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?"

Comments

Re:Fail a lot?

[mimada]

Reminds me of a quote: Judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from poor judgment.

Pseudo-skeptics vs. skeptics

[Cutie Pi]

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.

It's not about teaching it.

[ScentCone]

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.

As a person in education...

[eepok]

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.

Re:Fail a lot?

[themoodykid]

The fact that someone has put together instructions on how to fail tells us that people nowadays are more apt to think than to do. In general, I agree that thinking things through is good, but for trivial things, people should just act. What this has to do with skepticism, I don't know, but analysis paralysis just bugs me (I do it a lot) and is a big reason why big orgs can't get anything done.

Re:Fail a lot?

[kanweg]

In the absence of any proof of a god and with 100% certainty that intelligent life developed once, it is only guessing that among the billions of galaxies it could have happened at least one more time. If I have to set a bet, I know where I'd put my money.

Bert

Since you brought up religion ...

[trolltalk.com]

I posted in this thread before it dissolved into a religious flamewar and all I got was this lousy T-shirt.

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.

Re:Since you brought up religion ...

[SanityInAnarchy]

Among other things, I observe some people dying for others when they don't have to (altruism).... I observe some real sacrificial love. Altruism may not be good for survival of the individual, but it is good for survival of the species. And Darwinism works at pretty much all levels -- if there were two groups of humanoids early on, and one was altruistic, while another wasn't, the altruistic group would've had a better chance of survival.

I observe some amazing changes of heart in people I interact with that would not be expected or predicted. I observe some insanity, also. For all we know, that's what it was -- a random fluke of insanity that took them in a good direction.

Or maybe it was building for some time now, and they only just now admitted to it.

I observe people like Martin Luther King, who believed in God and also achieved some real greatness by following where he thought God was leading. And I observe people like Charles Manson, who thought he was following where God was leading, too. Delusions don't necessarily have to have bad results -- and, conversely, just because something has a good result does not make it real.

This in fact is a fallacy; here's why. By its very nature the supernatural is "super" natural. If it were measurable, repeatable, therified and falsifiable, it would cease to be *super*natural and merely be a part of nature. I highly recommend reading David Hume -- even just his Wikipedia page. A favorite quote of mine: "When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened."

It's part of a larger argument that the world is, essentially, natural, and not supernatural. Having never directly experienced anything supernatural myself, I have no reason to assume that the supernatural exists -- and, in fact, it seems much more likely that any record I have of the supernatural (including, nay, especially the Bible) is faulty than to assume that there is something so beyond the physical laws that we could never hope to explain it.

Re:Since you brought up religion ...

[mdf356]

If the supernatural isn't any part of nature, how does the supernatural affect the natural world?

By analogy, let me suggest one way.

Remember Flatland? To a two-dimensional creature, a three-dimensional creature can do some amazing things. It doesn't know how and can't really conceive of it, but they were nevertheless possible.

Realize this is an analogy only; I can't claim to know how God affects the world, though I have some theories. But they're not *scientific* theories, they're really more like interesting philosophy exercises (how many angels can dance on the head of a pin; if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it did it make a sound).

Choose one, then we can tear that apart.

You are very convinced that you're right, clearly. I don't need you to believe in my god or any other god. But you don't seem like you'll be happy until you prove me (or others who believe as I do) wrong.

BTW: GodDidIt, is not an answer to the question "why" - it's still wishful thinking.

If you don't believe in God then of course God can't answer the why. In that case you're left with *no* answer to the why, which is fine if you like it. But thousands of years of philosophers tells me that some people at least want to speculate on the why.

Re:Since you brought up religion ...

[MindlessAutomata]

No. To have done the kind of work that earns a Nobel takes a lot of time and effort over many years. That kind of time spend on the science is incompatible with spending time with a family, because there's only 24 hours in the day for everyone.

And what does that have to do with religion? You snuck that little jab in there for a reason, why not follow through with it? Not only are you probably wrong (a lot of work over the years doesn't mean Nobel prize winning scientists don't spend time with their families...) but your little tangent on Nobel prize winning scientists not "having time" for... god and family is out of place and I wonder what your agenda really is.


You are clearly being not only argumentative, but dismissive (fantasy, magic, ghosts & goblins, and other unsubstantiated nonsense). Did I accidentally hit a sore spot of yours? Because for all that you (well, really the slashdot crowd in general) want to claim that you're rational, you don't argue very rationally sometimes about religion.

No, I'm very rational towards religion. I know you probably have ants in your pants being told your belief in a god is no more justified or special than a belief in unicorns or magical powers, but that's the way it goes when you believe in unsubstantiated things that have as much evidence going for them as fantasy creations.

Actually, we're not. I was specifically implying the religious folk who don't understand evolution. I do understand it, and I accept it as the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life that we see. If the state of Texas wants to try to "teach the controversy" or whatever mumbo-jumbo phrase the creationists are using lately, and someone else doesn't get to it first, my wife will sue their ass to keep it off the curriculum.


Good, but that doesn't change the fact that you also rely on non-scientific explanations and statements about the world, being god and, judging by what you say later, miracles and probably a host of other stuff. If you want to live in reality it's best for all of us that you keep your head there.

Ah, *probably* isn't there! You at least admit it's a possibility? That's some real progress!

OF COURSE it's possible. You think you win points for believing in something that's possible? Your lack of knowledge of philosophy shines here, because probably anything can be possible as human understanding is not and cannot be 100%.

This is exactly why god is in the same realm as big foot, unicorns, magic, the ether, the river Styx, and so on. These are all possible, sure you have to bend our current understanding of the world by adding in new statements and new assumptions to make them true (and thus new questions are raised, but strangely proponents of bullshit never seem intent on answering them honestly) but that doesn't stop people from thinking that because it's possible, it justifies belief in such a thing. Far from that fact.


I can't prove God exists to you or even to myself. You can't prove she doesn't. It's not really the same, but IIRC it's pretty unlikely we'll ever know what was on the far side of the Big Bang, either. That doesn't mean physicists haven't advanced hypotheses, and I'll wager some of them even *believe* that one or another of these hypotheses must be the right one... even without proof.

I never said "prove", it's a highly misleading word especially among the layman who has no understanding of reason and epistemology and thinks things can be "proven 100%" etc etc.

Regardless of what proof means, evidence is what is important. We have evidence that we are a single planet in the solar system orbiting a star with many other stars out there. Explanations that stars are holes in the sky don't fly anymore and for good reason. Is it possible, through some convoluted explanation, that they are merely holes in the firmament...? Of course. Anyone who thinks that is full of nonsense, however.

Scientists who believe without stro

Re:Fail a lot?

[smooth wombat]

I'm a fan of Carl Sagan, but I do find it kind of amusing that he would easily reject one idea that there is no evidence for (God), but so willingly embrace another idea for which there is no evidence (intelligent extraterrestrial life).

Why amusing? It's a perfectly logical, rational conclusion based on the available evidence. No one has ever provided any evidence or test to show that there is a supreme, omnipotent being watching over us. Nor has anyone ever provided any evidence to indicate how such a being could come into existence in the first place. The best anyone has ever offered is simply, "God/Vishnu/Chutulu/whatever has always existed." That is no evidence.

On the other hand, we have absolute, concrete evidence for what it takes for life to form. Granted, we have only a single data point, our planet, but using that as our reference, we can now search the cosmos for other bodies which exhibit similar conditions and explore them for signs of life, intelligent or otherwise. We can of course also listen for signs of intelligent life through radio waves or other sources. In other words, we are looking for evidence of other beings because we know that at least in one case, our planet, such beings exist and if intelligent life exists on this ball of rock, then there is a probability that life exists somewhere else under similar conditions.

This is where skepticism comes into play. If someone says "X product can do Y job better, and more cheaply, than a name brand product", they have to prove it. Until such time, people should remain skeptical of unsubstantiated claims. Why do you think the folks who produce supplements are so adamant about not having to prove the claims they make? They know that if subjected to scientific testing, their products would be shown not to do what the manufacturer claims.

The same thing occurs with Sagan's (and others) stances on religion and why ID is not a scientific principle. Those concepts do not stand up to scientific rigor. If you want to believe that there is a God (or Gods), then by all means, go ahead. But don't equate a belief in something for which there is zero evidence to support said belief with an idea for which evidence already exists.

I can prove that wrong (logically, of course)

[Crazy Taco]

Of course, critical thinking and logic are anathema to anyone who believes in god.

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.