---
title: "The Demon-Haunted World"
chunk: 2/3
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:31:38.450954+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

Ad hominem. An arguer attacks the opposing arguer and not the actual argument.
Argument from authority. Someone expects another to immediately believe that a person of authority or higher knowledge is correct.
Argument from adverse consequences. Someone says that something must be done a certain way or else there will be adverse consequences.
Appeal to ignorance. One argues a claim in that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa.
Special pleading. An arguer responds to a deeply complex or rhetorical question or statement by, usually, saying "oh you don't understand how so and so works."
Begging the question. An arguer assumes the answer and makes a claim such as, this happened because of that, or, this needs to happen in order for that to happen.
Observational selection. Someone talks about how great something is by explaining all of the positive aspects of it while purposely not mentioning any of the negative aspects.
Statistics of small numbers. Someone argues something by giving the statistics in small numbers, which isn't very reliable.
Misunderstanding of the nature of statistics. Someone misinterprets statistics given to them.
Fallacy of inconsistency. An arguer is very inconsistent in their claims.
Non sequitur. This is Latin for "it doesn't follow". A claim is made that doesn't make much sense, such as "Our nation will prevail because God is great."
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Latin for "it happened after, so it was caused by". An arguer claims that something happened because of a past event when really it probably didn't.
Meaningless question. Someone asks a question that has no real meaning or doesn't add to the argument at all.
The excluded middle. An arguer only considers or mentions the two opposite extremes of the conversation and excludes the aspects in between the two extremes.
Short-term vs. long-term. A subset of the excluded middle, but so important it was pulled out for special attention.
Slippery slope, related to excluded middle (e.g., If we allow abortion in the first weeks of pregnancy, it will be impossible to prevent the killing of a full-term infant. Or, conversely: If the state prohibits…).
Confusion of correlation and causation. The latter causes the former.
Straw man. Caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack. This is also a short-term/long-term fallacy.
Suppressed evidence, or half-truth.
Weasel word. Talleyrand said: "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public." 
Sagan provides a skeptical analysis of several examples of what he refers to as superstition, fraud, and pseudoscience such as witches, UFOs, ESP, and faith healing. He is critical of organized religion.
In a 2020 interview for Skeptical Inquirer, when Sagan's wife Ann Druyan was asked about the origin of the phrase "baloney detection kit", she said that

It didn't really come from Carl. It actually came from a friend of mine named Arthur Felberbaum who died about forty years ago. He and Carl and I once sat down for dinner together. His politics were very left wing, so Carl and Arthur and I were trying to find common ground so that we could have a really good dinner together. And at one point, Arthur said, "Carl, it's just that I dream that every one of us would have a baloney detection kit in our head." And that's where that idea came from.

=== Misuse of science ===
Sagan indicates that science can be misused. Thus, he is highly critical of Edward Teller, the "father of the hydrogen bomb", and Teller's influence on politics, and contrasts his stance to that of Linus Pauling and other scientists who took moral positions.
Sagan also discusses the misuse of science in representation. He relates to the depiction of the mad scientist character in children's TV shows and is critical of this occurrence. Sagan suggests an addition of scientific television programs, many of which would take a look at believed hoaxes of the past and encourage viewers to engage in critical thinking to better represent science on popular television.

==== Misuse of psychiatric authority ====
Sagan indicates that therapists can contribute to the growth of pseudoscience or the infusion of "false stories". He is critical of John Mack and his support of  abduction cases, which were represented in his patients.
Sagan writes about the story of Paul Ingram. Ingram's daughter reported that her father had sexually abused her. He was told that "sex offenders often repressed memories of their crimes." Ingram was eventually able to have a foggy visualization of the claimed events, and he suggested that perhaps "a demon might be responsible." Sagan describes how once Ingram started remembering events, so did several other individuals and family members. A "memory recovery" technique was performed on Ingram, and he confessed to the crimes. A medical examination was done on his daughter, where none of the scars she described were actually found. Sagan writes that Ingram later tried to plead innocence once "away from his daughters, his police colleagues, and his pastor."

==== Hoaxes ====
Hoaxes have played a valuable role in the history of science by revealing the flaws in our thinking and helping us advance our critical thinking skills. One of Sagan's examples is the "Carlos hoax" by James Randi that revealed flaws in reporting by news media. Carlos was described as an ancient spirit that supposedly possessed José Alvarez and provided Alvarez with advanced knowledge about the universe. Many news outlets assumed this was true and reported it as such, which spread misinformation.
Sagan also cites crop circles as hoaxes.