|
About This Author
Come closer.
|
Carrion Luggage
Carrion Luggage
 
Native to the Americas, the turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) travels widely in search of sustenance. While usually foraging alone, it relies on other individuals of its species for companionship and mutual protection. Sometimes misunderstood, sometimes feared, sometimes shunned, it nevertheless performs an important role in the ecosystem.
This scavenger bird is a marvel of efficiency. Rather than expend energy flapping its wings, it instead locates uplifting columns of air, and spirals within them in order to glide to greater heights. This behavior has been mistaken for opportunism, interpreted as if it is circling doomed terrestrial animals destined to be its next meal. In truth, the vulture takes advantage of these thermals to gain the altitude needed glide longer distances, flying not out of necessity, but for the joy of it.
It also avoids the exertion necessary to capture live prey, preferring instead to feast upon that which is already dead. In this behavior, it resembles many humans.
It is not what most of us would consider to be a pretty bird. While its habits are often off-putting, or even disgusting, to members of more fastidious species, the turkey vulture helps to keep the environment from being clogged with detritus. Hence its Latin binomial, which translates to English as "golden purifier."
I rarely know where the winds will take me next, or what I might find there. The journey is the destination.
October 19, 2025 at 11:01am October 19, 2025 at 11:01am
| |
I thought I might have addressed this at some point, and it turns out I did, in the previous blog, back in 2021. That entry can be found here: "My Baloney Has a First Name..."  . This time, though, it's a relatively recent article from a different source, Open Culture.
Part of the reason I'm doing this is that I found an inconsistency. I wouldn't call it "baloney" or fake news or bullshit, but it illustrates exactly why we shouldn't take words on the internet to be absolute truth without some backup.
Though he died too young, Carl Sagan left behind an impresÂsiveÂly large body of work, includÂing more than 600 sciÂenÂtifÂic papers and more than 20 books.
And yet, he was best known for his Mister Rogers-like TV personality.
Sagan’s othÂer popÂuÂlar books... are also well worth readÂing, but we perÂhaps ignore at our greatÂest perÂil The Demon-HauntÂed World: SciÂence as a CanÂdle in the Dark. PubÂlished in 1995, the year before Sagan’s death, it stands as his tesÂtaÂment to the imporÂtance of critÂiÂcal, sciÂenÂtifÂic thinkÂing for all of us.
It has been too long since I read that. If I can't even remember what I posted here four years ago, it would do me well to revisit it, since I try to promote real science in here.
The article lays out the "Baloney Detection Kit." Or does it? Both this article and the one I linked in 2021 claim nine principles, starting with
WherÂevÂer posÂsiÂble there must be indeÂpenÂdent conÂfirÂmaÂtion of the “facts.”
But today's link ends with "Occam's Razor," while the previously linked article had a lengthy bit about hypotheses needing to be, in principle, falsifiable, after that one.
This doesn't sink to the level of fake news, in my opinion. It's, at worst, a different way to look at the source material (which, I reiterate, I haven't seen in decades). The article isn't a scientific paper. If you make a transcription error in a scientific paper, bad things happen. I had one in here a while back about the ooga-booga scare over black plastic cooking utensils; turns out they'd misplaced a decimal, and black plastic is about as safe as anything in your kitchen, and safer than most.
I suppose even that is better than if the mistake went in the other direction, calling something safe when it's not, but still. The particular team involved in that, as I recall, had some sort of bias against the utensils (perhaps they were being paid by a manufacturer of different kinds of utensils, perhaps not), and it's that kind of bias that science is supposed to mitigate, as noted in the article:
As McCoy points out, these techÂniques of mind have to do with canÂcelÂing out the manÂiÂfold biasÂes present in our thinkÂing, those natÂurÂal human tenÂdenÂcies that incline us to accept ideas that may or may not coinÂcide with realÂiÂty as it is. If we take no trouÂble to corÂrect for these biasÂes, Sagan came to believe, we’ll become easy marks for all the trickÂsters and charÂlaÂtans who hapÂpen to come our way.
And there are more tricksters and charlatans than ever before. Or, at least, they have a broader range with the internet and all.
Now, other sources break the principles up slightly differently, too. I suppose it's a bit like the Ten Commandments, which vary depending on which version and translation of the Old Testament you look at.
“Like all tools, the baloney detecÂtion kit can be misÂused, applied out of conÂtext, or even employed as a rote alterÂnaÂtive to thinkÂing,” Sagan cauÂtions. “But applied judiÂciousÂly, it can make all the difÂferÂence in the world — not least in evalÂuÂatÂing our own arguÂments before we present them to othÂers.”
Sagan was, apparently, a far nicer person than I am, because I call it bullshit. Baloney is at least edible. Though "bullshit" holds the implication that it's deliberate, but it's not always so.
Whichever version you see, though, I think the principles are sound. I may not have memorized them, but I still find myself applying them and, often, find articles that come up short. This isn't always a science problem; most of the time, it's a writing problem. And that's what we're really here for, isn't it? |
© Copyright 2025 Waltz Invictus (UN: cathartes02 at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Waltz Invictus has granted InkSpot.Com, its affiliates and its syndicates non-exclusive rights to display this work.
|
Comment • View 4 comments 
