What's the harm? Skeptics and scholars respond.

What's the harm? What does it hurt if I don't accept your principles of critical thinking and continue to accept weird thing x (some urban legend, piece of pseudoscience, New Age belief, or conspiracy theory) as true? 

This line is trotted whenever skeptics and lovers of science elucidate a culturally, though not scientifically, controversial fact like evolution, global warming, or the safety of vaccines. It is also used to thwart our bullish dismissal of dangerous nonsense, like holocaust denial, HIV denial, and the denial of the cancer-cigarette link, and silly fluff, like haunted houses, Bigfoot, astrology, and UFO abductions. I've been a skeptic for over eight years, but I have never had a rock solid response to "what's the harm." I usually just point to What's the Harm. This website chronicles examples of physical, psychological, and financial harm incurred by believers in weird things and is an invaluable resource if someone says something like "calling psychics doesn't harm anyone." The problem with over relying on this resource, however, is that it does not address what is the harm in having poor critical thinking skills and believing in weird things in general?"

While attempting to come up with a better rebuttal, I messaged the authors of many of my favorite books on science, critical thinking, and/or weird things. If anyone has a better answer to "what's the harm," I thought, it should be them. Despite not knowing me, they were very generous with their time and, upon my request, sent in thought provoking responses. I originally intended on placing their words throughout this article to fortify and strengthen my own points. Their points were so good, however, that I concluded I could add nothing of value to them. Instead, I am simply going to shut up and let these thinkers shed some light on this issue.

Dear Bill Nye the Science Guy, You don't understand philosophy.

Bill is a great guy, but severely mistaken about philosophy.

Dear Bill,

On one of your Big Think posts, you answered a question by a person called Mike about your thoughts concerning philosophy. Before I get to that, however, I want to say I am a big fan of your work. In my opinion, your ceaseless effort to make the world more scientifically literate, your environmental outreach, and tenure as the CEO of the Planetary Society are very admirable. I also love the respect and patience you show children (there is a reason why Bill Nye the Science Guy is still shown in schools) and think its awesome that you are willing to change your mind about GMO's. In my opinion, it takes a lot of chutzpah to admit when you are wrong. Given that you have the courage to reconsider your views, I decided to write you this letter. It contains commentary of your video and explains why I, a fellow skeptic, am troubled by your positions.

Ken Ham and low hanging fruit

Yesterday, the Ark Encounter theme park opened. This park, which consists of a 510 foot long "replica" of Noah's Ark, cost millions of dollars and took years construct. It was also (quite controversially) supported by the state government of Kentucky. Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis, the group which oversees the park, is notorious in scientific circles for promoting the teaching of the Bible in the science classroom and for operating the creationist "museum." Ken Ham and his organization teach that modern biology, astronomy, geology, and chemistry ought to be rejected in favor of the pseudoscience they display at their park and museum.

They also teach that the Bible is literally true, provides the foundation for all knowledge, and anything that disagrees with it can and ought to be rejected. As you can imagine, many skeptics and science advocates have been very critical of this theme park and the other activities of AiG. These people, which include Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, Michael Shermer, and Phil Plait, have pointed out how strange and potentially harmful Ken Ham and his organization has been. I couldn't agree more with their criticisms.

When skeptics like myself publicly voice our criticisms of AiG, however, we are often told that we are picking "low hanging fruit." If we had any intellectual depth, our critics argue, we would instead contend with the philosophy of sophisticated theologians rather than worrying about fools like Ken Ham. Criticisms like these make is seem as though AiG and similar groups like Creation Ministries International are inconsequential, representative of only a few people, and diminishing in power. This, however, is profoundly wrong.

Creationists groups like Ken Ham's are incredibly well-funded and have succeeded in making creationism a growing, global phenomenon. Historian of science, Ronald L Numbers has painstakingly chronicled how creationism is now rapidly expanding in Australia, Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. This is on top of the fact that, according to Gallup, somewhere between 40-50% of American are creationists. These organizations also have a lot of money to throw around. This is especially apparent when they are compared to skeptical and science groups like the Center for Skeptical Inquiry and the National Center for Science Education.

There is also the fact that what sophisticated clergy and theologians say is of little or no consequence to what the average American (or Earthling, for that matter) thinks about science or religion. Given that our goal is to promote science and critical thinking in the most effective way possible, it is a colossal waste of time discussing process theology and reformed epistemology. If a theologian like John Haught, however, wants to help defend science, then their help on this topic is appreciated and we can save the metaphysical conversations for when the wine is flowing.

The main reason, however, why skeptics should absolutely go after this strain of pseudoscience is that it is one of the most aggressive and expansionist kinds of baloney. The goal of the creationist movement is to remove modern science from the classroom and our culture and replace it with their own brand of nuttiness (or, when they cannot do that, to "teach the controversy"). The point about creationism being intellectually low hanging fruit (which it is) is irrelevant when they are actively trying to undermine the main goal of the skeptical and science communities and occasionally winning.

Skepticism in the classroom

Yesterday, I posted a quote from David Suzuki on my facebook group about science education failing to incorporate skepticism. This was shared widely and approvingly reposed by several highly followed pages.

If you are a science educator yourself, you probably responded to this quote by saying something like "that is easy for you to say. I have tried to teach critical thinking and it is very hard to find material that I could actually use in my classroom."

I take this complaint very seriously. It is difficult to find good critical thinking materials that are both interesting and can actually be applied in the real world. Another reasonable requirement is that these resources need to be very affordable or free. This is because, at least in the United States, good educators get paid just as poorly as bad educators. Even if they are phenomenal science teachers, they simply do not have the extra money available to buy a bunch of stuff. Fortunately for us, many skeptical educators have already anticipated your concerns and have gone through the trouble of creating free skeptical resources for the classroom. These booklets and videos investigate fascinating topics and are tailored for children and young adults who need a dose of critical thinking added to their school curriculum and can can be downloaded with the click of a button.

The first resource that you should check out is a series of short pamphlets/books created by the James Randi Education Foundation. All three of these guides are custom made with certain age groups in mind (one is for elementary, one for late middle school, and one for high school) and are about non-threatening topics like dowsing, ESP, and faeries (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the writer of Sherlock Holmes believed in them). The JREF has provided both student and teacher editions so that you have all the material you need to lead a class discussion.  

If this sounds interesting, please click here and download them.

 

The second resource that I recommend is Brian Dunning's movie, Here be Dragons. This movie is designed to be watched in one class period (it is 45 minutes) and covers very interesting material like conspiracy theories and homeopathy. Mr. Dunning does an excellent job of outlining logical fallacies and exposing many of the bunk that hucksters without being threatening. He also explains how certain features of science work, why people believe in weird things, and even provides an excellent reading list at the end for students who want to know more. 

 

If Mr. Dunning's movie sounds appealing, you can get it here for free. 

 

Third, I want you to check out this workshop on instituting skepticism in the classroom. It was conducted at TAM 9 (The Amazing Meeting, which is a skeptical conference held by the JREF each year) and was later posted on the web. It includes lots of goodies including advice for teachers and several activities that can easily be incorporated into a lesson plan. In one of the most interesting of these activities, your students will get to see how astrology fools our brains. This is a valuable because realizing you can be easily fooled is the first step to becoming a skeptic. 

 

If you want to see these resourced, they have been made available here. 

 

Finally, I want you to check out these lessons created by the Leonore Annenburg Institute for Civics. While the institute's name may not sound skeptical, their lessons are some of the best available. They teach everything from how to examine popular claims to how our biases lead is to distorted conclusions. Given the nature of their material, they could just as easily be included into a civics or history class.

 

If this sounds appealing to you, click here to get these lessons.  

Hopefully these free resources serve you well in your classroom. In my opinion, they are all excellent and (if I had one) I put my seal of approval on them. If you are teaching your child critical thinking at home and feel left out, keep paying attention to my blog because I will be posting a list of affordable children's books that teach skepticism very soon. In the meantime, I recommend you incorporating these lessons at home.

 

The most effective presentation of skepticism i've seen

Socrates meets Bigfoot

Bigfoot in Nor Cal.

Recently there have seen several attacks on "Bigfoot skepticism." If you are unfamiliar with this label, it is a derogatory term used to bewail skeptics who deal mostly with topics like UFO's, astrology, psychics, and Bigfoot rather than social justice issues or religion. It recently exploded all over the internet via the comment section PZ Myer's blog (it should be noted that PZ had a nuanced view and has nothing against "Bigfoot skepticism." This post is directed more at the minority of his readers who think examining Bigfoot is a waste of time).

Instead of explaining why this accusation is incorrect (which I think it clearly is. Skeptics like Peter Boghossan and Matthew McCormick specialize in religion. Michael Shermer and the late Paul Kurtz also talk about religion in their books), the purpose of this post is to focus on why Bigfoot and his friends are invaluable when it comes to training skeptics. Please note that this is not intended to be a book length retort to other internet sites. Instead it is just a few points about why I think Bigfoot and co. are awesome. I hope you enjoy.

Before we do so, however, I think it would be helpful if we first contemplated the skeptical methods of Socrates (469-399 BC). As you probably remember from intro to philosophy class, Socrates was known throughout his home city of Athens for critically examining the popular claims of his day. He used a methodology based on rigorous questioning to tear down baseless assumptions held by his fellow Athenians about religion, morality, politics, and the meaning of life. After this deconstruction, Socrates would work with the person he was questioning to come to new, more sound conclusions based on logic. This systematized, logic-based dialogue is often referred to as Socratic Reasoning in his honor.

Today Socrates' skeptical methods are as valid as ever. The topics which he applied them to, however, are seen as boring and irrelevant by the general audience. This is not astonishing. After all, how many people find ancient Greek politics to be interesting? But, you may ask, "if we do not apply these methods to the topics Socrates examined, what should we apply them to?" This is where Bigfoot and his pals come in. For whatever reason, the furry guy has long captured the public imagination. By applying skepticism to Bigfoot and similar topics, skeptics open a dialog with the general public. Bigfoot is also much less threatening than discussing politics or religious scandals with a general audience (look up what happened for Socrates). While I certainly believe that nothing should be off limits for the skeptic, there is something to be said for pursuing topics that wedge open the door. 

Aside from his popularity, there are a couple of other reasons that we should bring Socrates to bear on Bigfoot.  First, Bigfoot is very useful for training fledgling skeptics. By applying the skeptical toolkit to the big guy and his friends, we can teach valuable lessons about eyewitness testimony, cognitive biases, and evidential standards. Since Bigfoot is a fairly straightforward case of an extraordinary claim, we can examine him without getting too abstract. This allows newbies to cut their skeptical teeth without having to read through a bunch of Plato's Dialogues about the Forms, mathematical truths, or the ultimate nature or reality. The works of Daniel Loxton, Ben Radford, and Joe Nickell are excellent examples of "Bigfoot skepticism" that help both beginner and expert skeptics fine-tune their reasoning skills.

Second (and more important), Bigfoot and is friends are widely believed by the American public to be true. In a country of 300 million people, as much as 52%  believe in astrology, 46% in ESP, 19% in witches, 35% in ghosts, and 22% in UFO's. A recent survey also shows that 35% believe that President Obama is hiding details about where he was born and 25% think that President Bush's administration was behind 9/11 (link). Socrates thought that it was detrimental to society if there was not a gadfly questioning and deconstructing widely held irrational beliefs. Without skeptics out there playing the roll of the gadfly, we are conceding our public discourse to non-reason and non-evidence based epistemologies. This concession could be severely detrimental to our planet, our liberties, our safety, and our economy.

Given these reasons, I think that skeptics have all the reason in the world to criticize Bigfoot, UFO's, homeopathy, astrology, and the like. Not only are they good for training junior skeptics, but they both in the popular imagination and widely believed to be true. Even if this was not the case and virtually no one accepted Bigfoot, Socrates would never pass up such an opportunity to engage a belief that is held for such bad reasons. As skeptics, I do not think that we should either.

If you want to know more about Bigfoot skepticism and how to we can use it to benefit our critical thinking skills, I recommend investigating the work of Daniel Loxton, Benjamin Radford, and Joe Nickell.  All of their work is top notch and conveys a very non-threatening "nice guy" approach to skepticism and critical thinking.

Noam Chomsky on postmodernism

The top ten myths about evolution

For those of you who are not familiar Cameron Smith's The Top Ten Myths About Evolution, it is an excellent book. Like the best works of popular science, it guides the reader without expecting them to already know anything about the subject. While its main purpose is to rebut the most popular misconceptions about the theory of evolution, it also teaches the science needed to fill the void that abandoning creationism leaves. 

In this post, I am going to provide my own rebuttals to Cameron's "top ten myths." The reason why I am doing this is because I want a succinct and easy to read list available for linking. I believe that lots of people are on the fence about evolution not because they embrace creationism, but because they simply are unaware of the facts behind the science (the only exception to this is that I changed number 2). If you read this list and desire to know more, I recommend that you purchase Dr. Smith's book.    

1: Survival of the fittest.

A common misunderstanding about evolution is that "survival of the fittest" means only the strong and ruthless survive. This is wrong. What Herbert Spencer and Charles Darwin meant by "survival" is merely an organism's success rate at passing on copies of its genes into the future through reproduction. They also meant something entirely different by "fittest" than most people think. Instead of meaning an individual's ability to dominate others, they meant organisms who are better adapted for their immediate, local environment.  Taken together "survival of the fittest" means: the organisms which are the most likely to pass on copies of their genes to future generations are those who are better adapted to their immediate, local environment (a definition I borrowed from philosopher of biology, Alexander Rosenberg).

It should also be noted that many of the best strategies for passing on ones genes often have nothing to do with strength or ruthlessness. Many animals, such as various kinds of  octopuses, bugs, and birds, use evasion techniques like camouflage and mimicry to successfully ward off predators and gather food undetected. Other animals, like certain large mammals and bats, use group cooperation and food sharing to ensure their survival. These strategies have been very successful at ensuring the propagation of species and are the reason why humans are still around. They are also probably the reason why humans feel empathy and compassion towards others. 

2: There is no proof/just a theory

A common trope which is just as popular is that there is no evidence for evolution. This misconception, however, has little to do with science and a lot to do with how bad schools are in the USA. Evolution is actually one of the most studied, successful, and supported theories in all of the sciences. The evidence which supports it flows in from all branches of biology including genetics, homology, paleontology, embryology, and study of the geographical distribution of animals. If you are curious about this evidence, then you can read through Talk Origin's guide to the subject or watch Neil Shubin's documentary Your Inner Fish. The thing I recommend doing the most is reading through Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True and Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth. They are both excellent popular level books which explain this evidence.

To see why the "its only a theory" objection is flawed, you need to understand what scientists mean by "theory." Rather than meaning "a hunch or guess" (like in everyday speech), scientists mean something like "a testable and well-confirmed explanation which organizes data and yields fruitful predictions." This is why the existence of atoms is explained in atomic theory and the fact that some diseases are caused by microorganisms like bacteria and viruses is explained in germ theory. If you take introductory science classes in college, such as biology, geology, or astronomy, your professor will almost certainly cover this distinction in the introductory unit on the nature of science.

3: The ladder of progress

Many people believe that evolution means that all living things are improving towards a perfect state. This is usually envisioned as a ladder with man at the top striving towards godhood with all other living things occupying lower spots on the ladder and striving to be like man. These lower living things are ranked and given their spot on the ladder based on how similar to man they are. The more like man they are in appearance, the higher their ranking is on the ladder. This idea, however, is dead wrong. Living things are not striving towards being more like man and, as we discussed in misconception #1, fitness is only about passing genes on, not becoming more like man.

In many instances, being less like man is a better survival strategy. For example, many mammals like dolphins evolved from land animals. They, however, lost their limbs and returned to the water. This "regression" has worked out well for them and they are one of the most vicious predators in the ocean. If the ladder theory was true, then dolphins should have become more like man through evolution, not less. Other organisms, like the great white shark, are also good counterexamples because they have barely changed since the time of the dinosaurs.

4: The missing link

It is a popular belief that there is a missing link between man and apes and this absence is a reason for doubting the cogency of evolution.  This criticism, however, misunderstands man's relationship to the other apes (chimps, bonobos, gorillas, gibbons, and orangutans). Evolutionists do not think we "came from" any one of these animals. Instead they think we share common ancestors with them. These ancestors, such as the one we share with chimps, would be just as genetically different from chimps as it would be from us. This idea can be understood by the family analogy. Just like we share a common ancestor with our cousin (our grandparents), we share a common ancestor with chimps. For our more distant, second cousins (such as gorillas), you have to go back a further generation to great grandparents.

While the fossil record will always be incomplete because only a fraction of one percent of dead organisms fossilize, there is an absolute ton of amazing fossils left over from this branching process and I highly recommend reading up on them (message me and I will recommend some books). The evidence for common ancestry, however, comes from much more than paleontology. The fields of genetics, embryology, bio-geography, and comparative anatomy converge to attest to human beings sharing a common ancestor with apes (read about this evidence here and here). 

5: Evolution is random

It is certainly true that one of the two pillars of evolution is random mutation. If you are unfamiliar with random mutation, it simply refers to the fact that when genes are passed on to the next generation, they are not copied perfectly. These tiny differences usually do nothing, but sometimes they make the offspring slightly faster or slightly better a camouflaging themselves. These modifications accumulate overtime as genes are inherited from generation to generation (they do not "start over," which is every important).

Natural selection, which is the second pillar of evolution, favors those organisms which have those slight advantages. As generations pass and the fastest and best camouflaged organisms survive longer and have more offspring, the species as a whole will change. For example, suppose we have a population of mice living in an environment where being brown is a massive advantage. The browner mice will live longer than their less brown relatives. Their even browner offspring also will tend to survive longer and have more babies than their less brown siblings. As this pattern of survival by being brown proliferates over time, the mice population will become increasingly brown. This is how natural (non random) selection interacts with accumulated random mutations to drive evolution.

6: People come from monkeys

As I talked about in #4 and in my criticism of Katt Williams,  people did not come from modern day monkeys. Instead, we share a common ancestor with them. This misconception is one of the major reasons why people expect there to be a "missing link." It should also be said that the reason that monkeys are not turning into people (as discussed in #3) is that evolution is not a directed process of being more manlike. The "goal" of monkeys is not to become man, but to simply pass on their genes. 

7: Nature's perfect balance

Nature is usually believed to be a harmonious whole which is in perfect balance. On the environmental level, however, this is false. The environment is in constant flux from external factors (meteors, etc...) and internal factors (the gradual moving of tectonic plates, the accumulation of certain gases in the atmosphere). These changes move the survival goalposts and force organisms to come up with new adaptations or perish.

As #5 points out, random mutation also means organisms slowly change. As small modifications accumulate in a lineage, organisms gain new abilities which are then selected for or against by their environment. This is quite different from how creationists think about animals. Unlike biologists, they believe that "dogs stay dogs (this is ironic because humans selectively bred dogs from wolves)" and "cats stay cats (again, ironic)."

8: Creationism disproves evolution

No it doesn't. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming (see no, 4) and the evidence for creationism is non-existent. If anything, evolution disproves the versions of creationism that are incompatible with it. If you would like to see point by point rebuttals of creationist arguments that are not included in this post, please visit Talk Origins.    

9: Intelligent Design is science

Intelligent Design is not a coherent theory, just creationism in a lab coat. To quote Paul Nelson:

Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’-but, as yet, no general theory of biological design. 

Unlike IDC, evolution is a full fledged theory. We can say this because it unifies all areas of modern biology into a coherent framework, makes novel predictions, is ontologically parsimonious  (it appeals to no entities outside of the natural world), and has great explanatory scope. IDC has none of these virtues.

As it has been shown conclusively, IDC is merely a strategy designed by creationists following the disastrous Edwards vs. Aguillard ruling. Since it was clear following this court case that creationism was not going to be able to get past the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, creationists got rid of the explicit appeals to Biblical literalism and recruited several very bright scholars like Michael Behe, William Dembski, and Stephen Meyers. The end result was Intelligent Design.
  
10: Evolution is immoral

This idea could be taken two different ways. The first is that natural selection favors those organisms which are selfish and backstabbing. This means that it literally breeds for traits that are immoral. As I said in #1, however, many organisms have survived due to strategies like sharing food and protecting one another. Bats, for example, share with their brethren who did not successfully acquire food. Likewise, bats who do not share become pariahs and their brethren will not help them if they are unsuccessful a following night. Human beings have evolved a very strong moral sense. Despite popular conceptions, the overwhelming number of human interactions are cooperative (see Jessica Piece's Wild Justice for lots of well developed information about this subject). .

The second interpretation of this claim is that if evolution is true, there can be no ultimate grounds for morality. While some very respected philosophers like Richard Joyce, Alexander Rosenberg, and (the late) JL Mackie believe this, many ethicist think that biology has no adverse effect on morality. Since Ancient Greece, philosophers have been doing morality without any appeal to the supernatural. These scholars charge that biology effects their ethical ideas in a positive way by illuminating how the world works. This, they argue, allows them to more effectively bring about what they think ought to be the case. If you want to explore morality more, I recommend Peter Singer, (the late) Philipa Foot, Simon Blackburn, and Philip Kitcher. They all have very different, but very interesting, things to say.

Conclusion

I hope that this post helps you explain and elucidate the wonders of science. If you would like more tools in this fight, please click on my content section. There I have posts about how to talk to non-skeptics and other responses to creationism. You can also do, as I mentioned earlier, purchase Dr, Smith's excellent book.

How skeptics should not confront pseudoscience

I sincerely believe that it is necessary for both science educators and skeptics to engage the public in a rational dialog. I do not, however, think that they should be open to every available time, method, and format. This is because, as I will argue below, approaching the public in the wrong way may do more harm than good.

A format that should be avoided all together is formal debates. Debates have several features that make them a poor format for science communication. As it has been pointed out again and again, virtually the whole audience goes to debates with their minds already made up. Unless someone gets absolutely tooled, then no one is likely to change their mind (this can also backfire and embolden someone's beliefs). It is also very difficult to correctly explain scientific theories in such a small amount of time. Even the quickest explanation of evolution takes college professors a couple of full length class periods. There is no reason to think that it can be done in a twenty minute opening statement.

Debates can also help the cause of pseudoscience. Unlike the defenders of science, the charlatan have the ability to make things up on the spot because they are not committed to the truth. This gives them a massive advantage in persuading the audience who cannot tell the difference. Many pseudoscientists are also master rhetoricians and they pay their rent by debating. These factors mean that there is a good chance they are going to win, even if they are full of it. A great example of this is the debate between Kent Hovind and Massimo Pigliucci (link). Despite Massimo having doctorates in botany, genetics, and philosophy and Kent having one from an uncredited Christian diploma mill, it is not clear who won the exchange.

Perhaps even worse, you are granting the proponent of pseudoscience a major propaganda victory by merely stepping on stage with them. This victory is the ability to claim that there is a legitimate debate between their viewpoint and mainstream science. Since achieving this status is a major goal of Intelligent Design proponents, you have already given them a tremendous victory before you even open your mouth. You may respond to this by saying something like "But isn't that a change to crush them? What if the defender of science smashes them?" The problem with this is that it still gives the audience the impression that there is no settled science.

Instead of doing debates, scientists and science educators should make documentaries, host podcasts, appear on television shows, and write popular level books. This allows them to explain the complexities of theories like evolution without having to immediately deal with asinine objections like missing links and apes turning into people. Once these theories are properly explained, many of the criticisms that captivate the public imagination will dissolve away.  An excellent example of this is Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker. This documentary debunks objections like "an eye could not be made by chance" or "what good is only half of an eye" by explaining how natural selection actually works.

If you are a skeptic and wish to discuss critical thinking at the grass roots level, then friendly discussions are to be preferred. There are many resources that can help develop techniques for diffusing ideas about science and critical thinking. If you desire to communicate ideas, like the theory of evolution, I highly recommend that you also read popular level books by people like Sean Carroll, Jerry Coyne, and (of course) Richard Dawkins. Their books contain lucid explanations, captivating evidence, and excellent analogies that you can use to explain science. I also recommend that you preempt the concerns that creationists may have by reading Ruse, Numbers, and Kitcher. Since all creationists have virtually the same objections, this should not be hard to do.

While this advice may not sound as daring as taking to he debate stage, it allows science to dispel misunderstandings on its own terms without creating the illusion that it is on par with pseudoscience. This is the standard that we should strive for because it creates a much better environment to change the minds of the masses.

Spock vs. Critical thinking

He may be bad at reasoning, but Evil Spock has an amazing goatee.

Some of the most egregious misrepresentations of what it means to be rational come from my favorite fictional character, Star Trek's Mr. Spock. If you are not familiar with the literature on rationality, this is probably surprising to you. After all, Spock is portrayed to show close to no passion (except when he can no longer repress it) and he makes decisions based on cold, calculating logic. This is not, however, what it means to be a critical thinker.

As it has been pointed out by Eliezer Yudkowsky, Julia Galef (who is the first to use the following two examples), and Luke Muehlhauser, there is nothing rational about Spock's decision making process. For whatever reason, Gene Roddenberry wrote our Vulcan hero as someone who does not take other sentient being's emotion into account when he is deciding what to do. To see what I am talking about, examine this dialog between Spock and McCoy on the the episode Galileo Seven:

McCoy: "Well, Mr. Spock, [the aliens] didn’t stay frightened very long, did they?"
Spock: "A most illogical reaction. When we demonstrated our superior weapons, they should have fled."
McCoy: "You mean they should have respected us?"
Spock: "Of course!"
McCoy: "Mr. Spock, respect is a rational process. Did it ever occur to you that they might react emotionally, with anger?"
Spock: "Doctor, I’m not responsible for their unpredictability."
McCoy: "They were perfectly predictable, to anyone with feeling! You might as well admit it, Mr. Spock: your precious logic brought them down on us!"

The type of rationality that Spock is betraying here is known as epistemic rationality. This kind, also known as type 1 rationality, is our commitment to having as accurate a view of the world as we possibly can. If Spock were abiding by a commitment to know the world as it really is, then he would have been obligated to take into account all of the evidence about behavior even if it went against his preconceived notions of logic. By not doing so, he is being the very definition of delusional (having a sustained disregard of reality).

The other type of rationality that Spock has a hard time grasping is instrumental rationality (or type 2 rationality).  Unlike epistemic rationality, instrumental rationality is about applying your knowledge to a task and finding the most reliable and efficient way of completing it. For example, on the episode Charlie X, Spock loses in chess to Kirk and declares "Your illogical approach to chess does have its advantages on occasion, Captain." But Kirk's playing style is a textbook case of instrumental rationality. This is because, if Kirk's goal is to win at chess, his methods allow him to consistently accomplish what he desires.

Spock also goes against instrumental rationality when he downplays the importance of passion. While it is certainly true that passion can cloud one's judgement and lead to an overestimation of one's own prowess, it also motivates us to dream up and embrace many of our goals. For example, being passionate about the stars motivated Vincent van Gogh to paint and Galileo Galilei to turn his looking glass to the sky. This is what David Hume meant when he said "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions."

In closing, Spock has the wrong idea about rationality. Clear thinking is about abiding by two types of rationality. The first is having the most accurate map of the world possible, while the second is about reliably and effectively achieving your goals. This is very different than reasoning devoid of emotions or saying esoteric dictums about decision making.  If you want to learn the actual methods of critical thinking, stay tuned to this series. In the meantime, live long and prosper.

Arguing with non-skeptics (resources)

To help you discuss science and critical thinking with the both the true believers and the fence sitters, I have created this list of resources for you. These links will take you to podcasts, free pdf's, and videos discussing how to discuss and debate with non-skeptics. I hope you enjoy. 

• John Cook's Debunking Handbook is an excellent resource for engaging believers. This is because it shows the science behind debunking and exposes some of the most egregious myths about trying to change someone's mind (link).
• Sadie Crabtree's discussion at The Amazing Meeting about how to win hearts and minds for skepticism. Like Cook's booklet, this talk focuses on common misconceptions and debunking and offers lots of useful advice that actually works (link). 
• My post about how to argue with non-skeptics without going crazy. These are just a few pointers to turn such discussions into a positive and fun learning experience for both the skeptic and the believer (link). 
• The Science Talk podcast recorded a two part conference on how to discuss and debate with non-skeptics. The panel discussion was hosted by Julia Galef and featured George Hrab, DJ Grothe, James Randi, and Steve Mirsky (part 1, part 2).
• Brian Dunning recorded an episode of Skeptoid about reasons why scientists should not publicly debate (on stage as opposed to one one one discussions) believers in creationism, intelligent design, and other forms of science denial (link).
• Phil Plait's very famous talk (at least relative to skepticism) about why skeptics should avoid being dicks to people who believe weird things. This video needs to be watched carefully because it can easily be misunderstood (link). 
• Neil DeGrasse Tyson discusses some of the lessons he has learned about communicating science. One of the key points he makes is to stress how wonderful science is. This is key because new-skeptics  need to fill the void that nonsense leaves with something else (link).

How to argue with a non-skeptic without going crazy

One of the attributes that most skeptics share is a burning desire to discuss critical thinking and science with non-skeptics. While such passion is admirable, many skeptics have a warped idea of what is actually going to happen in these discussions. Without warrant, they assume that they are going to go in and say something like "you believe in magic and faeries" and the other person is going to roll over and become a science lover.

Guess again. Discussing and debating with non-skeptics in one of the most irritating and non-progressive things you can possibly do in your spare time. This is because many believers in pseudoscience and the paranormal have a tremendous amount of time, money, and energy invested into their beliefs. Like anyone else, these people find it uncomfortable and distressing to have their cherished beliefs challenged and they will likely put on their cognitive blinders or get really angry with you if you push too hard.

Despite these odds, however, you should not not despair. Almost all skeptics started off as believers who believed in at least some nutty ideology. This means that even people from the most rigid backgrounds are occasionally talked into leaving dogmatism behind for rationality (If you do not believe me, Google "Nate Phelps" and "Marjoe Gortner"). You should also be optimistic about how many people there are out there who are are simply ignorant of science and critical thinking.

These people, due to their pursuits in other areas, have thought little about the big bang, evolution, cognitive biases, or decision making. Its not that they are dogmatically opposed to these things, they simply do not know any better and reject these ideas due to anti-scientific arguments that float around in the popular imagination (for example, "if evolution is real, then why aren't apes turning into people?"). I, like many other skeptics, believe that changing this group's mind is much easier because they do not have the same level of commitments as a true believer.

Thankfully, I am at a part in my life that I enjoy discussing these topics with both the fence sitter and the most stubborn believers in bunk (trust me, I know some nutty ones too). This is because I have a set of rules of thumb that I follow during discussions that keep me level headed. To help you do the same, I decided to post some of these rules in the form of advice.

1. Be kind and respectful. Remember that the person you are talking to also has hopes, dreams, and aspirations. Like you, they care about living a fulfilling life and probably want to spend it with their loved ones. By keeping this in mind, I find it much more difficult to get mad with someone for not agreeing with me. Being civil will also allow you to accomplish the major goal of shattering stereotypes about skeptics. For whatever reason, we are believed to be a bunch of inhumane bullies who are just out to offend people. If you imprint on a believer your own kindness, they can no longer think these things without remembering how they once met a kind and polite skeptic.
2. Lower your expectations. As I said earlier, you are going to get very frustrated if you think that you are going to go in like John Rambo and make someone change their entire worldview. I never expect to make such progress in a single sitting and you shouldn't either. Instead of converting someone outright, you should aim to sow the seeds of doubt and explain skepticism by applying critical thinking skills to ideas that will likely not offend the person. These same reasons for doubting the effectiveness of magnetic wristbands or the existence of planet Nibiru may later pop back up later when they consider whether or not homeopathy and astrology actually work. 
3. Enjoy the conversation. Even though you may not learn something about biology or physics from your conversation, engaging believers can still teach many fascinating lessons in sociology and psychology. Like an anthropologist studying apes in the woods, I am often blown away by the actual motivations and reactions of believers. Since many people use the exact same arguments, conversing with one believer can help you cut your skeptical teeth and refine your arguments and counter-arguments for your next encounter with proponents of the same variety of woo. Whenever I look at an exchange as a chance to learn something, it is very hard for me to get frustrated.
4. Channel Socrates. The philosopher Socrates had an excellent debate methodology. Rather than viewing an exchange as a competition where there is only one winner, he thought of them as a cooperative effort between two teammates. Socrates thought the goal of this dialogue was for both participants to sharpen their reasoning skills and come to more nuanced views about reality. Rather than accusing his partner of being an idiot, he would ask them questions like "why do you believe x?" or "have you considered how fact y would effect your belief in x?" By making the exchange out to be mutually beneficial, you will strip it of most of the frustration you usually feel.

Red flags to beware of

Philosopher Harry Frankfurt begins his treatise, On Bullshit, with an observation about the amount of baloney out there and how we take for granted our ability to detect it.

One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted. Most people are rather confident of their ability to recognize bullshit and to avoid being taken in by it. So the phenomenon has not aroused much deliberate concern. We have no clear understanding of what bullshit is, why there is so much of it, or what functions it serves.

I agree with this sentiment. While most people think that they can easily spot a con artist, few (at least in the United States) have highly calibrated baloney detectors. Like it or not, your neighbors and your loved ones have probably been snowed by at least a few charlatans. If you think I am exaggerating, please look at the alarmingly large number of people who are taken in by baseless occult and paranormal beliefs.

I, however, do not think the battle against nonsense is lost. Critical thinking can be learned and we can make our baloney detectors more highly calibrated. A great first step towards for anyone who is trying to become a better critical thinker is to learn the warning signs that usually accompany baloney. While spotting these red flags does not guarantee that a claim is false, they should make you skeptical of whatever is being sold or proposed.

1. Appeal to illegitimate authority. You can hardly turn on the tv without seeing an add with men in lab coats endorsing a male enhancement product. Likewise, almost every strange claim on the internet is seemingly backed by the late electrical engineer, Nikola Tesla. These appeals, however, are worthless. A product's soundness can only be judged by the supporting evidence, not by appealing to a man in a commercial in a lab coat or a figure in the history of science. If we do not know enough about the claim to say something intelligent, then the proper authority to consider is the consensus held by the contemporary, relevant experts.  
2. Appeal to political correctness. Many claims argue that you should accept them because it is the moral or or politically correct thing to do. For example, many have charged that it is immoral to accept the theory of evolution because it means that we are apes. It is irrelevant, however, how warm and fuzzy these ideas are. All that matters is if the preponderance of evidence supports them. If it does, then you are simply denying reality by dismissing them. It should be noted that it is equally wrong to accept a claim because it is politically incorrect or considered shocking.
3. Appeal to ancient wisdom. Whenever anyone appeals to the wisdom of ancient people in an effort to seal their claim off from scrutiny, be skeptical. Despite their deep desire to learn, the most advanced ancient people only knew a fraction of one percent of what we know today. Their knowledge about medicine, engineering, and astronomy was limited at best and they were completely oblivious to fields like virology. Even worse, they practiced things that we know to be a waste of time like astrology and feng shui. While an idea they proposed may be correct, they cannot be excused from a critical examination. 
4. Appeal to nature. Many proponents of alternative medicine try to promote their ideas by appealing to the fact that they are natural. They say things like "holistic medicine is better for you because it consists of all natural ingredients." The problem with this is that while there are many natural things that are good for you, there are just many that are harmful. Jellyfish neuro-toxins and botulism are both natural. So are poison ivy and e. coli. The only way to know if a natural remedy is good or bad for you is to examine the evidence and look at what the relevant medical experts have said about the issue.
5. Appeal to energy. One of the favored ideas of New Age proponents is using the word energy to describe some sort of supernatural force or entity. The problem with this is that, scientifically speaking, energy can be defined as "the ability of something to do work." If you substitute this definition into sentences about how energy somehow has something to do auras, ghosts, and telepathy, these claims become nonsensical or meaningless. Whenever someone uses energy in a way that bucks against this traditional usage, be skeptical. 
6. Forgetting the misses.  Many psychics want you to believe that they can talk to the dead because they can accurately predict many details about your life (an accurate prediction is called a hit). When they are trying to convince you, however, you need to also keep track of how many inaccurate predictions they made (misses). Since mankind is predisposed to want to believe, we tend to forget to do this and end up being stunned that a psychic could get twelve hits out of seventy probing guesses. When these are factored together, we need to ask ourselves "is this any better than if someone was just making educated guesses based on previous information and my physical appearance?" 
7. Shotgun method. This is a popular debate tactic employed by hucksters (the most notable being creationist Duane Gish). The shotgun method is used when one makes more claims than you could possibly ever refute in a given time period. When you fail to sufficiently address 30 claims in 30 minutes, the huckster states that their claim must be right because you have not word-for-word refuted them. Stacking baloney, however, does not make a claim true. Only solid evidence that is skeptically examined, not parlor debating tricks, can  support to a claim. If the huckster really wants their claims to be taken seriously, then they have to submit them for sustained scrutiny by experts.
8. Appeal to the absence of evidence. It is a favored tactic of hucksters to argue that the lack of evidence for their claim makes it more plausible. This is seen when UFO proponents hold up documents with big black lines through it or charge that the government is "covering it up." The problem with this is two-folds: First, it eliminates the ability for a claim to be tested because "the evidence is being covered up" can be used to get out of almost any objection. (testability is also a key property of science and lacking it makes a claim less plausible). Second, not having evidence gives you no positive reason to accept something. After all, if we had to accept claims with no evidence, we would have to believe in Santa Claus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the invisible, undetectable dragon in Carl Sagan's garage, and Bertrand Russell's Teapot. Since this is absurd, the burden is on the believer to provide positive evidence.    
9. Appeal to the middle road. A typical line used by people who hold centrist positions is that they must be right because they are in the middle of two extremes. "Evangelical Christians and atheists are both fundamentalists. I, on the other hand, hold the moderate position of being spiritual." Being in "the center", however, does not automatically make something correct. (Keeping with our example,) if Christianity or atheism were shown to be very plausible, then the spiritualist would be wrong to hold their position because the evidence would go against it.
10. World salad. Whenever you hear words like quantum consciousness, poststructuralism, quantum entanglement, and hermeneutics used to defend some sort of anti-scientific or spiritual belief, your baloney detector should immediately go off. This is because postmodernist philosophers and proponents of Quantum Mysticism tend to use words like these to make their ideas sound more sophisticated. While this may sound impressive to the lay person, their use of these words is almost always nonsensical or semantically meaningless. They are doing nothing more than randomly inserting words into sentences to make them sound complicated. This is attested to by the Deepak Chopra generator and the postmodern generator. Both of these websites run on engines that randomly assemble words into sentences that are impressively sounding, but meaningless.  

This list is certainly incomplete, but it is an excellent starting point for those learning how to think critically. When you memorize these and other red flags, you will notice that your baloney detector will start to go off all the time.  If you are having a conversation with someone who is trying to convince you of a natural remedy or that one of Oprah's guests have psychic powers, pointing them out will help you explain to your family and friends why they should not waste their money and time on supporting hucksters.  

Wally Wallington unknowlingly debunks Ancient Aliens

For more of a full writeup on Ancient Aliens, click here.

Why you should about skeptical of "Ancient Aliens"

If you own a tv, you have probably seen the wild haired host of The History Channel's hit show, Ancient Aliens. This man is Giorgio Tsoukalos. Like Erick von Daniken before him, Mr. Tsoukalos argues that aliens helped mankind progress culturally and technologically in the past. For example, aliens could have helped ancient Egyptians in their construction of Stonehenge. Despite being laughed off by professional historians, anthropologists, Mr. Tsoukalos' "ancient astronaut hypothesis (from now on, the AAH)" is taken seriously by large hunks of the public.

To his credit, I think Mr. Tsoukalos' case is a lot more plausible than many other fringe beliefs like astrology and homeopathy. This is because the aliens he posits are entirely physical beings whose existence would not prove scientific naturalism is incorrect. Another reason why it cannot be ruled out a priori is because astrobiologists and the men and women at SETI believe that there is more than likely other intelligent life in the cosmos. This is something that other believers in odd (but natural) beings like bigfoot cannot claim.

Despite being more plausible than a lot of other bunk out there, the AAH still seems to be bunk. Like other fringe beliefs, the proponent of this idea are not formally trained in history, anthropology, or archaeology. Von Dankien was a motel operator. Mr. Tsoukalos has a degree in sports communication. Their theories have also been vehemently rejected by the community of scholars. While these signs do not prove that the AAH is bunk, it should cause us to raise our red flags. My concerns, however, are not historical (those criticisms are out there if you are interested in them). Instead they stem from two major pitfalls that all variation of the AAH I have seen share. 

The first pitfall is that it commits the "alien of the gaps" fallacy. Much like the god of the gaps fallacy, the AAH is nothing more than finding a gap in our understanding and plugging it with a super powerful being. Don't know how the pyramids were built? Aliens did it. Have no idea how the heads were moved at Easter Island? Aliens levitated them. Like all other arguments from ignorance, the alien of the gaps fallacy takes the form of "I don't know how x happened. Therefore, it was y."

Unfortunately for the alien proponent, not knowing how something happened is not evidence for any hypothesis. It is merely a statement of ignorance. To justify the leap to "aliens did it," Mr. Tsoukalos is going to need positive evidence. After he has this, he is going to have to show that the AAH adequately explains it. This demand is very similar to what many philosophers of science, like Gregory Dawes and Maarten Boudry, expect from intelligent design advocates. If the AAH is the best explanation, then it should possess the following traits (source) :

1. Testability: better explanations render specific predictions that can be falsified or corroborated.
2. Scope (aka “comprehensiveness” or “consilience”): better explanations explain more types of phenomena.
3. Precision: better explanations explain phenomena with greater precision.
4. Simplicity: better explanations make use of fewer claims, especially fewer as yet unsupported claims (“lack of ad-hoc-ness”).
5. Mechanism: better explanations provide more information about underlying mechanisms.
6. Unification: better explanations unify apparently disparate phenomena (also sometimes called “consilience”).
7. Predictive novelty: better explanations don’t just “retrodict” what we already know, but predict things we observe only after they are predicted.
8. Analogy (aka “fit with background knowledge”): better explanations generally fit with what we already know with some certainty.
9. Past explanatory success: better explanations fit within a tradition or trend with past explanatory success (e.g. astronomy, not astrology).

Since the AAH does not possess these traits at the present, we are more than justified in not accepting it. If you are interested in researching this topic more, philosopher of history C.B. McCullagh beautifully elucidates how explanations work in history in Justifying Historical Descriptions.

The second flaw in the hypothesis can be understood through a challenge. I submit to Mr. Tsoukalos that "there is an alien in my garage" and dare him to disprove this statement. If he were to walk to my garage and open the door, he would point of there is no alien. I would respond by saying that "the alien is invisible." Next he would try to feel it. I would allege that the alien is incorporeal. Finally, he would say "lets try to detect its body heat." I would state that the alien has on a shield that emits no heat.

Much like the alien in my garage, the AAH can always add ad hoc (auxiliary) assumptions to avoid being proved wrong. For example, a retired construction worker named Wally Wallington has single-handedly built a Stonehenge replica in his backyard (link here). What makes this interesting is that Mr. Wallington used nothing but very simple tools that would have been available at the time of the Celts. This shows that one can move and erect very heavy stones without the assistance of ancient aliens.

Do proponents of the AAH take this as evidence that their hypothesis is wrong? Of course not. Like my garage dwelling alien, the AAH can be insulated through tacking on auxiliary assumptions. The aliens proponent will respond to Mr. Wallington's Stonehenge by saying "OK, well how about this other giant thing?" or "well, the aliens helped them do the step before that." The problem with this strategy is that prevents the AAH from being testable in any meaningful way. Since this sensitivity to testing is one of the core characteristics of science, the AAH falls into the same pit of bunk as creationism and Freudian psychology.

The AAH proponent may respond to my charges by saying "that does not conclusively disprove that there was no ancient aliens. It is still possible." I agree with this statement. Despite being a bad explanation and that suffers from being untestable, it is still possible that there were ancient aliens. This response, however, misses the point. Science does not seek to know that is merely possible. This is because everything that is not logically impossible is possible. This includes the possibility that hyper-dimensional beings are living inside your butt and that there is an actual, undetectable alien living in my garage.

Instead, science wants to know what ideas and explanations are the most probable. This is how science came to embrace its most important ideas, like evolution, the periodic table, and thermodynamics, and reject things like astrology and Tarot cards. It is also how any cogent form of inductive reasoning works and how we judge events at our college and jobs. If the AAH wants to be taken seriously, it must conform to these standards because they are the most successful ones we have.

If you would like to know more about the AAH and many other ideas, I highly recommend Guy P Harrison's 50 Popular Believes that People Think are True. This book is very fun to read and contains lots of recommendations about further resources.

What do skeptics believe in?

When my fellow skeptics or I interact with believers, we are almost always asked the question: “Well if you do not believe in x, what do you value or believe in?” For some reason, people assume our answer will be: “Nothing. I do not appreciate anything or believe that there is anything interesting left to say about life.”  Since this stereotype is as popular as it is inaccurate, I decided to outline my own response in this post.  If you are a skeptic and also have a blog, I recommend you take the time out of your day to sketch out your own response.

I believe in the negative value of philosophy.

While philosophy may not give us knowledge, it provides plenty of wisdom.  This wisdom helps us realize how worthless many popular fetishes and activities really are.  This realization comes about through philosophy’s insistence that we need to think deeply about things like God, free-will, and right and wrong.  Since contemporary culture consists almost entirely of quick and shallow answers, philosophy’s contrary way of thinking helps us see through its vanities quite easily.

After fetishes like reality TV shows, celebrity gossip, chain restaurants, and New Age self-help nonsense are all cleared away, we can prioritize those things that are left.  Since I started doing this, I have accomplished things ranging from learning how to cook better to studying abroad in Russia for a semester.  I have also read a book a week (on average) for over ten years.  You would be surprised what you can do in the extra time you have from not watching so much television.

The “negative” value of philosophy will become even more important in the United States (and the world for that matter) as its population becomes increasingly nonreligious.  Philosopher Richard Taylor outlined this need in his book, Metaphysics.

When religion can make no headway, in the mind of the skeptic, ideology came sometimes offer some sort of satisfaction to much the same need.  Thus many persons spend their lives in a sandcastle, a daydream, in which every answer to every metaphysical question decorates its many mansions.  The whole thing is the creation of their brains, or even worse, of their needs—it is an empty dream, for nothing has been created except illusions (Taylor, 5).  

These beliefs, such as New Age philosophies and reality TV shows, are just as shallow as the traditional beliefs systems they are replacing. Like Richard Taylor, I believe this becomes apparent when we study philosophy.  

Since Socrates, philosophy has been about tearing down destructive aspects of Western culture.

I believe that the cosmos is wonderful without making stuff up about it.

Since I was a child, stars and planets have filled my imagination. I had posters of the planets all over my walls and read encyclopedias to learn everything I could about space. The beauty and size of the cosmos blew my young mind and induced a feeling of great awe. Since this time, I have never had these feelings replicated by anything else.

Despite what many New Age'rs and creationists think, understanding the science which underlies the workings of the universe does not undermine my cosmic awe. On the contrary! Science lead me to the profound truth that we are all connected “to each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.”

This shows that one does not need to turn to astrology or our tarot cards to feel the majesty of the universe. In fact, celestial courts are quite tame in comparison to the true wonders of space. The beauty and power of pulsars and quasars is wilder than anything dreamed up by an ancient soothsayer.  Like other space geeks, I’m rocked to my very core by the images and data retrieved by the Hubble telescope. Its images put any man made piece of art to shame. 

I believe if this sort of information was available in the past, almost all great works of art would be popularizations of science. Can you imagine a universe where Leonardo Da Vinci would have seen these pictures? I think he would have given up his other works and spent the rest of his days working on telescopes, painting palace ceilings with black holes and galaxies, and running the first ever Florence Astronomical Society.

I believe that critical thinking can be learned

When I was a teenager, I believed in all sorts of weird things. This stemmed from me never going past surface level depth in traditional religion. Unlike many Americans, I was never taught the Bible or theology, but a moot Christianity. In 8th grade, I began exploring the marketplace of ideas. For a while, I was what could have been described as a New Age'r. I routinely visited pagan chat rooms and read material on occult.

As I grew older, my education began to get in the way of my belief in weird things. In particularly, reading Michael Shermer. By 2008, I could no longer separate the way I thought in oceanography and symbolic logic from my everyday thinking.  Critical thinking had infected my mental faculties, which induced my first real intellectual crisis.  This soon changed as I started to explore skepticism through the internet.  I came to love the works of James Randi and other skeptics.

The way they used logic and scientific thinking to explain psychics, UFO’s, and big foot struck me as a potent way of viewing the world.  By applying these logical and scientific rules of thumb, I started to notice the nonsense on tv almost immediately. Things like political and pseudo-scientific scams became transparent and I no longer fell under their sway.  I officially began to forsake comforting fantasy for clear thinking and reality.

Despite the alarming beliefs of most Americans, I believe that critical thinking can be taught. I and the countless other members of the skeptic movement are proof.  Our demand for belief has greatly enhanced our lives. Clear thinking gave me and other skeptics a greater appreciation of reality. As Carl Sagan once said, “it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”

Concluding thoughts:

In conclusion, I and many other skeptics believe a lot of things, such as the value of philosophy, the beauty of the cosmos, and that critical thinking can be learned.  If you want to know what else I believe, I recommend you read through the other posts on this blog or read through Carl Sagan’s classic, Demon Haunted World.