Best way to introduce Critical Thinking and Skepticism

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

There is a general tone of sarcasm and superiority around skeptic circles. Any believer is automatically attacked and ridiculized. Why on earth do we expect them to face facts when they are diminished in such a punitive way? Are we nuts?

If anything, this kind of behaviour only repels them. IMO, is the best way to force them to create "emotional barriers" against skeptisism.

How can we expect them to fall in love with Critical Thinking when they are catalogued as retarded because they cant see what we want them to see?

We should know better: Eating our own egos is one of the hardest things to do, no matter what we believe in. Just watch around, that will not happen.

What if, instead of all this, skeptics learned to be polite and to express only facts or logical arguments without insulting any believer (well, maybe just confronting hardcore ones that behaves in the same obnoxious way that some skeptics ;) )

What if we push gently instead of ramming against every "poor intelect" that we find arround? :p (btw, I think we all have found some very intelligent individuals who are believers and some very stupid ones that are "skeptics").

[crimresearch]

When was the last time you saw a bunch of skeptics dragging a believer behind a pickup truck, or tying one to a barb wire fence?

A review of human nature supports the idea that violence and attcking others for being different is born of ignorance first.

And in that light, comments about skeptics attacking others with sarcasm is a bit like complaining that all the girls who are dragged into an alley, persist in attacking with pepper spray.

[John Bentley]

Originally posted by crimresearch
When was the last time you saw a bunch of skeptics dragging a believer behind a pickup truck, or tying one to a barb wire fence?

A review of human nature supports the idea that violence and attcking others for being different is born of ignorance first.

And in that light, comments about skeptics attacking others with sarcasm is a bit like complaining that all the girls who are dragged into an alley, persist in attacking with pepper spray.

Your analogy is flawed, I suspect. Obviously, one should retaliate vigorously when physically endangered. The same is not true when trying to persuade people to your point of view.

Bodhi Dharma Zen, the motives behind the conversation should always be kept in mind. I have come to realize that those who attack with sarcasm, from either side, are merely trying to bolster their own feelings of superiority. On the other hand, those who truly wish to influence others are seldom confrontational or sarcastic.

An appropriate aphorism: It's easier to catch flies with honey than with vinegar.

[SwissSkeptic]

Originally posted by John Bentley
It's easier to catch flies with honey than with vinegar.

It's even much easier to catch them with a bunch of sh*t. :D

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by John Bentley
I have come to realize that those who attack with sarcasm, from either side, are merely trying to bolster their own feelings of superiority. On the other hand, those who truly wish to influence others are seldom confrontational or sarcastic.

Oh yes, the so called superiority complex. We humans are so predictable at times. Still, I think it is important than people, in general learn critical thinking. I wonder, for example, compared to 100 years ago, if the number of religion believers vs skeptics have changed (relatively of course). I dont see that, in general, skeptisism is changing anything. Most people will still believe anything because someone else (some kind of authority) says it, without examining things, without seeing in deep what is really going on.

To a point, I think that the attitude of some skeptics contribute to the "oscurantism" we live in. I like better the attitude of Sagan, showing the wonders of science, making it funny and mysterious and a joy to learn.

[Giambattista]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Oh yes, the so called superiority complex. We humans are so predictable at times. Still, I think it is important than people, in general learn critical thinking.

Sure it's important to anyone who wishes to be superior, since critical thinking is superior. To debase the superiority of critical thinking and those who choose to use it is to wallow in what Nietzsche shrewdly recognized and coined as "slave morality".

Critical thinking should be flaunted, not preached.

[Darat]

"Best way to introduce Critical Thinking..."?

TV advertisements!

People seem to be "sceptical" of them to anyway and I've found some of the recent adverts for skin creams etc. incredibly effective at getting people to use critical thinking.

Point out the use of the "big" statistic that they flash on the scream e.g. "72% of woman claimed a reduction in fine lines", laugh and joke and deconstruct it e.g. "So that means 28% didn’t even claim to see an effect..., why do they say "claimed"... what's the sample size? Oh look there's an asterisk next to the 72% and at the bottom of the screen the bit you need glasses and a photographic memory to read what did it say? Hmm.. "out of a self surveyed sample of 43 woman", so they only tested on 43 women did they, yet they'll spend millions on the commercial... or perhaps only that one test showed anything like a "72% claimed improvement".... and so on

It introduces critical thinking in a non-controversial area and then when discussing a more "controversial" area you can use it as an example that you both understand and had a laugh at to try and get them to examine some of their assumptions and conclusions.

[athon]

Originally posted by Darat
" "So that means 28% didn’t even claim to see an effect..., why do they say "claimed"... what's the sample size?

I was thinking this with a survey I saw in the Metro (oh grand piece of journalism that is!). It said something about 'more than 1 in 10' doctors supporting a given statement...and I had to laugh. My immediate thought was that 90% of doctors thought is was crap, then.

Are people that gullible?

Athon

[Darat]

Originally posted by athon
I was thinking this with a survey I saw in the Metro (oh grand piece of journalism that is!). It said something about 'more than 1 in 10' doctors supporting a given statement...and I had to laugh. My immediate thought was that 90% of doctors thought is was crap, then.

Are people that gullible?

Athon

I don't know if the right word is "gullible"; I think it is more a lack of engaging critical faculties. It's easy to forget that most of us are lazy and since thinking requires effort we tend to avoid it unless we feel we have to! I bet when most people saw the survey "1 in 10 doctors agree..." it went in as as "some doctors agree".

I think things like the adverts I mentioned and the survey are just great tools to get people to realise that critical thinking isn't really about the paranormal and so on but just about helping yourself. Once you acquire the habit of “critical thinking� (or just thinking!) it becomes second nature, just like any other exercise but its trying to enage people in the first place that is difficult.

I wonder if you showed the survey to a classroom of kids and asked them "What does this tell you?" how many and how quickly the realisation that although it used the word "agree" it is in fact telling them that the vast majority of Doctor's disagree?


(Edited for words.)

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by John Bentley
Your analogy is flawed, I suspect. Obviously, one should retaliate vigorously when physically endangered. The same is not true when trying to persuade people to your point of view.

Bodhi Dharma Zen, the motives behind the conversation should always be kept in mind. I have come to realize that those who attack with sarcasm, from either side, are merely trying to bolster their own feelings of superiority. On the other hand, those who truly wish to influence others are seldom confrontational or sarcastic.

An appropriate aphorism: It's easier to catch flies with honey than with vinegar.

You may want to re-read the first part of my post about lynchings, before placing 'physical danger', and 'points of view' into two such separate categories.

The thread in Forum Community about an apology from Randi covers much the same ground.
Enablers are not doing anyone a favor, no matter how they attempt to portray themselves as kind and gentle, and those who would burst a believer's bubble as mean spirited.

It is neither correct, nor any particular 'realization', to assign moral characteristics, or pop psychology diagnoses to the users of sarcasm...sarcasm is sharp, and can be used for a variety of reasons, good or bad.

[ReFLeX]

The latest social psychology says that the best way to change people's attitudes is to have them believe they themselves were the ones who decided to change. I'm not sure how this could be helpful to skeptics for convincing people, but this does explain why arguing Against irrational people is so ineffective. They have to decide to think critically and reasonably on their own. Generally it will take something other than people arguing with them to make them come to their senses.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Thats right ReFLeX, and seeing that ID or other beliefs are gaining strenght instead of going away, I wonder if this would not be the right time to implement some "atractive way" to become a Critical Thinker?

A Darker Age is not unthinkable, specially when bush talks about "the forces of good and evil", ID is compared to evolution and muslims wants to destroy "infidels".

I think this is rather urgent.

[joesixpack]

The latest social psychology says that the best way to change people's attitudes is to have them believe they themselves were the ones who decided to change. That's not just the "latest", here's a couple of good quotes from Francis Bacon (Mmmmm....Bacon..) form his essay "On Cunning"

"There is a cunning which we in England call “the turning of the cat in the pan;� which is, when that which a man says to another, he lays it as if another had said it to him."

and;

"It is a good point of cunning for a man to shape the answer he would have in his own words and propositions, for it makes the other party stick the less."

Getting non-critical thinkers to change the way they think requires a bit of salesmanship. I don't see that as a bad thing.

[T'ai Chi]

The best way to introduce Critical Thinking and Skepticism?

I'd say by encouraging people to study science.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
The best way to introduce Critical Thinking and Skepticism?

I'd say by encouraging people to study science.

That's not easy for a soccer mom.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
That's not easy for a soccer mom.

The mom, or anyone, can do many things! She can read about science in books or the internet, read the science section of the newspaper, subscribe to some science magazines, watch some respectable television programs on science, rent videos, see what their kids are studying in their science classes, perhaps take a college class or a class through a recreation center on the weekend, find some stargazing or nature or gardening group in their area, attend science days at libraries, go to museaums, etc. There are many other things too, but these just come to mind.

But who knows how "easy" is defined in Claus-Land. After all, you are the same person who defined "good living" as making at least $11,000 per day in another thread.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
The mom, or anyone, can do many things! She can read about science in books

Which ones should she buy? Barnes & Noble carry pseudoscience in their science section. Schwartz? Chopra? Radin? Don't make me laugh.

Originally posted by jzs
or the internet

Which sites should she visit? The PEAR site? Or www.skepticalinvestigations.org? No, let me guess: Victor Zammit?

Originally posted by jzs
read the science section of the newspaper

What "science section" of the newspaper? Science is hardly something that you see in all that many newspapers.

Originally posted by jzs
subscribe to some science magazines

Which ones? Shift Magazine from IONS? Hey, it says "science" on the cover...

Originally posted by jzs
watch some respectable television programs on science

How does she tell whether it is "respectable" or not? Discovery often shows crap, you know. Even PBS does it.

Originally posted by jzs
rent videos

What videos? Blockbuster's "Science & Technology" is shock-full of pseudoscientific crap, e.g. "America's Most Haunted Town", "UFO and Paranormal Phenomena: Encounters of the Fifth Kind", "UFO and Paranormal Phenomena: Message from Another Dimension", "UFOs & Area 51: Secrets of the Black World", "UFOs: The Secret Evidence", and "Mysterious Forces Beyond: We Are Not Alone" (about hauntings, vampires and alien abductions). To pick a few.

How should soccermom know that this is not science? Or perhaps you argue that it is?

Originally posted by jzs
see what their kids are studying in their science classes

And in some places, soccermom will see Creationism and think that is science.

Originally posted by jzs
perhaps take a college class or a class through a recreation center on the weekend

I said "soccermom", Justin. They don't have time for that.

Originally posted by jzs
find some stargazing

In a big city?

Originally posted by jzs
or nature

In a big city? Takes time and money to get out of there.

Originally posted by jzs
or gardening group in their area

Gardening? :eek:

Originally posted by jzs
attend science days at libraries

If they have them.

Originally posted by jzs
go to museaums, etc.

Like Dr. Dino's?

Originally posted by jzs
There are many other things too, but these just come to mind.

Yeah. But do you see the problem? It's not just the resources, it's how soccermom distinguishes between them.

[athon]

Two things:

One, as we all know, science is not a fact-sheet, a newspaper article or a piece of trivia on the latest space flight. It is a methodology for determining which speculative model is most likely to be true based on evidence. Your question should not be about getting people to enjoy science, but encouraging people to ask questions we take for granted.

Two, this is not a simple 'lead a horse to water and throw it in' fix. Learning how to think critically is easy if you have the right foundations, namely a security in your choice-making mechanisms. For most people this is close to impossible. It is so ingrained, so reliant on a lifetime of practice, and so based on innate logic (which is flawed but damn useful in a lion-eat-man-eat-berry existence) that changing it is not a simple act of gentle encouragement.

Where does this leave us? Small steps, that's what. Using what we know of sociology, pedagogy and cognitive psychology to gently turn the numbers through all manner of small changes. Government policies, media ratings, public awareness and above everything else changes to education systems.

We will never (IMHO) have everybody on the planet thinking critically. And...dare I say...maybe that's a good thing (topic of another discussion maybe). But it is a numbers game, and one day it will be more acceptable to wonder why we believe certain things, or even question the merits of a given statement made in the media.

I do live in hope.

Athon

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Which ones should she buy?


You are asking me what books a hypothetical person should buy? It depends on the person, Claus.


I said "soccermom", Justin. They don't have time for that.


I guess in your example you can make up any details you like, just like your 'can't get water any source except from James..oh, and it doesn't rain!!', or whatever, example. You won't tell me, in advance, all the things 'soccermom' can or cannot do, of course, so you'll just keep changing the story as you go.

You haven't even defined what you mean by "soccermom".

Please, show us your calculations of how much time they have.


In a big city?


Sure. You'll find them even in the largest cities, in Seoul, in Tokyo, and others.


Takes time and money to get out of there.


Everything takes time and money.


Gardening? :eek:


Yes. There are a lot of things you can learn that are science related with gardening: plant pathology, botany, identification, agriculture, taxonomy, biology, ecology, insects, things like carbon and other cycles, photosynthesis, and experimental design, etc.


It's not just the resources, it's how soccermom distinguishes between them.

We all face that issue. I'm sure, as a "Skeptic", you know to correctly distinguish, while the rest of us mortals are deluded.

Some suggsetions is that she could write a university dept., a known expert within an area, the Museum of Natural History or another respected source, the kid's teachers, the references section of a science textbook, known respected scientific organizations (AAAS, or NSF, for example), and so on.

[CFLarsen]

Justin,

Whatever.

If you want to make this into a personal war, go ahead. Don't expect me to participate, though.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Justin,

Whatever.

If you want to make this into a personal war, go ahead. Don't expect me to participate, though.

Claus, whatever.

I just pointed out that probably the best way, in my opinion, to learn critical thinking is to learn science. You avoided all my questions about your hypothetical 'soccermom'. I wonder why?

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
There is a general tone of sarcasm and superiority around skeptic circles. Any believer is automatically attacked and ridiculized. Why on earth do we expect them to face facts when they are diminished in such a punitive way? Are we nuts?

It's what one writer calls "the delicious opportunity to be right." And the exercise of that opportunity often turns people into opponents rather than co-actors.

If anything, this kind of behaviour only repels them. IMO, is the best way to force them to create "emotional barriers" against skeptisism.

How can we expect them to fall in love with Critical Thinking when they are catalogued as retarded because they cant see what we want them to see?

Because too many skeptics would rather flaunt being right, than do what it takes to be effective.

We should know better: Eating our own egos is one of the hardest things to do, no matter what we believe in. Just watch around, that will not happen.

Watch out, don't use the "ego" concept -- or you'll be branded a pseudo-science purveyor. Some skeptics have labotomized their ability to be persuasive by dismissing mental states and emotional states as unimportant or nonexistent. They reject psychological concepts that are "pseudo-scientific" in favor of ones which are entirely naive and often simply wrong.

What if, instead of all this, skeptics learned to be polite and to express only facts or logical arguments without insulting any believer (well, maybe just confronting hardcore ones that behaves in the same obnoxious way that some skeptics ;) )

What if we push gently instead of ramming against every "poor intelect" that we find arround? :p (btw, I think we all have found some very intelligent individuals who are believers and some very stupid ones that are "skeptics").

I agree. Please provide an example of how this can work (pushing gently, making them think it was their idea, etc.)

What is more likely to work: "Us vs. Them"; or "We"?

What grassroots effort(s) could sway society in a more skeptical direction? What aspects of skepticism are, or could be adapted, to be highly attractive to society?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
I agree. Please provide an example of how this can work (pushing gently, making them think it was their idea, etc.)

What is more likely to work: "Us vs. Them"; or "We"?

What grassroots effort(s) could sway society in a more skeptical direction? What aspects of skepticism are, or could be adapted, to be highly attractive to society?

Well, here in the forum at least, we can be a bit more tolerant with the insistence of some individuals to believe after all the evidence was presented. Being a gentleman never hurts.

Regarding the "big" question. I do think Critical Thinking needs a mass media campaign. It is important.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Well, here in the forum at least, we can be a bit more tolerant with the insistence of some individuals to believe after all the evidence was presented. Being a gentleman never hurts.

Regarding the "big" question. I do think Critical Thinking needs a mass media campaign. It is important.

Well. What are the benefits of being skeptical, of being a critical thinker? What are you selling society? What will it cost them?

[brachet]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
Well. What are the benefits of being skeptical, of being a critical thinker? What are you selling society? What will it cost them?

Wouldn't one assume that the benefit of being critical about what one accepts as valid information is that you actually get to think about something, instead of just lapping up whatever someone happens to give you regardless of whether it makes sense?

[T'ai Chi]

Basically getting educated as much as as possible in science.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
There is a general tone of sarcasm and superiority around skeptic circles. Any believer is automatically attacked and ridiculized. Why on earth do we expect them to face facts when they are diminished in such a punitive way? Are we nuts?

If anything, this kind of behaviour only repels them. IMO, is the best way to force them to create "emotional barriers" against skeptisism.

How can we expect them to fall in love with Critical Thinking when they are catalogued as retarded because they cant see what we want them to see?

We should know better: Eating our own egos is one of the hardest things to do, no matter what we believe in. Just watch around, that will not happen.

What if, instead of all this, skeptics learned to be polite and to express only facts or logical arguments without insulting any believer (well, maybe just confronting hardcore ones that behaves in the same obnoxious way that some skeptics ;) )

What if we push gently instead of ramming against every "poor intelect" that we find arround? :p (btw, I think we all have found some very intelligent individuals who are believers and some very stupid ones that are "skeptics"). I agree with your post. This is a point that I have been trying to make for some time. I think my journey from a believer would have been much shorter if I didn't feel that my beliefs were attacked.

An important note: Believers are very contemptuous of atheists. Believers advance incorrect ideas and notions about atheists. The job is already hard to begin with and I understand that atheists are also backed into a corner. I think Ghandi and MLK were successful in part because reasonable people could see a difference between them and there opponents who hated them. Let's be different.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by brachet
Wouldn't one assume that the benefit of being critical about what one accepts as valid information is that you actually get to think about something, instead of just lapping up whatever someone happens to give you regardless of whether it makes sense?

In sales, there is a difference between a feature and a benefit. A feature is something about the product (which may or may not be useful to some people), a benefit is what you do with that feature and what that use results in. You've described a feature, what is the benefit?


]Originally posted by jzs
[B]Basically getting educated as much as as possible in science.

Again, this is a feature, what is the benefit (that can be "sold")?

[brachet]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
In sales, there is a difference between a feature and a benefit. A feature is something about the product (which may or may not be useful to some people), a benefit is what you do with that feature and what that use results in. You've described a feature, what is the benefit?




Again, this is a feature, what is the benefit (that can be "sold")?

I benefit from using this feature by not getting rooked as often as I could be (being sold on invisible friends, talking to dead people, freaky stereo add ons, etc).

[Jyera]

I thought one of the best way to teach is through songs.
Especially youngsters.

Can anyone point to me a Song about Critical thinking or scepticism?

Or Songs and dance about logical reasoning.
Or Songs about asking questions.
Or perhaps a simple poem about critical thinking, worth the while to be the lyric of a song.

I'm surprised that the JREF Store doesn't have any.

Imagine the impact of a catchy (and polite) song about "critical thinking" hitting the charts, and being played in your average pub/nightclub.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by brachet
I benefit from using this feature by not getting rooked as often as I could be (being sold on invisible friends, talking to dead people, freaky stereo add ons, etc).

OK, you've phrased that as an avoidance of something negative. So how would you show this avoidance in an attractive way to someone else? In other words, what examples or stories could you talk about to someone you want to persuade about the avoidance of being "rooked"?

Is there also something positive you are moving toward, not phrased as avoidance of a negative?

[brachet]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
OK, you've phrased that as an avoidance of something negative. So how would you show this avoidance in an attractive way to someone else? In other words, what examples or stories could you talk about to someone you want to persuade about the avoidance of being "rooked"?

Is there also something positive you are moving toward, not phrased as avoidance of a negative?

If I were trying to sell someone something, I'd probably just phrase it differently. I'm sure it isn't too difficult. Give me a scenario, and I can show you what I mean. I'm not so good at the scenarios, myself.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by brachet
If I were trying to sell someone something, I'd probably just phrase it differently. I'm sure it isn't too difficult. Give me a scenario, and I can show you what I mean. I'm not so good at the scenarios, myself.

Hmmm, I'm not sure which scenarios you will respond to. How about: You're at a (dinner) party and someone tells you they bought some great audio cables -- the kind you're skeptical of.

[brachet]

I'd ask them if they felt that they got their money's worth. Without sarcasm. Then, I'd probably ask them what led them to the purchase of the product.

[brachet]

What I said after that would depend completely on their answer.
A lot depends on why they bought something. What need were they trying to fill? Were they filled with anxiety that was only calmed by the purchase/use of this product? Where did this anxiety come from? Who sold it to them, and why?
I can't go further with this scenario without any more input. Sorry.