Critical Thinking. Bias. Blogging--It's Good for You. Self-medication may be the reason the blogosphere has taken off. Scientists (and writers) have long known about the therapeutic benefits of writing about personal experiences, thoughts and feelings. But besides serving as a stress-coping mechanism, expressive writing produces many physiological benefits. Research shows that it improves memory and sleep, boosts immune cell activity and reduces viral load in AIDS patients, and even speeds healing after surgery. A study in the February issue of the Oncologist reports that cancer patients who engaged in expressive writing just before treatment felt markedly better, mentally and physically, as compared with patients who did not. Scientists now hope to explore the neurological underpinnings at play, especially considering the explosion of blogs. Flaherty, who studies conditions such as hypergraphia (an uncontrollable urge to write) and writer’s block, also looks to disease models to explain the drive behind this mode of communication.
Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies. How to Train Your Mind to Think Critically and Form Your Own Opinions. Evangelists of Logic. The killing of Dr Narendra Dabholkar does not deter Indians fighting for the supremacy of reason. Here is why In September 2009, the famous rationalist Basava Premananda of Kerala fell severely ill. He had stomach cancer and many of his major organs were close to collapse. He was admitted to a hospital in Coimbatore where he would eventually die a few weeks later. On Nayak’s suggestion, Premananda issued a declaration that he was still a rationalist and believed that his death would leave nothing other than his body—which was to be donated to a medical college—with no soul or spirit to trouble anyone.
On 20 August this year, that spirit was thought to have suffered a blow when Dr Narendra Dabholkar, a well-known rationalist and friend of Nayak, was gunned down while out on a walk in Pune, Maharashtra. The assassination was a shock. “It would have been easy to feel helpless after his murder,” says Girme, “However, [Dabholkar] wouldn’t have wanted us to get dissuaded by what happened. Raising a Skeptic | A Journey in Secular Parenting.
The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science. Illustration: Jonathon Rosen "A MAN WITH A CONVICTION is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point. " Festinger and several of his colleagues had infiltrated the Seekers, a small Chicago-area cult whose members thought they were communicating with aliens—including one, "Sananda," who they believed was the astral incarnation of Jesus Christ. Through her, the aliens had given the precise date of an Earth-rending cataclysm: December 21, 1954. Festinger and his team were with the cult when the prophecy failed.
Read also: the truth about Climategate.At first, the group struggled for an explanation. From that day forward, the Seekers, previously shy of the press and indifferent toward evangelizing, began to proselytize. In the annals of denial, it doesn't get much more extreme than the Seekers. We apply fight-or-flight reflexes not only to predators, but to data itself. Why do people reject science? › Opinion (ABC Science) In Depth › Analysis and Opinion Why do some of us reject consensus on a whole range of scientific findings? As Professor Stephan Lewandowsky explains, it often comes down to the way we look at the world.
What does Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity have to do with the human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV)? What does acid rain have to do with the fact tobacco smoking causes lung cancer? What does Reye's syndrome have in common with the CFCs that caused the hole in the ozone layer? And what do all those issues have to do with the fact our climate is rapidly changing due to human greenhouse gas emissions? The answer is that in all those cases, solid scientific evidence was met with vociferous opposition. The historical evidence is overwhelming that some of that opposition has been organised by vested interests, often successfully delaying political and regulatory action that posed a perceived threat to corporate profits. The unnecessary death toll is readily obtained by multiplication. Critical thinking web.
What is close reading? - a tutorial and guidance notes « Mantex. Mantex > Tutorials > 19C Literature > What is close reading? – guidance notes a brief guide to advanced reading skills Close reading – explained 1. Close reading is the most important skill you need for any form of literary studies. 2. 3. 4. Linguistic You pay especially close attention to the surface linguistic elements of the text – that is, to aspects of vocabulary, grammar, and syntax. 5. Studying Fiction is an introduction to the basic concepts and the language you will need for studying prose fiction. Buy the book at Amazon UK Buy the book at Amazon US 6. Linguistic reading is largely descriptive. 7. 8. 9. Close reading – Checklist Writing Essays 3.0 (.html)Writing Essays 3.o covers every aspect of essay writing – from note-taking and making essay plans to referencing and avoiding plagiarism.
Close reading – Example 10. 11. 12. 13. Bleak HouseLondon. Close reading 14. London This is an abrupt and astonishingly short ‘sentence’ with which to start a six hundred page novel. 15. 16. 17. Science-Based Medicine. Quackwatch. NeuroLogica Blog. Jan 13 2017 Cognitive Biases in Health Care Decision Making This was an unexpected pleasant find in an unusual place. The Gerontological Society of America recently put out a free publication designed to educate patients about cognitive biases and heuristics and how they can adversely affect decision making about health care. The publication is aimed at older health care consumers, but the information it contains is applicable to all people and situations.
It is a well written excellent summary of common cognitive biases with a thorough list of references. There are plenty of other resources that also review this material, including my own Teaching Company course, but this is a good user-friendly reference. What is most encouraging about this publication is the simple fact that it recognizes that this is an issue. The report is aimed simultaneously at health care providers and patients. Continue Reading » Jan 12 2017 Curcumin Hype vs Reality The systematic review had two main findings: Respectful Insolence.
Evidence is More Important Than Outrage: An Introduction | Against the New Taboo. What happens when scientific investigation gives us a conclusion we do not like, for example: prayer does not physically heal anyone (or else makes things worse for the patient being prayed for), homeopathy’s only effect is to pay a charlatan, and “Mother” Earth is finding smarter ways to kill us? What happens when evidence conclusively shows that what we thought is precisely or almost the opposite of what is true? Do we load our guns of conformity, light the canons of outrage, and march on? Despite our wishes, reality cannot be hidden by our desires or hopes but will reassert itself in the teeth of our aspirations: floods will drown, diseases will kill, people will oppress others.
In order for us to deal most effectively with the world, we ought to see the world as it really is: naked and screaming, not silenced and dressed in our dreams. However, some might agree with Scott Lilienfield and call scientific thinking “uncommon” sense. We are fallible, but we want to be right. Fundamentals of Logic. Just ONE Copy of The Daily Mail Could Ruin Your Life. This article has been subject to a clarification by the author. You can read the full clarification here . Two years ago Oxford University neuroscientist Prof. Dorothy Bishop established the Orwellian Prize for Journalistic Misrepresentation of a scientific paper in a national newspaper, judged according to the number of factual errors in the piece.
The prize is awarded based on a scoring system of a point per error in the body of the piece, two points per error in the subtitle and three points per error in the headline. This year the Daily Mail took the prize with a blinding twenty-three points in one article. In fact when judging the article against the research it was supposed to be about it was pretty difficult to find a sentence that didn’t contain an error. The article that won the award was my nomination, a Daily Mail article titled “ Just ONE cannabis joint ‘can bring on schizophrenia’ as well as damaging memory” . A graphical representation of data in a typical Daily Mail story. Ten Common Fallacies Everyone Should Know. How to Disagree. March 2008 The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read.
The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts. Many who respond to something disagree with it. The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word. If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well.
DH0. This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. U r a fag!!!!!!!!!! But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. The author is a self-important dilettante. is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag. " DH1. An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. Of course he would say that. This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. DH2. DH3. This is often combined with DH2 statements, as in: DH4. DH5. DH6. The Skeptics' Guide To The Universe - Logical Fallacies. Structure of a Logical Argument Whether we are consciously aware of it or not, our arguments all follow a certain basic structure.
They begin with one or more premises, which are facts that the argument takes for granted as the starting point. Then a principle of logic is applied in order to come to a conclusion. This structure is often illustrated symbolically with the following example: Premise1: If A = B, Premise2: and B = C Logical connection: Then (apply principle of equivalence) Conclusion: A = C In order for an argument to be considered valid the logical form of the argument must work – must be valid. Also it is important to note that an argument may use wrong information, or faulty logic to reach a conclusion that happens to be true. Breaking down an argument into its components is a very useful exercise, for it enables us to examine both our own arguments and those of others and critically analyze them for validity.
Examine your Premises. DISTORTED THINKING. 5 Logical Fallacies That Make You Wrong More Than You Think. The Internet has introduced a golden age of ill-informed arguments. You can't post a video of an adorable kitten without a raging debate about pet issues spawning in the comment section. These days, everyone is a pundit. But with all those different perspectives on important issues flying around, you'd think we'd be getting smarter and more informed. Unfortunately, the very wiring of our brains ensures that all these lively debates only make us dumber and more narrow-minded. For instance ... #5. Think about the last time you ran into a coworker or family member spouting some easily disproven conspiracy theory -- somebody who still thinks Obama's birth certificate is a fake or that Dick Cheney arranged 9/11 to cover up his theft of $2.3 trillion from the government.
That has literally never happened in the history of human conversation. Getty"OK, so Dick Cheney doesn't have a third arm. The Science: Yes, kids, being a dick works. So During Your Next Argument, Remember ... You do this, too. 15 Styles of Distorted Thinking. Responsible Thinking: An Approach to Critical Thinking. Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate. Contents: Introduction This is a guide to using logical fallacies in debate. And when I say "using," I don't mean just pointing them out when opposing debaters commit them -- I mean deliberately committing them oneself, or finding ways to transform fallacious arguments into perfectly good ones.
Debate is, fortunately or not, an exercise in persuasion, wit, and rhetoric, not just logic. In a debate format that limits each debater's speaking time, it is simply not reasonable to expect every proposition or conclusion to follow precisely and rigorously from a clear set of premises stated at the outset. Besides, let's be honest: debate is not just about finding truth, it's also about winning. So why learn logical fallacies at all? I can think of a couple of good reasons. Second, and maybe more importantly, pointing out a logical fallacy is a way of removing an argument from the debate rather than just weakening it. Logic as a form of rhetoric Committing your very own logical fallacies Straw man. A List Of Fallacious Arguments. Attacking the person instead of attacking his argument.
For example, "Von Daniken's books about ancient astronauts are worthless because he is a convicted forger and embezzler. " (Which is true, but that's not why they're worthless.) Another example is this syllogism, which alludes to Alan Turing's homosexuality: Turing thinks machines think. (Note the equivocation in the use of the word "lies".) Main Page. When the scientific evidence is unwelcome, people try to reason it away | Ben Goldacre. What do people do when confronted with scientific evidence that challenges their pre-existing view? Often they will try to ignore it, intimidate it, buy it off, sue it for libel or reason it away.
The classic paper on the last of those strategies is from Lord, Ross and Lepper in 1979: they took two groups of people, one in favour of the death penalty, the other against it, and then presented each with a piece of scientific evidence that supported their pre-existing view, and a piece that challenged it; murder rates went up or down, for example, after the abolition of capital punishment in a state. The results were as you might imagine. Each group found extensive methodological holes in the evidence they disagreed with, but ignored the very same holes in the evidence that reinforced their views. Some people go even further than this when presented with unwelcome data, and decide that science itself is broken. How deep do these views go, and how far do they generalise? Sense about Science – Equipping people to make sense of science and evidence.
The Skeptic's Dictionary. Urban Legends Reference Pages. TruthOrFiction.com-Is that forwarded email Truth or Fiction? Research into stories, scams, hoaxes, myths, and urban legends on the Internet. Latest Email Hoaxes - Current Internet Scams - Hoax-Slayer. The NESS. Home - The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Skepchick - Skeptoid: Critical Analysis Podcast.
Skeptic Magazine Official Podcast Skepticality Skeptic. Skepticblog. Bad Science. Pharyngula. Probably not. But the New York Times reports: A review of studies has found that the health benefits of infant male circumcision vastly outweigh the risks involved in the procedure. Actually, it doesn’t. Not at all. The paper is all about the frequency of circumcision in the US; this is the only real data in the paper, and notice that a good chunk of it is speculation. Prevalence of adult circumcision in the United States during the past 6 decades (1948-2010). It does toss in a table purporting to show the tremendous risks of not circumcising baby boys, but this is not new — these are the same sloppy data that the author has been peddling for over a decade. The author is Brian Morris, better known as the Man Who Hates Foreskins.
Take that first condition, the likelihood of urinary tract infections. Or look at his claim of much greater rates of HIV infection. Armed with this hunch, rather than set up a website I chose to do some research. It’s also an argument that can cut both ways. Myths and Misconceptions Blog. The Skeptics Guide to the Universe | Your escape to reality. Richard Wiseman. PZ Myers. Religion vs. Humanism: Isaac Asimov on Science and Spirituality.