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?"
Fail a lot? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.)
It just comes naturally with experience (Score:5, Interesting)
Education from a young age (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Probably teachable... (Score:5, Interesting)
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/ [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.
The Skeptical Environmentalist (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe it's just not human nature? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:It just comes naturally with experience (Score:5, Interesting)
Build something (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
It's a natural biproduct of critical thinking (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course I am a graduate of The Evergreen State College which has no grade system so apply salt liberally.
Read books on it (Score:5, Interesting)
Science classes (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Fail a lot? (Score:5, Interesting)
And so it goes to smell, touch, heat from breath, all these things are what you rely on to detect the dragon. But I have convenient mechanisms implemented to thwart your attempts at detecting my dragon.
This leads to a great quote:
But I digress on religion, it applies to so much more than that. This book did instill an advanced "see it to believe it" mentality on me and I thank Sagan for that. What's even more shocking is how much I remember of the book since I read it when it came out around 1998.
Really though, I'd just teach people to question everything internally. Be smart about it and seek more information or data if there's any doubt. And really question those who get upset when you question them.
Re:Science classes (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Fail a lot? (Score:3, Interesting)
You can do your part by lying to them, by making promises and not delivering, by deliberately teaching them falshoods and then laughing when they fail their exams... the possibilities are endless.
Seriously, though. What worked in my family 30 years ago probably works today. Tell the kids increasingly ridiculous bullshit until they figure out it's bullshit. Pretty soon they'll doubt any "fact" you tell them. Pretty soon, they apply it to any "fact" anyone tells them.
Re:Fail a lot? (Score:5, Interesting)
James Randi has a very easy and entertaining experiment that he often uses on high school and college classes. He asks every student to provide their name and birthday, and in turn promises a personalized horoscope for each of them. A couple of days later, he shows up and passes out the horoscopes. Each student reads his/her horoscope, then Randi asks for a show of hands for the people who feel that their horoscope is very accurate. Typically an overwhelming majority of students raise their hands. Then Randi asks each student to switch horoscopes with the person next to them, and of course the horoscopes are all identical.
The first step to skepticism is to show people how easily they can fool themselves by wishful thinking. Randi's experiment (or something similar) would be a great lesson for students.
Teaching to question (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Use an issue which was big once but now forgotten. (Score:5, Interesting)
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".
Re:Fail a lot? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know. What's the difference between a universe full of other races that we've never heard from and a universe inhabited solely by us.
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).
My wife says... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a work-Life balance thing that we often need to spend more effort on than people in other disciplines.
And when are we being too critical? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Is this really... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And when are we being too critical? (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow, that must have been ages ago. How old are you?
Now, be nice. He's not the only over-50
Re:Fail a lot? (Randi's horoscope experiment) (Score:3, Interesting)
"... the Gods themselves..."
Re:Education from a young age (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And when are we being too critical? (Score:2, Interesting)
He's probably one of those religious or alternative medicine buggers, or worse, a crank.
Re:And when are we being too critical? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:It just comes naturally with experience (Score:1, Interesting)
RIP to all the people who gave their lives to that amazing effort.
Re:And when are we being too critical? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
You obviously don't know too many scientists, this sounds like you've been accepting ID propaganda without skepticism. Scientific careers are made by finding problems with other scientists ideas, that is how you make your name in science. The idea that scientists march in lock-step and ignore new alternative explanations is completely laughable. Individual scientists may do that, but scientists as a group do not. Sour-grapes from the ID proponents because their claims are scientifically unconvincing do not make a worthy "alternative explanation". The design-as-alternative-to-evolution debate came and went over 100 years ago and nothing new has been added since then, get over it. Similarly, the debate over the germ theory of disease ended a long time ago too, but no one in their right mind would expect modern scientists to countenance crackpots who would argue it is invalid based on demonologic apologetics.
Re:Fail a lot? (Score:3, Interesting)
At the beginning of the next week when we came in he essentially said, "Tear out all of last weeks notes, and throw them away. If you all want to learn science you can never blindly accept what anyone tells you. Think it through and don't be stupid about it. Test for yourself if you don't believe someone!"
My 7th grade science teacher (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Read books on it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Since you brought up religion ... (Score:3, Interesting)
What should my church say about the physical world? My priest isn't a scientist, he's a priest.
I believe God created the heavens and the earth. I don't know how, though the observations indicate he knows a lot about chaos theory and there was some kind of big bang at the beginning. Where that initial matter came from that exploded (or I guess really just expanded), I don't know (but neither, yet, do physicists).
I believe that God wants me to do certain things (love others, charity, compassion, forgiveness), and not do other things (hatred, spitefulness). I think these are rather universal to the organized religion (mine and other Christian denominations).
But as for whether I should vote Democrat, Republican, independent, Libertarian, Green Party or should eschew politics, the religion is silent. If my priest told me who I should vote for (as seemed to happen at some churches in 2000 and 2004), or denied me communion because of my political affiliation or voting record (as happens at some Catholic churches) I would leave it, and hope that I could find some place to be in community with folk who share some of the same ideas about God that I have.
Religion in Science (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Since you brought up religion ... (Score:1, Interesting)
When you say you believe in something, you should be able to explain what it is you believe in, whether it be atoms, Pamela Anderson, komodo dragons, gravity, or dark matter; when people say they believe in "god", nobody really knows what "god" is supposed to be. Maybe throw in meaningless terms like "omniscient" and "omnipotent", without justification (of course), or some such, but that doesn't take us very far.
The most charitable I can be is "mysterious cosmic intelligence" and of course to believe in such a thing stretches way past any benchmark for reasonable, justified belief.
One Instance (Score:1, Interesting)
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
Re:Since you brought up religion ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, it is hard to define many things especially since you cannot really describe one emotion or sensation in terms of another emotion or sensation. A lot of philosophy is trying to pin down a good definition--and a lot of philosophy is also carefully defining what you mean so it is understand what exactly you are arguing for. Saying you believe in "God" tells me almost nothing because I don't know what "God" is supposed to be. When someone says "love", "beauty", or "art", however, I do have an idea of what they are talking about.
Notice that "love", "beauty", and "art" are heavily subjective things, while "god" is not--god is supposed to be some sort of objective entity. Thus "god" needs to be defined so a discussion can be had on it. Maybe someone has an "internal" god of sorts but that's not what we're talking about and you'd be guilty of equivocation if you tried to bring such meanings into the discussion.
Re:Since you brought up religion ... (Score:3, Interesting)