How To Teach a Healthy Dose of Skepticism? 880
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?"
Step 1 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Fail a lot? (Score:5, Informative)
Carl Sagan (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Learn from these guys, The Skeptics Guide (Score:1, Informative)
Bob
Re:Step 1 (Score:1, Informative)
Here be Dragons - video on critical thinking (Score:5, Informative)
[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/ [badastronomy.com]
MOD UP! (Score:2, Informative)
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 [herebedragonsmovie.com]
it's all about the sources (Score:3, Informative)
Spend sometime understanding the argumentative process and teach / learn how to identify bad arguments. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ [slashdot.org]
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.
Re:And when are we being too critical? (Score:3, Informative)
[...]
A scientist was right to doubt the existence of tectonic plates before based on your observation, and is right to believe in them now.
But his science teacher didn't just doubt their existence, he dismissed the idea out of hand because it didn't conform with prevailing dogma. That doesn't have anything to do with science. A hypothesis that can be neither proven or disproven by existing evidence should not be considered false; it should be considered an unknown, meriting further research.
Re:And when are we being too critical? (Score:3, Informative)
Don't confuse scientists with science teachers. Science teachers generally stop their science training before getting beyond the repeating stuff from textbooks phase, so they have never been scientists in any real sense. Science training in schools is pretty limited in that regard, you will learn a lot of scientific facts, but you never do an experiement where you don't already know the answer.
Also in my experience scientists are often criticised for not holding their opinions firmly enough.
Re:Fail a lot? (Score:3, Informative)
I have to admit, I was leaning already, but this book is really the best call to arms to Agnostics, to become full-fledged Atheists, that I have read so far. He does things like establish why all God theories are either statistically improbable in the absurd, or just useless circular logic. He establishes why other far-fetched theories, like intelligent life in other parts of the Universe, are statistically probable, especially in comparison. Even if you don't like the way he writes, it's full of references to other great books, writers, and ideas -- he liberally references other great writers like Douglas Adams and Carl Sagan. In general, Richard Dawkins offers a unique and interesting view of history, and the bibliography makes a great reading list, no matter which way your religious leanings sway.
Re:Fail a lot? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Since you brought up religion ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Since you brought up religion ... (Score:2, Informative)
If the supernatural isn't any part of nature, how does the supernatural affect the natural world?
It can't unless it extends into reality.
If it extends into reality, it can be measured, hypothesized about and falsified.
So which is it? Outside or reality or part of it?
Choose one, then we can tear that apart.
BTW: GodDidIt, is not an answer to the question "why" - it's still wishful thinking.
Re:Since you brought up religion ... (Score:3, Informative)
Who are you arguing with? Because it's not me. As I said in another comment, I think evolution is the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life we see. I don't think it's a sin to be gay if you're gay.
You're attacking someone else's religion. As I said above, it's frustrating to me that, because of some vocal idiots, there's a lot of people that think that, because I believe in God, I must therefore also believe all these other things that are ridiculous.
I only believe *one* ridiculous thing.
How old? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm 55. I went to elementary school in NYC and its northern suburbs.