Critical Thinking Videos

Dr. Phil Plait, The Bad Astronomer, turned me on to these videos.  They are mostly aimed at children, but lets face it, a lot of American adults could use these videos as well.  Why do you think that I would disparage American adults?  Well, considering that apparently any education is "snobbery", I can only imagine the intellectually stunted brains that are out there.  I think Isaac Asimov said it better:

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” 

Anyway, here is the full series of videos that  I encourage you to watch and share with those who need it (and to make it easy, I will embed all 6 here for you).













I hope these come in handy for you or others around you.

Open-mindedness

I have been accused of not having an open mind in terms of theism.  Actually, my position should truly be described as agnostic atheist on the issue of deism (See this chart for an explanation) - I don't believe in any god(s) and live my life as if they didn't exist, and I don't think that the question can be reasonably answered (yet?). Although, I do claim gnostic (or strong) atheism on gods that are defined to actually DO things in this universe, since those actions have failed all evidentiary inquiries

The thing that would change my mind?  Evidence.  Of course, that supposes that people actually understand what the word evidence means.  Admitting "I don't know" is not the same as saying "I don't know, therefore [insert my favorite idea]".  "I don't know" is simply that, and only that.  Nothing more.  It's perfectly okay to leave the jury out on a question if we don't haver the answer.  Unlike many theists, my mind is indeed open for evidence (not assertions).  What is really more open minded?  Actually admitting ignorance on a point and reserving judgment, or proclaiming that a totally UN-evidenced mechanism is the One True Answer^(TM)?

So I think this is an appropriate QualiaSoup video to present:

Rebuttals: irreducible complexity

The next two videos will be about "Irreducible Complexity"... I know, I'm sorry, but dealing with made up stuff seems to be part and parcel of dealing with irrational thought.  And this is a particularly insidious made-up bit because it deals in things that pretty much only the experts in whatever particular field has the required understanding to provide an adequate rebuttal.  As I say over at my Facts, not Fantasy page where I discuss evolution, I mention:

* What about the "Irreducible Complexity" of the eye, blood, flagellum, etc.?
Well, first of all, "irreducible complexity" is a non-sense term invented by creationists and intelligent design proponents. All it really says is that they can't possibly understand a particularly complex mechanism, so therefore something else did it. The basic premise behind irreducible complexity is to take a well designed item, remove a part to break it, and proclaim that it's broken... The problem is that it's entirely backwards thinking, and doesn't take into account how something was actually built up. Every single item of irreducible complexity has an answer, however creationists and intelligent design proponents will keep throwing out examples of complex systems until they hit upon one that their debate opponent may not have all the facts on. As soon as they find that one thing that someone may not know the answer to, they proclaim victory for their entire side, totally ignoring all the other instances where their argument was trounced.

However, I think that QualiaSoup says it quite well in this video, and the one that will be posted tomorrow. Enjoy:

Why Live?

This question from theists sincerely confuses me.  Apparently they are so invested in their religion, they just can't conceive of a life without it.  I personally like Carl Sagan's quote as a partial answer to that:

I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides. 

Again, QualiaSoup (along with his brother TheraminTrees) has a beautiful video response:

Morality 3: Of objectivity and oughtness

And finally part 3:

Morality Part 2: The not-so-good books

Yesterday was part 1 of the morality videos.  Here is part 2:

Morality (Good without gods) Part 1

One of the most puzzling questions I get as an atheist is where I get morality from.  As if the only place to get morality from is an external force, or a dusty old tome.  Again, it has been shown that morality is a societally developed construct, and ancient forms of morality no longer apply to the modern world.  Neuro-scientists have known this for a long time, and some are even arguing that we need to pay closer attention to the neuro-science of morality as opposed to the legislative aspect.

Again, QualiaSoup, in his very British style has a series of videos on this subject (in 3 parts).  Here is part 1:



Keep in mind, in the near future, he may condense this all into one video. I think this was produced when YouTube had a 10 minute limit.

It COULD be Coincidence!

One of the most incredible things that people experience on a daily basis is "the incredible coincidence".  An event that seems so monumental and unlikely that it must have been magic of some sort.  Humans don't understand how math actually rules their lives, and are notoriously bad at applying that math.  It has been written about extensively (a good introductory book is The Drunkards Walk by Leonard Mlodinow).  So, in continuing with my QualiaSoup videos, feast your eyes on this video:

Critical Thinking

This is the video that introduced me to QualiaSoup.  I really would love to have people view this video again and again, and make critical thinking a true New Year resolution.

I have always been an advocate for critical thinking.  A young lady by the name of Elizabeth King wrote this up, and I think it's a great intro to critical thinking.  If you had to sum it up into a short answer, critical thinking is asking questions.  And maybe that is why critical thinking fares so poorly in the US.  No one wants to ask questions.  Most of our society is structured around institutions that even forbid us from asking certain questions.  And they get pretty angry when challenged on that.  Well, I for one am not averse to pissing a few institutions or people off, so get to it.  Ask questions.  Should they get angry, that should be a hint that their position is weak, and they know it deep down inside.

Critical Thinking: What Is It, Anyway?

by Elizabeth King

As much as we hear about bringing creativity to classroom and business, we hear even more about teaching and using critical thinking skills. Since we’re prone to throwing terminology, let’s make sure we’re all on the same page about critical thinking and what it entails.

First, let’s parse out the difference between thinking and critical thinking.

Here’s what I’ve come up with:

“I’m thinking about the beach,” or “I’m thinking about my mom’s peach pie,” is plain vanilla thinking. Thinking is giving mental attention to something that doesn’t require assessment or response from the thinker.

Alternatively, critical thinking guides our assessment of and our reactions to information being considered— frankly, the act of thinking critically demands a reaction, any reaction or decision (including everything from “nope, that’s utterly incorrect,” to “oh, ok, that fits in my web of preexisting knowledge this way” to “well now that I know that, I have to change my whole life”).

Either way, critical thinking demands objective examination of a topic and then a conscious response to that examination. In other words, you should be doing a lot of it every day.

Critical thinking is happening when you’re asking questions like Is that true? How do I know? How did you arrive at your conclusion? Did you consider _____? Would it be better if we ______? Does doing ______ have any affect on that? What factors went in to that decision? Is it likely that the person making this argument knows about ______?  Why does that idea matter anyway? 

I’ll stop there before I accidentally create Earth’s worst Mad Lib.

The ability to think critically is arguably the most important skill for the 21st century person. It’s the equipment anyone can use to navigate a world of ideas that are increasingly unmitigated and available—everyone is tweeting, blogging, and broadcasting into the ether, so sorting through all the static is that much more important.

Since this is a blog post and not a PhD course, I’d like to briefly take a look at using critical thinking specifically for reading blogs and tweets (although this method could apply to just about anything). While there isn’t an official formula for doing this, I’d like to suggest using “The Five W’s” that we learn in elementary school as guidelines for inquiry; they include Who?, What?, Where?, When?, Why?, and (sometimes) How?.


Instead of using the Five W’s for developing content (they’re the basics for writing a successful news piece), use the Five W’s to analyze any post/piece of writing. Here’s how to get started: ¹



Who?
Consider who wrote the piece.

• What do you know about this individual’s background?
• What is his or her age and socio-economic standing?
• How about level of education [which you may not want to assess simply using degree level but also the person’s body of work]?
• In what part of the world or country does she live?
• Is she regarded as an expert on this particular topic?
• Is she a widely regarded BS-artist (seriously)?

What?
Figure out what the writer is saying—and what she isn’t saying.

• Does she want someone to change something?
• Start something?
• Does she argue for the status quo?
• How far-reaching are her suggestions: do they apply to every situation or is she flexible in the application of her ideas?
• Does she address counter arguments in her own work?
• Is she writing from personal experience or synthesizing ideas from other people?
• [While this isn’t applicable to blogs, usually, you may also want to consider who the intended audience is… is this a letter? Was it published post-mortem? Etc.]

When you’re considering the “what” of a piece of writing, you’ll have to consider what you know about the topic as well, which colors your ability to assess it. You’ll need to ask yourself:

• What is my own level of expertise in this subject?
• Is this something that hits close to home for me?
• Is my own personal experience/research affecting the way that I am hearing/reading this argument?
• …and the zinger: Am I hearing only what I expect this person to be saying, or am I being objective enough to see the true argument. ²

Where?
Context is so important; you’ll need to consider it.

• Where is this work published? WSJ? NY Times? Homemade newspaper from the Midwest/Southern California/Salt Lake City/Miami?
• Who is sponsoring the site? Might the sponsors of the site be influencing the apparent viewpoint of the author?
• Is this the author’s personal website or a site used to promote a business?

When?
Addressing the “when” of the post goes beyond “oh, that was written in 1997.” Looking into when means looking at the political and economic time frame of the argument, both on a national level and in the writer’s personal life. This can cover everything from “well, the stock market had just crashed so everyone was extremely worried and fiscally conservative at this time” to “he wrote this three months before/after he became a father for the first time/ lost his job/ got a new job/ killed that guy/ saved that whale/ got his legislation passed.” The when for the author can color the argument.

• Does the political climate affect the writer’s intentions?
• Does he or she have something to gain or lose because of the timing of this post?
• Would she be saying the same thing at a different time?

Why?
What prompted the whole thing, anyway?

• Is what you’re reading for artistic purposes?
• Is it to entertain or educate?
• Does it seem that the author wants you to change your viewpoint?
• What is her call to action?
• Is she hurt or outraged by something or, alternately, elated and supporting something she believes in?
• What does she have to gain from sharing these ideas?
• What does she have to lose?
• Why might that be “worth it” to her?

How?
How did this piece of work get into your hands anyway? Was it intended for you?

Is the author married to editor of the paper? Did she make a considerable donation to some charity who now feels obligated to let her say her piece? Does she “know someone” or was this vetted by objective third parties? Is she writing in her own space where she has clearance to say whatever she likes without consequences [as if that were possible!]? Did she likely write this for free or is she making a large chunk of change for it?

Keep in mind that critical thinking is not critical feeling.
You’re going to have to leave your emotions out of it, or at least be aware of them and separate them from the task of critical thinking. There’s not a lot of room for “But that’s not fair! But that makes me jealous! I could have said that! This offends me! She’s a jerk!” in critical thinking because it clouds our ability to see an argument for what it really is and to refine our own thinking in light of it.

Even the most distasteful arguments can be used to strengthen our own ability to think. Exposing ourselves only to those ideas that are already in keeping with what we understand or believe is the fastest way to disarm ourselves and end up in the complacency zone. Thinking critically demands energy and effort, and yet, if you’re not thinking critically, are you really getting anywhere?

1. This isn’t meant to be the definitive be-all end-all list for thinking critically; it’s just a nice place to start exercising these skills. Feel free to add other ideas in the comments section. ↩
2. The ability to parse out your expectations of another person’s argument is the key to being able to have a sensible, effective, and relatively calm conversation about tough topics like politics and religion. It’s imperative, the key listening skill. ↩

Why Do Atheists Promote Atheism?

I found this article by Austin Cline, and I wanted to share it. I think it's important that people understand that atheism isn't another evangelical crusade or about converting people. As a matter of fact, I would be perfectly happy NEVER to discuss atheism, or how I view the world. That said, I find that I am forced to discuss it. Priamrially because I am constantly being forced to adhere to dogmas that I do not accept. Not only do I feel the need to fight for an ability to live my life without needles dogmas imposed on me, but there are all the grave misconceptions about atheism and atheists.

I enjoy Austin's website, because he hits a lot of the myths head on (even starting the entire article with the Myth in bold. He'd be the atheist Mythbuster if that title wasn't taken by someone's Close Personal Friend^(TM).) So, here is his take on why us uppity atheists have websites and such.

Sometimes theists find it odd that atheists would have web sites explaining, discussing, and defending atheism. If atheism is not a philosophy or religion, what's the point? If atheists don't believe in God, why spend so much time discussing God? These theists are, I believe, misunderstanding the purpose and nature of atheist sites. The reason for this misunderstanding may lie in the fact that atheism and religion are completely separate categories, and as such cannot be directly contrasted.

Evangelistic religions like Christianity and Islam are always engaged in an effort to recruit new members — that's simply what they do. This effort typically involves explaining what the religion teaches and why these teachings are so good. When a person comes from such a background, it may seem natural to perceive analogous actions as stemming from the same motivations.

Atheism may not be any sort of independent belief system with teachings that need to be explained, but atheists do find themselves explaining what atheism is and is not. This, then, may be perceived by some religious theists as something which atheists do because, like Christians or Muslims, they are necessarily trying to recruit new members to their group. In some cases, that may have a grain of truth — some atheists do "evangelize" in a way by promoting atheism.

Doing so, however, isn't part of an effort to recruit new members to a belief system. Instead, it's an effort to get people to give up beliefs or a belief system which an atheist considers false at the very least and likely harmful or even dangerous. It's thus not analogous to a Republican trying to convince a Democrat to switch parties, but more analogous to an anarchist trying to convince a Democrat to stop supporting oppressive political parties and systems altogether.

Even that level of "evangelization" doesn't apply very well to me and this site, however. Unlike religious web sites that spread the word of someone’s religious faith, I don’t spread the word of atheism — there is no “word of atheism” to spread, at least not in any sense that is analogous to spreading the message of Christianity. I explain what atheism is. I explain what atheism is not, refuting many common myths and misconceptions. I explore the nature of religion, theism, and other types of beliefs.

If I can be said to be trying to spread anything, it would be skepticism and critical thinking from an atheistic perspective. Atheism has no real intellectual or moral value unless it is based upon a methodology of naturalism, science, skepticism, and critical thinking. A person who is an atheist on the basis of uncritical reasons — like for example being an atheist in order to be popular — is no different from someone who is a religious theist for the same reason.

For some, a naturalistic methodology of skepticism and critical thinking leads them to atheism. For others, it only leads them to a less dogmatic theism. The point, however, is to get people thinking more skeptically and critically in general. If I am on a soapbox, it is to call out to people to stop being gullible and to use their own minds to think about things more.

Religion and theism are obvious subjects for more skeptical thinking, but they are certainly not the only ones. Even if a person bases their atheism on a skeptical methodology, this doesn't guarantee that they will apply that methodology broadly and consistently. Just as a religious theist might do a good job at applying skepticism to politics but not to their own religion, an atheist might be very skeptical with religious and theistic claims yet fail to apply those lessons to political issues. In each case the error is basically the same and neither person can claim any intellectual or moral superiority over the other.

Thus I encourage skepticism and critical thinking broadly. Religion and theism may be the principle topics here, but where it's appropriate I try to bring up other subjects as well because I don't want anyone, and especially any atheists, to imagine that simply being critical of religion and theism is sufficient. One of the most serious problems for human society today is people's inability and/or unwillingness to apply skepticism and critical thinking to the various ideologies competing for our time and attention.

Checking Your Email

Okay, so today I have had the displeasure of getting two really stupid forward emails from relatives, and seeing someone post one on the forums in the local paper. Now, I could care less what the emails really are about, because they are so full of fallacies, that I cannot fathom anyone gullible enough to believe them... Are we all so gullible that as long as the email sounds in the slightest bit plausible, we'll buy it hook, line, and sinker? And why is it that if the email supports something that we believe or support, we will not apply any critical thought to it, but if we disagree with it, we apply mental rigor to it exactly opposite of the previous email? Are we not only a nation of fat, ignorant, racists, but also hypocritical to a tee? (The previous sentence is a vast generalization, and doesn't apply to you dear reader since you are obviously smart enough to read my silly blog.)

What really depresses me is that Critical Thinking is only the "second tier" as it were of thinking. People still need to build up to Innovative and Constructive thinking... Are we doomed?