In a recent post I mentioned that Penn and Teller claim there is no credible science showing that second-hand smoke is harmful. Someone commented by supplying a URL to Dear Abby where she mentioned a study about the bad effects of second-hand smoke. I wittily asked “You get your science from Dear Abby?” Another commenter more wittily joined in with “You get your science from Penn and Teller?”
Hmm. Good point.
It made me think about what I call my bullshit filter. Over the years I have developed a seemingly reliable set of filters for deciding who to believe. For example, I distrust all science that is produced by people with an economic interest in the result. I know I’m in the minority on that view, so there’s no need to tell me again.
Today I’m going to talk about another bullshit filter that has proven reliable for me (BOCTAOE). Essentially it’s the observation that when people say something does NOT exist they are generally more reliable than those who says something DOES exist.
In its simplest form, let’s say 100 people emerge from a room and 98 of them claim they saw a pink elephant in there with them. Only 2 say it wasn’t there. I believe the two who say it wasn’t there. I figure the other 98 are either deluded or trying to fool me. If only one person claimed there was no elephant, I’d suspect he was a nut. But two people are enough to persuade me as long as they are on the “does not exist” side.
So how credible are Penn and Teller? They aren’t scientists, to be sure. But they are indeed experts at understanding illusions and delusions. And if they – and their scientist experts – examine a claim and find it to be an illusion, that’s more credible to me than 98 people who say it’s real.
I’d be amazed if second-hand smoke is safe. But my filter says the jury is still out on the studies themselves.