Slashdot Mirror
How To Teach a Healthy Dose of Skepticism?
c0d3h4x0r writes "It's no accident that 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' is one of the most common tags applied by this community to stories about proposed ideas or laws. The ability to spot and predict faults is a big part of what makes a great engineer. It starts with having a healthy skepticism about the world, which leads to actual critical thinking. Many books and courses teach critical thinking skills, but what is the best way to encourage and teach someone to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism? Is it even a teachable skill, or is it just an innate part of the geek personality?"
I posted in this thread before it dissolved into a religious flamewar and all I got was this lousy T-shirt.
The best way is personal experience. Have a strongly held belief effectively challenged and have an epic fail. Then don't do what most of humanity does and use cognitive dissonance defenses to justify why you are still incredibly smart despite the fact you were in this regard a complete tool.
Generalize from your own experience and realize we are all flaming idiots but by using tools such as logic and the scientific method we can start to approach a modicum of cleverness. Then from that point on trust only 10% of what you hear and 50% of what you see, break a bunch of stuff while learning how not to break stuff as badly, and apply your skills to future problems.
Oh, and I would recommend reading 'Why People Believe Weird Things' by Michael Shermer. He describes this in great detail and even describes one of his own epic failures (he was abducted by aliens - kinda hard to own up to for a skeptic.)
Skepticism is just an offshoot of experience and the wisdom that (hopefully) comes with experience. After witnessing and experiencing a few spectacular failures in this life, the natural and healthy outcome is to develop a skeptical streak.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
Subscribe to the "The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe" podcast.
Sean Ellis
Follow OfQuack's antics on Twitter.
...invite your pupil over to kick your football...
...then, at the last possible second, pull it away!
That'll teach em not to be so trusting!
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
I'm pretty sceptical of any slashdot article that doesn't link to another article :/
I didn't let my kid watch television until he was old enough to talk to.
Then I sat down with him, told him the rules for watching it, and emphasized one point:
"This is fun to watch, but remember - people lie."
At every level of life, when he was exposed to school, encountered any institution, or group, I would ask him, "How do you know this is true?"
I introduced him to the concepts of logic while playing games, and we made our own puzzles based on these concepts.
He is grown now, and has one awesome built-in BS detector.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
that would scream and yell at me until I blacked out if I ever made a mistake.
As a systems engineer today, I rarely if ever make mistakes.
So, yes, this is possible to teach these things, in "healthy dose" quanities, I have no experience with them.
But it won't be taught.
The very simple reason is that people who think are harder to govern than people who don't. What is wanted is people who can do their job, preferably well, but don't have any interests outside of it.
The reason why we get laws proposed that have glaring flaws is that those flaws are often what is wanted. The great majority of people does either not care or swallows the snakeoil and the promise of safety, simply because they were never taught to contemplate "what could possibly go wrong".
It's pretty much how Homer put it. We elect politicians so we don't have to think. Unfortunately, he's not alone with this point of view.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I think it is an "innate part of the geek personality". Different people have different personality traits, being the sort of person who literally lies awake at night wondering 'what could possibly go wrong' is very useful if you are designing a chip (for instance). On other areas of life it is not so useful!
ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
I skeptical that such a skill can be taught.
Trick 'em a bunch. Fool me once, can't get fooled again! (That is, teach by example.)
By actually doing difficult things, you learn big time when something obvious did not work in the end.
After two failed attempts, you automatically learn to *think before you do*.
But you have to find someone who wants to live in a rational, logical world first. That's a lot harder than you might think, and probably explains why computer-saavy people tend to be more skeptical because logic is such a dominating facet of computing. "Normal" people, on the other hand, like their fairy tales and myths and "magic remedies" and so forth and tend to not appreciate it when you point out that what they're doing either doesn't work or has some other, more mundane, explanation...especially if that mundane explanation means they can't charge money for tours or Jesus-shaped bread.
Back to the question though, I find a healthy dose of skepticism from reading the various newsletters out there to be quite useful.
The James Randi Education Foundation (JREF) at http://www.randi.org/ has a weekly column they put out that is usually a good read discussing various "woo-woo" ideas and why, rationally, they fail as well as links to other such things. It's a decent enough starting point I suppose.
My thoughts were that it was always a side effect of the need to idiot-proof everything we do, borne from past experiences. I don't know that skepticism would exist if not for the need to learn from our failures.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
>> what is the best way to encourage and teach someone to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism?
Teaching skepticism? I doubt it.
... but I have yet to see any compelling evidence.
My dad was the king of let downs, that's how I learned.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
IMHO, the ability to spot problems in designs comes with experience, and it's also the reason why tech guys and marketing guys usually don't get along very well. The first time the marketing team presents its newest killer idea in the presence of an engineer, they'll get back a lot of critical feedback. It is, in other words, the difference between dreamers and doers.
Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
I don't know if it's best to force it, but I think skepticism develops through disappointing experiences. When things you trust let you down repeatedly, you learn to trust less blindly, make contingency plans, allow a margin of error, question what you're told, and so forth.
I'm not saying you should intentionally screw people over just to make a point, but draw on these experiences as a teaching resource.
Trust, but verify!
Interesting book by Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish statistics professor. It has a lot of ancidotes about environmental policies and looking at the real impact of them. I don't agree with everything the author has to say, but it I thought it did a good job teaching critical thinking and encouraging people not to accept statistics at face value.
I would say that skepticism isn't so much symptomatic of the geek personality as causative thereof: the most prominent "geek" trait that I can think of - unwillingness to embrace untested or illogical ideas paired with a willingness to wholeheartedly embrace logical or testable ideas - seems to be wholly dependent on a well-balanced sense of skepticism.
All of the things that I typically associate with geeks versus non-geeks differ most dramatically in the presence or absence of internal consistency and predictability, a trait that skeptics seek in anything they examine before they are willing to accept it.
Have them conned out of some money. Maybe by some "free energy" people or something similiar.
Nothing like first hand loss to make people skeptical about claims.
A better question might be: How can one learn a sense of 'healthy' skepticism without going overboard and becoming outright cynical?
It's the difference between "let's be careful before we dive into something new & shiny" and "Get off my lawn!"
A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
Teaching skepticism is easy. Just consistently fail to meet others' expectations.
It's an innate skill. I know, because I have it. Whenever I use a product, I gravitate immediately to its design flaws, because they are invariably the first thing I try to do with it.
-When I bought a MacBook, my immediate impression was that it had poor interface design because the first things I tried to do on it, were the things that had unfixed (or rationalized as not worth fixing) issues: taking multiple stills from a video, uploading pictures to photobucket, editing PhotoBooth pictures in iPhoto, being stuck on a window in Mail, and others.
-When I used a sample of handwash gel, the first thing I noticed when using it was that you have to spill it if you want to use it.
-After I bought a car, I noticed that you almost don't notice if you have your headlights off at night, because all necessary instrumentation lights up, unlike my previous one, where you can't see anything on the dash at night until you turn them on.
I could go on.
All I would say to engineers and designers is: PLEASE, just use your product once! Most of the stuff I use seems like it hasn't even gone through this.
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
Is this really something you want to outright *teach*? I think it's best to let some learn for themselves but give them "encouragement" along the way. I think if you teach it you end up with people who are overly skeptical because they seem to never develop the key ingredient of skepticism: critical thinking. It seems, at least from my experience, that people who have the "take everything with a grain of salt" line of reasoning pounded into them lose the ability to know when they have crossed the line from being a skeptic to someone to whom no amount of reasoning, facts or other data can move from their position as they will dismiss it due to their continuing to follow their teaching beyond the letter. If they learn on their own and build it up with experience then the seem less likely to fall into this mode.
In the UK we have this newspaper called the Daily Mail. Some people call it the Daily Hate Mail, because that's basically how it sells - it makes the reader angry. Every story is blatantly biased, designed to make your blood boil. There is always someone doing something stupid, someone to blame for every problem in the world. It's really obvious that it's actually a load of rubbish, but people seem to just have a natural tendency to like that sort of thing.
Herman Gering admitted that the Nazi party used basically the same trick. The argument that you are being attacked, that other people are the cause of all your problems seems to be very compelling, perhaps because evolution makes the world competitive by nature and because if it's someone else's fault, it's not yours.
A lot of men in particular seem to have a hard time admitting they are wrong too. Even if you point out how stupid their beliefs are, people have a hard time accepting it. So, when ideas come along that are even quite blatantly stupid people tend to latch on to them if they support their existing point of view.
I think the only way to counter it is to teach philosophy and rational thinking from an early age. People seem to literally not know how to think, how to form a logical argument or dissect one in a rational manner.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
When I was in high school, we had two upper level physics class, AP Physics, and Electro-physics. I took the electro-physics class because we got to build things instead of study for a stupid test all year.
I learned quite a bit about electronics, but I think the most important thing I learned was failure mode analysis. The class had so many projects that required you to build things (physical things, not just circuits) that I, and everyone else in the class became very good at it. The projects started very simple and progressed in difficulty throughout the year.
At the end of the year, the Electro-physics class challenged the AP physics class to a sort of competitive science project, building a catapult. That's where our experience in construction paid off. Our project was heavily researched, carefully designed, and we even left a day to debug it (which proved extremely helpful). In the end, we won the competition.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
My parents always tried to teach me to be skeptical, however I was never really sure that I believed anything they were saying.
True skeptics aren't taught, they are usually forged through their own mistakes and misjudgments. In education it would behoove us to encourage mistake making as a learning tool instead of the current academic paradigm of grades and rankings.
Of course I am a graduate of The Evergreen State College which has no grade system so apply salt liberally.
(/local/home/curiosity)-#who -u|grep thecat|cut -c 44-49|xargs kill -9
Can't think of any better way. Let them read some nonsense from Twitter or his sock puppets, read a few Apple rumors. Yeah you'll get the job done.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Read a lot. Use that as an augmentation to one's experience.
Replicate. Try to replicate all the practical ideas you've read about that seemed useful, to use that augmentation of one's life experience to improve one's life.
And most important. Fail. All the time and in often spectacular ways. This is truly the greatest teacher. And if you don't get enough of this early on, you'll probably go "Oh that river swolen with fresh rain and glacial water is probably good for swimming. It's June." And that will end the cycle. Abruptly.
Every now and then you'll have a nice success or two to build you up for the forthcoming failure. And those are always nice. If you do it well enough, you'll have enough left over success to enjoy, and some fucking funny, stupid, and or sad stories. Everyone loves stories.
Holy sheet! Do you have *ANY* friends??? Get over yourself, kid.
I don't think geeks are much more skeptical than other groups of people. Everyone thinks groupthink and bias don't apply to them, but the reality is a lot more subtle. A good book I've found for learning about innate human biases is How We Know What Isn't So by Thomas Gilovich. It's filled with examples of how pattern detection and reasoning are skewed by the same heuristics that make our brains so effective in the first place.
Visit the
Speaking as a computer programmer (J2EE) who is currently working on a PhD thesis in Social Psychology, the best cognitive approach to good mental health is without a doubt general semantics. In addition it also has the happy side effect of curing all sorts of schizophrenic and psychotic disorders through its approach to language.
The best book on the subject for the average reader is "Drive Yourself Sane" although purists with math skills will probably enjoy the seminal and founding text of G.S. "Science and Sanity"
Intelligence is after all, the ability to recognize exceptions, which once recognized, result in resolution through a higher-order abstraction or an alternative but parallel model, biologically altering neural associations in the CNS:
http://www.google.com/search?q=neuronal+group+selection
skepticism is simply an innate resistance to something new. if you want a good example of skepticism, try conservatism, which is clinging to the way things used to work, because you reject a novel way to do things... which is not necessarily bad, btw
all societies exhibit a rate of change. that rate of change must not be too fast or two slow. if the change is too slow, the society fails to capitalize on developments in the wider world, and falls into poverty and backwardness. if the change is too fast, bad ideas are picked up before they are properly evaluated, and damage society with maladaptive concepts out of touch with human nature
skepticism is merely an innate human resistance to change. and depending on the context, that can be a good or bad thing. skepticism is not automatically healthy or helpful, although it often is
meanwhile, the idea that skepticism should or could be taught, when it is already in all of us, is rather silly. skepticism requires very little mental effort, all you have to do is resist another person's idea. this is not difficult to achieve. if you have ever spent any time around 2 or 3 year olds, you will find that skepticism is the default reaction to anyone or anything new
in fact, i would go so far to say that if there is any relationship between skepticism and teaching, skepticism needs to be UNLEARNED, untaught. a lot of people are obstinate and fall into stasis and mediocrity, simply because they are so skpetical to new and better ways to do things
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The best book I ever read on this subject is here.
This book gives you a deep fundamental understanding of science and the scientific method. The chapters focus on debunking a variety of outrageous pseudoscience. Ideas from UFOs to conspiracy theories to the Lost City of Atlantis are swept away by convincing arguments. Once you read enough of this, the higher meaning presents itself. Don't let the nonsense comfort you falsely. Be skeptical and trust in science. It is the most reliable methodology for getting to the truth.
Few books really changed my outlook in life. This is one of them. Read the reviews at Amazon. You will see I'm not alone. For me, in this crazy world, science really has become a candle in the dark.
First suck out hope. Then inject bitterness and resentment. You know the process of going through High School as a geek.
Speaking of figuring out what's inedible... apparently someone in the produce business can't even tell the difference between shit and a tomato. Otherwise, how the hell are we getting an outbreak of intestinal bacteria all over something which has no intestines?
Manure to be used as a fertilizer is supposed to be composted thoroughly. Hands that handle food are supposed to be cleaned thoroughly, especially after using the toilet. Animal enclosures aren't supposed to allow effluent to run downhill onto food crops. How is this all so difficult to understand?
Yet we have people sick in 17 states and I can't have a slice of zesty red beefsteak on my burger at any restaurant in town. There's something very wrong with this.
Ensure they have to use, maintain, destroy what they create. In other words, question yourself too, not just others.
I've always thought (cursed) that people should be forced to work on things they design - usually when trying to reach that bolt on the engine that's impossible to reach or actually turn if ever reached.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
They always have these safety nets so they never get hurt, or take a risk, or bloody a knee. I know what I can do know =by learning then what I could not do. Basically it works out that I have a certain level I can obtain without going to extreme measures to achieve it, and knowing now where those extreme measures start in, I can actively stay below them. Right now I have a job in a new venture that is working well, I have a magazine started, which is going well, and I am thinking of where I want to move next with my life. I have limits, but I know that I am below them. There are a lot of things that I would love to do with my life but I realize that a lot of those are just not reasonable without taking risks or making sacrifices that I cannot afford to take/make. I know I can write, and given enough time I know I could finish a book or a screenplay (please note, blogging and or /.ing does not show actual writing skills) and therefore I am skeptical about whether that would be a good direction to go. I love to paint and my art is very well received, but at the same time I am skeptical of my ability to make a career out of it.
I would love to build a sailboat and live on board as I float around, but I am skeptical of my ability to put all of that together and make it work within a reasonable amount of time. Therefore I am going to stick with the little apartments, and keep things simple and stress free until the opportunity arises to make a jump to something else and the opportunity overwhelms the skeptic.
Like arts? Like cheesy little Indie mags? Check out www.artwerkmag.com, and don't laugh at the bad coding please.
out of your home, along with other types of magical thinking
what-could-possibly-go-wrong is inextricably linked to how-can-i-make-it-right. open source governance is the geek institutionalization of both.
We already have philosophy courses to learn skepticism and critical thinking.
I'm not sure this would teach skepticism in the general sense, but at least would show that science can say anything and should be taken with a grain of salt.
Just teach them about the dangers of DHMO and then reveal what it is a few days later.
Depending on the people you try to teach to be skeptical this might help.
When people are very firm on a point I think they are wrong I ask then to imagine they are looking at the night sky.
Then I ask them if what they see is real.
Most of the time they will reply: yes.
Then give them something to chew on: but the light from some of the stars travelled only for a few years while the light of other stars might have taken several decades to reach us.
It could even be that those stars never existed at the same time.
Is what you see real or not?
After that there is another question: imagine you are on a planet close to Polaris.
And take a peak to the sky from there.
Would you see the same as what we see here?
I think those kinds of questions could teach people not to take anything for granted.
Try the weekly podcast from these guys. The main guy S. Novella (Chairman I guess) frequently shows in great and unambiguous detail how to deconstruct and deal with areas you need to be skeptical in/off. Creationism, Homeopathy, Fake Mecicine (Snake Oil), UFO's, Bigfoot etc. I've been listening for 5 months, since I got my Xmas iPod, and I've learnt a lot.
Bob
Whereas perhaps someone who is skeptical is more likely to be thorough in their exploration, I'm not sure it's something we should be striving for in our engineers. Hyperbole incoming! A hypochondriac would likely be a better doctor with respect to prescribing medicines and a misophobe a better maid but is that what we should shoot for?
Reinforcing the importance of being thorough, following procedures and truly thinking through the possibilities as analytically and logically as possible I believe is more important and easier to teach. It also works directly against major contributors to engineering related issues which are unfortunately related to characteristics innate to many if not most people on this planet; the desire to not think unnecessarily, cut corners if possible, etc. Besides, in my experience I've found that any skeptisim in my engineers as it invariably affects their ability to properly weigh other critical details in their analysis such as the propensity for it to occur, repercussions, etc.
P.S. I'm assuming here we're talking about the literal definition of "skepticism" (albeit not in severe form) and as it applies to someone's overall outlook and perception.
That's just my POV... no more, no less.
Illusionism.
Specifically, show some tricks - e.g. with playing cards or so - and go on about how you're doing real magic and all that; then afterwards, show them how it's REALLY done and that it's all just tricks.
Seems to me the seed of skepticism is the personal discovery that lots of people believe something that you know is untrue. Help your student to really learn this, and you've got a skeptic. Most adults believe a lot of untrue crap anyway, so some smart kids figure this out by themselves, often painfully. I also think some people are naturally more skeptical than others.
I've often thought about running a science class in schools with deliberately miscalibrated rulers. Or maybe an undergrad lab, where a selection of the instruments are 'off'. See how long it takes the kids to figure it out. (My colleague just lost a weeks work because he didn't bother to test his fancy fibre-optic temperature probes by sticking them in a glass of water with a thermometer. He'll remember that lesson!)
experience is the only way to develop a healthy dose of skepticism. too many kids are graduating and rolling into their first "real" jobs with a healthy serving of entitlement, and what they really need is a swift kick in the ass to bring them down a notch or two in order to adjust their level of expectations to a realistic level.
not everything can be learned from a book or class. a good dose of menial and manual labor is always quick way to teach a young pup simple lessons, including skepticism...
i think you are referring to teaching skepticism with regards to engineering... well, IMHO the best way would be for your students (or perhaps only the best ones) to work as laborer at a construction site. working shoulder to shoulder with some old timers, learning the ropes from the physical side of engineering might impart this elusive skill...
three can keep a secret, if two are dead - benjamin franklin
In my experience there are two forms of skepticism-- true skepticism, which is healthy and sadly lacking in most people, and what I call "pseudo-skepticism" which is in great abundance. Pseudo-skepticism goes right along with pseudo-science and as is often used as a foundation for a belief system. Example: the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are rabidly skeptical of anything presented by the government or mainstream media (which is good, to a degree), but are completely accepting of the most crackpot theories imaginable. (The more crazy the idea, the better IMHO). They do this while covering their ears and singing LA-LA-LA anytime any one tries to debunk their theories with science or counter-evidence. Both sides of the global warming debate contain pseudo-skeptics as well, and unfortunately, they are the ones making the most noise.
A true skeptic is skeptical of both points of view, and does the critical thinking necessary to form his/her own opinion. This is harder to teach since it comes from experience, which is harder to come by in this sheltered world of ours.
Being able to discern the motives behind the skepticism is just as important as being skeptical in the first place.
What I've found is that while skepticism is a valuable tool to keep bad ideas from being implemented, people sometimes use "extreme" skepticism to shoot down ideas they don't understand or fear. In my instance, we started to use a new CMS for our web sites (Drupal). The initial reaction to it was very strong in the negative - people were talking about "the usual" - security issues, support, etc. However, when they started to use it, they grew to like it, and their skepticism went away.
I think Skepticism and Critical thinking are being confused here. They are two distinct things. Critical thinking is a method or series of actions by which a concept or thing is dissected, where skepticism is an attitude. To take things one step further, critical thinking and thinking in a critical way are two different things.
I personally find skeptical attitude and critical comments to be negative contributors to discussions and learning. I don't work in behavior and development but the case is made for this in two books that are worth reading.
1) A general theory of love
2) Unconditional parenting
It's not about teaching skepticism and critical thinking. It's about not squashing those natural talents by teaching kids about the empty power of magical thinking, house-of-cards hollow self esteem disconnected from actual achievement, and the endless wallowing in platitudes about "having faith" and "just believe, and you can do anything!" etc. The cultural institutions that rely on such stuff are always at odds with critical thinking. Kids are natural scientists - they understand the need to test causality, and are always curious. It's a shame that so many people completely misunderstand the nature of ethics, and seem to think that mysticism (the enemy of critical thinking) is required in order to derive a sound moral framework.
Parents are too quick to pass the baton to religion, new-age hokum, or just feel-good Oprah-ness in order to make their kids feel good about the world. They just want things to be easy, and don't have the personal fortitude to usher their kids through the slightly challenging phase of learning to apply their natural reasoning skills to topics that are somewhat less immediately tangible than what happens when you touch something hot. Issues like "what happens when one state taxes high tech entrepeneurs more than the the state next door" or "what happens when you let a gene pool get too shallow" or "what happens when you use GOTO statements in your code because it lets you get to lunch earlier that day" aren't any different than "what happens when you dump a hot oatmeal bowl in your lap," but require a little more discipline to digest.
The platform for rational thought is already there. You have to kill it, though, or slowly suffocate it throughout child development, in order to make it something that it feels like work to wake it back up later. Just keep it alive in the first place, and we wouldn't have such a mixed bag cultural messes to deal with. We wouldn't be seeing the strange, sad dance of a politician twisting and turning while explaining why he's suddenly between churches while running for president... since he wouldn't have been glued to a crazy church in the first place. Think how much less noise and distraction we'd have without all that nonsense.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
People are too afraid to let their kids fail. You learn skepticism by messing up, by making bad decisions, by getting scammed. Let your kids fail (just make sure they aren't getting in over their heads so that failure doesn't have consequences that are *too* dire).
Don't be afraid to share with them about failures of judgement you've made in your own life, and what the consequences were, and how you dealt with those failures afterwords.
Also, make sure your kids watch/listen/see news after a certain age. It's true you might not want to scare them when they are entirely too young, but I would think that once a kid's older than about 5 years old, it's probably time to start teaching them about the world. Make sure they are aware of the stories in the news about people getting scammed, or kids and high school students getting kidnapped, etc.
So in summary, let them learn from their own failures, and make sure they are aware of and learn from other peoples' failures too. Don't shield them too much. People learn skepticism themselves if they simply aren't shielded from the truth too much.
Easy. As a parent you should lie to your kids early and often. Teach them not to trust authority, especially you. :) I'm only half kidding. Play practical jokes on them. Before you know it they will be questioning everything.
I'll give you an example. When I was a little kid my engineer dad thought it would fun to play a trick on me. It was a snow covered winter morning. He walked down the driveway and down the street. Then when I got bundled up and walked outside he got down on one knee and he held his arms open wide and told me to run to him. I take off at full steam and fall headfirst into a huge snowdrift in the ditch next to the street. It was funny and it taught me a good lesson in critical thinking.
TODO create witty sig.
One useful byproduct of a long series of failures is that it produces a well-developed sense of cynicism and sarcasm, which are essential skills required for posting snarky (yet insightful - insightful, dammit!) remarks on Slashdot.
In my experience skepticism is the one quality that most agitates employers, sad to say.
Question Everything!
It breeds skepticism, naturally. It also makes sure that everyone's reasons for doing things are clear all the time.
Its also why three year olds are annoying!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+skepticism
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
So many people today will absolutely not give in to the fact they might be wrong about something. Even someone you hate might be right about something you are wrong about.
This probably applies x10 with Slashdot posters. If you find yourself thinking your "never wrong and everyone is an idiot" then you are not as smart as you think you are.
This was posted at the BadAstronomy.com blog a couple of days ago.
[Sceptic] Brian Dunning has put together a video on how to think critically. Itâ(TM)s called Here Be Dragons, and itâ(TM)s a pretty good primer into how to think. Itâ(TM)s about 40 minutes long, and free to use (with some caveats; see the site). I think this would do well in a classroom. Any teachers out there? I know itâ(TM)s too late for most school sessions, but you can download the movie (and a high-res version too) and keep it handy for the next year. http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/06/11/here-be-dragons/
The ability to spot and prevent faults is a big part of what makes a great engineer.
I know the Hindus hold them in high regard, but I'm not aware of any cultures that allow cows to own land.
I think the only way to counter it is to teach philosophy and rational thinking from an early age.
Or bullets.
paintball
One thing that needs to be taught is that being skeptical is not the same as an argument. It's fine to have a hunch that an idea is bad, wrong, or won't work, but it's only a starting point. Too many people believe that their work ends at being skeptical. Such "skeptics" are among the most closed minded people in society.
Proverbs 21:19
At least in things that have been shown to be true. Just talk to most of the spiritual folk, they all seem to have a very sceptical view of science when it comes to proving what they believe in.
Maybe what we need is a better way of teaching a grounding in reality.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
My advice is to lie. A lot. Yes, I'm serious.
The only way to teach others to be skeptical is to give reasons for skepticism. With middle school students (experience teaching algebra/pre-algebra), I would start off easy:
Me: What's the square root of ?
Students: *Silence*
Me: Thought so. The answer is "flower".
Students: *laughter*
Me: What? Something wrong?
Student: Ya, "flower" is not a number.
Me: And?
Student: A square root needs to be a number.
Me: Does it?
Student: YA! Duhhh!
Me: Prove it. Show me how multiplying two flowers doesn't make .
It's humorous, but I threw silly things like that in all the time. Answers the students knew couldn't be right. That gave them the courage to call me out when they thought I was wrong. I then required more of them:
Me: is the correct answer to Students: How do you know?
Me: I just know. I'm the teacher.
Students: Ya, but you lie sometimes.
Me: I do. So what do you do when you think I'm lying?
Student: We show you why we think you're lying. Me: So show me.
Student: *walks up to the board and does the math*
In this situation, it doesn't matter whether or not the student is right in her/his distrust, but that s/he was willing to check my work.
This is a tactic I use to teach and ingrain skepticism in every class I've ever taught.
I am no perfect teacher, nor am I claiming to be an expert. I do teach middle schoolers (ages 10-13 at my school) and I try to show and teach them on a daily basis to question the world around them. Why do things happen? What really is cause and effect? What are the other options? What happens if we do this? (A great question not just for science) As a social studies teacher I get the "Why are we in Iraq?" question all the time. It gets difficult at times not to jump on a soapbox, so instead, in my best Socratic questioning, I ask the kids to look at the situation. Is this good? Is this bad? How do we stop terrorism? If it's broke, how can we fix it? If we're wrong (hard to say with a straight face!)what can we learn so as not to do this again? How should we solve problems?
:)
While I will admit I try to encourage skepticism about things like warrantless wiretaps, Gitmo, PATRIOT ACT (from a Constitutional viewpoint, as yesterday shows us, these programs are open to more than one interpretation) I hope that getting the kids to look at our (US) government policies leads them to ask themselves if they agree, if they "work", if they disagree, what else we could do, etc. Devil's advocate is a useful tool for me and I hope by presenting different views and getting them to think it over for themselves they can form their own opinions. I realize at age 10 this is near impossible as abstract thinking skills just aren't there yet, but the 7th graders can handle quite a bit of these topics and I only hope they are walking away with the ability to question their world in a meaningful way.
So to teach skepticism I actively look back at U.S. history (and world history) and get them to question why we did what we did. What were the outcomes? What were the motivations? Why did this happen? Could things have been different? If I wanted them to parrot God Bless America and engage in hero worship of their leaders, I guess I could teach things much differently, and in effect REMOVE all skepticism... but that's not teaching, that's conditioning. While I admit all teaching really is conditioning, I hope they condition themselves more than spit back my opinions, which I try to mask with varying degrees of success. Does it work? Guess we'll have to wait and see
Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
It's not hard. One classic approach for use in schools is to take some political issue which was a big deal in its day but is forgotten now. Obtain material written about the subject from many points of view, some sensible, some totally bogus, and with various degrees of stridency. Have students read through all the material and then write a brief evaluation of the various positions, listing the arguments, which ones they think are good, which ones seem bogus, and explain how they made that decision.
The Free Silver issue is a good example. Once upon a time, the "free and unlimited coinage of silver" was a big issue. This was an early attempt at an "economic stimulus package" in a hard-money system. There's a famous speech by William Jennings Bryan ("I will not allow this nation to be crucified upon a cross of gold"), there were political cartoons, and there's plenty of material available. This is for high school level students.
In earlier grades, teach skepticism of advertising. Teach how to read an ad. What are they trying to sell you? What are they telling you? What aren't they telling you? Use old TV commercials from the Internet Archive as teaching tools. Teacher handbook: "Ogilvy on Advertising".
Kids do have a natural curiosity with natural scepticism following close behind. However it still needs nurturing. Encouraging asking 'Why', and 'How' to start with; then showing them how spotting the shifty non-answers is really useful to them in their here-and-now lives. Being sceptical is not something to aspire to when you're older but a way of life for dealing with people everyday.
It's very readable, engaging, and informative. Much of the material is drawn from Sagan's popular undergraduate course in Critical Thinking at Cornell University. Even though it's more than ten years old, The Demon-Haunted World still reads very well today.
My kids (9 & 11) are going on about the world ending in 2012 (apparently, there are a bunch of hokey reasons, like the Mayan calendar ending).
I figure they will get a good dose of skepticism by January 2013.
Think of the worst possible scenario, then build/design as if it's going to happen.
Start with analyzing the logical faults in television commercials and magazine ads, it is a nice safe arena for critique that is widely known. Then move on to political statements. I think that the majority of people need to be more critical about "emotional" arguments that defy or bend logic, usually by implication or ommission than faults of logically presented arguments.
There's no fine line between the two. I think their the same.
In order for criticism to be constructive, one has to accept the premise/theory/argument as true FIRST.
Most so-called critics are skeptics who actually naysay an idea and then proceed to justify their naysaying as PROPER.
Dictionary.com
1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
3. a person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it.
4. (initial capital letter) Philosophy.
a. a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible.
b. any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind.
It's a mantra in the electronics industry: 'If you want to succeed, increase your failure rate' - 'Just Do It' - 'It's not that you failed, it's what you learned from that failure'.
I claim horseshit. Those mantras are only repeated by people who have managed to succeed after relatively small failures. Failure marks you in a puritan society. Failure marks you like a tattoo. Failure burns away all your trust in yourself and your energy.
Learn or burn. Read or bleed. Let others fail and develop the skills to actually learn from their failures , not yours. Let them suffer.
* Don't buy Yahoo! stock at $160 a share at the height of market bubble.
* Don't buy a 3-room clapboard box house for $500000 at the height of a housing bubble.
* When you boss tells you that 'a positive mental attitude and vitamin D will cure cancer, along with most other ailments' and then explains that this is why you aren't going to get health insurance, take the vitamin pill and look for another job.
* When the old man at the VFW tells you 'it's your duty' to go to Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq, salute him, and find some other old men to hang with who don't still wake up with 30-year-old nightmares of senseless slaughter.
* When someone says 'bet ya can't do...' on a skateboard, rub your tongue over your front teeth. Because that might be the last time that you feel them if you try it and don't quite pull it off.
* When you get stopped by the police and they pull a marijuana cigarette out of your (or their) pocket and then suggest a little trip to the ATM, pay them off and move. You can't fight it in court without paying many, many thousands in legal fees. And you'll end up with a chickenshit pot conviction like 25 million other Americans who find themselves being the only people left subject to legal discrimination and bigotry.
* Last but not least in this series, actually believe what the black people tell you about their experiences with the authorities and institutions that you have come to know and trust.
Above all, Don't Fail!
It's a work-Life balance thing that we often need to spend more effort on than people in other disciplines.
I don't think your trinity is quite right. Cynicism is mostly about intent/motive and how one is disposed to observe social situations. The cynic expects the worst, hidden agenda from other people.
This might sound a bit weird but the thing that taught me be a real skeptic was taking a very hard discrete mathematics course. I didn't do very well in but through writing -or trying to write- proofs made me *extremely* skeptic. It's hard to put in words but now whenever someone makes an argument, I try to dissect their assumptions from the facts. Also, you try to analyze the "corner cases", cases that are not pretty obvious at first but only you realize might happen when you actually think about them. Now, asking someone to take a course in discrete math in order to be a skeptic might be too far fetched but teaching people how to differentiate between assumptions and facts might be a good start.
An overdose of skepticism is obnoxious.
In its best form, skepticism is a matter of caution--wanting to have good grounds for what you accept as true, and maintaining your willingness to re-examine your previously-accepted beliefs.
All too often, skepticism degenerates into simple invincible disbelief. (Or, in a softer form, active disinclination to believe.)
That form of "hard" skepticism is obnoxious in its hypocrisy. You wind up with people whose beliefs (as in, their disbeliefs) are formed irrationally, without respect to reason or evidence--but who smugly view themselves as "rational skeptics".
Scepticism, when expressed in words, gestures or mimicry, usually means confronting others and carries the risk of isolation and maybe even more harmful consequences. To know about the reasons why this is so, the possible implications and how to balance risk against gain in each particular situation of interest, for one self and the community, together with a healthy dose of self esteem and personal courage might maybe perhaps be possibly the best way to teach scepticism. I guess.
I was a little amazed by the premise that there's not enough skepticism because I have learned to try to tune out the doubters and skeptics. Far too many people think they are clever if they can find a hypothetical problem with an idea. It's as if they think that being critical is the same as being discerning.
I think it's the whole bikeshed thing; they won't approve until they change the color.
But the point is well taken that people drink the Kool-Aid far too often without even considering what they're swallowing. Often, it's a reflection of their personal bias. They are willing to believe what their church/political party/government says because it conforms to their previously internalized beliefs. And belief usually translates to identity; people become what they believe. So when their leader tells them, for example, that global warming is not real, they believe what they're told despite evidence to the contrary. To not believe is a threat.
But this goes well beyond the obvious examples of politics and religion. Scientists are the worst examples of group-think. They are taught something and repeat it and hold it to be fact even when confronted with good alternative explanations.
As child, I could see that the continents of North and South America could plausibly fit up to Africa, yet my science teacher dismissed the idea that they were once joined. As we all now know, they were, in fact, once joined.
Personally, I think that shaming and embarrassing mistaken beliefs should come back into fashion. When people feel embarrassed about silly beliefs, they will start to question what they're told.
Best regards.
Why not just present the kids with an experiment. Doesn't have to be extremely complicated. Something where you can set up two or more "expected" results. Talk about what makes one more realistic than another. What fallacies are easy to fall into.
Some of the simple ones we did (back in '86 I think - 9 or 10 years old) in natural sciences were along the lines of
What brings the music to your radio?
Amazing how many kids will (or would) think that it was the power cord.
It's a reasonable assumption - the radio doesn't work without power. Pull the cord, and the music stops. And it's very easy to test with a battery powered radio.
As you teach them use more and more 'tricky' problems. Not to mess with them, but it would be nice if at some point you end up at a place where the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a likely answer.
Of course, you can use tricky questions, like "if you actually flip a coin 1,000 times, how many heads and how many tails are you likely to get (roughly)". Can't quite remember where I found it, but turns out it's not 50/50, but 49/51. Of course, experiment bias would also have an effct. You likely can't flip the coins in the same way - if you could, you could probably end up with 1,000 heads or tails instead. Would also be a good lesson I think.
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
One route to a healthy skepticism is learning to smell crapola when it's served steaming on the plate in front of you. To that end, Stephen Downes has a nice, economical list of bad thinking examples. It's here: http://web.uvic.ca/psyc/skelton/Teaching/General%20Readings/Logical%20Falllacies.htm. There's also Harry G. Frankfurt's great little book, 'On Bullshit' (the title of which the New York Times would not print on its best seller list!). It's a great take on the subject from a philosopher's point of view. Cheers!
Personally, I read 'The Demon-haunted World' by Carl Sagan. Probably the best book on this subject.
Not going to disagree with what you wrote about skepticism, mind you. It just seems to me that skepticism is really a subset of what the summary _really_ asks. Challenging strong beliefs is ok, and even vital. But IMHO "what could possibly go wrong" is a much broader question, and in some aspects even orthogonal to it.
I see and personally know people who are perfectly able to be skeptical when it comes to religion or weird beliefs, yet steadfastly refuse to even think about what could go wrong with their plan. Not because they think they're so smart they couldn't possibly go wrong. But they seem to get genuinely annoyed if you force them to think about the possible bad outcomes of whatever they're doing. They live in their shiny-happy positive world, think shiny-happy positive thoughts, and avoid thinking depressing (to them) thoughts like "is it possible that I'm heading towards an epic fail?" Some will even call you names if you insist on forcing them to think of what could go wrong.
I think it's really about optimism vs pessimism.
The best example that I've seen again and again are mom and dad. Mom is a pessimist. She likes to think about what could possibly go wrong, and be prepared in advance. If she went to a tropical beach resort in July, she'll be prepared for the case that it'll snow. No, seriously, she'll take a suitcase just for the extra sweaters for that kind of event. Dad is an optimist. He'll just plough ahead, expect the best possible outcome, and know that he can fix things when they happen. No need to think about failure in advance. He'll just take a round detour if he took the wrong exit off the highway, and he'll go buy some sweaters there and then if it snows at the beach. And get annoyed as soon as mom even starts talking about her Plan B (and C and D and E) for the case things go awfully, spectacularly wrong.
They're both skeptics and atheists, mind you. One likes to think about what could go wrong, one doesn't. That's really all.
Or to get back to engineering, I see it in the code of some of my co-workers. They're skeptics, they're atheists, but they can't (or don't want to) even think about "what happens if the file isn't there?" And the code shows it.
So I think what we really need isn't as much to teach engineers to be skeptics. We need to teach them to be pessimists.
In fact, now that I think of it, I don't even really care if they believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster / Invisible Pink Uniform / Beardie In The Sky, or even in a colourful cocktail of conspiracy theories. It's not like belief in a largely passive deity will affect their design by much. Let them be non-skeptical, for all I care. But I'd like them to genuinely stop and think what happens when they have to do with the Bastard User From Hell and his trusty sidekick, Dumbest Imaginable User. What happens when those wribfe "no idea" in a date field, delete your DLL's to make room for your porn collection, enter an ICQ number instead of an IP address, edit the user ID in the URL to change their password, upload a whole porn DVD in an upload-your-own-icon page, and surf on sites which exist only to serve buffer overflows and SQL injection. _That_ is where you separate the good engineers or even security experts from the wannabees.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
A good one for your reading list is "The BS Factor" by Arthur Herzog. I read it back in 1975, made my son read it in high school in 1997, and now he's a cynical bastard just like his old man.
When I was about three, my mother told me to jump of the top flight of the stairs, saying that she'll catch me...
and of course she didn't
What wasn't part of the plan was that my forehead hit a sharp edge of the railings, I still have a small scar on my eyebrows to this day.
My glass is usually half empty but it's not that I think of the scar everytime I'm faced with something suspicious
Get the info and have a bit of fun doing so.
You need a roughly tuned and tunable crap detector.
Listen to anything James Randi put out.
Read "How To Think About Weird Things" (Vaughn and someone...)
Listen to Randi Again.
Read and listen to Mike Shermer (the TED talk for starters)
Watch Penn and Teller.
Get the transcript or video of the Rogers Commission and watch Dick Feynman's coffee cup experiment.
Read Feynman.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
...rejected you.
Since you brought up religion ... I saw a quote in todays' paper asking about whether people believe in bad luck on Friday the 13th (Today is Friday the 13th, btw). One wman said "Oh no, I have God watching over me, I don't have to worry. I don't believe in superstitions."
My irony meter pegged. Of course, critical thinking and logic are anathema to anyone who believes in god.
Kevin Smith on Prince
shit isn't edible? 2girls disagree.
Lie to them. Again. And Again. And Again. Until they don't believe a word out of your mouth, then get others to do the same.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
I heard it was in the water they were using to rinse. I also heard it was from mexico or southern florida.. so.. uh, yeah.
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
I have had some success teaching my kids skepticism just by virtue of my parenting strategy. I don't ever really expect them to accept "Because I said so" I think that really hinders a person to be taught from a young age that if someone of authority says it, than it must be true.
Instead I approach every disagreement as an opportunity for a proof. "Why do I have to eat my broccli?" "Well I guess you don't, but it is pretty hard to find iron that is more easily digestable. You need iron levels in your blood to be high enough so it can process oxygen more efficiently or you will find yourself lacking energy, being tired, and even potentially becoming pale and sick. There are other ways to get the vitamins you need, but to me Broccli is worth it because it is actually pretty good, and convenient because it is right her on the table."
Sure he may still not eat the broccli, but at least I tried to appeal to his logical side and gave him a reasonable and easy to understand stance. Always honoring his questions, and answering with real logic and real science means that whenever someone CAN'T answer with something real, he will imediatly have red flags.
While "Because I said so" would probably make a lot of kids get their nutrition today, my approach will hopefully inspire him to THINK about his nutrition, and question risk/reward and give hom practice evaluating trade-offs.
So, in the USA, are science and religion still fighting? Why not let people have their beliefs?
And how many people that believe in the scientific method expose themselves to the theater of science business?
A former professional scientist once told me, that scepticism is so big that it's difficult to introduce new ideas.
But when it's difficult to introduce new ideas, you have basically the same thing that stifled progress in the Dark Ages: Stagnation. Some scientists fear so much for their reputation that they barely dare to publish new ideas.
Having a healthy dose of scepticism is good, but if it's overdone, it doesn't help either.
"What could possibly go wrong" is the core of at least half of the anticipation (yeah, I consider anticipation a subgenre of SF so sue me) novels I have ever read. So here is my advice:
Stop considering it to be a minor literature genre. Talk about cyberpunk (which prevented some grim future) in school, talk about Foundation, about Blade Runner, about 1984 (to be fair this one gets more recognition). Add a few books that talk about genetics, biology, mind control, overpopulation and AIs. Give SF the place it deserves in literature : a major one. It is a bridge between literature, politics, science, philosophy and ethics.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
you resist it. you're skeptical
durrrrr
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I don't think it can be done...
http://www.coderoshi.com/
ya go on, it might hurt a bit to begin with..
In my view, skepticism is about trying to make an educated guess about the validity of a scientific claim. I already hear people say: "what about non-scientific claims, should we not be skeptical about them?". Well, you can be sceptical about them, but unless the claim(er) is willing to be dragged into the scientific realm, all you say is: "Since you reject facts and evidence for a basis of your claim, there is no way for me to check how valid it is..." And what I mean by "Unless you can drag the claim in the scientific realm" is that most people who make non-scientific claims are reluctant against this idea. For instance, people who claim homeopathy works, do this on the basis of non-scientific claims (like, when diluting a substance in water multiple times, it will not lose it's essence/intensity/effect if you shake the water after diluting it. Doing your own little test with sugar and water will soon prove that it actually does lose it's effect and the water will taste less sweet after diluting it). They don't want the scientific method to touch it, since it'll blow them out of the water (sorry, bad pun) straight away. This brings us back to the topic question? I've found that teaching people this difference really makes them see which claims they can tackle with skepticism and which claims have no leg to stand on.
Don't even think of trying to teach logic or critical thinking to our children, you satanic commie traitor!
I piss off bigots.
When I saw this headline, it was the first thing that came in my mind! (I checked, you're the only one who mentioned it -- did a quick search on -1 on "Dragons")
Direct link
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
I learned skepticism by having my dad consistently and conscientiously ripping apart my hare-brained utopian ideas every time I came up with them as a kid.
Me: "If I were president, I'd (solve random social problem."
My Dad: Well how are you going to get to be president? With whose army? How will you pay for them? What if people disagree? What about the people gaming the system? How will you maintain your power?
I'd try to come up with ways around his questions for a while, until the conversation finally resolved with a "I'd come up with something." But by that point I knew that I was just being overly optimistic and stubborn.
It's a twisted bit of personality that I am looking forward to crushing my own children's misguided dreams in order to make them better people.
aboutdamntime
Provide a lot of sources. Always teach both sides of the argument. Prefer primary sources than commented material and leave critical analysis to yourself / your students.
Spend sometime understanding the argumentative process and teach / learn how to identify bad arguments. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
I only know one thing: That I know nothing. (brought to you by Socrates
You have two ears and one mouth. Listen twice, speak once
The basic meaning is to teach / learn that no matter how much you know and you've studied, you should always treat yourself as if you know nothing. In a sense, you always do.
Get and watch the NOVA special on the Bermuda Triangle. It has been used to teach middle school students this very thing.
It's very entertaining and a great way to sharpen those critical thinking skills.
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/
Jesus used to be my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.
Of the solar systems we've surveyed extensively, 100% of them contain at least one life bearing planet.
Have them go to the store, and buy a pack of gum.
Then have them walk into the software isle, and read the eula on M$ software, particularly:
10. SCOPE OF LICENSE. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights.
Next week, we'll go to the Apple store, and see how much of it really "just works.."
To get started learning about skepticism read blogs and listen to podcasts such as these:
http://www.skeptic.com/index.html
http://www.badastronomy.com/
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
http://whatstheharm.net/index.html
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
Then when you find a science topic you are interested in, read a lot of books about it so that you can be comfortable enough with the topic to think critically about new discoveries and claims and to explain it to others.
The blogs I listed tend to recommend more good books than I can keep up with.
Be warned though. Skepticism and science are addictive and fun and tend to piss off the intellectually lazy.
Yeah, but even after he reveals the trick to the class, a significant percentage of them continue to believe the horoscope is 'real' and is aimed at them personally.
"... the Gods themselves..."
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
I just wanted to let you know that I personally had a chill run down my back when I read your post. The insightfulness of that approach is beyond spectacular.
that tells you how to increase your skepticism.
while it is important to foster a healthy skepticism (for obvious reasons),
the other half of this is that without a natural wonder and reverence,
much knowledge of the world may never be revealed to the pure skeptic.
"Reverence awakens... a sympathetic power through which we attract
qualities... around us, which would otherwise remain concealed" (HTKHW)
The level of skepticism should be adjustable to conform with the plausibility of the statement in question. If my neighbour tells me he has a new toyota corrola in his garage I'll say "thats nice" and probably believe him. If my neighbour tells me he has a new mustang shelby convertible in his garage I'll say "holy cow, lets see it" and I'll believe him when I do see it. If my neighbour tells me he has a new Bugatti Veyron in his garage I'll laugh at him and be certain he's lying.
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
I would recommend the original poster read The Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. It might teach him/her to be more skeptical about their critical thinking abilities. Many problems that seem obvious in hindsight are in reality, in context, far harder to see, or are even fundamentally unpredictable. We are probably far better at making up stories about past causes than actually predicting the future.
There is a tremendous amount of arrogance and elitism involved in the premise of the post. How can we make the world more like us, so they stop making all those silly mistakes? Maybe a better question would be, "How can we teach people to be more sympathetic to their neighbours' problems?"
Given 1: I believe in God.
Given 2: I am an excellent computer engineer, with dual degrees in computer engineering and computer science.
Given 3: Earning dual degrees in computer engineering and computer science and working as a computer engineer require strong critical thinking and logical skills. They also require having taken classes in logic and critical thinking.
Step 1: Earning computer science and computer engineering degrees and working in the computer engineering field require logical and critical thinking skills (Given 3), and I work in this field and have those degrees (Given 2). Therefore, it follows that I have logical and critical thinking skills.
Step 2: I have logical and critical thinking skills (Step 1), and I believe in God (Given 1). Therefore, there exist some people who believe in God and have critical thinking and logical skills.
Conclusion: I have disproved your statement that "critical thinking and logic are anathema to anyone who believes in god" by counterexample. QED.
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
Well, there's skepticism, and there's being an asshole. Being a polite skeptic is an art in and of itself (and for the record, I suck at it)...
you can dress up what we're talking about in all the philosophical finery you want, but it's the same basic concept: "i resist this new idea"
its a skillset we all develop at age 2-3
it mostly needs to be untaught, that all new ideas aren't automatically bad
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If you're trying to teach your kids to be skeptical, public school provide excellent opportunities to make the realize they shouldn't take everything they're told at face value. By first grade most of the kids have learned that everyone but Columbus thought the world was flat.
Then there are the political BS the kids are fed. First they teach the kids that you shouldn't judge people by their race, then they teach them the first member of each race to do stuff. I still remember the puzzled look on my kids face when he quizzed me the race of the person who designed the Vietnam memorial and I asked him "Why does it matter?" He was in first grade and couldn't tell you where the Vietnam War was fought or who the major combatants were, but the school made sure he knew the race of the memorial's designer.
Pay attention to what your kids learn at school and the opportunities to teach them skepticism will abound.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Well, if you're looking for a pedagogical model, there's always "every lecture has a lie":
Not about anything important, I'm damn honest about that. I've even given them a "safeword" they can use to force my honesty if they doubt me.
But my kids know I love to make up stories, and it's their job to figure out when I'm telling the truth, or why I'm wrong.
Lying to their kids to build up their bullshit detector. More parents should do this. And it's fun too.
Thinking As A Science by Henry Hazlitt. So I thought I would just throw it in with the other posts :-)
I have thought for a long time that we ought to be teaching some kind of philosophy in our public schools (I'm from the U.S.). The benefits might seem more abstract and less important when we are falling behind in science and math, but being able to analyze and construct arguments is an important skill that seems to be rare in the general poplulation. More than knowledge of any specific topic, this is what I took away from my philosophy major.
Repo man's always intense.
Teach skepticism by example. Set the person up for failure if they're not skeptical. After getting burned repeatedly by their own gullibility the person will begin to catch on. This is the sort of thing you learn by experience -- it's not like teaching multiplication tables.
Given 1: I believe in God. Given 2: I am an excellent computer engineer, with dual degrees in computer engineering and computer science. Given 3: Earning dual degrees in computer engineering and computer science and working as a computer engineer require strong critical thinking and logical skills. They also require having taken classes in logic and critical thinking. Step 1: Earning computer science and computer engineering degrees and working in the computer engineering field require logical and critical thinking skills (Given 3), and I work in this field and have those degrees (Given 2). Therefore, it follows that I have logical and critical thinking skills. Step 2: I have logical and critical thinking skills (Step 1), and I believe in God (Given 1). Therefore, there exist some people who believe in God and have critical thinking and logical skills. Conclusion: I have disproved your statement that "critical thinking and logic are anathema to anyone who believes in god" by counterexample. QED.
Step 3: Profit?!If someone tries to sell me a load of bunk, I tell them how I think the world really works and ask them where I'm wrong. The best way to healthy skepticism is to know how the world works, and to be wary of anything that doesn't fit.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
well thought out music always hits the right centres in the brain..hell, they are even saying that plants grow better with music. Cant say about plants but humans do react to their music.
"But this goes well beyond the obvious examples of politics and religion. Scientists are the worst examples of group-think. They are taught something and repeat it and hold it to be fact even when confronted with good alternative explanations."
Yet , plate tectonic is accepted and is now a staple in all geology books. You are (as many people which don#t really understand science) utterly confusing "refuse to believe something without evidence" and "refusing to believe something because of personal bias". See , seeing two form going well together like a puzzle is what human is good at. We see face, forms going together, form in clouds and whatnot. More often than not , what we see is just our brain pattern searching. So you can SEE africa's form and south America and think "heyyy that goes together". But without any evidence , it is just your brain pattern matching. Once evidence was gathered, then tectonic of plate was overwhelmingly accepted. There are many more example of that, like rogue wave, which had only anedoctial evidence for it, was accepted once weather satellite detected them.
You see, you seems to pretend scientist are biased and refuse new idea (and some 4 or 5 slashdot moderators which should know better seems toi think the same), but it is not. More often that not scientist go in every direction, even some really disconcerting one. I won't say that ALL scientist are unbiased and do not do group think, but more often than not, they are not biased.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
... gave us all a nice healthy dose in skepticism by laying down a series of facts (with one wrong one), then setting us on the task of running an experiment to show those facts. Except he also led a lot of us astray by suggesting a certain way to do the experiment.
Then he graded us on our ability to 1) spot the false fact either by experimentation or by checking reference works, and 2) correctly set up the experiment in light of the wrong fact and wrong suggestions. Except we didn't know these grading criteria going into the project - we learned them afterwards.
I didn't spot that wrong fact, but did spot the problem with the suggested experiment setup. Lab partners and I got a 'C' for that project, and everyone else (who spotted neither problem) got 'D's. It actually led to some parents complaining, but I still thank Mr. Jackson (not his real name) for having done this. It was when I first consciously learned the value of skepticism in the real world. I owe my parents for having started a mild skepticism habit with a few carefully calculated lies now & then, but that was just the air I breathed; I hadn't really thought about it until Mr. Jackson basically failed almost the whole class for not being skeptical enough.
Teach them about religion when they are able to understand and grasp it fully intellectually, 16+ or even better let them get it on their own when they are considered adult.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The best way is to be exposed to it. For instance, there is a very good series of podcasts from skeptoid.com. Each week he takes a topic, researches it, and presents it well. There are more than 100 now, and they are in easily-digested ten minute chunks.
I don't have anything to add to what you just said -- just want to say, that's a brilliant post and I wish I had mod points right now. Whoever modded you "flamebait" is a moron who has probably read far too many management books.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
If the past seven years haven't taught you to be sceptical, I don't think you are capable of learning it.
Given years of responses I've read on Slashdot, I'd say that it's not an innate part of the geek personality, at least as the geek personality is currently understood. Honest skepticism requires a working knowledge of the topic in question, and most modern geeks don't even bother to try and educate themselves.
I say 'modern geek', because when I was growing up 'geek' and 'nerd' were terms applied to people with a bent towards knowledge (often esoteric and specialized) well beyond the norm (hence "computer geek") - coupled with an ability to discuss, dissect, and analyze topics on an objective basis. Or, as the teacher who advised the debate team I was on in my senior put it: "You won't find a geek as valedictorian, and few geeks win [grade based] academic scholarships, but you will find them in the chess club, the model rocket club, and on the debate team".
Being a modern geek on the other hand is all about fitting in with other 'geeks'. You have to watch the 'right' anime, be a fan of the 'right' TV shows and movies (or directors/producers), support the 'right' political causes and holding the 'proper' opinions... A modern geek must run one of the 'right' OS's and vociferously attack those who use the 'wrong' OS or hold the 'wrong' views on F/OSS, etc. etc. It's all about groupthink.
I never heard the term "geek cred" until I was well into my forties.
There is a lot of focus on being skeptical when learning new ideas, but one should be just as skeptical of things we have previously decided are true.
Even more so we must be skeptical of our selves, our reasons for taking a thing as true or false.
Your brain is the most amazing and capable computer you will ever have access to. Learn the system, and then hack the system, to make it do what you want.
I teach a class on pc repair, and this "problem" is right at the top of my list of "things to learn to teach".
I find that most of the people that take the class bring a lot of misconceptions which are very hard to overcome in some cases, but, I also find that the younger the person that takes the class, the easier it is for them to accepts the facts that I teach. (Class participants are anywhere from 16 to 46 years old, the majority are from 23 to 36)
Kids know more about this subject than we want to believe, its just trained out of them by punishing them for making us feel stupid when we get asked a question we dont have the answer to.
With that in mind, I'll present the major findings of my research:
Books to read:
The demon haunted world, science as a candle in the dark. Carl sagan
Great book that touches on the need for critical thinking and the meta aspects to evaluating information, as well as very specific cases whre it is applied. (And beautifully written too, engaging and awe inspiring, i wish i could write like this man)
A minigude to critical thining - Joe Lau - Depatment of filosophy University of Hong Kong
http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/misc/miniguide.pdf
This paper is useful for introducing the general concept of critical thinking as well as the necessary skills. Very brief and very concise.
There is more, this is just a starting point.
Things to teach:
Most important skill to learn:
Hold yourself to the most rigorous standards you can think of, even more so than other people. You will find that even if youre wrong and everybody knows about it, they still wont tell you, this is because most people will not apreciate being proven wrong either, so the only person that can keep you honest is yourself.
I'm always right, except when i'm not.
Homer: I was working on a flat tax proposal and I accidentally proved there's no God.
Ned Flanders: We'll just see about tha--Oh, maybe he made a mistake? Nope... it's air-tight.
Some see the vessel as half full; others see it as half-empty; We pour it out on the floor and laugh
I am not a religious man, but I know bad modding when I see it. Parent is by no means flamebait; the post is conciliatory, even. Mods: Please correct.
We have four kids who are all very creative, intelligent and knowledgeable. I won't take credit for what the Good Lord saw fit to bless these children with, but I do what I can to nurture these gifts.
:-)
First off my wife and I are both avid _learners_ and even though we are both in our 40s we continue our educations in many formal and informal ways, both related to our careers (I've a software developer for 20_ years and she's been a stay-at-home Mom who recently got her Master's working primarily from home and is looking to restart her career) and other interests, whether useful, or just fun.
We are both voracious readers, so I think our biggest influence is possibly the example we set and the fact that there are tremendous numbers of books and other cool resources readily available for use. The children are encouraged and helped to use anything in the house that they can actually handle without breaking. I also have a bit of an arts-and-crafts bent which I pursue often, and we have plenty of artsy-craftsy resources available for the kids as well.
Next, we've done everything we can to encourage the kids' curiousities, especially in terms of them trying to understand things. My wife and I have interests that we naturally share: mine tend towards math, science and technology, but I also love films and TV, my wife loves and studies history, especially the Civil War and many other topics, and we both practice and study our religion seriously. So at any given time both of us have interesting things to talk about and share. I always have an "open door" policy of taking the time to explain anything they might have questions about... including doing research as needed, and I am always careful to take the time to listen to what the kids want to say*. Thus, I'm teaching them how to learn (or am trying anyway). Next I am very critical of any media, and if we are watching a documentary or hearing the news or something, I will comment when I disagree or explain something that I think the kids might find interesting or insightful.
And finally, I often make completely ridiculous statements with a straight face. Although it's often meant just for humor, I realized after many years that I was also, almost subconsciously, trying to teach them not to be gullible. They understand that at any given moment Daddy might be completely pulling their leg, and if I say something that seems unbelievable, they will challenge me. I don't deliberately mislead them, and will admit when I'm yankin' their chains, but I think it's a healthy and effective way to teach them that no authority is always right, and not to talk everything blindly or uncritically.
Oh, and one more thing, when I am wrong in matters of fact or judgement, I will freely admit it. I will come right out and say, "I was wrong. I shouldn't have done that." or "I said something that was incorrect." So that my kids see that while I like to pose as the guy with all the answers, that I recognize I am not perfect or infallible.
Oh, and one more last, very last, thing... we are all rabid fans of "The Simpsons", watching and rewatching the show often, and if that show doesn't convey a healthy dose of skepticism, nothing does.
* I made this promise to myself when my oldest was a baby that I'd always take the time to listen seriously to anything the children had to say. A plus is that kids are usually not shy when speaking with adults, which is a good trait to have. The problem now is that sometimes they just don't know when to shut up without "gentle encouragement"!
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
The Apology by Plato is a good start. One of the themes in it is useful skepticism. "I know that I have no wisdom..." It's an easy short read. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html
You leave the bar late. You head for the bus stop knowing you have plenty of time, and then wait. And wait. And after a while you check your watch. 10 minutes, next time it's 20. If you subscribe to religious faith, then you believe the bus is just round the corner. If you are a skeptic then you don't want to rely on faith, you need evidence, solid evidence - like a bus.
So the skeptic leaves and gets a taxi, while the believer waits.
And then it rains.
It was an entertaining and informative watch. And I'll certainly be having look at some of the books in the reading list he gave.
not that i think your question is invalid but slashdot is already teaming with idiots who think that their b+ in high school chemistry and physics makes them a match for seasoned engineers. you're really asking the wrong people.
there are too many trendy geeks in this place. too many people who really think that a show on the science channel puts them ahead of the curve. any knowledge gleaned from this place is best researched on your own.
Hey, lucky thing those scientists just happened to be taking a walk along the bottom of the ocean. I mean, they couldn't possibly have been looking for evidence to support a conjecture based on the observation of something else (such as, say, the similarity between the atlantic coastlines of Africa and America), could they...?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/13/BA7I118B1I.DTL&hw=traffic+accident+hoax&sn=001&sc=1000
What part of `yes no` don't you understand?
It seems to me that many people don't have a meta-level theory of what they are doing when they perceive, think, model the world (partially and using abstraction and synthesis) in their brain, form theories, assess probabilities, assess motivations of authors or speakers etc.
They could know better when to to be skeptical,
and about what, if these representational issues were understood more explicitly and formally.
Also helpful would be an understanding of philosophy of science, including knowledge of how to evaluate a theory, and on what grounds one
should prefer one theory over another.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
I doubt you can.
Teach to ask: how - and demonstrate it! Teach to ask: qui bono - who benefits! Teach to ask why: which leads often to qui bono! As a lecturer/trainer of students from developing countries in computer troubleshooting I tell them about three levels of knowledge: level one: you hear something and find no immediate faults and contradictions - you thing you know! level two: you can ask a meaningful question adn give a meaningful answer on the topic - you have theoretical knowledge! level three: you can apply it or do it - you have mastered it!
I've worked in and socialized within a number of scientific fields, and religious beliefs aren't that uncommon, although they rarely intrude much into the research. But I've been surprised at how common a belief in a soul and god(s) in neuroscience is. There is a place where the science and belief can be in direct conflict, as neuroscience is actively explaining away any useful role once played by the soul.
I found this rather curious, but these were often competent, respected professors. I guess I'm just not smart enough to simultaneously believe two comflicting ideas which eat each other.
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
To be fair, that is a circular argument, but so is yours. It's a mantra in the electronics industry... Has it occurred to you why?
The best of us build systems from failure. We write code, and try to compile it -- how many of us can write a hundred lines of code which even compiles cleanly, let alone runs bug-free?
No, the best of us will compile early and often, and try again. And we'll write unit tests systems, and we'll do test-driven development -- write the failing test first, then hack on the code until it passes the test.
It's not just a "mantra", or a belief, or a platitude. It's a reality that I deal with every few minutes, all day, every day.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Right. But I think now more than ever most companies are very wary of anyone who might question the corporate orthodoxy. As I recall one of the problems with the recent bank scandal in France was that some people saw things that seemed questionable but said nothing because 'it wasn't their job.' When I see that I translate it, perhaps incorrectly, to mean 'I brought this up before and was shot down. So now I know to just be quiet and never express any doubt about anything'. People rarely get in trouble for just being quiet and agreeing.
Expressing doubt about something is mainly taken the wrong way, as a criticism. I think strong people and strong companies know that however much they may at first dislike an opinion that contradicts their own, that it's also very valuable. It's really free advice. They can then take it or leave it but they at least have gotten the chance to see something, often something important, from another perspective. Most companies I think just don't want to hear other opinions, regardless of how tactfully expressed.
Goes through a lot of the news items, common logical fallacies, good interviews all with an entertaining cast.
dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
whatcouldpossiblygowrong sometimes seems to be a knee jerk reaction when the story involves food or anything biological, or significantly large. For the sake of fairness, skepticism is asking far more than that one question.
Case in point: Nuclear Power. We know what could go wrong. Now, what is the probability, and the expected damage? Can we know by looking at our existing safety records, and those of more recent factories built in other countries? Which would result in more deaths; nuclear power, or coal power, once you take into account things such as possible meltdowns, nuclear waste, global warming, coal-mine collapses, etc...
Now, a true skeptic may be asking "what about solar/wind/water". My point is, that you have to keep asking questions, and do not confuse cynicism or denial for skepticism.
The general topic of skepticism is one that is treated at length in Philosophy. A great Philosophy resource page is Epistemelinks.com. A search under 'Epistemology' could be fruitful. However, one of the best texts on skepticism is The Outlines of Pyrrhonism, by Sextus Empiricus. The first book especially is a great read, even if is is nearly 1,500 years out of date. The text of the book can be found on-line (scroll down) here. This is the best resource I know to teach skepticism to students.
Learn to keep your mouth shut (when necessary).
In the specific instance of my son, there was a predilection towards knowing the truth of things.
At 2 1/2 I was carrying him on my hip as we walked around the neighborhood on Halloween night. We saw our first group of people in scary costumes and he swivels around, looks me straight in the eye and, watching my face like a hawk, asks "Is this real or made up?" I answered that it was made up and after he scanned my face for another second, he swiveled back around and I could feel him relax.
A large part of his early training in skepticism was of course through play. Not long afterward we were at a toy store and there was a bowling game where each pin had a string on the bottom. Pulling a knob put all the pins back in place. After he had knocked the pins down I extended my hand magician style and "coaxed" them up again. His eyes got big, but immediately his eyes examined the "Magic hand", followed my arm down, across to my other arm and down that to my other hand. At which point he raced around and pried open the hand on the knob and triumphantly said "AHA!"
During our first stint with Harry Potter training took the form of a magic wand and my back against the light switch, turning the lights on and off. He *knew* what I was doing, but he also wanted terribly for magic to be "real", eventually his drive to catch me was just too strong to tolerate his desire the fantasy. Not long after he did find some solace in discovering the Real Magic of how radio works, it was cool to see awe supplant the longing for the unreality.
At one point I became worried that he was getting so confident about his command of practical physics that he would stop asking questions, so I got a book on coin tricks and took to finding all sorts of objects behind his ear and occasionally slamming a salt shaker magically through the table. Again, the drive to catch me at it was just too strong to tolerate any lukewarm or flawed explanations.
As his language skills became better there developed new ways to torment,um, I mean "teach" him. "that sandbox has five sides, and each side has two corners, so that should be ten corners, but I can only count five corners...Where are the other five?" I almost never left him hanging without the answer, that might work for some kids, but it wouldn't have worked at all for him.
We don't have broadcast/cable/satellite TV in our house (when I take business trips I check to see if I feel we are missing anything, mostly, I don't), but we watch DVD's and we see and hear advertising when we are out and about. After hearing that the messages were trying to influence his behavior he became very vigilant about the content of those ads and we always have fun picking out and playing with the hidden assumptions and premises.
After exposure to friends who were religious he made a leap of logic very much like that of "The Enlightenment": "If God exists then Hell must exist. Hell is too offensive a concept to accept, therefore God must not exist". I have to say that I played no part in this decision of his, I even pointed out the flaw in the reasoning, but he was unimpressed.
And then one day he came home from Third Grade a Militant Atheist. It seems that at lunch time some saintly little boy had told him that, as he didn't belong to some accidental religion or other, he was going to Hell. RAWR!
At about 9 years old we got into Syllogisms and spent a couple of nights searching the web for good examples to figure out. At this point we were home schooling (surprise!). Deciding he was ready, one day while driving I dropped the Final Exam for Fourth Grade Syllogistic Competency on him:
"All people who are not religious are going to Hell. You are not religious. You are going to Hell. True or False?"
He sat bolt upright in his seat, half grinning, half blazing with anger. He turned around and looked at me like he was about to chop my head off and said "False. 'I' might not be a person."
Okay so I had been skunked, fair enough, I wooted and gave him a h
A father was imparting his wisdom to his son.
"Son, there are two rules in life. Number one. Trust nobody. Number two. Trust only me."
"Yes papa!"
"Are you ready to follow these two rules?"
"Yes papa!"
"Do you trust me?"
"Yes papa!"
And with that, the father picked up his son and dropped him on his head.
When the child had finished sobbing hysterically, he asked his father why he'd done that.
"You forgot Rule Number One."
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
These adults will give years worth of daily examples of unreasonableness, injustices, violations of rights and arbitrary abuse of formal power. I can think of no better example.
True, better teachers and administrators will certainly teach the 3Rs much better. But between teaching remediable subject-matter and skepticism towards authority, IMHO the latter is _far_ more important. The US might well have the worlds best school system, but not for the reasons usually considered!
Well, skepticism needs to be constructive, in the same way as criticism, praise, support or anything else.
If you're just constantly skeptical, you're not skeptical - you're a nay-sayer.
I've written the word "skeptical" too many times now. It's lost all meaning. I'm not convinced I'm even spelling it right. Bah.
--- Band: Joey Ultra
>How To Teach a Healthy Dose of Skepticism?
One very good way to 'teach skeptiscim' is to:
1) show another country 'stupid beliefs': like 'little-green men UFOs' in the USA and show how widespread they are in this country.
This show quite well that there are stupid beliefs which are *very* widespread, but the danger is that one could conclude 'these foreigners are dumb' so:
2) debunk a 'stupid belief' which happen in your own country: in France for example, there's a widespread belief that you can judge someone by looking at the shape of his handwriting and this is *very* serious as this is quite often used as a selection test when you apply for a job! (I think that this 'stupid belief' is mostly France-specific).
At this point, normally one understand that you have to be *very cautious* about any belief..
Religions are a good example of how people are ready to drop skepticism for the confort of having life after death, a kind of super-father, etc so you can use them as a good warning against blind belief.
One way to encourage people to develop and protect a healthy dose of skepticism is to show them what techniques are used to maintain faith. If anyone tries to destroy my faith, I put my fingers in my ears and sing the theme from the Flintstones loudly until they go away.
Wow, that must have been ages ago. How old are you?
I'm 55. I went to elementary school in NYC and its northern suburbs.
Best regards.
Isn't skepticism the anthiesis of faith and therefore unamerican? I am pretty sure every pastor in america has a problem with the promotion of skeptical thought and critical thinking for their flocks...
1. Tell student, "I'm not going to kick you in the nuts."
2. Kick student in the nuts.
3. Repeat.
4. Profit.
That is all.
This is true - as a researcher a collegue proposed a project that was physically impossible to work - but management loved it - when I pointed out the issues, bending over backward to try and give them the benefit of the doubt - I was labeled as being "not a team player", needless to say one year and a million dollars later the project was shelved - did anyone tell me they should have listened to my arguments - no, my collegue still thinks I was just out to shaft him and I got dinged on my performance review.
Scepticism requires critical thought. There are three subjects that simply by studying them (properly) one acquires an excellent "bullshit detector". These three require the highest level of critical thinking of all subjects out there and as such have many ancillary benefits. Those being, Mathematics, Physics and Philosophy.
/use/ those listed above e.g. Engineering. But, the above three are the big ones.
Of course there are other subjects that do a good job. Those being the subjects that
Not just a healthy dose of any skepticism, but skepticism that approaches things from a rational, logical perspective.
It's great to demand proof of things before believing them. But too often I see people who never get beyond that stage, even the face of very strong evidence. In addition to skepticism, it's crucial to develop a standard of proof which, if met, will overcome your skepticism. This is what the scientific method is all about.
Anyone can doubt anything, the key is what will remove (or reduce) that doubt. Otherwise you just go from not believing that the Earth is flat, to not believing that the Earth is an oblate spheroid. At some point skepticism has to give way to evidence or you descend into paranoia.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I think (and so do several leading experts) that too much skepticism, especially when applied too early, is detrimental to creative thought - and lack of creativity WILL hurt you as a scientist or engineer, perhaps even more than a lack of critical thought. I wouldn't be too hasty to run off and start doubting everything.
Back on topic - Sonoma State University has an entire set of DVDs and pedagogy surrounding the teaching of critical thinking without involving the questioning of another person's religion. Critical thinking and believing in a God are not mutually exclusive - that would be illogical! It is comparing apples to oranges to think that a process of organizing thought and discourse can be applied to a metaphysical, ephemeral, ethereal concept and have veritas applied to it. Additionally, people on both sides of the issue have lots of time, money, emotion and various other vested interests to defend before being able to discuss it in a rational way - as this very post and the others below demonstrate (I never reply to these things, but it got me!). Stop on by http://www.criticalthinking.org/ to see the teaching of it in a masterful way.
I assume we're talking about giving kids critical thought, since that is when you have to learn that skill.
Give them a piece of "fact" that you know to be false but sounds credible and see if they believe it or not.
Then ask them to research if it is true or false.
Do this regularly, both with actual true information and false ones.
Then you give them the task of looking at Fox News, or some other propaganda'ish channel, and have them research the truth behind the news.
They're bound to learn both scepticism, critical thinking and how to find and use information.
/.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
Learning to accept that You Can Be Wrong is only the easiest step, and the one most easily forgotten.
Here's a simple mathematical test:
Do you believe that addition is commutative? i.e., that 1+2 = 2+1? For any values of 2 and 1? How about (-2) + 1 = 1 + (-2)?
In any circumstances? ALWAYS????
I used to.
And then I was working my way through (no, I have not yet completed it, and I probably need to begin anew at page 1) John Derbyshire's Prime Obsession -- a historical treatment of Riemann's Hypothesis that attempts to educate the non-professional mathematician reader so that they can at least kinda/sorta understand the problem. And then on pages 149-150, he introduces the Gentle Reader to "conditionally convergent" infinite series, which resolve into different results depending on the order the terms are summed! Yes, there have to be some subtractions mixed in with the additions in the infinite series, but I tend to treat subtraction as a flavor of addition (clearly an error, but I still don't see how) and it made me put down the book and walk around and ponder the significance of what I had read (and I found myself returning to those pages repeatedly instead of moving steadily forward).
While I can accept that I was wrong, I still don't understand WHY (and am almost certainly never going to). And if I can be wrong about something as apparently simple as addition -- even when dealing with the realm of the infinite (which is almost certainly wherein the difficulties lie) -- I can be wrong about pretty much anything. And so can You.
When we move from understanding simple mathematical concepts like addition/subtraction to dealing with a Reality that we can grasp only weakly, and can only perceive fragments of (can you see x-rays? feel neutrinos? hear frequencies beyond a narrow range?), it becomes quite impossible to wrap one's mind around even the notion of Absolute Truth. But we seem to be constructed to latch onto simple perceived truths and defend them as if they were the very foundations of our existence -- which in a sense, they are. But that's why being willing to re-invent oneself, casting aside those ideas that have been shown to be different than our notions of them, is so very important.
Proof is a slippery little devil, while Belief is incredibly sticky.
Invest in a couple of pyramid schemes. Use someone else's sure fire gambling formula. Try to buy a bank owned house. These are some of life's wonderful skepticism teachers. Or, you could do what my dad did, "pull my finger", or "here touch this spark plug, I don't think it's working". Ahhhh good times.
...or the Daily Show.
Instead of assuming "epic fail" your colleague could have just calibrated his probes AFTER he collected the data and all woudl have been well.
:-)
It's THAT kind of thinking I suspect TFA is bemoaning.
Obviously there are all kinds of reasons what he may not have been able to do that. But he could have at least tried
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
I doubt therefore I am not?
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
The terms here are so vague. What constitutes any of these terms? To me critical thinking ( solving rubik's cube or or engineering a bridge ) has very little to do with taking other people at their word as implied by the original question.
If you are hoping to "teach" the value of not being deceived by emotional attachment to your own ideas and not taking everything at face value when said by someone who "ought to know", I would say that loosely this is all very much about social confidence.
People feel the need to be right for a couple of reasons. First, it's comfortable for themselves. Second, it raises their standing with peers very often.
However, like most monkeys, most people are governed more deeply by social standing not reason. They will assert they are "right" even when they are wrong. Indeed, clinging to a dead horse argument will often enhance social standing FAR more than acknowledging you have been in error.
You can't change that. The best way to help someone learn they can withstand this and that it's a short-term, self-serving and ultimately group-defeating effort is to teach that first, the pupil should learn to make himself uncomfortable on a regular basis an apply scrutiny to why they are stating what they are stating. Second, they should be confident in their own thoughts. Whether they express them or not and when is another question...
I think several posts have already said this, but I also wonder about the word "healthy"... I'm assuming what is intended is robust and not some pop-psych Oprahesque false sense of well being. Loosely speaking, a "healthy skeptic" should wonder every once in a while if his feeling of well being isn't a little off.
Most Jesuits have PhDs in a theological area and a non-theological area (anything from poetry to engineering).
One of my math professors was fond of giving false proofs, where some very important but somewhat subtle step had been left out. He'd then make the class figure out what was wrong with it before going on with the lecture.
One of my philosophy professors employed similar tactics, presenting us with the arguments of whatever the philosopher of the day was, then asking us to come up with counterarguments, examples, and so on showing that they were (at least partially) wrong.
My brother's law professors would examine the arguments given by the judges who ruled on various cases, and then call on random people and have them explain how one might argue that the decision was incorrect.
I think similar methods can be employed in any subject - and in any case it will be a valuable exercise not just for learning to think about what's wrong with an argument, but for really understanding the topic at hand. It's all well and good to follow along with a proof that's being given on the board, but when you're actually called upon to examine it in detail, to be sure that you actually understand every step that was taken and why it was valid, you end up understanding it so much better.. And I certainly do believe that one can get better at finding the faults in arguments with practice.
The reason why 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' is such a widely used tag is because of one reason: Bubsy Bobcat.
Never let a child get away with giving an opinion, or just making a statement on a subject. The proverbial little kid constantly asking "Why?" over and over until the adult blows up and says "BECAUSE, THAT'S WHY!!!" should be flipped around. I was lucky and went to a school where I was forced to give reasons or explanations for ANY position I took, in every class. It was even more rigorous in the humanities than science/math (at least not for me, I did as little math as I had to to get by, painful experience and I'm just not a math guy). Teachers would regularly, unmercifully, and publicly take me (and everyone else in my class) to task for every statement or opinion that wasn't backed up with reasoning, and would beat away mercilessly at any flaws in it. Being merely correct wasn't enough to get it right, you had to show why that was the answer.
This isn't an easy thing, because it takes a LOT of mental work on the adult's part. You have to be on your toes constantly, and kids will look for every possible dodge the can to get out of doing it. I HATED it when I was there, and only after I got out of it did I realize the kind of mental muscles I'd been forced to build up.
There is a saying among Rocket Scientists -- you only learn from failures. Critical thinking comes from failures and there is too much stigma attached to failure today for people to really develop good critical thinking skills. However there are two good books that might help. One is "Normal Accidents" by Charles Perrow and another is "The Logic of Failure" by Dietrich Dorner. Learning from other's failure is preferable to learning from one's own. Since you post this question on Slashdot you might pay particular attention to how unskeptical some engineers were during the transition from slide rules to computers. I have been lied to more times by my computer than I ever was by my slide rule, but then the computer can do things that I would never have asked the slide rule to do...
... and point out how ridiculous and incompatible they are.
The key point that you are missing: any real skeptic should apply the same degree of skepticism to his entrenched beliefs that he applies to incoming ones.
(rot13) rpbzbab@tznvy.pbz
Skepticism is a 'hunch', based on a limited knowledge base, that something isn't right. Whether it's skepticism that the unseen road ahead around the turn is unsafe because the cars ahead are slowing down or the bridge engineer who sees a roof truss that doesn't quite look right though he's never built a house. Their 'hunch' -- skepticism -- is rooted in experience, albeit tangential and sometimes very limited experience in many cases.
... and no dollar. Needless to say, from that point forward, I was the world's foremost skeptic when someone asked to borrow my radio. That experience translated to my bike and numerous other possessions. It was a valuable and, dare I say it, needed lesson in life. All of my mother's admonitions were a pointless waste of breath until experience, that commodity I desperately needed a fraction of a second before I gave him the radio, whacked me upside the head, and took up residence a fraction of a second too late.
As we all know too well, experience nurtures skepticism. I have personal knowledge of the aphorism, "Experience is what you get a fraction of a second after you needed it". Implied in the humor is the reality that failure and embarassment is, hands down, the best teacher. Skepticism implies the knowledge of failure and/or embarassment. Skepticism implies having been burned at least once. Once burned, twice shy is the operative notion here.
In the more serious aspects of life, like the life-or-death design of a bridge, we would hope that design isn't based on skepticism but on hard engineering experience and the lessons of countless designs that work (or didn't work, as the case may be). Imbuing skepticism, on the other hand, is not like teaching someone to build bridges. With bridges you can't let people experiment with bridge design. A collapse or two while you're 'learning' is not an option. As we've seen, too much rides (both literally and figuratively) on the sound design of our bridges, the sad case in point being the bridge in Minnesota that recently collapsed. Skepticism about a bridge design simply won't do. You have to KNOW unequivocally that the design will work. Skepticism, conversely, is about lessons and failure and embarassment.
Can skepticism be taught? My personal answer would be 'no', not without a copious helping of life's vicissitudes. Skepticism, like morality, is a core survival trait resident in every human being. It's like a mushroom spore just waiting for darkness and bullshit to spring into full bloom. You're skeptical today because someone abused your trust in the past and a lesson was learned. You're moral today because you were immoral in the past and a 'moral of the story' was learned. Scams and schemes are excellent skepticism instructional sets for the naive among us. Waking up hungover, confused and half-naked amidst a flock of sheep can have embarassing moral implications, as well.
As a thirteen year old kid with a new radio my mother warned me not to loan it out or leave it lying around. But, as you might guess, when I was asked by a sixteen year-old if he could borrow it for the weekend and he'd get it back to me on Monday and give me a dollar, I naively said, "Sure, I'll see you Monday". Well, he wasn't there Monday, or Tuesday or Wednesday. It wasn't until I asked a friend of his if he'd seen him and told him about my radio that his friend said, "Was that your radio? He's been trying sell that radio all week".
I eventually got my radio back with a cracked case, loose volume control, dead batteries
Even the other core survival trait, morality, can't be taught like engineering. It is experiential in nature and a moral person implies some previous immorality as a knowledge base. The sad fact is that the method that is generally employed to teach a very skewed and tortured morality, religion, in my opinion, has failed more than miserably with unbelievably tragic and terrible consequences. Most unfortunately, we don't learn of the dangers of religion, and th
...as simple as that. Whatever you do, avoid isms and agendas. Have your common sense (the minimalistic version) ready and get used to some basic moral rules (which you are free to define by yourself, they don't come from anywhere else), but that's it. Don't try to build up your own "complete picture of everything", because then, you don't learn or experience, you only judge, you compare and (if you're lucky) adjust that picture, which is too little. You won't need a taught mechanic like skepticism that way because skepticism is a mechanic for comparing stuff with the "complete picture of everything", it only gives your POV a higher value.
Oh, and try to be reasonable nice.
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
Skepticism is a 'hunch', based on a limited knowledge base, that something isn't right. Whether it's skepticism that the unseen road ahead around the turn is unsafe because the cars ahead are slowing down or the bridge engineer who sees a roof truss that doesn't quite look right though he's never built a house. Their 'hunch' -- skepticism -- is rooted in experience, albeit tangential and sometimes very limited experience in many cases. As we all know too well, experience nurtures skepticism. I have personal knowledge of the aphorism, "Experience is what you get a fraction of a second after you needed it". Implied in the humor is the reality that failure and embarassment is, hands down, the best teacher. Skepticism implies the knowledge of failure and/or embarassment. Skepticism implies having been burned at least once. Once burned, twice shy is the operative notion here. In the more serious aspects of life, like the life-or-death design of a bridge, we would hope that design isn't based on skepticism but on hard engineering experience and the lessons of countless designs that work (or didn't work, as the case may be). Imbuing skepticism, on the other hand, is not like teaching someone to build bridges. With bridges you can't let people experiment with bridge design. A collapse or two while you're 'learning' is simply not an option. As we've seen, too much rides (both literally and figuratively) on the sound design of our bridges, the sad case in point being the bridge in Minnesota that recently collapsed. Skepticism about a bridge design won't do. You have to KNOW unequivocally that the design will work. Skepticism, conversely, is about lessons and failure and embarassment. Can skepticism be taught? My personal answer would be 'no', not without a copious helping of life's vicissitudes. Skepticism, like morality, is a core survival trait resident in every human being. It's like a mushroom spore just waiting for darkness and bullshit to spring into full bloom. You're skeptical today because someone abused your trust in the past and a lesson was learned. You're moral today because you were immoral in the past and a 'moral of the story' was learned. Scams and schemes are excellent skepticism instructional sets for the naive among us. Waking up hungover, confused and half-naked amidst a flock of sheep can have embarassing moral implications, as well. As a thirteen year old kid with a new radio my mother warned me not to loan it out or leave it lying around. But, as you might guess, when I was asked by a sixteen year-old if he could borrow it for the weekend and he'd get it back to me on Monday and give me a dollar, I naively said, "Sure, I'll see you Monday". Well, he wasn't there Monday, or Tuesday or Wednesday. It wasn't until I asked a friend of his if he'd seen him and told him about my radio that his friend said, "Was that your radio? He's been trying sell that radio all week". I eventually got my radio back with a cracked case, loose volume control, dead batteries ... and no dollar. Needless to say, from that point forward, I was the world's foremost skeptic when someone asked to borrow my radio. That experience translated to my bike and numerous other possessions. It was a valuable and, dare I say it, needed lesson in life. All of my mother's admonitions were a pointless waste of breath until experience, that commodity I desperately needed a fraction of a second before I gave him the radio, whacked me upside the head, and took up residence a fraction of a second too late.
Even the other core survival trait, morality, can't be taught like engineering. It is experiential in nature and a moral person implies some previous immorality as a knowledge base. The sad fact is that the method that is generally employed to teach a very skewed and tortured morality, religion, in my opinion, has failed more than miserably with unbelievably tragic and terrible consequences. Most unfortunately, we don't learn of the dangers of religion, and the skepticism we should have ha
There's a thoughtful and entertaining podcast called Skeptoid that offers a skeptical view of pop culture phenomena; but more to the point, there are episodes that teach critical thinking skills.
The host, Brian Dunning, and friends also made a movie called Here Be Dragons: An Introduction to Critical Thinking, offering a nice intro to distinguishing pseudoscience from science. Here's a torrent of the movie in HD in case the site gets creamed.
Good stuff. I recommend both for audiences of any age
Ever notice that a mainstream newspaper or news program seems reliable except in a subject you're personally familiar with?
This happens to everyone in their different areas!
Therefore Rule #1 is: Don't trust any news item completely unless you can verify the information from a knowledgeable independent source.
Easy, don't get one. Be more skeptical of our employment-based society and run your own business. The pay is better (provided you work hard) and the benefits are just as good as the best employer out there(provided you work hard).
You have to work hard to keep a job anyway, so you might as well have some freedom to go with that hard work.
Be skeptical of the 40-hour work-week. It might take a few tries to make a business fly, but it's worth the effort. Start part-time in your garage or extra room or dining-room table. Work on it during your lunch break or before work. I know people working 60+ hour weeks at their jobs in Asia and do fine. Once something takes off (it could take years) you can go back to working 40 hours or even less.
Be skeptical of your employer. They might have rules against starting a side-business. Don't cave. You are a human being and have certain rights once you leave work at the end of your shift. After all, your employer had to start somewhere.
but if the person in question (a kid, i suppose?) isn't naturally nerdy, it might have to be taught.
me, i was nerdy... and my mom (really more of a hippy than a nerd) still taught me to think of myself. my dad (a non-nerdy ultra conservative) taught me it was ok to learn stuff if it helped you get get work done. so i have no complaints.
i think the key is to teach kids to ask lots of questions. the nerdiness and skepticism will usually follow, i think.
This space intentionally left blank
Hand them their ass on a platter on a daily basis.
Something 90% of sheltered Americans don't get a good helping of.
Kids watch TV and see the cool new toy do something that looks like great fun. Explain to child that the neato stunt they just saw took adults a hundred tries to get to work. The 99 failures were not shown.
If it isn't too dangerous, say go ahead , but be careful, when they ask to do something stupid. Ideally the stupid idea will just taste bad.
As the kids get older you can start explaining about politicians, polls, conveniently changing policies, and bribes (tax breaks etc...) just before elections. Remember, you paid for that tax break.
While I am not religious, I think it is discourteous to be dismissive of another's closely held beliefs as long as they are harmless. Trying to get religious dogma taught in science class is not harmless. Basing reasonable morals and ethics on your religion is generally harmless.
Anarchists never rule
Experience is something you get immediatly after you need it.
You assume skepticism is healthy. I'm not sure I agree.
+++OK ATH
Read The God Emperor of Dune by Frank Herbert. Of course, you should read the preceding novels first. You will become the ultimate skeptic.
0 X aaarrrgghhh!
Since gods are, by definition, supernatural (i.e., "beyond nature"), they are not the subject of science. It's really not a very productive use of scientists' time to try to prove the non-existence of something which, by definition, does not have a physical existence.
You might as well say it'll take a long time for science to disprove the existence of alien pink elephants. Not only is "disproving" that virtually impossible, but no one in their right mind is going to waste his or her time trying it, because there's nothing to be gained even if it were possible to search every last corner of the universe and confirm that there's isn't a single pink elephant in it.
It would be great if we could prove the existence of gods, and find some way to interact with them or predict their behaviour (maybe that would offer some insights into the "weird" parts of modern physics). Sadly, no religion provides any kind of information that could be used to test that existence (in fact, most religions try very hard to make any sort of test impossible), so the whole thing is completely useless.
Explaining something by attributing it to a god (or to some other supernatural entity) means that a) you don't really know why or exactly how it happens, b) you aren't brave enough to admit that you don't know and c) you are giving up on trying to find out.
And that is why "faith" (and religion in particular) is a thorn in the side of progress. Because it makes people actively ignorant. It's no coincidence that, according to the Bible, Adam and Eve were punished by God for tasting the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. Religion is a control tool; ignorant people are easier to control. Especially if they're told that the rulers have a direct connection to some supernatural being that can hit them with lightning if they don't "comply". It's also no coincidence that some religions describe their followers as "sheep".
Rant over.
For the record, I "believe" in God (for a very specific - and completely meaningless, but logically provable - definition of "God"), but I loathe any form of religion.
...like I'm going to believe any of it.
Nothing inspires forgiveness quite like revenge.---Scott Adams
Richard Feynman (of course) for the main course. You can't open that safe... you can't look at that A-bomb blast... you shouldn't drop that O-ring in a glass of icewater...
"Fear is the rootkit of democracy.." Blarkon
Question authority. ALWAYS. Do not be satisfied with pat answers. Ask them how that worked and why they did what they did. If you observe something that does not match what you were told, ask WHY.
("Authority" is your school teacher, professor, know-it-all neighbor, newspaper editor, TV anchorman, parent, police, or anyone else claiming to know more than you. Especially politicians!)
This is the part that is often overlooked: keep asking until you get a satisfactory answer.
Regardless of who the "authority" is, if they do not have time to answer you now, wait until they do. If you are told that they do not know, ask where you can find out. Then go there and ask. If they do not want to tell you publicly, ask them privately. Occasionally, you may be told that "nobody knows". Question this answer because it is seldom true. Keep at it until you get the real answer, or until you are completely convinced that "nobody knows".
And if nobody knows, you must design a way to find out for yourself.
We tell them something that isn't true and let them eventually figure out that the adults were lying to them the whole time. That should learn 'em some skepticism. ;)
:D
Actually I'm surprised this strategy works as poorly as it does - even with the quite obvious Santa/Jesus correlation.
Read "Counterexamples in Topology" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterexamples_in_Topology). Critical thinking is when you are willing to always question the intuitively obvious, and that book gives the intuitively obvious a good kicking. In my view critical thinking is one of the most important skills to learn in science - as well as in democracy and all other aspects of life. People too often concentraate on the "Why" and forget that it is eaqually important to remember the "Why not".
I imagine one good way to challenge students to think critically is to first make them express a fundamental view of theirs, and then give them the task arguing convincingly against it. It is difficult, of course - it takes great courage to be willing to seriously doubt one's convictions.
In the last few years, I think some people are getting the message to some degree, but it's carrying over in to a kneejerk skepticism. There's a lot of fakery around on the internet, so people are finding it safer to dismiss something straight away.
For example, this video shows a street performer doing some tricks with a crystal ball. My reaction: "cool!". The reaction of other commenters on YouTube: "FAKE!".
So, here's the question: does my "cool!" mean that I absolutely believe it is real - that is, have I been taken in? No, I haven't, and here's why not: it doesn't matter. If it's faked using CGI, I'll survive, because its authenticity doesn't affect me either way. The "FAKE!"-ers, on the other hand, don't seem to have a sense of proportion about it. I don't think the street performer himself is looking at the comments in this case, but it's possible, and shouting "FAKE!" at him is pointless. The originator of the video already knows whether it's real or not, and the rest of us aren't going to spend any time worrying about it. It can become insulting.
Of course, there are situations where scepticism can save your life or your sanity. Religious claims are a classic example: they come with baggage that you are expected to carry with you for the rest of your life. If you accept them completely and do as your priest/mullah/preacher orders you to, they will cost you time, money, friends, and critical thinking skills. In extreme cases, e.g. suicide bombers or refusal of medical care, they can cost you your life. Such claims mandate the highest levels of scepticism and "due diligence": is there more to it than "it's true because we tell you it's true"?
So that's my point: keep a sense of proportion about the whole scepticism thing. How critical is it that you be right or wrong every time, and can you justify the hassle of actively distrusting everyone and everything? If your wife/girlfriend/mother asks "does my bum look big in this", scepticism is not going to do you any good, so just say "no"!
(this is not a
In a word, start early, start often. Don't restrict it to the classroom.
I work with youth (I'm the IT department for a small school). One of the problems we have is that the kids we're getting aren't firmly connected with reality. My working hypothesis is that too many hours of TV and video games shows that you can make it all better with a restart. They don't believe that 'Actions have consequences' They horse around, and break a window. It doesn't come out of their pocket, but rather their parents. They get busted for dope, and are affronted that we expel them. They get caught bullying, and the other person's pain isn't real to them.
I use the 'actions have consequences' as a lietmotif in my conversations with them -- And I enforce it in my operation of the lab. I have scripts that can enable/disable accounts/squid access by cron. Last week the lab was a mess. I put up a sign -- no internet access until lab is spotless. 4 boys went for mops, brooms, and picked up the lab, and emptied the trash. I'm working on a script that during free time will reboot the entire lab every 15 minutes, putting a message on the screen. "I want the missing mouse back" or "Put the keys on the keyboard at station 10 back in their correct places."
In terms of teaching skepticism, I tell stories. All of them start plausibly, and get more and more outlandish:
One time with the western sky dark on a canoe trip, a kid asked if it was smoke or storm. (We'd been dodging forest fires for two weeks.) I replied 'neither. Two days ago a volcano in the Aleutian Islands off Alaska blew up and put tens of cubic kilometers of dust into the stratusphere.'
'How long with it last?'
'Oh about two years. The government is already sent notices nationalizing all the grain in the elevators, and is preparing to ask all the southern canadian farmers to replant with rye, as a possible crop, but right now they are predicting a total crop failure for most of Canada.'
'What will we eat!'
'Good question. How many cans of stew will it take to hold your family for two years?'
This goes on for about 15 minutes, with occasional reprises for late arrivals. During the first 10 mintues no one asked how I knew this, being in the middle of the bush. When I claimed to have a small shortwave radio in my camera box and to listen to BBC world report, they accepted that uncritically, although no one of them had ever heard of shortwave radio. No one asked to see/hear the radio.
After I broke out with a grin, the kids were embarassed at being sucked in. That's when I gave my speach about critical thinking, and said it was a game: As a teacher it was not my job to give them facts. It was my job to teach them to think. Every 'factoid' (Something that looks like a fact but is unverified) has to be examined on the basis of:
* It's source. Scientific American in general is a better source than National Enquirer.
* The size of it's claims. Reasonable claims are more credible. Unreasonable claims need better evidence.
* The process surrounding the collection of this information. Anecdotes are less credible than measurements.
* The plausibility of this story in connection to everything esle you know. Does it fit?
Then I point out:
* I have a reputation for story telling, both as a raconteur (never let the facts get in the way of a good story) and as someone who uses stories to teach lessons.
* This was making extroidinary claims. None of them were old enough to experience a volcanic eruption that had local effects. (I remember the dark skies of Mt. St. Helens)
* The process was implausible. All of them had seen my camera box, and its contents. None of them had seen anything but camera stuff.
* Volcanoes are unusual events, with a total disconnect from everything they know. They should have been asking questions like mad:
** How often does this happen?
** What will happen in the U.S?
** Will Europe be affected?
** What kind of plans does the g
Third Career: Tree Farmer Second Career: Computer Geek First Career: Teacher, Outdoor Instructor, Photographer.
Why does this garbage always get trotted out? Of course absence of evidence is evidence of absence if you're trying to "prove" a positive. Absence is the opposite of presence, and if you've increased the likelihood of absence (that's the "evidence of absence" bit) you've also reduced the likelihood of presence, i.e. provided evidence supporting the conclusion "absent".
Since the burden of proof is squarely on the people who claim the existence of god(s) ("Extraordinary claims
PS. When I say "prove" I obviously mean in the sense "demonstrate the likelihood of X to a satisfactory degree" rather than 100% absolute proof -- which is unattainable outside of pure mathematics.
Authoritarian Lord Watching Over Us, Punishing All Souls That MissStep, Eternally...
.. page needs JavaScript to work, sorry )
.. just trying to communicate the sense-of-it, is all )
is some kind of assumption & projection of western religion ( not far-eastern, anyhow ).
Remove that gunk & the question becomes:
Life IS ( there is distinct & real difference between corpses, & living-beings ).
Life expresses through chemical processes.
IF Life is more universal than chemical-process
( operates throughout all energy-levels, whether plasma or chemical )
THEN Life expresses through Suns,
through chemical-processes,
through the way particles of dust move through space
& through all other phenomena, too.
( or rather, Living & Deadmaking both express,
against each other, throughout phenomena
and no, I'm not assuming that "life" requires Human Scale,
it can be to *any* degree, small or great
a full infinity-spectrum )
IF NOT, then chemical-process CREATES Life.
( dumb assumption, but scientism seems to hold to it )
IS there an upper-limit for the subtlety, or energy-density, of Life?
Is "men", as *men* assume,
the Universal Upper Limit that Life cannot be beyond?
How could any intelligent mind assume, *that* incompetently?
Try reading Vivekananda: his guru experienced "god" itself, through yoga,
& all "souls" have the same potential.
( the whole "prodical son" story was about that -
- souls apparently lost among worthlessness, returning to origin/essence )
It is entirely testable, entirely experienceable,
but it requires committing the kinds of yoga that change one's mind-substance,
and one's mind-essence,
in the ways that permit direct experience of subtler*higher energies.
http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/volume_1/vol_1_frame.htm
( ignore the "introduction" which was written by a man
who felt need to ~ put importance upon ~ the words of Vivekananda
However, Vivekananda was a luminant mind, and the intro-writer wasn't, so just skip past it.
I don't necessarily agree with every detail given by Vivekananda,
but that spirit is sooo clear-shining
( PS subtler/higher-energy = plasma is subtler & higher-energy than is vinegar, for instance.
the process plasma is, is ions, not complete atoms, let-alone molecules.
If the top people in the field don't accept this stuff, then what chance a school teacher?
With the www it is getting harder and harder to tell the difference between valid researchers and fruit-cakes. With click ad revenue, and an endless supply of conspiracy theorists, making some sort of fad-science site is potentially very lucrative.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
You know, you really don't need to make a complete fool of yourself. You can simply post a comment, reload the page, and confirm that your comment is displayed immediately, as I told you.
Or you could look up how Slashdot works and learn that only non-logged users are served the "static page" (which, in any case, is updated every two minutes or so). Logged-in users get dynamically generated pages, that reflect all the latest database updates.
If you hadn't seen something, just say "I didn't see it". Or when you misunderstand something, just say "I didn't understand it". Don't dig yourself into a hole by building obvious straw-man arguments or trying come come up with "technical" justifications that are easily shown to be wrong.
Also, I'm not sure that claiming to have "owned" a "lame" thread carries the same weight here in Slashdot as it does, say, in your average Counter-Strike forum.
I reckon it's teachable. My Dad spent a lot of time pointing out the errors in peoples arguments and statements (esp of media and govt talking heads).
A lot of people thought he was grumpy and cantankerous, but he referred to himself as "accurate" ad I am inclined to agree. There's a lot to be said for having a contrarian in the house.
Just learn the basics of the Buddhism. =)