Hello, This is a guide to "Skeptical thinking". You might be asking just what is "skeptical thinking"? Well i'm going to explain.
"Skeptic" comes from the greek word
skeptomai which means "to consider". Skepticism is a doctrine of disbelief about particular areas of knowledge due to various reasons which i'll detail below.
So "Skepticism" is basically "doubt" about one thing or another for whatever reason.
In what I call "Critical Skepticism" you base your skepticism on the scientific princible and basic logic.
Critical Skepticism is about what you believe or do not believe.
Let's start out with nothing. There is nothing and you are nothing. Now you start to build up your belief system based on pure logic and reasoning. What exists? Do you exist? You do exist because
Cogito, ergo sum(I think therefor I am). The fact you think proves without a doubt you are a being. Even if your thoughts aren't your own it still proves you're a being because your thoughts must be being put into you by something else. This is the first level of knowledge.
Then you of course are inside of a body surrounded by an environment. Is this body real? Is this environment real? You must make the
reasonable assumption that your body and your environment is real. Or else you couldn't function in it. This is second level knowledge. Not absolutely 100% knowable but as close as you can get!
Now once you're where you are now. You must gather knowledge about the universe you live in. The "Scientific method" is a tool from which you gather knowledge and dispose of what is false.
In the Scientific method(The best tool for knowledge) you first make observations of something in the universe. Once these observations are done you then gather your data and then come up with "hypothesis" about these obsevations providing an explanation of them. A hypothesis must have experiments ready to support it,observation supporting it,It must make predictions and it must be falsifiable.
Once the hypothesis's predictions come to be true and attempts at falsifying it have failed it then turns into a "Theory".
A "Scientific theory" is a conceptual framework of facts that explain a particular phenomenon in the universe. Theories are supported by repeatable experiment and have made accurate predictions. A theory NEVER becomes a fact. A theory is made of facts and observations and laws. It stays a theory forever(until disproven) then another theory replaces it that accounts for the new evidence. A theory is NOT a "guess".
Example of a "Scientific theory" would be the "theory
of gravity". Gravity is a known fact which is supported by laws. However the "theory
of gravity" is an explanation of the phenomenon of gravity supported by the facts and laws.
In science there is something called "peer review" where if claims are made or discoveries made..The entire scientific community reviews them and critiques them and tries to refute them. Studies published in journals are refuted all of the time.
Science is self correcting.In Skeptical thinking you must be able to spot "logical fallacies" which even on this forum there are plenty of!
Here are a few logical fallacies that I got from Carl Sagan's
Baloney Detection Kit The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:
- Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
- Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
- Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
- Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
- If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
- "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the one with least assumptions.
- Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable?
Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric - Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument. eg("Bob uses drugs therefor his argument about finance is wrong!")
- Argument from "authority". eg. ("Well this guy has a PHD therefor he's right without even proving he's right"). Even "authorities" have to prove their claims with evidence.
- Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
- Appeal to ignorance. eg.("I don't know god does not exist therefor me must exist!")
- Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
- Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
- Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
- Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
- Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
- Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect. Eg.("I ate a corndog before I had a heart attack therefor the corndog caused it!")
- Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
- Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
- Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
- Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
- Confusion of correlation and causation.
- Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..Eg.("Evolution says we evolved from monkeys!")
- Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
- Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"
Links with more information about Critical thinking.
James Randi Education foundationwww.randi.orgQuack Watchwww.quackwatch.orgSkeptical Societywww.skeptic.comThe Committee for the Scientific Examination of Claims of the Paranormal www.csicop.orgThe Skeptic's Dictionary(From abracadabra to zombies)
www.skepdic.comSkeptic Newswww.skepticnews.com