|
|||||
|
Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuckincustoms/459418289 From Less Wrong: we need to study the cognitive sciences, figure out the way our intuitions work and how we might correct for mistakes. Above all, we need to learn to always question the workings of our minds, for we need to understand that they are . . . → Read More: Your intuitions are not Magic Photo credit http://www.flickr.com/photos/kaptainkobold/3930503347/ While composing this post on No Agenda Forums, an interesting problem came up. How can I show someone their own biases? They are obvious to me, but (by definition) the other person’s entire system of thinking is arranged in such a way as to find their biases valid. After coming to understand the limitations . . . → Read More: What sort of mirror?  Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/somerslea/321513270 Note: I addressed the following essay to the general population of the No Agenda Forums, a community that I cherish despite frequent frustration. It is peopled by many conspiracy theorists and champions of various “alternative” things, such as alternative explanations, alternative medicine, etc. In short, people I cannot really reach on a level of reason. What I say may not do any good, but if even one in a thousand of those readers can see the light, then I am proud to have played a small part in the emergence of a rational mind. Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/59422307@N00/213496044 I love everything about this Skeptoid post, in which Brian makes great points about the peril of debating when the truth is on your side. It’s counter-intuitive on first consideration, but as I’ve mused previously, debating has relatively little to do with truth and mostly pivots on charisma and debate tactics (many of . . . → Read More: More debate fail Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/electropod/3167236184/ I don’t have a lot to add to this excellent post about the narrative fallacy at lesswrong. Here are some great excerpts, to convince you to go read the whole thing: Essentially, the narrative fallacy is our tendency to turn everything we see into a story – a linear chain of cause and effect, . . . → Read More: That’s the story of my life  Image credit: flickr.com/photos/markfbennett/2223565383 DebatingLike most sports, I’m not much good at debate. I say it’s a sport because it’s a competition with a winner and loser where the participants’ skills have the largest bearing on the outcome. I think that most people casually lump debate and argument into the same mental bin; if not as exact synonyms, then as different degrees of the same thing. But they are really quite different! A debate has almost nothing to do with logic or the correctness of stated facts, but these things are crucial to the outcome of an argument.  Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/takver/1963128315 Hybrid fusion-fission energy generation a possibility via Futurismic. Isn’t it interesting how this story swept through the internet? Everyone, of course, wants to get rid of nuclear waste right? Awful, evil stuff. Bury it in the earth if you have to. Making it disappear in a magic theoretical reactor is even better, what great news! But what struck me is how no one seems to realize that this is by no means the first idea for a reactor to deal with nuclear “waste”, and that the stuff isn’t really waste at all once you understand a little about it. Read on, and discover a whole nuclear world that you’ve probably never even heard of.
There are so many fallacies and biases that I can’t keep them straight, even though critical thinking is something I value highly. I’m not much good at debate, and although I’d love nothing more than to engender critical thinking and skepticism in others, I don’t have any good ideas on how to do that, except maybe hitting them with a WWIT? question. But what about aspiring skeptics– people who already have the spark of reason but haven’t yet learned to see the fnords on their own?
But that’s not why these things are a threat to actual real scientific medicine (ARSM?). The real danger is when CAM seems to get real results. Another quick redirect; I love this writeup of how we are stupid at risk assessment . I wish a few of the people close to me would learn up on this a bit. The precautionary principle can so easily be abused to the point that it becomes a zero risk . . . → Read More: Risk assessment bias |
|||||
|
Copyright © 2010 Born again Skeptic - All Rights Reserved |
|||||
There are many