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.)
Re:Fail a lot? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
(It was, of course, as a result of the Great Ventilation and Telephone Riots of SrDt 3454, that all mechanical or electrical or quantum-mechanical or hydraulic or even wind, steam or piston-driven devices, are now required to have a certain legend emblazoned on them somewhere. It doesn't matter how small the object is, the designers of the object have got to find a way of squeezing the legend in somewhere, because it is their attention which is being drawn to it rather than necessarily that of the user's.
The legend is this:
"The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair.")
Alas, that legend is too long to fit in a Slashdot tag.
Re:Fail a lot? (Score:5, Insightful)
-Otto von Bismarck
=Smidge=
Re:Fail a lot? (Score:5, Funny)
"Stupidity is often punishable by death. Sentecse is carried out immediately. There is no appeal."
That said- teach "Errors Course". Engineers of my generation heard a lot about errors, disasters, etc. caused by bad process, math, theory, materials. Who can forget the cheesy 8mm film of the Tacoma Narrows bridge failing ? Who can forget the Challenger exploding on takeoff, and the Columbia breaking up on re-entry ? And who isn't fascinated with the classic case of the "Unsinkable Titanic" sinking. On it's maiden voyage ?
Learning from mistakes is, as others have noted, often the best teacher.
Re:Fail a lot? (Score:4, Insightful)
Basically, in the long run, stupidity is causing the death of our civilization.
Re:Fail a lot? (Score:5, Informative)
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:Fail a lot? (Score:5, Funny)
Which is why I don't believe that invisible monsters could possibly make fresh tomatoes bad for you.
Um... hang on a second, I need to go visit the little boys room.
Re:Fail a lot? (Score:5, Funny)
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).
Re:Fail a lot? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bert
Re:Fail a lot? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Fail a lot? (Score:4, Insightful)
I figure for an omnipotent, omnipresent being, this is a fairly trivial task.
So far, none have taken me up on the offer, so I remain religion-neutral
Re:Fail a lot? (Score:4, Insightful)
Another good recent read was "God Is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens. He discusses briefly the idea that human credulity is a biological adaptation to help us benefit from the placebo effect. Credulous individuals are religious, superstitious and generally happier and healthier than us miserable skeptics.
Re:Fail a lot? (Score:4, Insightful)
I haven't read the book, so I can't really comment on it, but one must be careful with such a "see it to believe it" mentality. It can force people to restrict their thinking to "inside the box". This is why I say skepticism is just a starting point. Though we may be skeptical, we must not shut down, but continue to be open-minded, and allow for thinking outside the box. Because sometimes there really is a dragon in the garage.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fail a lot? (Score:4, Funny)
What do you recommend that I study now?
Re:Fail a lot? (Score:4, Funny)
I Seek Wisdom and Its Bastard Son, Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And a person in an authority role (as a teacher, parent, coach, etc) canesily help build this experience.
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
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.
Re:Fail a lot? (Randi's horoscope experiment) (Score:3, Interesting)
"... the Gods themselves..."
Don't Fail a lot - Learn from others (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Fail a lot? (Score:5, Funny)
Learn from that one!
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:And when are we being too critical? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow, that must have been ages ago. How old are you?
Now, be nice. He's not the only over-50
How old? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm 55. I went to elementary school in NYC and its northern suburbs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Science is in a weird position with respect to belief and questioning: it advances precisely because lots of people do research, that leads to wide-ranging theories, that other people use, so it is iterative and you necessarily rely on other people's work when you do yours. But at the same time, good science requires openness to change, that you be willing at any time to discard all the previous work. It requires filtering, so you can tell which pieces
Re:And when are we being too critical? (Score:4, Insightful)
A child saying "those look like they could fit together" is something any scientist would, and should, dismiss as an actual argument for the existence of tectonic plates.
When it turned out there was a massive volcanic conveyor belt discovered at the bottom of the ocean in between the two continents, with magnetic stripes from different periods of north/south flips, and an ever growing record of similar fossils on different parts of the world with more accurate dating techniques, etc, etc, and now there's something worth considering.
A scientist was right to doubt the existence of tectonic plates before based on your observation, and is right to believe in them now. The idea that people who change their mind should be shamed goes against the whole idea of science..
Also I don't know how a "science teacher", who has to teach you a fixed curriculum which you get tested on, counts as a scientist. Is this childhood experience what you're judging all scientists by?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There's nothing wrong with dismissing an idea when there's not enough evidence to support it.
[...]
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:5, Insightful)
Re:And when are we being too critical? (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is that it's perfectly correct to use the Earth as your reference point, so saying that the Earth is still and the Sun moves around it is perfectly correct. Obviously, it's a lot more practical (when dealing with the solar system) to use Sol as the reference point, but "less practical" doesn't mean "wrong".
What is wrong is to say that the other planets orbit the Earth (unless your definition of "orbit" covers some very weird relative trajectories). And that was the fundamental flaw in the geocentric theory (not the relationship between the Earth and Sun, which is compatible in both models). I'm always amazed by how many people (teachers included) fail to understand that.
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
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:5, Funny)
You could pull a few strings here and there as well.
"Hey I saw a meatball in that light socket, take this fork and get it.
I'll even give you half of it!"
Re:Fail a lot? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Fail a lot? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When a painter puts up a sign with 'wet paint' my experience tells me that I can probably trust it and choose not to test his claim.
I am a skeptic, I don't have blind faith. (I probably have some hidden pieces of superstition left, but have been very thoroughly getting rid of them)
But it is simply not practical to be skeptical about everything. At some point I need to be able to trust someone else....
e.g
It just comes naturally with experience (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It just comes naturally with experience (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No it's not, it's something you ahve to train your mind for. You need techniques that you apply to everything, including..or even especially, your acred cows.
Re:It just comes naturally with experience (Score:4, Funny)
I don't know if I necessarily agree with this...
P.S. What about my hectared cows?
The difficult part is defining "healthy dose". (Score:4, Insightful)
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".
Step 1 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Step 1 (Score:4, Insightful)
What you do is... (Score:4, Funny)
That'll teach em not to be so trusting!
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.
Re:Education from a young age (Score:5, Insightful)
In general, teach your children to think. Give them tools they can use later in life.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Education from a young age (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is probably one of the reasons no one wants to teach kids a healthy dose of skepticism--it's sort of depressing.
I'm certainly a skeptic in the sense described in this story, but skepticism is a tool, not my identity.
I learned by picking parents... (Score:3, Funny)
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.
It's teachable. Actually, it's even easy. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's teachable. Actually, it's even easy. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's terribly difficult to be a leader when you're following the opinion polls for all your decisions, for one thing. That's a big circle of people wanting the politician to do the thinking, and the politician wanting the people to do the thinking. Eventually we need to figure out that no thinking gets done that way, and only mimicry.
Clinton was renowned for following polls while in office. G.W. Bush likely also follows polls, but from his narrowly selected portion of the total US constituency. I'm not sure we've had someone in the office of President who actually did any leading since Eisenhower. Perhaps Kennedy or Reagan lead, but most modern holders of the office have been followers elected to lead.
Re:It's teachable. Actually, it's even easy. (Score:4, Insightful)
And ironically, this tin-foil-hat-style thinking is precisely the hallmark of someone who doesn't actually think skeptically...
Re:It's teachable. Actually, it's even easy. (Score:4, Funny)
I mean the one that's more popular (or at least, widely known), because so many people can relate to him.
Color me.. (Score:3, Funny)
I skeptical that such a skill can be taught.
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.
Teaching skepticism? (Score:3, Funny)
Teaching skepticism? I doubt it.
The Skeptical Environmentalist (Score:5, Interesting)
Keyword: *Healthy* (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the difference between "let's be careful before we dive into something new & shiny" and "Get off my lawn!"
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.
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)
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.
Science classes (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Science classes (Score:4, Interesting)
Pseudo-skeptics vs. skeptics (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
How could you get a job? (Score:5, Insightful)
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]
Skepticism is just a starting point (Score:5, Insightful)
As a person in education... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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".
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.
Teaching my kids Skepticism (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Science vs. Religion? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Skepticism is forbidden by the Christian right. (Score:3, Funny)
Don't even think of trying to teach logic or critical thinking to our children, you satanic commie traitor!
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.
need both skepticism & wonder (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Since you brought up religion ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, critical thinking and logic are anathema to anyone who believes in god.
Well, I'm going to pretend you didn't just insult me, because that's not conducive to a rational argument.
Just because some folks don't need or want spirituality doesn't prevent others from having it. There are plenty of scientists and engineers and even evolutionary biologists who believe in God. The ones earning a Nobel probably won't, party because there's a lot of things you can't do if you want a Nobel -- you won't have time for your family, and if you were the kind of person who puts family (or God) ahead of a career then you weren't going to do what it takes to get that Nobel Prize.
There's some very confused, vocal people that have made the issue rather annoying. My religion says nothing about the physical world, and my science says nothing about the supernatural.
Some people have no need for religion or spirituality. Some do. Some people have no need to understand the science behind the things around them. Some do. They're orthogonal issues.
Flame on.
Re:Since you brought up religion ... (Score:4, Insightful)
What is this nonsense? Trying to equate loving your family with loving a nebulously defined "thing"? And then trying to use it to bash people that got a Nobel prize...? Jealous much?
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.
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.
We're not talking about the Phelps crew. We're actually talking about you and others like you.
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.
I pity you, because you must have a really bad life to need to escape from reality and invent things that probably aren't there.
Ah, *probably* isn't there! You at least admit it's a possibility? That's some real progress!
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.
Among other things, I observe some people dying for others when they don't have to (altruism). I observe some amazing changes of heart in people I interact with that would not be expected or predicted. I observe some real sacrificial love. 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.
But I suppose MLK was also a quack who needed to escape reality? Mahatma Ghandi was just confused?
but unless you can show that they are a reality
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.
Perhaps someday we can figure out why (or if) prayer works -- is it quantum mechanics? What if it turned out that thinking positive thoughts about someone affected their life even if you never told them or interacted with them? (That's spooky action at a distance.
There's plenty of things under the sun that aren't yet known. And in the end, no matter how much science explains of *how* things are done (gravity makes things fall, not angels; evolution created man, not God in 6 days), it will never explain *why*. Maybe there isn't a why, but *if* there is, science will never find it. It's not a question science is equipped to ask. So instead we have philosophers and religions to attempt an explanation of why.
Have a great day! Try not to get too mad because we disagree. I mean, I know someone (in your opinion, me) on the internet is *wrong*, but hey, it's just electrons. I don't want or need to convince you God is real, I just would like a little less reactionary hatred towards those who believe in God. Not all of us are also anti-science nuts.
Re:Since you brought up religion ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Since you brought up religion ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe it was building for some time now, and they only just now admitted to it.
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 ... (Score:5, Insightful)
But have you actually had a supernatural experience of your own? If not, your argument is hypothetical and devil's advocate, and mine is based on experience.
By the way, a primary argument of GP was that the supernatural cannot, by definition, have natural evidence. So whenever we find natural evidence to explain a very weird phenomenon, it ceases to be supernatural, and becomes natural.
We have thinking machines that we're using to communicate over vast distances, using the same energy that powers lightning. It sounds very supernatural, but it's actually very natural.
Hume's argument is that for any given supernatural event, it either is not real, or it can be explained naturally -- even if we ultimately have to discover new natural laws to apply to it.
Your entire argument seems to be a wishy-washy Agnostic "Well, maybe it could be true!" That applies to anything. If belief in God is critical thinking, I don't know what isn't.
Which is not to say that people aren't capable of both. As has been pointed out elsewhere, many great scientists were religious.
Of course your answer may be different than mine -- maybe you've seen angels, and maybe you have considerable reason to believe that you were sane and conscious at the time.
But the vast majority of us have not seen angels, or anything else truly supernatural. The vast majority of us should, therefore, be atheist by default, if we wish to believe what is actually true.
Re:Since you brought up religion ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Since you brought up religion ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fine, come up with definitions for "love", "art", and "beauty" that EVERYONE can agree with and we'll talk. Spirituality has a different meaning for each of us, and I reserve the right to remind both theists and non-theists of this at any time. Just 'cause you don't agree with my take on it, or I with you, doesn't mean either of us needs to be insulting.
I can prove that wrong (logically, of course) (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I can prove that wrong (logically, of course) (Score:5, Funny)
Thank you!!
-an atheist
Re:I can prove that wrong (logically, of course) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I can prove that wrong (logically, of course) (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, a person may be a brilliant mathematician, engineer, or computer scientist, and able to reason through complex logic structures present in those fields. However, when it comes to personal relationships, they may repeatedly enter into abusive situations (domestic violence, alcoholism, drug abuse, etc.), with an emotional need for acceptance outweighing the sensibility to avoid such encounters. They may even reason through those situations, attempting to create a logical basis that things are not as bad as they may be. However, it can still be argued that they are making irrational decisions lacking critical judgment.
Essentially, intelligent people come up with intelligent reasons to believe in irrational things. Again, not citing religion specifically, but I believe that while the grandparent's idea that religion and logic can't co-exist is incorrect, I believe the assumption of logic and critical thinking in all areas of one's life based on logic and critical thinking in one area of a person's life is also a flawed argument.
Re:Is this really... (Score:5, Insightful)
In brief, people can think "This may not work", "This probably won't work", or "This will never work" before they have any evidence.
The skeptic will go with the evidence more readily. The cynic will be biased towards the negative, but can be convinced by the evidence. The pessimist will be surprised at success even when success should have been expected.
Of course, there are optimists to the other side of skeptics on that list. They'll favor success until the evidence proves them wrong, but will favor success the next time.
Then there are "true believers" on either end who either will be convinced of failure or convinced of success even after the outcome is clear to everyone else. They'll twist the evidence and the logic to their conclusion before they allow their conclusion to change with the evidence and logic.