"What skeptical thinking boils down to is the means to construct, and to understand, a reasoned argument and--especially important--to recognize a fallacious or fraudulent argument. The question is not whether we like the conclusion that emerges out of a train of reasoning, but whether the conclusions follows from the premise or starting point and whether that premise is true."

Carl Sagan

In the Book Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan, Dr. Sagan does a great job of pointing out flaws in pseudo-scientific thinking as well as provide some insight into what it takes to be a skeptical thinker. Below are listed some of the points he made in his book. These points should help teachers and their students in analyzing and discussing the validity of resources, especially those found on the Internet. I strongly recommend the book for any science teacher concerned with addressing pseudoscience in the classroom.

Some starting points for becoming a skeptical thinker:

The real argument here should be focused on the autopsy itself, and what the consensus of special effects people think about the alien autopsy footage. In truth, even Stan Winston, quoted in one article I've found, states that the autopsy footage is fake. By diverting the argument from the autopsy onto the integrity of the person questioning the authenticity, attempts to uncover the truth get side lined.

• "Argument from authority" - The "Kodak representative" quoted in the video knows that the film is authentic because of the date code and the difficulty of producing such a fake. He is an authority who should know what he is talking about so you can't attack his credibility and, as a result, we should accept his testimony that the film is real.

The real focal point here should be on exactly what the man's credentials are and what he has been asked to evaluate. Any point of view can be supported by bringing in the right "paid" expert. In this case, a further search of the web brings up important points on what exactly was given to the expert to verify. It's important to consider other "independent" authorities as well as uncover as much information as possible regarding what the expert is offering their opinion on.

• "Argument from adverse consequences" - The people from Roswell who were seen in the video can't be wrong about what they saw, otherwise they'd all be considered crazy.

This is a pretty drastic statement, but it is made all the time regarding UFO's and, especially abductions. The real consequences might be something a bit more down to earth and less drastic. What is wrong with finding out that many people were caught up in misleading information along with the lens of time coloring their perception of the event? It's not as dramatic and doesn't allow people to make money off a video or tourist site for UFO believers, but is more plausible based on the evidence.

• "Appeal to ignorance" - We have found no real evidence that the Roswell crash was not an alien vehicle, so, even if the autopsy footage is false, we must ask ourselves what happened to the bodies.

Hmmm, sounds logical. Except there is plenty of evidence that Roswell was not the site of an alien vehicle crashing, unless one discounts it all or believes that the evidence is fabricated, part of a conspiracy. Another appeal to ignorance and the beginning of a circular argument.

• "Special pleading" - How can Roswell and the aliens that crashed there not be real when so many believe it to be true.

Sagan says that this kind of argument tends to be called up when an argument is in deep trouble. The real truth is that there are many people who doubt Roswell, but are less vocal or aren't "headline" material.

• "Begging the question" - The pathologist admits that the body presented as alien is not like anything human he has seen before, so why not believe that it is alien?

Again, what is the real question? If it's not like a human why do we see so many human like features--like eyes, hands, fingers, bones and such? Does what we are presented with in the autopsy seem to be anything more than lumps of different organs and tissue thrown together? Just as we can identify hands, eyes and limbs, shouldn't we expect to see internal organs with some structural similarity based on similar function to life on earth? Certainly there must be something functionally similar to a heart, can we identify it? Why wouldn't convergent evolution, which seems to be evident externally not be present internally?

• "Observational selection" - The government has covered up so many things before, like spy planes over Cuba, of course they would suppress the existence of aliens that might have been recovered at Roswell.

This, of course, is the basis of all conspiracy theories. Unless one buys into this argument, lots of what passes for support of pseudoscience on the web falls apart. There is at least one web site I've come across that propose that the alien autopsy footage is a government sponsored fake so as to discredit the people that are close to the truth about Roswell.

• "Non sequitur (It does not follow)" - Again, the pathologist states that the organs he sees in the autopsy film are nothing like any he has seen in humans. It follows then that they must be alien.

Well, phrase the question right, a common tactic of lawyers, and you will get the answer you want. Especially with the magic of editing and taking comments out of context. Just because the organs don't look like a human's (even I can see that!) doesn't mean that they are representative of an actual alien being autopsied.

Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World (New York: Random House, 1995)