are guilty of this, but I feel many have approached Barry with an open mind and technical criticism only to be driven to active dislike by his constant resort to this tactic whenever he cannot rebut technical arguments. I almost always attack his argument unlike some who prefer to do nothing but insult Barry. It is a fault that I can not resist personal counter attacks when faced with the likes of Grondine and Barry. I hope the technical arguments are not overshadowed by what I consider minor additions of personal opinion.

- Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).

Do you see any relevance there Robert?

- Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).

Like maybe ignoring medical data on the causes of flu or the fact that the LR data had the profile of a chemical rather than biological reaction.

- Suppressed evidence or half-truths.

Like all the data Barry ignores or denies at the link provided earlier. The data Barry uses to make his case has not been suppressed it is simply judged inconclusive in the face of data he has admitted ignoring.

More on telling pseudoscience from science:

Becoming a Critical Thinker

Pseudoscience

SOME PURPORTED MARKS OF PSEUDOSCIENCE

Regards,
Mark