In a Skeptical World ....

Pacey Says:

A recent event involving one of my good friends has lead me to once again figure out why people (who I consider intelligent) do such stupid things. Repeatedly. I realize that this world contains all kinds of people, and not everyone is going to do things the smartest and most pragmatic way, but there are some cases of abject nonsensical behavior which are easily avoidable for anyone possessing a basic intellect. In particular, this friend of mine got involved in a pyramid scheme costing $1000s that issues some kind of magic juice (it ‘reverses menopause, stabilizes blood glucose levels!1!!’). It is obvious to me that getting involved in this kind of thing is a bad play, but my pal got involved against my best reasonable logic.

He’s smart. He successfully completed high school, earned a college diploma, and now runs a profitable business. Yet, periodically, he gets swept up in near-cults and the above mentioned schemes. So, how did (does) this happen?

I have now come to believe that the educational system failed him, as it has failed me and most others. The educational system does not get people to think critically. The fallout of this is the myriad of scams, schemes, and BS that is ripe in nearly every sector of society, and good, intelligent people end up endorsing all of this baloney to a great drain on resources that could be used to make this world a better place.

I, of course, understand this solution will not fix everything, but I do think it will severely curb the BS in the world. The solution I propose is to add a mandatory class tentatively titled “Skepticism”. Hopefully, it can start as early as Grade 1 and will need to be passed by everyone earning a HS Diploma. At the very least this needs to be done at the University level, where everyone needs to not only satisfy the conditions of their major to graduate, but also pass a course in “Skepticism” in every year of their program.

This course would outline the most common pitfalls of logic and reasonable thinking, and how to identify them. Topics in Skepticism would include:

- Charities

- Lawyer Speak

- Politics

- ESP

- What Science Is and What Science Is Not

- Religion

- Credentials

- Pyramid Schemes

- Spam

- Environmentalism

- Infomercials

- News

- Etc.

Not that I think every topic included above means that it is BS, but to point out where/when/how these topics use BS to get you to stop thinking critically. They are listed above because these topics have a tendency to issue a lot of BS. Note that this class would not teach people what to think, but how to think: how to evaluate evidence reasonably, and notice what tools people use to manipulate you.

Along with core topics, classes will include the memorization of logical fallacies. Kids would hopefully know logical fallacies at the end of high school like they know their times tables. Common logical fallacies everyone should be aware of include:

· Faulty generalization Inductive fallacies such as

• Biased sample
• Half-truths
• Hasty generalization
• Misleading vividness
• Package-deal fallacy or False dilemma
• Proof by example
• Data-snooping

· Questionable cause Informal causal fallacies

• Begging the question, circular logic "petitio principii"
• Correlation implies causation "Cum hoc ergo propter hoc"
• Post hoc ergo propter hoc
• Appeal to probability & Slippery slope

· Informal Relevance fallacies

• Irrelevant conclusion "Ignoratio elenchi" like Red herring
• Straw man
• Association fallacy
• Ad hoc
• "Ad hominem" — Attacking the person rather than the argument

· Informal Verbal fallacies

• Equivocation & Loki's Wager
• Undistributed middle & No true Scotsman
• Special pleading
• Where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption.
• Red herring
• An argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue.
• Gambler's fallacy
• The incorrect belief that the likelihood of a random event can be affected by or predicted from other, independent events.
• Inverse gambler's fallacy
• Where it is concluded, on the basis of an unlikely outcome of a random process, that the process is likely to have occurred many times before.
• Fallacy of distribution
• Where an argument assumes there is no difference between a term in the distributive (referring to every member of a class) and collective (referring to the class itself as a whole) sense.
• Fallacy of composition
• Where one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some (or even every) part of the whole.
• Fallacy of division
• Where one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts.
• Begging the question
• Where the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises.
• Fallacy of many questions (Also: "loaded question")
• Where someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved.
• Perfect solution fallacy
• Where an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.
• Denying the correlative
• Where attempts are made at introducing alternatives where there are none.
• Suppressed correlative
• An argument which tries to redefine a correlative (two mutually exclusive options) so that one alternative encompasses the other, thus making one alternative impossible.
• Accident (fallacy)
• When an exception to the generalization is ignored.
• Converse accident
• When an exception to a generalization is wrongly called for.
• Appeal to tradition
• Where a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it has a long standing tradition behind it.
• Appeal to authority
• Where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.
• Argument from ignorance (Also: "appeal to ignorance")
• Where a premise is claimed to be true only because it hasn't been proven false, and vice versa.
• Argumentum ad populum (Also: "appeal to belief", "appeal to the majority", "appeal to the people")
• Where a proposition is claimed to be true solely because many people believe it to be true.
• Appeal to novelty
• Where a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern.
• Appeal to emotion
• Where an argument is won due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning.
• Appeal to flattery
• A specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is won due to the use of flattery to gather support.
• Appeal to fear
• A specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is won by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side.
• Appeal to consequences
• A specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument concludes a premise is either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences for a particular party.
• Appeal to pity
• A specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is won by exploiting an opponent's feelings of pity or guilt.
• Appeal to ridicule
• A specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is won by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.
• Appeal to spite
• A specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is won through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party.
• Wishful thinking
• A specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason.
• Argumentum ad baculum (Also: "appeal to force", "appeal to the stick")
• Where an argument is won through coercion or threats of force towards an opposing party.
• Appeal to motive
• Where a premise is dismissed, by calling into question the motives of its proposer.

This above list of fallacies and much more were found following this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

It would also be key to note that people who use such fallacies are not necessarily bad people, and that we often use fallacies on ourselves, such as in cases of self-deception. Simply, I think it would be great if everyone were aware of these cognitive pitfalls so they can act accordingly.

I wonder how the culture would be affected if people were generally made aware of how they are being manipulated. As it stands, people are left to themselves and good luck to sidestep these cognitive pitfalls, and any knowledge of how these manipulations occur is passed word-of-mouth by family and friends. And, as we all know, this isn’t good enough, because of the all the BS that, as I mentioned before, permeates every sector of society. People are graduating from educational institutions with an incomplete framework to interact with the world. I think there is much to be gained by a formal institution that teaches Skepticism, just as they teach History, Social Studies, and Science.

All I would need to do is convince the school board that teaching kids to be skeptical would be beneficial. That doesn’t sound difficult, does it?