A Crash Course In Critical Thinking

To move from gullibility/credulity/magical thinking to critical thinking/skepticism/science-based thinking is one of the most difficult actions a person can take. Why? The human brain has flaws and is resistant to change for many reasons. If you are thinking in the former way and are open-minded enough to unbiasedly consider the alternative, this post is for you. Click on the link below and you will find one of the better articles on the subject. It is worthy of the label of "Critical Thinking 101" at the college level.

How to Think Critically and Stay Informed in a Sea of Misinformation

The Trump Administration’s Assault On Science And Secularism

 "Our timeline recaps four years of executive orders and federal agency policies that have attacked science and eroded the wall of separation between church and state."

Frankly, I can't imagine a worse display of magical thinking by a POTUS. Click on the link below:

Undermining Science and Secularism

Memo To Democrats

The USA politically remains essentially equally divided between Republicans and Democrats. With the Republicans controlling the US Senate and state legislations, how are the Democrats going to get their message into action? If there ever was a period in US history for practical politics trumping unwavering ideology, this is it IMO. Yes, one-third of voters will probably never change from voting Republican. However, think of the Democratic advantage if they can change the minds of only 25% of the remaining Republicans.

I offer some thoughts:

Religion is the largest source of magical thinking. The Democrats, while more science-based in their thinking than the Republicans, are still majority religious. Thus, perhaps cleaning their own house first would be wise.

The way Democrats attempt to get their platform across to Republicans and Independents is important. For example, the way many Democrats have talked about reforming the police ("Defund the police!") and reducing social and economic inequality ("Socialism") has left the Republicans an open door to misrepresent their true and valid proposals.

In summary, I recommend communicating with those who voted for Trump by focusing on respectfully getting them to reflect on the tools they use to understand reality and can they verify/justify them. Asking questions rather than directly criticizing their vote seems the more practical and science-based way to change their minds.

Street Epistemology: It Works

Street Epistemology is a conversational tool that helps people reflect on the quality of their reasons and the reliability of their methods used to derive one's confidence level in their deeply-held beliefs. It is used by science-based-thinkers to promote, one-on-one, critical thinking and to encourage people to analyze the level of magical thinking they use. Needless to say, magical thinkers, especially theists, are defensive against the process. However, as the video below demonstrates, it can be very effective. It's important to watch the whole video to get its full impact.

Surmounting Faith

Two Controversial Topics In Research

Many magical thinkers oppose research findings falsifying their claims. Are such folks correct, at least in part? Click on the two links below for videos that do a good job of objectively analyzing Bayesian probability calculations and research study findings in general:

The Bayesian Trap

Is Most Published Research Wrong?

Systemic Racism: What Conservatives Don't Understand About It

"A deep dive into the realities of systemic racism in the United States."

One of the better looks at the issue. Click on the link below if you are swimming in that Egyptian river (de Nile).

The Truth About Systemic Racism

Legal Precedent And Bodily Autonomy

I have posted several times on the issue of abortion. And, I have said that bodily autonomy is the best argument for a women's right to choose to end a pregnancy (link). Why? The legal precedence for such is very strong (link). Why then is there such opposition to accepting this precedent? Consider: 

• The vast majority of opponents to abortion are religious (link).
• Religion is the greatest force for magical thinking on the planet (link).
• Magical thinking is opposed to objective evidence as determined by science-based thinking (link).

This Explains It

Promoters of science-based thinking struggle with the fact that it is very difficult to change someone's mind with facts. The article below clearly explains why.

Click on link below:

Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

Climate Change 101

 It is clear that a large portion of the USA population still is mired in magical thinking, which includes climate change denial. The short video below does a good job in presenting the facts and the probable future of the planet, and us, if science-based thinking continues to be marginalized by powerful political and economic forces:

Are Apocalyptic” Wildfires Just a Warning?

Has Magical Thinking Won?

The history of humanity has mostly been dominated by magical thinking (ignorance, superstition, dogma, and religion). Thus, science-based thinking essentially has only been around for about .25% of our existence (500 years of science out of 200,000 years). Science since its beginning has had to battle against these negative forces, of which the most prominent example has been religion. The Enlightenment and the US Constitution have been in the vanguard of opposing these forces. 

In the USA, a minority of its people (conservative Catholics, evangelical Protestants, and ultra-orthodox Jews) began to gain power exceeding their numbers after President Nixon's perfection of the Republican "Southern Strategy." These political forces have slowly been gaining power to the point of causing the election of Donald J Trump as President. In other words, this aggressive magical thinking minority has hijacked one of the two major political parties. Since Trump's election, this power continues to gain strength, in spite of his total depravity and lack of fitness for the office. The clearest example of this power has been the appointment of several conservative Federal judges throughout the USA and two Supreme Court Justices. Most of us science-based thinkers have been on pins and needles regarding Ruth Bader Ginsberg as a strong liberal Justice in a conservative-majority Supreme Court. In my opinion, yesterday, September 18, 2020, was another "date that will live in infamy." Yes, strong words. However, just ponder the effects of magical thinking that suddenly now, in the face of massive fires in the West and a pandemic, have a clear path to political dominance for decades, for example:

• Evolution denial
• Climate change denial
• Medical science denial
• Economic and social inequality
• Theocratic authoritarian government
• Going against the political norms of representative democracy: Gerrymandering; voter suppression; support of non-representative Electoral College; abuse of Senate protocol.

Only "We, The People" can fight this evil through activism and voting. Now is not the time to back down.

Magical Thinking In-Depth

"Even hard-core skeptics can't help but find sympathy in the fabric of the universe—and occasionally try to pull its strings."

Below is a link to one of the best presentations of the concept of magical thinking I have read:

Psychology Today: Magical Thinking

H/T to my Facebook friend Jay Feldman, who posted on Facebook his synopsis of the article (link), which prompted this post on my blog.

How To Get Magical Thinkers To Stop And Think?

Changing one's mind is one of the most difficult things for humans to do. We all have confirmation biases, which "is an important type of cognitive bias that has a significant effect on the proper functioning of society by distorting evidence-based decision-making." Thus, it's important to reflect on this basic human tendency toward magical thinking and to combat it with science-based thinking (link)(link). However, easier said than done. Instead of spending a great deal of time directly attempting to educate folks who will be resistant to change, perhaps ending the conversation with something like this is warranted.*This may at least get your interlocutor to stop and think about what you are trying to communicate to him or her:

• "I want to know as much truth as possible. Thus, please tell me anything about what I am saying you think is false. However, keep in mind that "knowledge" is commonly held as "JUSTIFIED, true belief", thus, please justify it with objective evidence. Peace."

* Unfortunately, this will probably end the conversation.

Religious Gaslighting: Submit To Authority Over Critical Thinking

What you will find below is from an excellent counter-apologetic website. This excerpt focuses on why I say, "Religion is a brain poison":

Gaslighting

"Why does Yahweh destroy wisdom and cleverness (1 Corinthians 1:19), and tell wise men to become fools (1 Corinthians 3:18), and suppress all disobedient thoughts (2 Corinthians 10:5), and discourage trusting one's own understanding (Proverbs 3:5, Isaiah 55:8-9), and conceal knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:9) but there is nothing written in the Bible in praise of human intelligence, the most distinguishing characteristic of the human species? Do you think the foolishness of Yahweh is wiser than man’s wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:25)? Do you think it is wrong to ask Yahweh for explanations (Romans 9:20)?

Did the originators of the Bible stories have anything to gain if their listeners just followed them without thinking critically? How could Yahweh create a scientific marvel like the universe and create us in its image but discourage scientific inquiry?

Do you agree with Jesus that people who believe something without proof are blessed (John 20:29)? Are Flat-Earthers blessed for believing that the Earth is flat? When is it best to accept something without good evidence and when is it best to require good evidence before accepting something? What is evil and adulterous, as Jesus claimed, about people asking for evidence (Matthew 12:39)? According to the Bible, every one of the Eleven and Paul believed only after perceiving something extraordinary. What is wrong with the rest of us insisting on seeing clear evidence before believing? If the Jews of Jesus's day were there, and if they knew their Scriptures, and if they believed in Yahweh, and if they believed in miracles, but they didn’t believe Yahweh raised Jesus from the dead then why should we believe it? Do you believe that Yahweh will reveal itself to anyone who sincerely asks?

Does it seem reasonable to you that we can only enter Heaven if we have the faith of a child, a person who can be fooled into believing that Santa Claus is real, that you can dig a hole to China and that the nice man in the van really has candy as he claims (Matthew 18:3)? Why does the Church use sheep/shepherd metaphors? Why is it a slur to refer to someone as a sheep if we should aspire to being sheep?

With access only to the comprehension powers of our own minds, how is it possible to lean on the understanding of anyone else (Proverbs 3:5-6)? If something does not make sense to you, what difference does it make to you if it makes sense to someone else? How is it possible for someone to know that someone else understands something?

Do you agree with 58% of Republicans that colleges and universities have a negative impact on the US? Do you agree with 72% of Democrats that colleges and universities have a positive impact on the US? Do you agree with Jehovah's Witness leader Gerrit Losch, that going to university is like shooting yourself in the head?"

https://www.stopindoctrination.org#gaslighting

The USA Is In An Epistemological Crisis

Ontology is the branch of philosophy regarding the nature of reality. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy regarding knowledge and information: how to obtain it, its limits, and its validity. The main way we obtain knowledge about reality is indirect through sources we trust, as there is too much of it for us as individuals to obtain most of it directly. 

There is a crisis over how we are obtaining knowledge and information cultivated by the current conservative movement. It boils down to who do you trust in obtaining your knowledge about reality. Think of the difference in the mindset of a criminal defense lawyer, who is not focused on truth but on supporting the client, and a scientist, who is focused on truth and objective evidence. It is the difference between magical and science-based thinking.

The link below contains a podcast by Chris Hayes on the subject:

https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/why-is-this-happening/e/76498027?autoplay=true

10 Myths About The Racial Wealth Gap

"— evidenced by decades of reporting from the Federal Reserve System, U.S. Department of Labor, Department of Commerce and various academic and professional studies — is that the wealth gap is the product of centuries of inequality and racism that has grown too large to be impacted significantly by individual actions, achievements or choices."

Click on the link below:

Evidence over ideology regarding the racial wealth gap

Magical Vs Scientific Thinking (Summary)

Magical Thinking

• Resistant to objective evidence
• Primarily uses amygdala (first part of brain to develop) for basic survival/instinct/intuitive thinking
• Easy
• Accepting claims without adequate evidence (gullible)
• Difficulty changing opinions; closed-minded
• Not verifiable
• Sees meaning and connection in coincidences
• Sees patterns when the phenomena are random
• Uses logic to support claims when at least one premise is false
• Emphasizes personal experience and common sense
• Used by: the religious; alternatives to medicine promoters and users; conspiracy theorists; any other pseudoscience (false science) acceptor
• Usually conservative politically (nostalgic for the past; tribal; focused on individual rights; cynical of "the other"; cynical of government; comfortable with authoritarian rule) 

Scientific Thinking

• Accepts objective evidence
• Primarily uses the frontal cortex (last part of brain to develop) for critical thinking
• Hard
• Accepting claims only with adequate objective evidence (skeptical)
• Able to change opinions when warranted; open-minded
• Verifiable through observation and experimentation
• Accepts coincidences as part of the randomness of life only
• Recognizes the difference between true patterns and randomness
• Recognizes invalid and/or unsound arguments 
• Recognizes that our brains have flaws and can fool us with biases
• Usually progressive politically (looking forward; focused on human rights for all; global/big picture view; regulated capitalism/representative democracy; rejects authoritarian rule)

MORE: (link)(link)

Bias And The Antidote

Any science-based thinker understands that our brains are not reliable for understanding objective reality, which leads us to many cognitive biases. For example, the term confirmation bias is defined as the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information that confirms or supports one's prior personal beliefs or values. 

A more recently-recognized cognitive bias is unconscious bias against those of another race. This latter bias is being strongly challenged by some. These links (here), (here), (here) present the issue and are used by me to attempt to clarify opinions over it. In my opinion, in spite of some justified issues with testing, the bias is real and causes harm. This Facebook post of mine contains some heated interaction between me and others that is illustrative of the issue.

Unfortunately, in spite of the present protests against racism affecting Blacks, I am afraid that the core message is being lost: humans have deep-seated biases, many of which are not at the conscious level. I choose to group all of these biases under the umbrella of "The Other", whether it is religion, race, sex/gender, or political philosophy. The antidote to all of this is humility, an open mind, and science-based thinking. Magical Thinking (Credulity) has to be marginalized significantly to have significant improvement, full-stop.

Intelligence Is No Protector Against Magical Thinking

"In this article, we explore the more circumscribed question of whether and to what extent the Nobel Prize, conceptualized as a partial but imperfect proxy of scientific brilliance, is incompatible with irrationality. To do so, we draw on case studies of several Nobel-winning scientists who appear to have succumbed to the Nobel Disease. In doing so, we remain cognizant of the inferential limitations of case studies: They are of unknown representativeness, and they can be readily cherry picked to support one’s hypotheses. Still, case studies can often be helpful in generating hypotheses to be investigated in more systematic studies. In addition, they can sometimes afford existence proofs—demonstrations that a given phenomenon can occur. In the case of the Nobel Disease, the capsule case histories we present strongly suggest that intellectual brilliance can coexist with yawning gaps in skeptical thinking."

Click on the link below:

The Nobel Disease: When Intelligence Fails To Protect Against Irrationality

Magic And Skepticism

Click on the link below for a video by Matt Dillahunty that is an interesting and informative presentation of how the use of magic can enlighten people to the truth and value of skepticism/science-based thinking:

Magic and skepticism

No Matter The Topic, Experts Are Ignored In The USA

"A tussle between science and politics is defining the pandemic response of the Trump administration. How did this increasing rejection of expertise get started?"
- - - - - - -

Most of what we, as individuals, "know" is not from direct experience but from those around us and from other sources to which we are exposed.

If one is a magical thinker, it is difficult to determine if claims are true because there is no way to justify claims with such an epistemological method. The background of the party making the claim, nor the level of evidence for the claim, are not major considerations whether one should accept the party's opinion.

If one is a science-based thinker, however, one uses the scientific method to evaluate all claims on our objective reality. The method contains internal elements that justify/verify the results through such measures as peer review and replication. The higher the level of expertise in the appropriate areas and the quality of evidence supporting the claims, the more confidence one may have in the findings.

The link below highlights the history and our present crisis of generally rejecting the experts and it's consequences:

Why Don't Americans Trust Experts any more?