Truth course
From Huben's Wiki
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
For a number of years, I've wanted to save students from a great deal of wasted time and energy following philosophical, religious, economic, pseudoscientific, political and other dead ends. Instead, I'd rather jump-start them into modern positions of skepticism, scientific knowledge, history and other fields while vaccinating them against the most pernicious frauds and giving them the tools to test these for themselves. | For a number of years, I've wanted to save students from a great deal of wasted time and energy following philosophical, religious, economic, pseudoscientific, political and other dead ends. Instead, I'd rather jump-start them into modern positions of skepticism, scientific knowledge, history and other fields while vaccinating them against the most pernicious frauds and giving them the tools to test these for themselves. | ||
| − | I'm thinking of creating a | + | I'm thinking of creating a course which will eventually result in a textbook. The goal would be to exercise high-level thinking skills for evaluating the differences between reliable knowledge (such as science) and unreliable knowledge (such as creationism.) |
I'm still in a brainstorming and resource acquisition phase, and I'm looking for collaborators. | I'm still in a brainstorming and resource acquisition phase, and I'm looking for collaborators. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 2018: found this course: [http://callingbullshit.org/syllabus.html Calling Bullshit: Data Reasoning in a Digital World] | ||
== Ideas for an elective class (or book) on truth and knowing. == | == Ideas for an elective class (or book) on truth and knowing. == | ||
| Line 23: | Line 25: | ||
* encouraging research to make informed assessments | * encouraging research to make informed assessments | ||
* fluency in some modern ideas | * fluency in some modern ideas | ||
| − | ** Stove's conclusion | + | ** [http://huben.us/wiki/Skepticism_of_Philosophical_Thought Stove's conclusion] |
* writing | * writing | ||
** concision | ** concision | ||
| Line 29: | Line 31: | ||
== Content == | == Content == | ||
*how well do we know what we know | *how well do we know what we know | ||
| + | ** how do we learn | ||
| + | ***How Do You Know?: The Economics of Ordinary Knowledge by Russell Hardin | ||
| + | ***memorization | ||
| + | ** how do we process | ||
| + | ***storytelling | ||
| + | ** provenance: sources of information | ||
**ask for some definitions, ask whether examples match | **ask for some definitions, ask whether examples match | ||
| + | ** problems understanding text | ||
| + | ***contextual | ||
| + | ****changes in language | ||
*the problem of ideals | *the problem of ideals | ||
*how do we actually think? | *how do we actually think? | ||
**not deductively | **not deductively | ||
| + | * what is knowledge | ||
| + | * foundations of knowledge | ||
| + | ** experience | ||
| + | ** models | ||
| + | ** values | ||
| + | ** viewpoints, including biases | ||
| + | ** lies, fantasies, fictions, wishes | ||
| + | * why are there multiple conflicting knowledges | ||
| + | ** [https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2019/10/14/you-dont-have-evidence-for-most-of-your-beliefs-get-used-to-it/ You don’t have evidence for most of your beliefs. Get used to it.] | ||
| + | * utilizing multiple conflicting knowledges | ||
| + | ** rabbinical methodologies? | ||
| + | * choosing among multiple conflicting knowledges | ||
*folk knowledge versus modern knowledge | *folk knowledge versus modern knowledge | ||
**see consilience | **see consilience | ||
| Line 43: | Line 66: | ||
**our inherent psychological tendencies | **our inherent psychological tendencies | ||
**evo psych | **evo psych | ||
| + | *** [http://understandingsociety.blogspot.com/2013/04/moral-intuitions-as-evolutionary-modules.html Moral intuitions as evolutionary modules] | ||
| + | *** [https://betterhumans.coach.me/cognitive-bias-cheat-sheet-55a472476b18#.2dpv5v4u5 Cognitive bias cheat sheet] | ||
| + | *** [https://yourbias.is/poster Get a 'Know Thyself' biases poster] | ||
*conspiracy theories | *conspiracy theories | ||
**god of the gaps | **god of the gaps | ||
| Line 54: | Line 80: | ||
***untestable "answers" to challenges | ***untestable "answers" to challenges | ||
***requirements that defy common sense | ***requirements that defy common sense | ||
| + | ** [https://debunkingdenialism.com/2017/02/02/six-ways-to-debunk-any-conspiracy-theory Six Ways to Debunk Any Conspiracy Theory] | ||
*categories of truth | *categories of truth | ||
**mathematical truth | **mathematical truth | ||
***based on assumptions | ***based on assumptions | ||
***logic | ***logic | ||
| + | **** deductive | ||
| + | **** inductive | ||
| + | **** abductive | ||
| + | ***** As such abduction is formally equivalent to the logical fallacy affirming the consequent or Post hoc ergo propter hoc, because there are multiple possible explanations | ||
***versus validity (see http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/leglreas.htm) | ***versus validity (see http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/leglreas.htm) | ||
***symbolic logic | ***symbolic logic | ||
***proof is computation (string transformation) | ***proof is computation (string transformation) | ||
| + | ***many other logics | ||
| + | **Venn diagram of reasoning [[File:VennReasoning.jpeg|100px|thumb|right|Venn diagram of reasoning]] | ||
| + | ***No real-world premises are true: all break down at some point. | ||
| + | ***Examples of invalid real-world assumptions (premises): | ||
| + | **# The sky is blue. | ||
| + | **# The sun rises in the East. | ||
| + | **# All swans are white. | ||
| + | **Thus we are reason ing about the real world with "some: Some A’s are B’s, Some B’s are C’s, Therefore some A’s are C’s. This is fallacious. | ||
| + | ***Easy to show with two linear, 3 circle Venn diagrams, one with A and C overlap, the other not. | ||
| + | ***Standard 3 circle all overlapping Venn diagram shows other possibilities. There lie the errors. | ||
| + | ***Many of our methods of reasoning are heuristic (usually valid guesses), not logically valid. | ||
**science: difference between truth and honesty, lack of perfect proof | **science: difference between truth and honesty, lack of perfect proof | ||
***a search for reliable knowledge | ***a search for reliable knowledge | ||
****An Introduction to Science | ****An Introduction to Science | ||
| − | ****http://www.freeinquiry.com/intro-to-sci.html | + | ****http://web.archive.org/web/20070415083414/http://www.freeinquiry.com/intro-to-sci.html |
***modeling: analogy | ***modeling: analogy | ||
| + | ***[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_humility Epistemic humility] | ||
***innate modeling | ***innate modeling | ||
***anecdotes | ***anecdotes | ||
****http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=33#more-33 | ****http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=33#more-33 | ||
| + | ****[http://themonkeycage.org/2013/04/19/what-the-reinhart-rogoff-debacle-really-shows-verifying-empirical-results-needs-to-be-routine/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+themonkeycagefeed+%28The+Monkey+Cage%29 What the Reinhart & Rogoff Debacle Really Shows: Verifying Empirical Results Needs to be Routine] | ||
***historical disciplines: | ***historical disciplines: | ||
****use natural experiments or the comparative method | ****use natural experiments or the comparative method | ||
| − | ****Natural Experiments of History | + | ****"Natural Experiments of History" Jared Diamond (Editor), James A. Robinson |
| − | + | ****tell stories | |
**historical truth | **historical truth | ||
***often very weak beyond primary evidence | ***often very weak beyond primary evidence | ||
| Line 91: | Line 135: | ||
***science | ***science | ||
***markets | ***markets | ||
| + | *** [https://ecpr.eu/filestore/paperproposal/79d2738d-62e7-4991-a1af-6dcd19dccbca.pdf COMING TO TERMS WITH ACCOUNTABILITY] | ||
| + | *** war | ||
**hill-climbing, maxima, etc. | **hill-climbing, maxima, etc. | ||
| − | *deception | + | *deception -- everybody lies |
| + | ** government | ||
| + | ** business | ||
| + | ** religion | ||
| + | *** pseudepigraphical writing | ||
| + | ** scientists | ||
| + | *** [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/upshot/fake-academe-looking-much-like-the-real-thing.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=1 Fake Academe, Looking Much Like the Real Thing] | ||
| + | ** friends | ||
| + | ** ourselves | ||
| + | *** Dan Ariely’s recently published book, “The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone – Especially Ourselves.” | ||
| + | *** [http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2017/02/how-lies-work.html How Lies Work] | ||
*denialism (http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/) | *denialism (http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/) | ||
**http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio | **http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio | ||
**Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives by Michael Specter | **Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives by Michael Specter | ||
*manufacturing doubt of science | *manufacturing doubt of science | ||
| + | ** Agnotology: The Cultural Production of Ignorance | ||
**"Doubt Is Their Product", David Michaels | **"Doubt Is Their Product", David Michaels | ||
**http://sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/36360/title/Comment__Corporate_campaigns_manufacture_scientific_doubt_by_David_Michaels | **http://sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/36360/title/Comment__Corporate_campaigns_manufacture_scientific_doubt_by_David_Michaels | ||
| Line 103: | Line 160: | ||
**Why global warming can't be a conspiracy and why denial can: | **Why global warming can't be a conspiracy and why denial can: | ||
**http://www.goingonabearhunt.com/?p=209 | **http://www.goingonabearhunt.com/?p=209 | ||
| + | *brainwashing | ||
| + | ** "Releasing The Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves" by Steve Hassan. | ||
*reasoning | *reasoning | ||
**sophism | **sophism | ||
| Line 111: | Line 170: | ||
*fallacies of logic | *fallacies of logic | ||
*informal fallacies | *informal fallacies | ||
| + | ** http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ | ||
**Gigerenzer et al. on efficient reasoning | **Gigerenzer et al. on efficient reasoning | ||
| + | **As such abduction is formally equivalent to the logical fallacy affirming the consequent or Post hoc ergo propter hoc, because there are multiple possible explanations. Science is abductive, | ||
*rhetoric | *rhetoric | ||
*truth on the web | *truth on the web | ||
| Line 121: | Line 182: | ||
***dictionaries and other references as arbiters of meaning | ***dictionaries and other references as arbiters of meaning | ||
*surveys and their fallacies | *surveys and their fallacies | ||
| + | *Misinformation and disinformation pages in wikipedia | ||
*propaganda | *propaganda | ||
**Tomorrow Belongs to Me (bandwagon purpose of music) | **Tomorrow Belongs to Me (bandwagon purpose of music) | ||
| Line 134: | Line 196: | ||
*ontology | *ontology | ||
*learning | *learning | ||
| + | ** from infancy on, learning is based on trust in the sources. We do not have resources to check even a slight fraction of what we are learning against the real world let alone against what we already think we know. | ||
| + | ** [https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2019/10/14/you-dont-have-evidence-for-most-of-your-beliefs-get-used-to-it/ You don’t have evidence for most of your beliefs. Get used to it.] | ||
**research vs. gossip, accuracy vs retention | **research vs. gossip, accuracy vs retention | ||
| + | ** complexity beyond (single) human understanding [http://web.archive.org/web/20170609044355/https://plus.google.com/112218872649456413744/posts/dfydM2Cnepe Dizzying but invisible depth] | ||
*consequentialism | *consequentialism | ||
*skepticism | *skepticism | ||
**3 types (Kurtz): if you can't keep them straight, can't | **3 types (Kurtz): if you can't keep them straight, can't | ||
**understand skeptical argument | **understand skeptical argument | ||
| + | *** extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence (Hitchens) | ||
*pragmatism | *pragmatism | ||
*seeing is believing, observational error, value based observation | *seeing is believing, observational error, value based observation | ||
| Line 149: | Line 215: | ||
**nutrition | **nutrition | ||
**medicine | **medicine | ||
| + | ***quackademic medicine (infiltration into medical practices) | ||
**politics | **politics | ||
**finances | **finances | ||
| Line 156: | Line 223: | ||
**alternatives | **alternatives | ||
**the emperor (religion) has no clothes (no visible god) | **the emperor (religion) has no clothes (no visible god) | ||
| + | *Entire fields can be identified as very low in truth content because there are many traditionally held beliefs that all contradict each other. | ||
| + | ** the many religions, the many philosophies, most world views, some social sciences | ||
| + | ** [https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl The PhilPapers Surveys]: philosophers cannot agree on anything basic. | ||
| + | ** [http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2017/05/vast-literatures-as-mud-moats.html Vast Literatures as Mud Moats]: a heuristic method of identifying when it is worthwhile or not to explore a literature. | ||
*pseudoscience: recognizing pseudoscience: asimov/clark's rules | *pseudoscience: recognizing pseudoscience: asimov/clark's rules | ||
*origins | *origins | ||
| Line 170: | Line 241: | ||
**positivist rights | **positivist rights | ||
**semantic stop signs: | **semantic stop signs: | ||
| − | ***Jonathan Wallace has asserted that proclaiming some | + | ***Jonathan Wallace has asserted that proclaiming some rights as 'natural' is another way of saying 'Stop asking questions' and 'I have won this argument.' "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." [equal as opposed to royal/commoner, but we want government to treat us as equal and create equal rights] |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
*statistics, probability | *statistics, probability | ||
**monty hall fallacy | **monty hall fallacy | ||
| Line 199: | Line 263: | ||
**how to detect fake images | **how to detect fake images | ||
*public relations | *public relations | ||
| + | ** <i>Post-Truth</i>, Lee McIntyre | ||
*fringe groups (LaRouche, cults, etc.) | *fringe groups (LaRouche, cults, etc.) | ||
*race/culture/ethnicity | *race/culture/ethnicity | ||
| Line 218: | Line 283: | ||
*how much of what we know is true? | *how much of what we know is true? | ||
*philosophy | *philosophy | ||
| − | * | + | ** From an Enlightenment or Positivist point of view, which is Hume's point of view, and mine, there is simply no avoiding the conclusion that the human race is mad. There are scarcely any human beings who do not have some lunatic beliefs or other to which they attach great importance. People are mostly sane enough, of course, in the affairs of common life: the getting of food, shelter, and so on. But the moment they attempt any depth or generality of thought, they go mad almost infallibly. The vast majority adopt the local religious madness, as naturally as they adopt the local dress. But the more powerful minds will, equally infallibly, fall into the worship of some intelligent and dangerous lunatic, such as Plato, or Augustine, or Comte, or Hegel, or Marx. David Stove, The Plato Cult, 1991 |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
*follow the money | *follow the money | ||
**to find qui bono | **to find qui bono | ||
| Line 250: | Line 302: | ||
**self interest | **self interest | ||
**active vs passive acceptance of falsehoods (reorganize) | **active vs passive acceptance of falsehoods (reorganize) | ||
| − | **confirmation bias | + | **confirmation bias, including the political sense of epistemic closure |
| + | ***tribal epistemology | ||
**humans use non-monotonic heuristics, seldom logic | **humans use non-monotonic heuristics, seldom logic | ||
== Resources to use == | == Resources to use == | ||
*Consumer reports adwatch | *Consumer reports adwatch | ||
| − | **http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYodDH4qZQo | + | **http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYodDH4qZQo video, from their prescription drug campaign in 2005 |
| − | + | **https://secure.npsite.org/cu/site/Advocacy?JServSessionIdr012=2idtrp4ea1.app43a&cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1732 Toy Safety is No Laughing Matter | |
| − | **https://secure.npsite.org/cu/site/Advocacy?JServSessionIdr012=2idtrp4ea1.app43a&cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1732 | + | |
| − | + | ||
*Life Of Brian | *Life Of Brian | ||
**You are all individuals | **You are all individuals | ||
| Line 291: | Line 342: | ||
**http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/02/oreskes_on_the_american_denial.php | **http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/02/oreskes_on_the_american_denial.php | ||
*Atheism | *Atheism | ||
| − | **Hospers, John. An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis. | + | **Hospers, John. An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis. Third Edition. Prentice-Hall, 1988. The best. Hospers is very strong on linquistic and conceptual analysis. I challenge anyone to still believe that supernatural propositions make cognitive sense after reading his, "Meaning and Truth in Religion." His second edition (but dropped in the third) contains a marvelous dialogue between a person who believes that "necessary being" makes sense and a person who believes that it is nonsense. Beautiful. |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
*http://nigelwarburton.typepad.com/philosophy_bites/ | *http://nigelwarburton.typepad.com/philosophy_bites/ | ||
*http://whatstheharm.net/index.html | *http://whatstheharm.net/index.html | ||
| + | * Debunkings of religions, their founders, and their leaders | ||
| + | ** Bare-Faced Messiah (scientology) | ||
| + | ** The Missionary Position | ||
| + | ** Why I Am Not A Muslim (and successor books) | ||
== Assignments == | == Assignments == | ||
*Rachel Carson project | *Rachel Carson project | ||
**http://www.rachelwaswrong.org/ | **http://www.rachelwaswrong.org/ | ||
| − | **show propaganda and historical sites: not special defender's | + | **show propaganda and historical sites: not special defender's sites. Assign short paper to conclude benefit or harm. Ask how best to assess whether Carson was right or wrong: that will not be the methodology used by the students. Ask which sources used those policies. Eventually, let them see how they were hoodwinked by propaganda. |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
**However, they can understand the issues. | **However, they can understand the issues. | ||
**http://www.reason.com/news/show/119786.html | **http://www.reason.com/news/show/119786.html | ||
| − | **Note how pesticide resistance is not addressed: the real reason | + | **Note how pesticide resistance is not addressed: the real reason agricultural bans were instituted. |
| − | + | ||
**build flow chart of causes and effects | **build flow chart of causes and effects | ||
**http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/ for defenses | **http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/ for defenses | ||
| Line 323: | Line 364: | ||
**http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/05/who_put_out_the_contract_on_ra.php#mor | **http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/05/who_put_out_the_contract_on_ra.php#mor | ||
e | e | ||
| − | *Show how a simple feedback system cannot be properly argued with a yea | + | *Show how a simple feedback system cannot be properly argued with a yea or nay approach. Relate to a real-world example. Bring back this theme for essentially all real-world discussions. |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
*Idiocy contest for consumer products: | *Idiocy contest for consumer products: | ||
| Line 332: | Line 371: | ||
**wasteful packaging | **wasteful packaging | ||
**energy drinks | **energy drinks | ||
| + | *** http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/health/scant-proof-is-found-to-back-up-claims-by-energy-drinks.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hpw | ||
*Each student makes a mini-poster, to fill up a bulletin board. | *Each student makes a mini-poster, to fill up a bulletin board. | ||
*Sign-up sheet to prevent conflicts or duplicates. | *Sign-up sheet to prevent conflicts or duplicates. | ||
| Line 341: | Line 381: | ||
**perks for leaders | **perks for leaders | ||
*Examination of vaccine controversies (mercury, autism, etc.) | *Examination of vaccine controversies (mercury, autism, etc.) | ||
| − | **tasks -- what were the claims, how long did it take to refute | + | **tasks -- what were the claims, how long did it take to refute them, who made the claims, who publicized the claims, who made money how, |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
**http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=218 | **http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=218 | ||
**http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=220 | **http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=220 | ||
| Line 357: | Line 395: | ||
== Critical Thinking Projects == | == Critical Thinking Projects == | ||
| − | * How does wikipedia attempt to maintain accuracy in the face of anarchy? Proselytizers, saboteurs, etc. How do judges, lawmakers, and executives? Democracy? Science? Other Brin categories? | + | * How does wikipedia attempt to maintain accuracy in the face of anarchy? Proselytizers, saboteurs, etc. How do judges, lawmakers, and executives? Democracy? Science? Other Brin categories? What is wrong in wikipedia? |
* How does the jargon of a creationist or libertarian (with all their redefinitions and dog whistles) compare to the jargon or "terms of art" of lawyers or other fields? | * How does the jargon of a creationist or libertarian (with all their redefinitions and dog whistles) compare to the jargon or "terms of art" of lawyers or other fields? | ||
| − | |||
== Miscelaneous == | == Miscelaneous == | ||
| + | * [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/upshot/fake-academe-looking-much-like-the-real-thing.htm A Peek Inside the Strange World of Fake Academia] | ||
| + | * [https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/19/1/2/463780/Denialism-what-is-it-and-how-should-scientists Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?] | ||
| + | * [https://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Debunking_Handbook.pdf The Debunking Handbook] | ||
| + | * [http://callingbullshit.org Calling Bullshit in the age of Big Data] College course | ||
| + | * David McRaney, "You Are Not So Smart" (46 fallacies and cognitive biases) | ||
| + | * Guy P. Harrison, "50 Popular Beliefs That People Think Are True" | ||
| + | * Darryl Cunningham, "Science Tales: Lies, Hoaxes and Scams" | ||
| + | * The idea of "very serious people" whom we should pay attention to, and the others we should ignore. Hippie punching. | ||
| + | * Push to war, and how that stiffles dissent. | ||
| + | * [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU&feature=player_embedded moon hoax not] S. G. Collins explains why the moon videos could not be hoaxes. | ||
*"The Assault On Reason" Al Gore | *"The Assault On Reason" Al Gore | ||
*There are no moral facts | *There are no moral facts | ||
| Line 382: | Line 429: | ||
**Where did that number come from? | **Where did that number come from? | ||
**Qui bono? | **Qui bono? | ||
| + | *Heuristics for rapid decision making. | ||
*partial knowledge/differing viewpoints | *partial knowledge/differing viewpoints | ||
**blind men and the elephant poem | **blind men and the elephant poem | ||
| Line 396: | Line 444: | ||
*On Truth (Hardcover) by Harry G. Frankfurt (Author) | *On Truth (Hardcover) by Harry G. Frankfurt (Author) | ||
*Bullshit and Philosophy by Gary L. Hardcastle, George A. Reisch | *Bullshit and Philosophy by Gary L. Hardcastle, George A. Reisch | ||
| − | *Alex Carey, "Taking the Risk Out of Democracy: Corporate Propaganda versus | + | *Alex Carey, "Taking the Risk Out of Democracy: Corporate Propaganda versus Freedom and Liberty" |
| − | + | ||
*http://xkcd.com/628/ | *http://xkcd.com/628/ | ||
| − | *even skeptics have their own idiocies:** Maher on vaccines: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1251** "Unfortunately, if there’s one thing I’ve learned over the years | + | *even skeptics have their own idiocies: |
| − | + | ** Maher on vaccines: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1251 | |
| − | + | ** "Unfortunately, if there’s one thing I’ve learned over the years since I became more involved with the skeptical movement, it’s that being an agnostic, atheist, or skeptic is no guarantee against falling for pseudoscience." | |
* Shermer, Penn and Teller on libertarianism | * Shermer, Penn and Teller on libertarianism | ||
| − | *Arthur Goldwag, "Cults, Conspiracies, and Secret Societies: The Straight Scoop | + | *Arthur Goldwag, "Cults, Conspiracies, and Secret Societies: The Straight Scoop on Freemasons, The Illuminati, Skull and Bones, Black Helicopters, The New World Order, and many, many more" |
| − | on Freemasons, The Illuminati, Skull and Bones, Black Helicopters, The New World | + | |
| − | + | ||
*http://crispian-jago.blogspot.com/2009/06/total-perspective-vortex.html | *http://crispian-jago.blogspot.com/2009/06/total-perspective-vortex.html | ||
| Line 429: | Line 474: | ||
*Bad Science (Paperback) by Ben Goldacre* health quackery | *Bad Science (Paperback) by Ben Goldacre* health quackery | ||
| + | * Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion by Gary Taubes | ||
*Example of surviving passenger claiming a miracle: what about the otherpassengers who died? | *Example of surviving passenger claiming a miracle: what about the otherpassengers who died? | ||
| Line 434: | Line 480: | ||
*http://lifehacker.com/5488799/the-common-sense-guide-to-organic-and-other-food- | *http://lifehacker.com/5488799/the-common-sense-guide-to-organic-and-other-food- | ||
labels | labels | ||
| − | *At about 2:40 into this hysterical Penn & Teller episode would claim that | + | *At about 2:40 into this hysterical Penn & Teller episode would claim that labeling and certification are the ONLY difference between "organic" and non-organic. Well, that and price. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhBKtjDtTVk |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
*http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/health/30salt.html?pagewanted=3&ref=business | *http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/health/30salt.html?pagewanted=3&ref=business | ||
| Line 442: | Line 486: | ||
*Ten Signs a Claimed Mathematical Breakthrough is Wrong | *Ten Signs a Claimed Mathematical Breakthrough is Wrong | ||
| − | *http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/06/19/the-alternative- | + | *http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/06/19/the-alternative-science-respectability-checklist/ |
| − | + | ||
*The Alternative-Science Respectability Checklist | *The Alternative-Science Respectability Checklist | ||
| Line 463: | Line 506: | ||
** yoga | ** yoga | ||
** http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/living/not-as-old-as-you-think | ** http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/living/not-as-old-as-you-think | ||
| + | ** Mark Singleton, "Yoga Body: The Origins of Modern Posture Practice" | ||
* martial arts (ask TJ) | * martial arts (ask TJ) | ||
* traditional chinese medicine | * traditional chinese medicine | ||
| + | ** http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/oriental-medicine-a-tall-tale-of-outdated-lore/ | ||
| + | ** http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/story/2012-04-07/do-herbal-remedies-work/54102616/1 | ||
| + | ** [http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/herbal-medicine-and-aristolochic-acid-nephropathy/ Herbal Medicine and Aristolochic Acid Nephropathy] | ||
* mormonism | * mormonism | ||
* christianity | * christianity | ||
| Line 498: | Line 545: | ||
*Wall Street Journal Opinion Section | *Wall Street Journal Opinion Section | ||
*http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/journal-economics/ | *http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/journal-economics/ | ||
| + | |||
| + | * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUjz_eiIX8k | ||
| + | |||
| + | * science | ||
| + | ** Unnatural Nature Of Science | ||
| + | ** vs technology | ||
| + | **scientism | ||
| + | ***invented by a schoolteacher! | ||
| + | **whether to trust in science or scientists | ||
| + | ***fallibility of scientists | ||
| + | ****old generation dying off | ||
| + | ****investment in old paradigms | ||
| + | ****corruption and idiosyncrasy (Linus Pauling) | ||
| + | ***more than one route to understanding | ||
| + | ****different levels of study | ||
| + | ****competing methodologies | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Modern vs traditional frames for social relations established by long-term propaganda | ||
| + | **fealty/honor/royalty | ||
| + | **markets/rights/liberty | ||
| + | **patriotism/duty/community/citizenship | ||
| + | *who benefits from these frames | ||
| + | |||
| + | *The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True [Hardcover] Richard Dawkins | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Robert Trivers, The Folly of Fools: The Logic of Self-Deceit and Self-Deception in Human Life. | ||
| + | |||
| + | * http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Debunking_Handbook.pdf | ||
| + | |||
| + | * http://www.skepticalscience.com/ opposes global warming denialism | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [http://www.anhonestliar.com An Honest Liar]: film biography of James Randi. [http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/james_randi_an_honest_liar Kylie Sturgess filmmaker interview] | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Can we trust skeptics? No: not even them. The vary all over the map. | ||
| + | ** Libertarian idiocy from Shermer, Gilette, etc. | ||
| + | ** Bill Maher wierdness. | ||
| + | ** Many other disagreements in the skeptic community. | ||
| + | ** Why do skeptics disagree? | ||
| + | *** They are only human. | ||
| + | *** When you are united by rejection, that doesn't direct you to accept anything in particular. | ||
| + | *** Baby with the bathwater: some skeptics reject far more than is really indicated. | ||
| + | *** It is easy to reject second best solutions even when first best solutions are not available. (Economics, fallacies of argument.) | ||
| + | *** Differences in values. | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Dumb trend projection is people's tendency to view trends as structural. Examples of this include: "Housing prices have never fallen; hence they will never fall." "This stock returned 17.2% over the past three decades; hence it will continue to do so." "The center of gravity of the global economy is inevitably shifting to Asia." And so forth. But in reality, past performance is no guarantee of future results. Or, to put it more pithily, "The trend is your friend til the bend at the end." http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2012/08/what-happened-to-japan.html | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Nothing that you will learn in the course of your studies will be of the slightest possible use to you in after life, save only this, that if you work hard and intelligently you should be able to detect when a man is talking rot, and that, in my view, is the main, if not the sole, purpose of education. —John Alexander Smith, professor of moral philosophy at Oxford, 1914, | ||
| + | * Timothy Caulfield, "The Cure for Everything: Untangling Twisted Messages about Health, Fitness, and Happiness" | ||
| + | * http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/opinion/testing-standard-medical-practices.html | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Münchhausen Trilemma | ||
| + | * Turtles all the way down | ||
| + | * [http://xkcd.com/1096/ xkcd on clinical testing] | ||
| + | * "The Half-life of Facts: Why Everything We Know Has an Expiration Date" Samuel Arbesman | ||
| + | * Walter Lippman, "Public Opinion" | ||
| + | * Philosopher: "What color is the sky?" Student: "Blue." Philosopher: "Let us then proceed from the fact that the sky is blue to reason thusly...." If only the student would observe that the sky is not always blue: it can be gray on a cloudy day, it can be black at night, and sun, moon, stars, clouds, birds, etc. can all make it different than plain, solid blue. If we say the sky is blue, that is not a fact: it is a vague observation or generalization, ignoring the many exceptions, ignoring the scientific explanation of scattering of sunlight and privileging daytime over nighttime conditions. It is not a valid premise that philosophy can be built upon. Most philosophy actually starts with such invalid premises, and it is not too difficult to spot them. | ||
| + | ** Is this what Socratic dialog exposes? | ||
| + | ** If this why Socrates claims how little he really knows? (may have the wrong philosopher here) | ||
| + | ** Tradeoff between generality and accuracy? | ||
| + | ** Why does this not apply to science? | ||
| + | ** Or is it true that hardly any philosophy starts with such clear premises, and never states the premises precisely because it would be so easy to spot why they are invalid? | ||
| + | * [http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb02.html Morton's Demon] | ||
| + | * http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/reasons-matter-when-intuitions-dont-object/ | ||
| + | * All Marketers Are Liars by Seth Godin | ||
| + | * [http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/sept_oct_09_goldberg_makdisi The Trial of Israel’s Campus Critics] | ||
| + | * [http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/03/01/we-are-the-weird/ we are the weird] much psychology is based on students, and not representative. | ||
| + | * [http://www.rbcpa.com/Mungerspeech_june_95.pdf CHARLIE MUNGER ON THE PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMAN MISJUDGMENT] | ||
| + | * [http://www.theamericanconservative.com/millman/whats-natural-about-natural-law/ What’s Natural About Natural Law?] | ||
| + | * [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/mar/03/brain-not-simple-folk-neuroscience#_ Our brains, and how they're not as simple as we think] | ||
| + | * Candida Moss "The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom" | ||
| + | * Lawrence Wright, "Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief" | ||
| + | * [http://crispian-jago.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-venn-diagram-of-irrational-nonsense.html The Venn Diagram of Irrational Nonsense] | ||
| + | * [http://www.bradford-delong.com/2018/02/economics-as-a-professional-vocation-bulls-detection-as-a-student-learning-goal.html Bulls--- Detection as a Student Learning Goal - Brad DeLong] | ||
| + | * Nonsense on Stilts: How to tell Science from Bunk (Massimo Pigliucci) | ||
| + | * [http://whatstheharm.net what's the harm?] This site is designed to make a point about the danger of not thinking critically. Namely that you can easily be injured or killed by neglecting this important skill. | ||
| + | * [https://b-ok.lat/book/3554094/bce2e3 Truth (book) by Chase Wrenn] | ||
| + | * [https://crooksandliars.com/2021/05/internet-critical-thinking Navigating The Web Requires Critical Thinking AND Critical Ignoring] | ||
