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'd question that assumption, too. It seems to me there are two "geeky" areas where the ability to have a skeptical viewpoint is important: debugging and security. Both require you to be able to think, not in terms of, "Well, let's see, will this work?" -- a perfectly natural perspective when you're trying to solve a problem -- but in terms of Murphy's Law: "How can this be made to fail?" I suspect anyone that's spent any significant amount of time with geeks knows that some are a lot better in these areas than others.
Is it even a teachable skill, or is it just an innate part of the geek personality?"
I think it's some of each. In some cases, at least, I think I've managed to teach a few people how to think more skeptically / critically. It's easier with people that have a basic grounding in some kind of scientific or mathematical discipline, I think because that tends to teach you that your intuition is not always a trustworthy guide. On the other hand, anyone committed to an ideology, whatever the flavour, is usually uneducable.
Well, I have evidence for the existence of God that's probably about on par with aliens that we haven't seen yet: Watch technology progress, especially the field of artificial intelligence and various simulations. What happens if we develop a simulation so intricate, inhabited with artificial beings so complex, that we couldn't easily tell the difference between our world and the simulation? Well? The person who made that simulation is like God, just like our life-forms are "like" extraterrestrials. Granted, it doesn't "prove" that God exists, but it does provide that data point that we can use to extrapolate the possibility of the existence of God.
I hear mostly staunch atheists promoting the idea that artificial intelligence will soon be developed (~50 years), but things like artificial intelligence and artificial worlds (things like Spore or World of Warcraft) are the most solid philosophical evidence yet of the existence of God, and the evidence will only get more convincing the more that such technology develops. What happens when there are more artificial entities living inside rich computer environments than there are fleshy entities? You would have to admit that you are most likely INSIDE such a world yourself! And, *gasp* someone PROGRAMMED the world you live in! OH! THE HORROR!
Since no one replied to this, it is rated as insightful, and the reasoning is so bad that I first suspected it to be satire; I am forced to respond.
Sir, your reasoning belies the idea that you are a critical or even rational thinker as you have expressed yourself here. Let me explain.
Given 1: You believe in God.
Quantify belief. Would you, if God so told you, go out right this minute and torture the first 100 men, women, and children to death? Would you walk off a 100 story building because God told you you would fly? If so, I question your ability to reason at all (and, indeed, your sanity). If not, I doubt your belief is more than tangential. In order to follow as you would press, your belief must actively defy logic, otherwise that belief is moot.
See... faith implies a force of will in absence of proof. It is a reciprocal value of logic. Faith treads where logic dare not go.
Your first statement fails elementary logic checks in that it cannot be proven or disproved. It can neither be true or false. It is therefore moot. It is similar to saying "I like the color red", but even more tenuous as the thing can't be defined. (You can't define belief in quantifiable terms or even fuzzy "like" or "dislike".)
Given 2: I am an excellent computer engineer, with dual degrees in computer engineering and computer science.
The unspoken assumption here is that a person with dual degrees in computer engineering and computer science makes you an excellent computer engineer. I disagree.
Dual degrees requires you to fork over huge sums of money to a university, show up for class, and do an average job. I have met a number of people with dual degrees in a number of fields that were idiots. I have also met a number of people that were smarter than me. Further, I have met some super computer engineers that were intuitive and creative; seemingly non-logical. Therefore the unspoken "given" does not follow.
We also are asked to accept as a given that you are an excellent computer engineer. I can't quantify that, but I also don't take it on faith that you are. You might be or you might suck. In the absence of any other knowledge that puts you at average. It is also moot in that (excellent computer engineer) != logical, as I have so stated.
Your second statement fails elementary logic checks.
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.
Statement 1: Earning dual degrees in computer engineering and computer science and working as a computer engineer require strong critical thinking and logical skills.
I disagree. I've seen people working as such that were complete idiots. (As under Given 2, as this is a restatement.) I've also seen the opposite. Therefore your assertion is invalid.
Statement 2: These degrees also require taking classes in logic and critical thinking. The unspoken assertion being that you are a logical and critical thinker because you took said classes. Without being snarky, I'll state the same thing: taking classes in something in no way means you are proficient in those tasks. I'll use at least half of the entire USA's English classes for the last 20 years as an example.
Both statements in Given 3 fail elementary logic checks.
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.
No, earning computer degrees and especially working in the engineering field do not _require_ logical and critical thinking skills. They are helpful, but there are people working there woefully lacking.
Given 3 is false.
I work in this field and have those degrees. Again, we are to take your wo
You seem to mistake me for the person to whom you originally replied.
My point was that the phrase didn't mean anything so spelt, that it is not normal to put "argumentum" before "non sequitur" in English, and the phrase didn't make much sense with a question mark attached to it so haphazardly. "Isn't that a non sequitur?" would have made more sense.