Why do we need critical thinking?

[Windom]

The question is not so stupid as it looks like.

Imagine I'm one of those "standard" people. I live in a rich country, say, USA. I earn a lot. I believe in:
1. Creationism. It does no harm to me. I still earn lots of money.
2. UFO abductions. Whatever, it doesn't affect my everydays life. Not at all.
3. Astrology, a little bit. When it is not related to really serious business I believe, when it is - I do not. It's a bit spurious logic but hey, it does no harm to me.
4. Jesus ofcourse. I go to church every Sunday. I enjoy it. I have a good time there.
5. GMO food makes your children mutants too. So I never buy GMO. No problem, there are plenty "organic" food in supermarkets.
6. That crystal powers can heal minor diseases. Ofcourse they do. I experienced it. Maybe it was what clever people call placebo or so, I don't care. I do not trust them in real cases however, and go to serious doctor then. Friends say it's a bit illogical but I don't care again. Yes I pay lots of money for those crystals. So what? I can afford it. No problem at all.
7. Uri Geller is a true psychic. Again, this belief doesn't affect my life in any way.

Some people say I must be skeptic. Why? It costs a lot. It costs your time and your brains work. I'm too lazy for that. I don't wanna think is it true or not when I read my newspaper about some random psychic. I don't care that I spend my money for astrology, feng shui and crystals - I can afford it. I don't want to use my brains where it is not absolutely neccessary. As simple as that. Why shall I become a skeptic if it will not affect my life in any way apart from maybe some additional money? Hey, I'll spend more on the beer in weekends. And yes, I'm very good skeptic when I buy a car or make a business contracts. In those cases I am, because it directly affects my life.
-------------------------------------

I admit this is kinda devil's advocacy (if it is not clear anyway). But I'm really interested in serious answers - why should one become a skeptic in a rich country where he already lives a reasonably good life. Thanks :)

[clarsct]

Do you care that people are duping you?

[Arg9]

why should one become a skeptic in a rich country where he already lives a reasonably good life. Thanks :)

Good life or not, rich country or not - I think skepticism develops as a reaction to what we call reality. This reality is something we ALL share (or most of us) and is much broader than being separated by rich or poor. For me personally, I feel I've lived a good life but I've never been able to shake this way of thinking. It's a way of trying to interpret this whole mess we call life and keep my butt from being taken advantage of...rich or poor. Thanks to critical thinking and skepticism - I've been able to maintain it.

[T'ai Chi]

Windom, you are a skeptic, skeptical of some things anyway.

I don't believe everyone needs to be skeptical of the same things skeptical organizations are to have a happy, healty life.

[CFLarsen]

Windom, you are a skeptic, skeptical of some things anyway.

I don't believe everyone needs to be skeptical of the same things skeptical organizations are to have a happy, healty life.

What do people need to be skeptical of, then?

Are you saying the general public doesn't need skepticism?

[MG1962]

I was a bit disapointed to find a persons faith in this list. Faith is something that comes from within. Each person senses their faith differently. There people deeply devoted to their faith. Others who feel no need for faith in their lives.

No skeptic can mount an arguement that God does not exist. Conversly a person of faith can never offer absolute evidence he does exist.

In a sense it is the same as two blind people arguing the colour of orange. How does either prove their case?

[Dancing David]

There is no case for saying that other people must be sceptical. That would be akin to religion as opposed to critical thinking, to demand other people think as one does is:
1. lacking in critical thinking skills because it assumes a lack of understanding of the boundaries of one's own power.
2. lacking critical thinking skills because it makes the assumption(outside of life and deasth situations) that you know what is best for the other person.
3. is a tremendous sort of hubris just as it is in many religously fantatical people.


But if you wish to give money to charlatans, that is a personal choice.

I have met people who believe in alien abduction, they are usualy very unhappy people and it does not bring them joy.

[Correa Neto]

So, you think one must not be skeptical about what is presented? Without thinking about or asking for evidence?

Like, say, a politician claiming he can stop crime in two years?

Someone selling a copper gizmo that is supposed to clear your aura?

Bigfoot parking it's flying saucer at your backyard?

[Foolmewunz]

I was a bit disapointed to find a persons faith in this list. Faith is something that comes from within. Each person senses their faith differently. There people deeply devoted to their faith. Others who feel no need for faith in their lives.

No skeptic can mount an arguement that God does not exist. Conversly a person of faith can never offer absolute evidence he does exist.

In a sense it is the same as two blind people arguing the colour of orange. How does either prove their case?

Why should this dissapoint you? Any belief should be viewed with skepticism. Maybe you're accepting the Truther or IDer definition of a skeptic? Skeptics have had our chief rationale hijacked by the CT movements... "Just asking questions..."

The thing you're concerned with (IMHO) is what we do with the answers. Does one question the existence of a deity and then finding no proof, dismiss its existence? Or does one decide, "Oh, well, I believe in Ed anyway?"

I don't know of anyone I respect as a skeptic who insists that persons are not allowed to believe.

[T'ai Chi]

Or the value of rhetorical questions?

[CFLarsen]

Or the value of rhetorical questions?

What do people need to be skeptical of, then?

Are you saying the general public doesn't need skepticism?

[T'ai Chi]

One has to have a lot of faith to ask that.

[Pyrrho]

Skepticism involves critical thinking, but skepticism is not identical to critical thinking. It is not a given that if critical thinking is applied, all people will arrive at the same conclusions. Critical thinking might genuinely lead some people to decide that skepticism is not useful, or it might genuinely lead some people to conclude that actively debunking paranormal claims is useful. It all has to do with one's priorities in life.

I think critical thinking, i.e. honest self-examination and critical evaluation of one's own thoughts and opinions as well as those of other people, especially the careful evaluation of external evidence and data, is important and useful. But "critical thinking" is not the same as "skepticism".

[T'ai Chi]

Skepticism, about one thing or another, is always useful IMO.

The following things related to skepticism are some troublespots:

1) Does one have to be skeptical about all the things that organizations in the organized skeptical movement are skeptical about to be a 'real' skeptic? If Browne doubts reiki (who knows), she is skeptical about reiki. But who in the skeptical movement would call Browne a skeptic? IDers are skeptical about the explanatory power of Darwinian processed. Are they skeptics?

2) If skepticism by itself is doubt, is there much positive to offer in the skeptical movement? Saying it offers 'the real world' is not skepticism, because the real world is the real world, regardless of whether we engage in doubt.

3) Does the inescapable skepticism about ones' own skepticism debunk the value of skepticism?

4) Is one right to ignore challenges from the skeptical movement as not having much to do with science and focus more on the standard channels of science?

5) Is the interpretation of skepticism by the skeptical movement just a way so one can say they are never wrong? That is, if one strongly doubts X (think the flight of planes, continental drift, etc.) due to lack of evidence, and calls X bunk, etc., they can say they are justified because of the lack of evidence or even theoretical framework. But if evidence comes in for X, they can say they are now justified in calling it sound because of the evidence. In either way, they are justified, even though the statements and conclusions reached are opposite. How in this scenario can the skeptical movement be judged as making an incorrect decision?

[Windom]

I was a bit disapointed to find a persons faith in this list. Faith is something that comes from within. Each person senses their faith differently. There people deeply devoted to their faith. Others who feel no need for faith in their lives.

No skeptic can mount an arguement that God does not exist. Conversly a person of faith can never offer absolute evidence he does exist.

In a sense it is the same as two blind people arguing the colour of orange. How does either prove their case?

I'm sorry but this is clearly offtopic. But it's interesting point, if you'd create a thread to discuss is faith different from belief in Uri Geller, I would be happy to discuss it :)

[Pyrrho]

Skepticism, about one thing or another, is always useful IMO.

The following things related to skepticism are some troublespots:

1) Does one have to be skeptical about all the things that organizations in the organized skeptical movement are skeptical about to be a 'real' skeptic? If Browne doubts reiki (who knows), she is skeptical about reiki. But who in the skeptical movement would call Browne a skeptic? IDers are skeptical about the explanatory power of Darwinian processed. Are they skeptics?

Anybody can wear a badge and uniform--doesn't make them a police officer.

It's useful for the blatant purveyors such as Sylvia Browne to blur the meaning of the term "skeptic". IDers might be skeptical of Darwin's theories, but the underpinnings of their own theories are "faith based" and are not based on skepticism, but on belief.

Nobody has to agree with everything a skeptic organization says or does, but if a person is going to call themselves a skeptic, it is expected that they are going to follow a general path of critical thinking, scientific analysis, and doubt.


2) If skepticism by itself is doubt, is there much positive to offer in the skeptical movement? Saying it offers 'the real world' is not skepticism, because the real world is the real world, regardless of whether we engage in doubt.

Skepticism is part doubt, part critical thinking, part logic, and part science. Skepticism offers a means of analysis of reality and of analyzing claims that are made about reality. There is much that is positive about applying reason, logic, and methodical analysis to a chaotic, confusing world.

3) Does the inescapable skepticism about ones' own skepticism debunk the value of skepticism?

Nope. That's critical thinking--checking one's own thinking is fundamental to skepticism.

4) Is one right to ignore challenges from the skeptical movement as not having much to do with science and focus more on the standard channels of science?

That assumes the person ignoring the challenge is actually focused on the standard channels of science. People are free to ignore whatever they wish to ignore, generally speaking. I'm personally grateful to live in a country where the luxury of being able to ignore challenges exists...and that the luxury of being able to issue challenges exists. Eh, that's political...don't want to go there.

5) Is the interpretation of skepticism by the skeptical movement just a way so one can say they are never wrong? That is, if one strongly doubts X (think the flight of planes, continental drift, etc.) due to lack of evidence, and calls X bunk, etc., they can say they are justified because of the lack of evidence or even theoretical framework. But if evidence comes in for X, they can say they are now justified in calling it sound because of the evidence. In either way, they are justified, even though the statements and conclusions reached are opposite. How in this scenario can the skeptical movement be judged as making an incorrect decision?
If they make a claim that is later discovered to be false, based on the evidence. If I state, "Continents cannot drift," that's a claim, shown to be false based on empirical evidence. If I state, "I seriously doubt that continents can drift--please show your evidence," I am not making a claim. I am withholding judgment until the facts are in. I can make statements with reasonable certainty based on current scientific understanding of the laws of physics, such as, "Spoons cannot be bent by remote mind power," or "People cannot live on nothing but air." If I am proven wrong, I can agree with the conclusions based on new evidence--that is not the same as claiming that I have always been right. I was right to doubt--now I am right to agree, and my doubt was an honest error, based on the facts that were available.

Honest appraisal requires that we re-evaluate according to the available evidence. That is good science.

[CFLarsen]

1) Does one have to be skeptical about all the things that organizations in the organized skeptical movement are skeptical about to be a 'real' skeptic?

What is the "organized skeptical movement"?

What do you mean by a "real" skeptic?

If Browne doubts reiki (who knows), she is skeptical about reiki. But who in the skeptical movement would call Browne a skeptic? IDers are skeptical about the explanatory power of Darwinian processed. Are they skeptics?

What do you think?

2) If skepticism by itself is doubt, is there much positive to offer in the skeptical movement? Saying it offers 'the real world' is not skepticism, because the real world is the real world, regardless of whether we engage in doubt.

Skepticism isn't merely doubt. You are perfectly aware of that.

5) Is the interpretation of skepticism by the skeptical movement just a way so one can say they are never wrong? That is, if one strongly doubts X (think the flight of planes, continental drift, etc.) due to lack of evidence, and calls X bunk, etc., they can say they are justified because of the lack of evidence or even theoretical framework. But if evidence comes in for X, they can say they are now justified in calling it sound because of the evidence. In either way, they are justified, even though the statements and conclusions reached are opposite. How in this scenario can the skeptical movement be judged as making an incorrect decision?

For some reason, you want to make it a point of criticism that skeptics change their minds, based on the evidence.

[T'ai Chi]

There's really no hard relation between following skepticism and following science, as my Browne example demonstrated.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If Browne doubts reiki (who knows), she is skeptical about reiki. But who in the skeptical movement would call Browne a skeptic? IDers are skeptical about the explanatory power of Darwinian processed. Are they skeptics?


Mistake #1: "Skeptical" <> Skeptic

(!= for the C folks)

[Pyrrho]

Mistake #1: "Skeptical" <> Skeptic

(!= for the C folks)

People who play fast and loose with the definitions of words won't agree with that. That's why people seem to think that a "true" or "real" skeptic, being doubtful, must also be open-minded and accept all claims as nominally true until proven otherwise. That's also a misunderstanding of how science works.

[CFLarsen]

Mistake #1: "Skeptical" <> Skeptic

(!= for the C folks)

And:

Doubt <> Skeptic.

Being a skeptic does not merely mean that you doubt.

This cannot be repeated often enough.

[Curnir]

There's really no hard relation between following skepticism and following science, as my Browne example demonstrated.

Did it?
When?

[Correa Neto]

A Christian can doubt if I will go to Heaven. He is not being a skeptical in the sense we use here, since his doubt is based just on faith.

When Citizen A tells this Christian that, considering the evidences he is aware of, he concluded there's no Heaven or Hell, he is being a skeptical in the sense we use here.

To say the hypothetical Christian's skepticism is the same thing as Citizen A's skepticism is nonsense.

[Horatius]

The question is not so stupid as it looks like.

I woud say that several of your examples already show why critical thinking is important.

Imagine I'm one of those "standard" people. I live in a rich country, say, USA. I earn a lot. I believe in:
1. Creationism. It does no harm to me. I still earn lots of money.
2. UFO abductions. Whatever, it doesn't affect my everydays life. Not at all.

But there are people who do let it affect their everyday life. You've already taken the first step, realizing that you shouldn't quit your job and move to Area 51 or some such thing.

3. Astrology, a little bit. When it is not related to really serious business I believe, when it is - I do not. It's a bit spurious logic but hey, it does no harm to me.

So, if the stakes are high enough, you do think critically.


4. Jesus ofcourse. I go to church every Sunday. I enjoy it. I have a good time there.
5. GMO food makes your children mutants too. So I never buy GMO. No problem, there are plenty "organic" food in supermarkets.
6. That crystal powers can heal minor diseases. Ofcourse they do. I experienced it. Maybe it was what clever people call placebo or so, I don't care. I do not trust them in real cases however, and go to serious doctor then. Friends say it's a bit illogical but I don't care again. Yes I pay lots of money for those crystals. So what? I can afford it. No problem at all.

And again here.

7. Uri Geller is a true psychic. Again, this belief doesn't affect my life in any way.

Some people say I must be skeptic. Why? It costs a lot. It costs your time and your brains work. I'm too lazy for that. I don't wanna think is it true or not when I read my newspaper about some random psychic. I don't care that I spend my money for astrology, feng shui and crystals - I can afford it. I don't want to use my brains where it is not absolutely neccessary. As simple as that. Why shall I become a skeptic if it will not affect my life in any way apart from maybe some additional money? Hey, I'll spend more on the beer in weekends. And yes, I'm very good skeptic when I buy a car or make a business contracts. In those cases I am, because it directly affects my life.
-------------------------------------

I admit this is kinda devil's advocacy (if it is not clear anyway). But I'm really interested in serious answers - why should one become a skeptic in a rich country where he already lives a reasonably good life. Thanks :)

And here's why you (or at least, everybody else) needs to think critically. Because it's hard! It takes training and constant practice to keep thinking critically. Even with practice, people can get off on tangents, which can take a lot of effort to correct. If you don't practice critical thinking when the stakes are low (say, about wearing a blue shirt today because your horoscope say to do that), you can't expect to make good decisions on the larger things (should I invest my life savings in Steorn (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62014)?)

If everyone took the attitude that you did above, you wouldn't have the option of going to serious doctors, or having other options for planning your life other than horoscopes. You rely on other people to think critically, so that you can trust them to get it right when you go to them for help. It's sort of like a herd immunity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity) for woo. If enough people start going off into woo-land, it becomes harder and harder for the remaining non-woo to keep the necessary parts of society on track, and eventually it all goes to hell.

[Windom]

If everyone took the attitude that you did above, you wouldn't have the option of going to serious doctors, or having other options for planning your life other than horoscopes. You rely on other people to think critically, so that you can trust them to get it right when you go to them for help. It's sort of like a herd immunity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity) for woo. If enough people start going off into woo-land, it becomes harder and harder for the remaining non-woo to keep the necessary parts of society on track, and eventually it all goes to hell.

Thanks Horatius, I think this is perfect generalization of why do some people don't really need skepticism and critical thinking: because somebody else do it for them. So they can afford not to think critically everywhere but in situations with a real high stakes.

as for UFO,
But there are people who do let it affect their everyday life.
OK there are people who think they were abused by UFO. But if it never happened to me, I just believe in existence of UFO. I believe that some of people were abused. Thats it. I go to work, earn money, pay taxes like every other who doesn't believe in things like that.

OK there is a small risk that if I ever encounter a sleep paralysis I could think it's UFO. But admit it's very small risk. Majority of UFO believers have never been abducted by aliens (OK, nobody really was, but you know what I mean).

And it's almost the same in every case. There are lots of people who think critically when the stakes are high and affects the life. They don't buy a cat in a bag. But believing in ID or even creationism, UFO, reincarnation... really it doesn't affect your life. Yes, you must use a bit spurious logic to believe that bible is a word of god but don't do what bible says (like, punishing adulteers with death penalty). So what? They can do well with spurious logic and believing in nonsenses. Can't they? Because there are people who do critical thinking for them. There are people who are ready to die for the freedom of speech so that those dumbasses could spread the word of god. There are people who do medicine tests and invents new drugs so that those PETA idiots could stay alive more than 20 years, believe in their crap and fight against science. There are people who makes information technologies better and better every year so that creationsts could create their dino parks. You can do perfectly well without critical thinking.. as long as there is somebody who does it for you.

[Windom]

Tai Chi: skepticism and critical thinking is not the same as sience, but no science is possible without skepticism and critical thinking.

[Horatius]

Thanks Horatius, I think this is perfect generalization of why do some people don't really need skepticism and critical thinking: because somebody else do it for them. So they can afford not to think critically everywhere but in situations with a real high stakes.


Yes, it's clear that quite a few people can get away with it. The problem is, we don't know at what point the woo takes over, and the critical thinkers that do exist can no longer function effectively. Without knowing where the tipping point is, we must err on the safe side, and encourage as many people as possible to think critically, even though we know we'll never get everyone to do so.

There's a reason our society is so rich we can afford to support a lot of hangers-on, and big part of that is the benefit of having a lot of science-minded critical thinkers who can create new and better drugs, products and what not.

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded--here and there, now and then--are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as “bad luck.”

[thaiboxerken]

Why is critical thinking and skepticism valuable?

http://www.gypsypsychicscams.com/

[thaiboxerken]

I was a bit disapointed to find a persons faith in this list.

Religion is something that should definitely be on the list of things to think critically of. Faith is the antithesis of critical thought and gives religious cults their power.

[thaiboxerken]

And it's almost the same in every case. There are lots of people who think critically when the stakes are high and affects the life. They don't buy a cat in a bag. But believing in ID or even creationism, UFO, reincarnation... really it doesn't affect your life. Yes, you must use a bit spurious logic to believe that bible is a word of god but don't do what bible says (like, punishing adulteers with death penalty). So what? They can do well with spurious logic and believing in nonsenses. Can't they? Because there are people who do critical thinking for them. There are people who are ready to die for the freedom of speech so that those dumbasses could spread the word of god. There are people who do medicine tests and invents new drugs so that those PETA idiots could stay alive more than 20 years, believe in their crap and fight against science. There are people who makes information technologies better and better every year so that creationsts could create their dino parks. You can do perfectly well without critical thinking.. as long as there is somebody who does it for you.

The problem with your attitude towards critical thought and skepticism is that you're saying there is nothing wrong with magical thinking. I don't agree. Intellectual laziness is a very hard hole to climb out of. Once the magical thought process begins it's hard to stop and people start flying airplanes into buildings.

Letting other people do the "critical thinking" for you doesn't help protect you from scams and cults. People can do well without critical thought, only if their lucky enough not to come across these scams and cults. The lack of critical thought is what keeps fisching scams and cults still in progress.

The more you encourage magical thinking, the more magical thinking will start to infest science. We're seeing it happen. This magical thinking will cripple our modern world if it gets enough power.

[Almo]

You accept one dumb thing like Uri Gellar, and it makes you more suceptible to other idiocy like homeopathy which CAN have a detrimental effect on your life.

[Horatius]

There's also the problem that the dividing line between a "trivial" belief and one that might kill you isn't always so clear. Does anyone remember Jim Henson (http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Jim%20Henson)?

In 1990 Henson got a cold. His Christian Science upbringing had taught him not to seek medical treatment, but he no longer practiced the faith. However, his general humility, as well as the notion that a cough wasn't serious, dissuaded him from seeking medical help until it was too late. He died of streptococcus pneumonia at age 53. If he had sought treatment six or eight hours earlier, he might still be alive today.

Also consider the effect of irrational beliefs on things like the AIDS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_Mbeki#Controversies:_AIDS) problem in Africa (http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/reliefresources/107036097535.htm).

Thus a little more critical thought on your part may have a great effect on your life. Again, it's hard to know where the dividing line is, so it's best to play it safe.

[Windom]

Again, it's hard to know where the dividing line is, so it's best to play it safe.


This is perfectly true. But then again, if one is ready to pay some hundred bucks for some talisman which makes your car driving safer because he is too lazy for skeptical thinking... do you think he will understand idea such abstract like this? You know you are right and I know you are right and about everybody else here knows you are right. But we are not those who needs to be proven why skeptical thinking is required in every case and why a method "I believe what I want" is a ********.

[Windom]

You accept one dumb thing like Uri Gellar, and it makes you more suceptible to other idiocy like homeopathy which CAN have a detrimental effect on your life.
Thats true again, but - there are a fair amount of people who somehow manages to switch modes. When there is a serious need, they go to the doctors, not to spiritual healers. When they are at university, they can write an examine about every physics law they need to know and even graduate university. But when it comes to simple life, they do believe prayers can heal, they do believe spoons can be bended my mind and they do believe in existence of some about 1024 different types of energy (like, crystal energy...). And they can get away with it. Their behavior is quite illogical but if so far it didn't any harm to them, how can you prove it's wrong?

[Almo]

And they can get away with it. Their behavior is quite illogical but if so far it didn't any harm to them, how can you prove it's wrong?

"Wrong" is the wrong word for it. It's inconsistent. To apply one set of rules to things that are "important" and another to things that aren't, just doesn't make any sense.

Example:
I know a very well respected economist. Obviously, economists know a lot about scarcity, and supply and demand. He talks about a time when at a conference, he and several economist friends were looking for a place to eat. One restaurant had a long line of people outside it, while several others didn't. Using the principle of the "Oppotunity Cost of Time," they reasoned it's better to not wait in line, since waiting adds to the cost of the meal. Time is valuable, after all. The food was lousy. But, he said, "Economists don't like to waste time!" I said, "What about scarcity of resources?" (good food in this case) He said "Ah! Very good point!"

Also, my personal experience is that people in general are NOT capable of switching modes, as you say. The more silliness a person believes in on a daily basis, the more serious fallcies they tend to believe. People are creatures of habit, and believing incorrect things in the absence of evidence becomes a habit.

[Windom]

Also, my personal experience is that people in general are NOT capable of switching modes, as you say.

How they can believe in things which contradicts each other then? How did Orwel call it in his 1984? ;)

Examples:
Lots of people nowdays believe that bible is absolutely true, the word from God. AND they believe in reincarnation. Contradiction!
They believe Jesus was right and Buddha was right. Sorry guys, but Buddha said there is no god(s)!
Lots of people believes every religion is right. Or you can believe whatever you want and you'll be right. Well this is something more than just contradiction, it's pure idiocy...
They believe diseases come from bacteries and viruses. Also, the same disease can come from karma and devil.
They believe God saves us, takes care of us. We will only get what we deserve. And however they go to doctor when they are ill.and so on...

[Dancing David]

What do people need to be skeptical of, then?

Are you saying the general public doesn't need skepticism?

That people should be sceptical, and people need to be sceptical are two different things.

Yes it would benefit people if they exercised more scepticism.

But when you look at the wide variety of poor choices humans make, it is jst another on the list.

But in former work I did , helping people who had crashed and burned, there seemed to be three major poor choices people would make, and usualy they did so with the full knowledge that it was a poor choice, so scepticsim would not have changed thier emotionaly based choice.

1. Maintaining primary relations or friendships with people who were destructive to the individual.

2. Supporting friends and family who were destructive to the individual, especialy letting them live in the house.

3. Mood altering behaviors which were destructive to the individual.

So while you and I feel that being sceptical is beneficial to us, a lot of poor choices are based upon emotional choices despite the known consequences.

[Dancing David]

Did it?
When?

Unfortunately the practioners of science can be as human as the rest and do not always use the critical thinking skills they should, science is rife with all sorts of people not exercising critical thinking, especialy when it comes to thier own pet theory of project.

[Pyrrho]

Unfortunately the practioners of science can be as human as the rest and do not always use the critical thinking skills they should, science is rife with all sorts of people not exercising critical thinking, especialy when it comes to thier own pet theory of project.
That's why peer review is so important in science.

[Piggy]

No skeptic can mount an arguement that God does not exist.
A failure to be skeptical leads to repeating false notions such as this one.

If you care to see such an argument, look here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64463). The argument is summed up in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1947865&postcount=122).

Failure to take a skeptical attitude leaves us open to partisan thinking (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=56008), a type of self-delusion wherein our brains actually reward us for making mistakes.

In short, skepticism is our protection against error. And if we are making errors in our thinking, we will be blind to potential consequences. If we never ask whether there might be a waterfall ahead, we vastly increase our risk of blindly falling over one.

[plindboe]

I was a bit disapointed to find a persons faith in this list. Faith is something that comes from within. Each person senses their faith differently. There people deeply devoted to their faith. Others who feel no need for faith in their lives.

Faith starts with an outside influence, just like any other belief.



No skeptic can mount an arguement that God does not exist. Conversly a person of faith can never offer absolute evidence he does exist.

In a sense it is the same as two blind people arguing the colour of orange. How does either prove their case?

The same can be argued with just about any other paranormal/irrational belief. Prove to me that Big Foot exists..... can't be done. Prove BF doesn't exist..... not possible either. So what's the difference between faith and paranormal/irrational beliefs? There isn't any.

[jonronson]

No skeptic can mount an arguement that God does not exist.


I think Richard Dawkins might disagree with you

[thaiboxerken]

I wonder which god MG is talking about.

[plindboe]

I wonder which god MG is talking about.

I bet it's the one that doesn't interfere with the physical world in any meaningful or measurable way, and is without any actual definition. It just is, because faith says so, and that's that.

[UserGoogol]

How they can believe in things which contradicts each other then? How did Orwel call it in his 1984? ;)

Doublethink (both in 1984 and, I suspect, in reality) derives from thinking contradictory concepts simulataneously, not from switching between two ways of interpreting the world. It is not that they switch between scientific mode and spiritual mode, but rather that they believe both at the same time without fully appreciating the contradiction involved.

[Piggy]

Re why critical thinking is necessary....

I think Dawkins' discussion of the impact of the hell myth on children (http://www.richarddawkins.net/mainPage.php?bodyPage=article_body.php&id=118) is relevant here.

Dawkins asks, which is worse, child molestation or threats of hell?

In answering this question, he applies critical thinking to both cases.

First, he says, we can't simply lump all cases of sexual molestation into one category, as is so often done today. (E.g., right now, there's a legislative effort in my state effort to effectively banish all "sex offenders" from the state by making housing practically impossible for them -- this includes the child rapist as well as the grown man previously convicted at the age of 16 of canoodling with his then 14 yo girlfriend. The stated goal of the sponsor is to move "sexual predators" to other states... just as pedophile priests were shuffled from parish to parish.)

In cases of simple fondling, he argues, it can be much more traumatizing to tell a youngster that many of his friends and family will be tortured for eternity.

Being fondled by the Latin master in the Squash Court was a disagreeable sensation for a nine-year-old, a mixture of embarrassment and skin-crawling revulsion, but it was certainly not in the same league as being led to believe that I, or someone I knew, might go to everlasting fire. As soon as I could wriggle off his knee, I ran to tell my friends and we had a good laugh, our fellowship enhanced by the shared experience of the same sad pedophile. I do not believe that I, or they, suffered lasting, or even temporary damage from this disagreeable physical abuse of power. Given the Latin Master’s eventual suicide, maybe the damage was all on his side.... [Yet] the mental abuse constituted by an unsubstantiated threat of violence and terrible pain, if sincerely believed by the child, could easily be more damaging than the physical actuality of sexual abuse. An extreme threat of violence and pain is precisely what the doctrine of hell is. And there is no doubt at all that many children sincerely believe it, often continuing right through adulthood and old age until death finally releases them.

So it is not necessarily some benign matter of personal faith.

I applaud Dawkins for telling this story in a straightforward manner without the hysteria we're so accustomed to lately.

I recall the story of a young man arrested on a minor charge who was placed in a holding cell with, coincidentally, a former coach who had "molested" him (I don't know what that consisted of) as a boy. He beat the man senseless.

The young man's mother, in an interview, defended her son by saying that this man had "stolen his manhood" among other hyperbole.

Is it any wonder that this fellow felt so traumatized, what with his own mother willing to make statements like that publicly. I would be very surprised if her reaction back in the day were any more sane. I would bet that her reaction had a lot to do with how this youth came to interpret what had happened. No one, after all, had "stolen his manhood" or "stolen his life" as his mother claimed. The crime may have been serious (e.g., forced sodomy), but if it was, then this sort of reaction is not conducive to healing. No wonder he turned into an angry young man.

So what does critical thinking have to do with all that?

I believe that the continued practice of critical thinking conditions us to stop for a moment and ask "what's really going on here?" It helps us to act, rather than to react.

It also frees us from the sort of "positive bigotry" which allows us to dismiss the psychological manipulation and terrorizing of children as mere "faith".

[Windom]

It is not that they switch between scientific mode and spiritual mode, but rather that they believe both at the same time without fully appreciating the contradiction involved.
How's that possible? :eek:

"I think God does not exist therefore it does, so I am right. Try to argue with this, you pesky skeptics!!"

OK actually it's possible when one fools himself by finding as many ad hocs as he needs. Some of them:

"God doesn't allow himself to be tested"

"Bible shouldn't be taken literaly"

"Science just doesn't know everything yet"

[Cuddles]

The argument is summed up in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1947865&postcount=122)

Piggy, if I'd read that yesterday you would have had a nomination. That's probably the best deconstruction of god I've ever seen. :jaw-dropp

[Piggy]

That's probably the best deconstruction of god I've ever seen.
Whatchoo talkin bout, Willis? You know no one can do that. ;)

As you can tell, it's something I've given a great deal of thought to. My cause of the moment is debunking the naive meme that God must be possible because "it can't be disproven".

It's a difficult meme to expose, because it seems sensible at first blush, but when you actually examine it, it falls apart.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

There's really no hard relation between following skepticism and following science, as my Browne example demonstrated.

No, your Browne example is wrong.


Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to test natural explanations for natural phenomenon. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions.

A skeptic is one who questions the validity of a particular claim by calling for evidence to prove or disprove it.

source (http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method_2.html) In your example, Browne doubts reiki; but doubting reiki does not necessarily mean she is practising modern skepticism.