Vehicle for delivering skeptical message

[T'ai Chi]

What is the best 'vehicle' for delivering the message of the organized skeptical movement?

Science? (Dawkins, Parker, etc.)
Magic? (Randi, Penn & Teller, etc.)
Detective investigation? (Nickell, etc.)

What do people find most effective?

[LibraryLady]

All of the above.

ETA: Different people have different learning styles and ways of absorbing information. Some need entertainment with their learning, some need to read, some to watch, etc.

[Darat]

Which "organised skeptical movement"?

[Jeff Corey]

And high school and college courses in critical thinking.

[Amapola]

Wow. This is the second thread on an "organised skeptical movement".

I don't think there is an "organised skeptical movement" anymore than I think there is an "organized New Age/paranormal belief/weird things" movement.

[davidsmith73]

Wow. This is the second thread on an "organised skeptical movement".

I don't think there is an "organised skeptical movement" anymore than I think there is an "organized New Age/paranormal belief/weird things" movement.

There are certainly many individual organisations claiming to take a sceptical approach to the paranomal. CSICOP and JREF to name but two.

I think the best way is through science, ie, true scepticism. Note that this involves doing experiments! This means that the real sceptics of ESP, PK etc are the parapsychologists. Anyone can put forward plausible reasons for why paranormal phenomena appear to exist but actually do not, for example false memories, but its another thing to test whether these explanations hold up. Science doesn't just involve throwing out hypotheses. You have to test them too.

[Mojo]

How about one of these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybus).

[Skeptic Ginger]

Wow. This is the second thread on an "organised skeptical movement".

I don't think there is an "organised skeptical movement" anymore than I think there is an "organized New Age/paranormal belief/weird things" movement.

There is a continuum of meaning to the word, organized. If you only think in terms of an officially or formally organized process then the 'organized skeptical movement' does not fit that definition. But if you consider a group organized in less formal ways, such as an informal association, I certainly consider myself belonging to such a group.

The other part of T'ai Chi's term is 'movement'. There are many actions the members in this loosely associated group actively take to promote science and skeptical thinking.

[Skeptic Ginger]

How about one of these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybus).Not nearly big enough. :p

[T'ai Chi]

I should have added a 4th category, comedy. That is, poking fun at things, mocking them, in order to prove a point.
(FSM, IPU, Gardner's horse-laugh approach, etc.)

[The Mad Hatter]

How about one of these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybus).

Psh. How about one of these (http://scoobysnax.free.fr/images/Images%20Scooby/Mystery%20Machine/mm4.gif).

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't think we should speculate which method is 'most' effective. We should look at the problem analytically. It's clear all three have some value in this case.

Science education needs to look more at providing the skills for scientific reasoning and process. It is important to teach the basic knowledge in some science fields. It has been my observation, however, we are not doing enough to teach the scientific process to kids as it applies to everyday life.

Kids are taught how to apply the process to a project for their science fair. They may get as far understanding the parts of scientific problem identification and research. (Even this is not often taught very thoroughly.) But it is practically non-existant in both early and secondary education to teach kids how that same critical thinking applies to everything they encounter.

You can leave the analyzing out of anything you want. You don't have to analyze your love or anything else. That doesn't mean you can't be aware it is possible to analyze love. The important thing is to give people the tools for critical thinking when they are presented with supposed facts by someone or some group trying to influence their beliefs or decisions.


Magic is entertaining and attracts an audience. That is especially important for addressing adults who are no longer a captive audience in school. It also gives people the knowledge by demonstration they can be fooled. And it exposes some very specific practices such as astrology, talking to the dead, mind reading and so on which rely on some of the tricks used in magic to promote their scams.


The 'detective investigation' of any scam out there is important. Most of us don't have time to investigate every fraud out there so it is critical that someone does it for us. And the work they do is most welcome.


Rather than speculate, we should be looking at the existing research regarding our methods of trying to increase critical thinking; we should be promoting research in effectively communicating, not just research in what we communicate; and we should be assessing how effective our current methods of communicating are, not just assuming we are doing all that is possible or needed.

I had this in mind when I wrote the post about allowing the IDers in a debate to control the question. One mistake I have observed the evolution debaters make was to think the facts and the an education on the scientific process just need to be explained. After all, ID cannot hold up to close scientific scrutiny. But the ID debaters have the Discovery Institute think tank and the Wedge Strategy behind them. Since they can't win the scientific debate, they didn't debate science. They debated fairness. They debated including alternative or competing theories in science education. Who can argue against that when we agree?

What the problem here was, in my observation, the science side never successfully changed the debate back to the lack of scientific evidence supporting ID. That doesn't mean the science side didn't present the argument ID isn't science, why it isn't, and the lack of evidence for it. What it means is they didn't often present their arguments as effectively as the IDers presented their shifting the question.

So was it because the audience didn't have the critical thinking skills to understand the science argument? Was it because the ID debaters were more skilled manipulators? Or was it because the science debaters focused on an esoteric argument about gods being outside of the realm of the scientific process, an argument over the heads of most of the non-scientific audience?

It was all of the above. The biggest error here was in assuming all one needs in a debate is to impart evidence supported knowledge. Education and persuasion science was not used by biologists or whoever was debating the evolution side. Education and persuasion science would take a scientific approach not just to evolution vs ID, but to analyzing the success of communicating the science. Education and persuasion science would analyze what was and was not successful communicating the science side to the target audience (the IDers and/or the undecideds). Because believe me, the ID side was most definitely looking at the education and persuasion science of their efforts to convince people of their beliefs. And so are many in the anti-science promoters elsewhere.

[delphi_ote]

I should have added a 4th category, comedy. That is, poking fun at things, mocking them, in order to prove a point.
(FSM, IPU, Gardner's horse-laugh approach, etc.)
That's more P&T's approach than "magic." Comedy is okay. Having a sense of humor is okay. Ridicule is not a good idea.

Also, a good detective investigation is science.

[Dunstan]

I think this is like asking "which is the best club for putting a golf ball into a hole: driver, 3-iron, sand wedge, putter?" You need to use a mix of tools. Of course science is important as a means of testing paranormal hypotheses (and I would think that "detective investigation" is really just another form of science), but a lot of people who would never pick up a book by Dawkins or read a scientific journal will watch Penn & Teller's show, etc.

And comedy -- to the extent it's really a separate approach -- has its use, too. "Skepticism" kind sound pretty humourless to many people because we're supposedly taking all the "fun" out of astrology, psychics, etc., so it's helpful to show people that we're not a bunch of stodgy old men and women.

[Marc L]

Psh. How about one of these (http://scoobysnax.free.fr/images/Images%20Scooby/Mystery%20Machine/mm4.gif).

Actually, that'd be rather appropriate. The Scooby Gang did some good work debunking ghost myths.

Marc

[blutoski]

Actually, that'd be rather appropriate. The Scooby Gang did some good work debunking ghost myths.

Until the show crashed and burned in the '70s. eg: 13 Ghosts of Scooby Doo.

Having said that, and with all due respect to the purpose of this thread, I think it'd be cool to have a skepmobile. What would it be equipped with?

[blutoski]

Wow. This is the second thread on an "organised skeptical movement".

I don't think there is an "organised skeptical movement" anymore than I think there is an "organized New Age/paranormal belief/weird things" movement.

If you're referring to my thread, I merely mean the established NFPOs and people working together in general.

I believe that part of the problem is that we underestimate our opponents: they are organized. Consider healthfraud: we're fighting millions of dollars of lobbying power and PR campaigns. Consider religion: when some county school board in the middle of nowhere decides to introduce ID, it's not a local wrangle - they're funded and resourced by nationally-organized planners. Alpha was produced in collaboration with marketing firms, educational programmers, and so on. And it's effective! Skepticism needs an Alpha.

We've been losing ground because our opponents are playing to win, while we're just playing because we like the game.

[blutoski]

I don't think we should speculate which method is 'most' effective. We should look at the problem analytically. It's clear all three have some value in this case.

I agree that these ones that are presented are not necessecarily exclusive. I think the ones that were left out were 'in-your-face' methods, debunking (as opposed to investigation) and so on.



Science education needs to look more at providing the skills for scientific reasoning and process. It is important to teach the basic knowledge in some science fields. It has been my observation, however, we are not doing enough to teach the scientific process to kids as it applies to everyday life.

I'm not entirely convinced that science education is as big a piece of the puzzle as is often proposed. I think we need to change the way science is taught, though. I would like to emphasize the 'wonder' elements, and that science is a profession of asking questions, rather than just doing calculations.



Magic is entertaining and attracts an audience. That is especially important for addressing adults who are no longer a captive audience in school. It also gives people the knowledge by demonstration they can be fooled. And it exposes some very specific practices such as astrology, talking to the dead, mind reading and so on which rely on some of the tricks used in magic to promote their scams.

I think this is true. However, the problem is that on an individual basis, if we want, say, highschool teachers to encourage skepticism, my concern is that we will end up with a bunch of cheesy amateur magicians. ie: as bad as I am.



The 'detective investigation' of any scam out there is important. Most of us don't have time to investigate every fraud out there so it is critical that someone does it for us. And the work they do is most welcome.

We have to be mindful that there's two actual functions here: investigation, which is a support role for the frontline - giving us more and more accurate information - versus debunking/exposing, which is a highly visible activity and operates on the frontline by being in the public eye. I'm of two minds about debunking/exposing.




Rather than speculate, we should be looking at the existing research regarding our methods of trying to increase critical thinking; we should be promoting research in effectively communicating, not just research in what we communicate; and we should be assessing how effective our current methods of communicating are, not just assuming we are doing all that is possible or needed.

I had this in mind when I wrote the post about allowing the IDers in a debate to control the question. One mistake I have observed the evolution debaters make was to think the facts and the an education on the scientific process just need to be explained. After all, ID cannot hold up to close scientific scrutiny. But the ID debaters have the Discovery Institute think tank and the Wedge Strategy behind them. Since they can't win the scientific debate, they didn't debate science. They debated fairness. They debated including alternative or competing theories in science education. Who can argue against that when we agree?

What the problem here was, in my observation, the science side never successfully changed the debate back to the lack of scientific evidence supporting ID. That doesn't mean the science side didn't present the argument ID isn't science, why it isn't, and the lack of evidence for it. What it means is they didn't often present their arguments as effectively as the IDers presented their shifting the question.

So was it because the audience didn't have the critical thinking skills to understand the science argument? Was it because the ID debaters were more skilled manipulators? Or was it because the science debaters focused on an esoteric argument about gods being outside of the realm of the scientific process, an argument over the heads of most of the non-scientific audience?

It was all of the above. The biggest error here was in assuming all one needs in a debate is to impart evidence supported knowledge. Education and persuasion science was not used by biologists or whoever was debating the evolution side. Education and persuasion science would take a scientific approach not just to evolution vs ID, but to analyzing the success of communicating the science. Education and persuasion science would analyze what was and was not successful communicating the science side to the target audience (the IDers and/or the undecideds). Because believe me, the ID side was most definitely looking at the education and persuasion science of their efforts to convince people of their beliefs. And so are many in the anti-science promoters elsewhere.

Right. What I'd like to learn from you about this is what you mean in your bolded paragraph above. Two questions:

1) is there any evidence that critical thinking education translates into real-world skepticism?

2) what do we know about the efficacy of teaching critical thinking?

re: question #2. What we do know, is that as people become more educated, they are more likely to believe in the paranormal. They also score higher on critical thinking indexes.

So a third contingent question follows: if there is no relationship between critical thinking skills and real-world skepticism, what do we know about encouraging the latter?

This is why I established a different thread about looking for what we mean by 'more skepticism' and going forward to find or create data upon which we can build a strategy.

I should point out that this is basically a discussion about good old-fashioned Rhetoric.

[The Mad Hatter]

Actually, that'd be rather appropriate. The Scooby Gang did some good work debunking ghost myths.

Yep :)

Scooby Doo was my first exposure to debunking. Of course, they ruined it later by adding in real ghosts, and another dog who can somehow speak perfect english while Scooby grunts like a retard.

Edit: Whoops...blutoski already said that...

[Marc L]

Yep :)
and another dog who can somehow speak perfect english while Scooby grunts like a retard.


Actually, there is an explanation. Scooby could have learned English as an adult, while Scrappy learned it as a puppy. Compare it to adults learning English for the first time and speaking with an accent while children can speak it fluently with no problem.*

*Ebonics and Redneckspeak aside.

Marc

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not entirely convinced that science education is as big a piece of the puzzle as is often proposed. I think we need to change the way science is taught, though. I would like to emphasize the 'wonder' elements, and that science is a profession of asking questions, rather than just doing calculations.This is just making science more attractive. No argument there.

I didn't say science education was the key, I said expanding the principles of the scientific process as they apply to everything in life was the key. IE teaching critical thinking, not just teaching how one performs a research project.

I think this is true. However, the problem is that on an individual basis, if we want, say, highschool teachers to encourage skepticism, my concern is that we will end up with a bunch of cheesy amateur magicians. ie: as bad as I am.J Randi's approach of demonstrating the fallacies of some of the paranormal woo is not what my post was about. It can certainly be used, but there's a lot more such as exploring marketing techniques, propaganda techniques, logic and logic fallacies, debate techniques like spotting straw men and so on.

Right. What I'd like to learn from you about this is what you mean in your bolded paragraph above. Two questions:

1) is there any evidence that critical thinking education translates into real-world skepticism?

2) what do we know about the efficacy of teaching critical thinking?

re: question #2. What we do know, is that as people become more educated, they are more likely to believe in the paranormal. They also score higher on critical thinking indexes.

So a third contingent question follows: if there is no relationship between critical thinking skills and real-world skepticism, what do we know about encouraging the latter?....Your first question is really, "does knowing critical thinking skills mean those skills will be used?"

Well we know you can't use them if you don't know them. So you teach critical thinking skills and if a second problem arises that those skills are not then used, you have to first analyze what is preventing their use, and address that.

As far as your second question, it is asking about the effectiveness of teaching methods. Lots of research has been done in this area.

Here are links to 2 groups, The American Educational Research Association (AERA) (http://www.aera.net/aboutaera/?id=40) a national research society, strives to advance knowledge about education, to encourage scholarly inquiry related to education, and to promote the use of research to improve education and serve the public good. and the Institute of Education Sciences (http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ies/index.html)The Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 established within the U.S. Department of Education, The Institute of Education Sciences (IES). The mission of IES is to provide rigorous evidence on which to ground education practice and policy. This is accomplished through the work of its four centers. Grover J. (Russ) Whitehurst was appointed to a 6-year term as the first Director of the Institute in November 2002.

They have accompanying sources of research in education where you can find all sorts of research on methodology and some research on the outcomes of teaching critical thinking. Respectively they are, Open Access Journals in the Field of Education (http://aera-cr.asu.edu/ejournals/) and ERIC (http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal) which provides free access to more than 1.2 million bibliographic records of journal articles and other education-related materials and, if available, includes links to full text. ERIC is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences (IES).

[Skepiroth]

I am a scientist and I like detective shows but I am also the one person who selected "magic". I selected it because magic is entertaining and people like to be entertained and therefore is the best way to get the message out. Personally I do not think many people who are not already skeptical would watch a detective style debunking show and even fewer would pick up a scientific journal to read about homeopathy being BS (if disproving woo stuff was front page material, any idiot could get published in Nature).

[blutoski]

Your first question is really, "does knowing critical thinking skills mean those skills will be used?"

Well we know you can't use them if you don't know them. So you teach critical thinking skills and if a second problem arises that those skills are not then used, you have to first analyze what is preventing their use, and address that.

No, you misunderstood: my question is as stated. But I will rephrase it for clarity:

"How do we know that critical thinking is a proxy for skepticism. What if increasing critical thinking makes people more likely to believe in magical explanations?"

For example, rhetoric is a logical exercise, but for centuries, it has been the most powerful tool of evangelists. Christian apologetics is applied critical thinking. Intelligent design is a product of critical thinking.




As far as your second question, it is asking about the effectiveness of teaching methods. Lots of research has been done in this area.

[links provided]

I think I was hoping that somebody could throw me a bone. I'm an immunologist. When people ask me specific questions, I try not to say: "Here's a link to Google" or "Here's a link to Medline". Assume for the sake of discussion that I don't have an education degree, or that I didn't believe that teaching critical thinking increases skepticism. How would you convince me?

[CFLarsen]

It is futile to discuss this, since we still don't know what "organized skeptical movement" T'ai Chi is talking about.

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, you misunderstood: my question is as stated. But I will rephrase it for clarity:

"How do we know that critical thinking is a proxy for skepticism. What if increasing critical thinking makes people more likely to believe in magical explanations?"

For example, rhetoric is a logical exercise, but for centuries, it has been the most powerful tool of evangelists. Christian apologetics is applied critical thinking. Intelligent design is a product of critical thinking.We have to be operating with a different definition of critical thinking. This makes no sense to me at all.

Since when is rhetoric an exercise in logic? False logic maybe. If one is using critical thinking skills, one would be able to see through rhetoric and get to the real points to determine if they were valid.

Perhaps an example would clear this up but one way or another I have to say your definition of critical thinking cannot be correct given what you have posted above.

Try Wikipedia's definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking) and let's clear this up or we'll get nowhere in this discussion.


I think I was hoping that somebody could throw me a bone. I'm an immunologist. When people ask me specific questions, I try not to say: "Here's a link to Google" or "Here's a link to Medline". Assume for the sake of discussion that I don't have an education degree, or that I didn't believe that teaching critical thinking increases skepticism. How would you convince me?Both of those organizations have volumes of research results at your fingertips. Just use the journal/bibliography search engines and type in whatever you are looking for. It ain't a bone it's the whole food dish. Try 'critical thinking' and you'll get volumes of research titles on testing teaching methods. Look for 'outcomes of teaching critical thinking' and you'll get more outcome oriented results.

As long as we are each using a different working definition of 'critical thinking', there is no way to find the results you are looking for.

How about you provide a citation for the claim you made that more education correlated with more magical thinking or whatever you labeled it? I'd like to see what exactly was measured to reach that conclusion and how repeatable the results were. I can't imagine an evolutionary biologist or a cosmologist becoming more convinced of creation stories or astrology the more they were educated.


BTW, I'm in the field of infectious disease. My knowledge base isn't as strong in immunology as I'd like it to be. If it has to do with infection, I can usually give you those bones. I may ask for some of yours sometime. Just thought I'd mention that.

[Cuddles]

I would question how effective magic can be. Yes, it demonstrates how people can be fooled, but it shows how they can be fooled by a magician. I think many people don't equate this with fooling themselves, or even being fooled by other non-magicians. I have seen this happen with optical illusions, where someone saw one in a book and thought it was really clever, but when they saw a natural equivalent they simply refused to believe that the lines were straight because the example in the book was designed to fool them, while the natural one wasn't.

[StewartP]

I would question how effective magic can be. Yes, it demonstrates how people can be fooled, but it shows how they can be fooled by a magician. I think many people don't equate this with fooling themselves, or even being fooled by other non-magicians. I have seen this happen with optical illusions, where someone saw one in a book and thought it was really clever, but when they saw a natural equivalent they simply refused to believe that the lines were straight because the example in the book was designed to fool them, while the natural one wasn't.
There is a vid on YouTube that shows someone bending a fork. The voiceover is Randi's and it's obvious (to me) that it is a demonstartion of how sleight of hand can be used to fake psychic phenomena.

However, looking at the comments to the vid, most of the viewwers missed the point and thought it was a kewl demo of mind power. :(

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

It is futile to discuss this, since we still don't know what "organized skeptical movement" T'ai Chi is talking about.

I'm fully on board with CF here. What is, "the message of the organized skeptical movement"?

[RSLancastr]

Quick, to the Doubtmobile!!

[CFLarsen]

We still don't know what "organized skeptical movement" T'ai Chi is talking about.

We still don't know what "message" T'ai Chi is talking about.

[blutoski]

We have to be operating with a different definition of critical thinking. This makes no sense to me at all.

Since when is rhetoric an exercise in logic? False logic maybe. If one is using critical thinking skills, one would be able to see through rhetoric and get to the real points to determine if they were valid.

No, rhetoric is solid logically, but its 'assumptions' are different than those skeptics accept as true, so we disagree with the results.



Perhaps an example would clear this up but one way or another I have to say your definition of critical thinking cannot be correct given what you have posted above.

Try Wikipedia's definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking) and let's clear this up or we'll get nowhere in this discussion.

Seems consistent to me, except, again, be mindful that Wikipedia is not the best place to go for definitions.


Both of those organizations have volumes of research results at your fingertips. Just use the journal/bibliography search engines and type in whatever you are looking for. It ain't a bone it's the whole food dish. Try 'critical thinking' and you'll get volumes of research titles on testing teaching methods. Look for 'outcomes of teaching critical thinking' and you'll get more outcome oriented results.

I'm not looking to reinvent the wheel: hasn't *somebody* already read this material and reviewed it for quality? Isn't there maybe a meta-study or essay with references that could put it together? Do I have to spend the next six months hunting down references, getting inter-library loans, and so on?

I get the same response when I ask for proof of homeopathy: "There's thousands of studies." Can they name one? No. "Check Medline, it's all there." Thus endeth the lesson. This sounds like a frustrating non-answer, is all. Now it's *my* job to disprove somebody else's claim?




As long as we are each using a different working definition of 'critical thinking', there is no way to find the results you are looking for.

Sure, I guess. I don't think we're actually quibbling over definitions. I gave examples, not definitions. FWIW: the man who taught my first course in critical thinking was a PhD in philosophy. His thesis was on a logical proof for the Trinity.




How about you provide a citation for the claim you made that more education correlated with more magical thinking or whatever you labeled it? I'd like to see what exactly was measured to reach that conclusion and how repeatable the results were. I can't imagine an evolutionary biologist or a cosmologist becoming more convinced of creation stories or astrology the more they were educated.

Galup poll 2001. As reported in Skeptic magazine Vol 10 No 2, p55. An exception, though, was "belief in possession by the devil," which dropped with increased education.

Also: the effect seems to be reversed for *graduate* science degrees. There's a rise in belief in the undergraduate years, then a whooshing dropoff for science grads.

[Harlequin]

There are certainly many individual organisations claiming to take a sceptical approach to the paranomal. CSICOP and JREF to name but two.

I think the best way is through science, ie, true scepticism. Note that this involves doing experiments! This means that the real sceptics of ESP, PK etc are the parapsychologists. Anyone can put forward plausible reasons for why paranormal phenomena appear to exist but actually do not, for example false memories, but its another thing to test whether these explanations hold up. Science doesn't just involve throwing out hypotheses. You have to test them too.

There's more to science than just "doing experiments". Those experiments must also be part of a rigorous scientific method. Unfortunately, your precious parapsychologists almost always miss that part...

I'd say they are doing something that looks to the layman like science, but is actually just free advertising for woo-ism. Thanks, but no thanks.:rolleyes:

[blutoski]

We still don't know what "organized skeptical movement" T'ai Chi is talking about.

We still don't know what "message" T'ai Chi is talking about.

I think the question makes sense. There is are NFPOs based in the US, with international representatives. They have objectives, which is essentially "the message." Specifically, CSICOP, Skeptic Society, and JREF. I would also include CFI, except it's probably already accounted for as part of CSICOP.

[blutoski]

There's more to science than just "doing experiments". Those experiments must also be part of a rigorous scientific method. Unfortunately, your precious parapsychologists almost always miss that part...

I'd say they are doing something that looks to the layman like science, but is actually just free advertising for woo-ism. Thanks, but no thanks.:rolleyes:

And the previous poster is probably not aware that many high profile skeptics have found their way to skepticism through exactly that research. They found the experiments to be either shoddy with positive results, or quality with negative results. After decades of this, the conclusion is that there's not a lot of actual research going on among the parapsychologists: just a lot of confirmation-seeking and demonstrations.

[CFLarsen]

I think the question makes sense. There is are NFPOs based in the US, with international representatives. They have objectives, which is essentially "the message." Specifically, CSICOP, Skeptic Society, and JREF. I would also include CFI, except it's probably already accounted for as part of CSICOP.
Yes, but are these what T'ai is talking about?

We don't know, because T'ai refuses to tell us.

[blutoski]

And the previous poster is probably not aware that many high profile skeptics have found their way to skepticism through exactly that research. They found the experiments to be either shoddy with positive results, or quality with negative results. After decades of this, the conclusion is that there's not a lot of actual research going on among the parapsychologists: just a lot of confirmation-seeking and demonstrations.

And also: skeptics have done experiments on the parapsychologists' methods, and we have good knowledge of which protocols work and which don't. If/when a known-appropriate protocol is followed, and results are positive and significant, it will be of tremendous value to humanity.

An example of this 'experimenting on the experiments' is when JR sent volunteer magicians into the parapsychology research experiments and they were not caught. In fact, they were published as positive results, which was a demonstration of the weakness of the protocols. Did they change the protocols? Nope.

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, rhetoric is solid logically, but its 'assumptions' are different than those skeptics accept as true, so we disagree with the results.





Seems consistent to me, except, again, be mindful that Wikipedia is not the best place to go for definitions.




I'm not looking to reinvent the wheel: hasn't *somebody* already read this material and reviewed it for quality? Isn't there maybe a meta-study or essay with references that could put it together? Do I have to spend the next six months hunting down references, getting inter-library loans, and so on?

I get the same response when I ask for proof of homeopathy: "There's thousands of studies." Can they name one? No. "Check Medline, it's all there." Thus endeth the lesson. This sounds like a frustrating non-answer, is all. Now it's *my* job to disprove somebody else's claim?






Sure, I guess. I don't think we're actually quibbling over definitions. I gave examples, not definitions. FWIW: the man who taught my first course in critical thinking was a PhD in philosophy. His thesis was on a logical proof for the Trinity.






Galup poll 2001. As reported in Skeptic magazine Vol 10 No 2, p55. An exception, though, was "belief in possession by the devil," which dropped with increased education.

Also: the effect seems to be reversed for *graduate* science degrees. There's a rise in belief in the undergraduate years, then a whooshing dropoff for science grads.You have over a 1,000 posts. You want me to spoon feed something to you but you can't even provide a link to your citation?

Comparing some fool who claims homeopathy is supported by research and all one need do is search Medline is hardly the same as asking if teaching critical thinking results in using critical thinking and me providing a link to two very specific data bases on education research.

Let's back up here. What do you mean by "rhetoric is solid logically" and what assumptions are you talking about that skeptics accept as true? Whether you believe we are using the same definition of critical thinking or not, you are not making any sense to me.

Critical thinking is a system of evaluating evidence using scientific principles and rules of logic. When you use critical thinking skills, you arrive at the best conclusion based on the evidence. There is some evidence that can be interpreted from different viewpoints. In such cases there may not be a scientific consensus, but there isn't some definition of critical thinking that gives you non-evidence based conclusions.

Not using critical thinking skills gives you false conclusions. Using them gives you the best chance of reaching correct conclusions. You seem to be claiming there are recognized beliefs that are in the category we refer to as "woo", but you don't seem to recognize that the way we know those beliefs are in the "woo" category is by using critical thinking skills.


And the guy with the "logical" proof for the Trinity wasn't using critical thinking. He would have been using false logic. Give me his argument and I'll point out the fallacy you missed.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here is a list of common fallacies in pseudo logical thinking. (http://skeptically.org/logicalthreads/id12.html) I could not readily find a free version of your citation, blutoski. Unless I see the survey or more about it, I'm going to assume education in the survey doesn't correlate with science education. For example I wouldn't think they teach extensively about the scientific process with an MBA. Though they may teach some principles in marketing research, they may not teach how to apply the concepts more widely. Or the survey could have had religion topics interfering either by labeling religious beliefs as weird, which they are but many people ignore certain principles regarding analyzing the religion they were indoctrinated to.

I find it hard to believe without more evidence that the more educated you are the more likely you are to believe in ghosts, homeopathy and astrology for example.

[blutoski]

You have over a 1,000 posts. You want me to spoon feed something to you but you can't even provide a link to your citation?

AFAIK, there are no 'online' version of this citation. In any case, I didn't think it was controversial: Shermer has many times expressed his conviction that education merely gives people more facts to use when rationalizing their beliefs.




Comparing some fool who claims homeopathy is supported by research and all one need do is search Medline is hardly the same as asking if teaching critical thinking results in using critical thinking and me providing a link to two very specific data bases on education research.

I still think you're not understanding my question. This paragraph refers to two different questions I had: does teaching critical thinking have significant and long-lasting effects on a student's application of critical thinking (plausible, but the evidence I have seen is mixed), and secondly, does applied critical thinking have real-world applications that skeptics approve of? (I have only seen one example evidence of this latter connection presented, also in Skeptic, based on informal surveys)

In any case, you can prove my comparison flawed by producing some citations.





Let's back up here. What do you mean by "rhetoric is solid logically" and what assumptions are you talking about that skeptics accept as true? Whether you believe we are using the same definition of critical thinking or not, you are not making any sense to me.

Rhetoric was designed to be appealing by using legitemate syllogisms to direct the dialectic toward a specific conclusion. I can use Rhetoric to draw my opponent into Skepticism, and he is trying to use Rhetoric to draw me into, say, Creationism. This is different than sophistry or open debate formats.





Critical thinking is a system of evaluating evidence using scientific principles and rules of logic. When you use critical thinking skills, you arrive at the best conclusion based on the evidence. There is some evidence that can be interpreted from different viewpoints. In such cases there may not be a scientific consensus, but there isn't some definition of critical thinking that gives you non-evidence based conclusions.

I'd agree with you except for the "scientific principles" thing. Critical thinking is done in arts and humanities &c. Science does not have a special claim to critical thinking. It is a technique that applies to any discipline or topic of interest.

The debate about whether or not generalized skillsets such as critical thinking can have impacts on specialized fields is an old one, and as far as I know, unresolved. I'm gratified to be told that the truth is known, but have been very unsuccessful finding evidence, for asking.

My feeling from a few years listening to these suggestions is that what Skeptics mean is that they would like scientific thinking to be taught, not so much critical thinking.




Not using critical thinking skills gives you false conclusions. Using them gives you the best chance of reaching correct conclusions. You seem to be claiming there are recognized beliefs that are in the category we refer to as "woo", but you don't seem to recognize that the way we know those beliefs are in the "woo" category is by using critical thinking skills.

Mm. Well, this is a different discussion, though. I'm talking about the challenge that metaphysics presents for critical thinking and debate.





And the guy with the "logical" proof for the Trinity wasn't using critical thinking. He would have been using false logic. Give me his argument and I'll point out the fallacy you missed.

It's Dr. Kurt Priensperg, who is a PhD professor of philosophy. I'll see if I can locate his thesis, and you can show him where he's wrong. I'll also see if I can rummage up the college-level textbook on critical thinking that he authored.

In the meantime, my tutorial on critical thinking on our local skeptics' society website is based on his lectures and exercises: [critical thinking tutorial] (http://www.bcskeptics.info/resources/criticalthinking/index.html) Tell me if he's teaching false logic: I will update the site with appropriate corrections.

[blutoski]

AFAIK, there are no 'online' version of this citation. In any case, I didn't think it was controversial: Shermer has many times expressed his conviction that education merely gives people more facts to use when rationalizing their beliefs.

Just to follow up on this: the online Skeptic issues only go back to volume 11. This article predates the online repurposing.

However, I'm a little disappointed in your response to this, because it sounds like you feel you don't have to provide even one citation for your claim, on account of I only told you what volume, issue, and on page number my citation resided, whereas you expected better. I feel this is a very unfair transfer of the burden of proof and unreasonably assymetric expectations. I am particularly disappointed, since you're doing something we accuse others of doing: making a clam and shirking the responsibility for providing evidence.


I'd like to follow up with a few other citations (no links, sorry, they're paper copies in my file drawer, but certainly available in back-issues around the globe):

Belief in the Supernatural among Harvard and West African University Students, Nature 227, 971 - 972

Inevitable Illusions by M. Piattelli-Palmarini (the entire book's thesis is that reasoning errors and emotional foundations of belief are not altered by general education, but can be altered by specialized knowledge)

How We Believe by Michael Shermer. Shermer makes several statements to this affect in his book, which were composed from an organization contracted to pursue these findings for the purpose of the book, called Survey Sampling Inc. The endnotes for page 83 in my edition explain that the correlation between education and rational explanations for believing in God is .14 (weakly positive).

James Randi's Flim-Flam! reports that there is more belief for ESP among scientists than among psychologists, and this is discussed by Gilovich in How We Know What Isn't So. Gilovich proposes in much of his book that the mechanism that fuels effective skepticism is specialized knowledge, and that it is not always scientific knowledge. When we venture out of our scope of expertise, we are vulnerable to woo thinking.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I said we were operating with a different definition of critical thinking. Your posts reinforced that assessment. So before you start asking for a citation to support something and then complaining I didn't provide it, I can't give you a citation because you are arguing something I haven't said.

Blu: "does teaching critical thinking have significant and long-lasting effects on a student's application of critical thinking"

How can someone use critical thinking skills they don't have? How can you test if teaching critical thinking skills leads to critical thinking in a population that doesn't have those skills?

Blu: "Rhetoric was designed to be appealing by using legitemate syllogisms to direct the dialectic toward a specific conclusion. I can use Rhetoric to draw my opponent into Skepticism, and he is trying to use Rhetoric to draw me into, say, Creationism. This is different than sophistry or open debate formats."

Fine, but that isn't critical thinking, that is persuasion. The ideal critical thinker wouldn't be persuaded by the rhetoric you describe.

Blu: "Critical thinking is done in arts and humanities"

Well if this is your definition, I need examples. If you are talking about analyzing the symbolism in "The Old Man and the Sea" then we are not using the same definition. If you are talking about behavior science, then you have a common misconception that science is restricted to physical analyses.

Critical thinking means looking for the fallacies, the supporting evidence, the logical analysis. It means exactly what you are trying to ask if it leads to using it. Your own sentence belies your own interpretation of the meaning, "Does teaching critical thinking have significant and long-lasting effects on a student's application of critical thinking?"

How about we use some different labels here to overcome our different use of these terms?

Instead of critical thinking substitute scientific analysis, where scientific analysis refers to using the scientific process. What is the evidence and what conclusions can you logically infer from that evidence?

[blutoski]

I said we were operating with a different definition of critical thinking. Your posts reinforced that assessment. So before you start asking for a citation to support something and then complaining I didn't provide it, I can't give you a citation because you are arguing something I haven't said.

I detect obfuscation. All I ask is a citation to support what you did say:
As far as your second question, it is asking about the effectiveness of teaching methods. Lots of research has been done in this area.

This was about whether teaching critical thinking has real-world benefits. I'm sure it's true that there is lots of research. I inferred you believed that there were real-world benefits. However, I have found mixed results, and no meta-analysis by qualified professionals, upon which to hang my strategy hat, so I was asking if there was something important that I had overlooked.




How can someone use critical thinking skills they don't have? How can you test if teaching critical thinking skills leads to critical thinking in a population that doesn't have those skills?

People have critical thinking skills to varying degree, whether they've taken a formal course in the subject or not. It's a gradient skill, not a binary situation. There are standardized tests for measuring competence in critical thinking: the General Education Critical Thinking Rubric, the Collegiate Learning Assessment, and (my favourite) the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI).

I've never heard of somebody without noticeable mental problems - such as mentally delayed, autistsic, or psychotic - scoring zero on these tools, so I don't think it's credible to argue that there would be people with 'no critical thinking skills'.

Which brings me to your next statement:
Your own sentence belies your own interpretation of the meaning, "Does teaching critical thinking have significant and long-lasting effects on a student's application of critical thinking?"

I don't see this as a problematic question, regardless of interpretation. The studies that attempt to answer this question usually look like this: test students on their first day of the critical thinking course. Retest them on the last day of the course. Test them again after a year. This will address these exact questions: does teaching the content improve critical thinking skills, and does it last?

The second question - about real-world applications - would be measured like this: do people who score higher on critical thinking indices have lower incidences of fraud victimization such as healthfraud or pyramid schemes? Are they less likely to believe in alien visitations or paranormalism? &c. It's been done. The results were mixed, and therefore the hypothesis that there is a relationship is not supported.




Instead of critical thinking substitute scientific analysis, where scientific analysis refers to using the scientific process.

Not in a million years. They're not the same thing. That's my point! I agree we are using different definitions of 'critical thinking'. Yours is wrong. And borders on scientism.

'Critical thinking' is not the same thing as scientific thinking. Of course, scientific thinking is like all endeavours - it works best when it employs critical thinking skills.

I really don't understand why this is controversial. Randi made the point quite clear when he trumped the scientific investigations into paranormalism with magicians - the magicians were doing critical thinking, but the scientists were not. I furthered this example with citations from Randi's work that explained this in other ways: that psychologists carried more doubt about psi than scientists, for example. Their critical thinking was further buttressed by tacit knowledge, which may actually be the only thing that's important in real-world applications.

When I took the relevant philosophy courses, critical thinking was a first year course, a prerequisite for further courses, one of which in third year was 'the philosophy of science' and another called 'scientific thinking'. Critical thinking is a component of all academic analysis, and is regarded as a "domain-general skill" ie: not specific to any particular environment.

Note: this differs from McPeck's position that critical thinking in real-world applications is the result of tacit, context-specific knowledge. This started becoming meaningful in the mid-90s, as nursing accreditation started to require that all students achieve a minimum score in a standardized test in critical thinking, typically the CCTDI. This is what led to a flurry of research in how to boost scores in this index, and subsequent disappointing findings.

My personal interpretation from a layperson's review of the material so far is that the general skill of critical thinking has a personality predisposition that gives some people a head start, and can be taught to some people better than others.

The second interpretation I have so far is that critical thinking scores are so marginally elevated that at the end of the day, when the rubber hits the ground, a high-scoring critical thinker is rarely better equipped for new domains of decision-making than a low-scoring critical thinker with tacit knowledge.

My conclusion based on these interpretations is that teaching critical thinking in as a general skill is only marginally effective and not a good investment, whereas, teaching scientific knowledge and techniques will create a better base of scientific and - eventually - skeptical thinking.





What is the evidence and what conclusions can you logically infer from that evidence?

Eh? Actually, that was my question: everybody's convinced that teaching critical thinking is going to solve the problems of widespread credulity. I'm unconvinced and I have asked: "What is the evidence?" and received a lot of handwaving. For about ten years, now, as it happens.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I detect obfuscation.Of your own making.

You are talking about advanced problem solving and more complex thinking than I had in mind here. That isn't what I meant at all. It's one thing to teach medical or nursing approaches to very complex assessments, it's quite another to teach primary school kids the basic skills of evidence and logic.

We have an entire school system that graduates kids from basic education without teaching them something as simple as recognizing a straw man argument. They don't know that temporal association doesn't equal causation or that one's brain naturally seeks out pattens and one must recognize when those patterns are coincidental.

I tried to get my son's teachers to teach a little about marketing techniques the kids are bombarded with daily. It wasn't in the curriculum, they felt it wasn't important enough to teach.

That is an example of what I mean by teaching critical thinking. Personally I think the advanced level you are talking about is extremely useful. But I haven't looked at any literature on it in particular.

And I still disagree that using critical thinking should have any outcome other than the correct one. If the scientists failed to detect a ruse, it would be they failed to think critically, not that critical thinking failed.

[blutoski]

Of your own making.

Mm. I ask a question, you have an answer. I ask you to support it, and I get 500 words of non-answer. This is not my imagination: you're obfuscating. If your claim was paranormal, the forum'd suspect you of being a troll.




You are talking about advanced problem solving and more complex thinking than I had in mind here. That isn't what I meant at all. It's one thing to teach medical or nursing approaches to very complex assessments, it's quite another to teach primary school kids the basic skills of evidence and logic.

These university-level courses are really introductory, and anyway, the standardized tests start easy and get more difficult, just like Fermat or Pascal. I'm really talking about the standardized tests and how they show us what systems work. This includes grade level programs, not just university level.

For example, an opening question on the CCTDI looks like this:
1. If it is sunny, we will go on a picnic.
2. It is rainy.

[a] We do not go on a picnic.
[b] We go on a picnic.
[c] Not enough information.

This is not 'advanced problem solving'.



We have an entire school system that graduates kids from basic education without teaching them something as simple as recognizing a straw man argument. They don't know that temporal association doesn't equal causation or that one's brain naturally seeks out pattens and one must recognize when those patterns are coincidental.

That's more advanced than the university courses.



I tried to get my son's teachers to teach a little about marketing techniques the kids are bombarded with daily. It wasn't in the curriculum, they felt it wasn't important enough to teach.

That is an example of what I mean by teaching critical thinking. Personally I think the advanced level you are talking about is extremely useful. But I haven't looked at any literature on it in particular.[/quote]

Granted, but is that critical thinking or consumer education? In my school district, this is taught in a mandatory course called 'consumer ed'.

Likewise, when we tell children to accept a scientific explanation, we are not asking them to think critically: we are asking them to trust the teacher, or to trust scientists. Only at a more advanced level can a person really go to the local library and pull the journals and examine them critically. And frankly, I'm not even at that level with education - I still have to trust eduactors to interpret the research. Which was the purpose of my original question.



And I still disagree that using critical thinking should have any outcome other than the correct one.

That's wishful thinking, though. Politics, for example. Critical thinking can be applied, but individuals have different values and priorities, and right-thinking people can and do disagree. There is often no 'correct' answer.



If the scientists failed to detect a ruse, it would be they failed to think critically, not that critical thinking failed.

I'd say they failed to think 'cynically', but may very well have been thinking critically. They just lacked specific information to come to the same conclusion that magicians or psychologists would. Everybody's vulnerable to this, which is why science excels as an example of collaborative effort - critical thinkers engage in dialogues to expand their thoughtspace, and their models converge toward a favourite conclusion. But they aren't thinking *more* critically as they converge on the same answer: they are sharing facts.

What you're probably talking about is educating people on the specifics of alternative explanations. A kid isn't failing to think critically because he's never heard of sleight-of-hand - he's just inexperienced. We arm kids with consumer protection by exposing them to the techniques of these fraudsters as early as possible. This isn't teaching critical thinking, though. There is no 'technique' taught in telling a kid it's a scam. They will fall for another unrelated one for which they have not been given the 'inside' story.

We all see examples of this: people who scoff at alien visitation stories, but are convinced that their Amway dreams are credible. I have a friend who is a chiropractor, but says straight up that obviously homeopathy is a crock. There are a billion hardcore atheists in China who think you need to arrange the furniture in your office properly to keep the luck in.

[T'ai Chi]

So science, detective investigation, then magic, so far.
Very interesting.

[Darat]

So science, detective investigation, then magic, so far.
Very interesting.

Why is it very interesting?