Are you a critical thinker?

[Bobmi357]

I think this is a great thread, Bob, but if we're dedicated to avoiding discussion on anything controversial, it's a little difficult to keep the ball rolling. How about posing a variety of topics or questions people have that might/should/do require critical thinking (e.g. various scams/hoaxes, science, religion, politics, social and economic issues, health, or even just everyday stuff like why that woman didn't think about how cutting me off in traffic would only put her a measly 12 feet ahead, etc.)?

I'm not adverse to taking on controversial subjects Erika, its just that once you start down that path, you usually end up in useless shouting matches.

What I have been trying to attempt is to show ways in which people get fooled because they fail to consider the matter rationally, or jump to conclusions. I have searched hi and low on the net trying to find one document which describes adequately the critical thinking process, but haven't found a single one as yet. Oh well. so maybe we'd be best starting off with the basics.

Let me think about it for a bit, then I'll repost here.

 

[Quoll]

One thing that really gets me going is our version of the"news/current affairs" show.
every day I hear people going on about it, "Did you see that story last night", "that show is so good ". If these people actually sat and listened to these shows and at the end of a story tried to list what they had learnt.The answer would be nothing, it`s mostly fluff and padding, nearly all the information given are generalisations and random people giving their opinion, very little, if any, facts.
Yet they all trumpet about it, as if they have learnt some great big secret.
Ok this probably can`t go anywhere either, but I feel better.
No, never considered it to be a ufo, did actually reply but it never showed up.

 

[Quoll]

Here is one for example.

Juice for kids
16 February 2005



How much juice is too much for our kids?

The latest Pfizer health report reveals that many Australian parents are unaware of simple nutrition recommendations, which can help combat the fight against childhood obesity.

Many parents believe that juice is the perfect thirst quencher for kids: It's sweet, full of vitamin C and their kids love it. But the latest health report shows that juice has as many calories as soft drink.

Dietician Margaret Hays says the standard lunchbox fruit juice is more than twice the recommended daily intake of juice for children.

A key finding from Pfizers health report found that half of Australian adults surveyed mistakenly believe it is acceptable for children to consume two to three fruit juice drinks every day. Additionally, one in 10 people believe that children can drink as much fruit juice as they want.

Perceived as a drink that can be consumed frequently, the Dietitians Association of Australia warns that fruit juice can be a nutrition trap for children.

The Pfizer report reveals:


Two in five children want to be more involved in meal preparation at home.

A link in eating habits between adults and children. For example, the same amount of children and adults are skipping breakfast.


Tips for helping your child cut back on juice intake:


Alternate between water and juice or try diluting each cup of juice with water.

If your child doesn't want the water, try offering it in a decorative athletic water bottle.

Parents, be a role model yourselves and drink water when you're thirsty.

If your child must drink juice, make sure it does not contain the sugar substitute sorbitol, often found in apple juice and pear juice. Sorbitol is a non-absorbable sugar that has been found to cause diarrhea, abdominal pain and bloating in children. Grape juice is a good alternative.

Choice magazine says that water is the best choice, although both cow's milk and soy milk with added calcium are good too.


This probably ran as a five minute story, if you exclude common sense there is not much relevant information, where are the facts.
What is the daily recommended intake of juice, what is a standard size lunchbox fruit juice, as many calories as which soft drink, (ignoring the fact that in this country it is kilo-joules)?
WTF has this to do with fruit juice(Two in five children want to be more involved in meal preparation at home.)
No definition of the differences between fruit juice, fruit juice drink and fruit drink, and yet they are all totally different.

We do learn to avoid sorbitol and to drink more water. Not a lot to walk away with.

Really shouldn`t do this at 2am, starting to doubt if this makes sense.

 

[LadyJeanne]

One thing that really gets me going is our version of the"news/current affairs" show.
every day I hear people going on about it, "Did you see that story last night", "that show is so good ". If these people actually sat and listened to these shows and at the end of a story tried to list what they had learnt.The answer would be nothing, it`s mostly fluff and padding, nearly all the information given are generalisations and random people giving their opinion, very little, if any, facts.
Yet they all trumpet about it, as if they have learnt some great big secret.
Ok this probably can`t go anywhere either, but I feel better.
No, never considered it to be a ufo, did actually reply but it never showed up.

I understand what you're saying about the 'news'. In order to increase ratings, it seems the evening news is often riddled with stories which are dramatized to make an impact, such as the juice story. Most people hear the story, are horrified for a moment, maybe remember it the next day, but by the following day it has been forgotten or replaced by stories of killer mold.

I do blame the news programmers, but the audiences seem to abdicate all responsibility and do nothing to investigate what they're told.

Using juice as an example, a parent who heard that story and was concerned but felt s/he didn't have enough information from the short clip could easily look into the situation by taking a look at the carton of juice in the fridge. Yup, 120 calories per serving, some Vitamin C, maybe a little A depending on the juice and that's about it. Lots of sugar and carbs. Four cups a day and that's almost a pound of calories a week just from juice, and the vitamin gain is just some C and not as much as you think.

While the news could be more factual, being spoon-fed information is not the answer. You have to do your own thinking as well.

 

[EJFan]

great thread, bobmi. i haven't read ALL of it yet but i had to stop to post before continuing.

i recently went back to college and finished up two years ago (at 32). critical thinking was (supposedly) a HUGE part of the curriculum and i was an integral part of many initiatives to add formal critical thinking courses to some majors/minors... including a new leadership minor.

it was interesting to hear, in different committee meetings, that virtually all the professors had "critical thinking" as part of their course initiatives already, regardless of what they were actually teaching. lemme tell ya... i'd been through a lot of courses there and there wasn't even the mildest attempt at this, overt or otherwise.

i certainly can't speak to critical thinking in higher education on the whole, but it was scant at my university. i agree with you that there needs to be more of it taught and fostered... it's the only way to groom people to have meaningful dialogue/debate and wind up with solid solutions to current problems.

an interesting side note: studies show that people who are more skeptical and suspicious tend to live longer. it's one of the traits that's almost universally prominent among centenarians.

 

[EJFan]

I have searched hi and low on the net trying to find one document which describes adequately the critical thinking process, but haven't found a single one as yet. Oh well. so maybe we'd be best starting off with the basics.

try searching for "lateral thinking". we used to call them stories with holes when we were in highschool and they really help develop this skill.

for instance...
you're standing in a room that has a window and a table. there are two dead bodies on the floor and a gun on the table. there was one bullet in the gun and it has been shot. what are you wearing on your feet?

 

[Bobmi357]

While its true that people are more willing to believe something thats on TV, people are often confused because TV often reports things that are patently false under the guise of "journalism".

Thanks to television's "journalism", we have a large segment of our youth growing up to believe that (a) ufo's exist, (b) we never landed on the moon, it was faked, (c) evolution is evil and creationism is really a scientific theory.

Case in point. Under the guise of "journalism", ABC's Primetime live recently ran a piece on "John of God", a south american faith healer who's tricks and antics were drawing a large following, both here and elsewhere. The sole critic brought in to counter him, James Randi, was granted a total of 19 seconds of airtime, and according to Mr Randi, he was misquoted and edited even for those 19 brief seconds.

ABC used to be known for its journalistic efforts. I remember a young ABC rookie reporter named Geraldo Rivera doing a investigative report on Willowbrook, a state owned mental hospital that blew the state run system apart. People were indicted, laws were changed because of that report. Now days people have failed to realize that news reporting has become politisized and taken over by business. Reporters report on things that will sell newspapers, or commerical time because people want to see that sort of stuff.

We have Discovery Science channel, which purports to air documentaries, but tends to run trash on ufos, the loch ness monster, esp etc... The SciFi channel used to run that show with John Edwards, pyschic, talker to the dead and all around fraud.

Fox routinely airs shows in which they achieve a dumbing down of America.

Why none of these shows are willing to grant equal time to the people that can expose the scams is simple. If you have someone capable of showing that your prime topic is defrauding you, then you end up looking like an idiot.

What I find irksome is that it truly appears that so many of our fellow countrymen and women are truly gullible. Why is it that otherwise ordinary well grounded people turn to idiot mush nodding in agreement if you tell a tale of mystic chis or ufo's? In a second, my opinion of said individuals drops into the basement.

 

[done_got_old]

Critical thinking is the art of viewing the world from a pragmatic standpoint. Its an important skill to develop especially in today's society.

We stand on the brink of advances in science and technology that will change the way we live and yet still so many people believe in ghosts and ufo's, homeopathy and psychics. In some ways our fear of the unknown remains unchecked from the very first time man looked at the full moon and howled at it in terror.

Attached to this post is a rather popular image which has circulated the net for some time now. Many people might have seen it before, some of you might be seeing it for the very first time. I won't go into great detail about the photo, but I'd like you all to look at it very very closely, then pm me with your thoughts about the photograph. PLEASE DO NOT POST anything here until I've reposted to this thread. Consider this something of an experiment and I don't want anyone to influence anyone else by posting comments about the photo.

Once I've had enough pm's in response I'll post again.

It really irks me when someone wants me to read a short story and then ask me not to post.............

 

[EJFan]

many journalists have traded in their tenacity for "the get". they're so afraid that they'll lose the big interview that they pussyfoot around everything in deference to that one potential guest... and then handle THEM with kid gloves too.

this is why i get most of my news from sketch comedy shows. think about it... there's a VERY fine line between philosophy and comedy. sketch comedy shows, in particular, tend to be topical and show a fairly good reflection of what's going on in the world around us. of course, i'm one of these highly analytical people who can extract and infer like few others.

i get your point about primetime live's show. in any event, i have to say that james randi isn't anyone to be hanging your hat on in this or many other cases. i'm not saying the man's wrong but he's not as brilliant as he was at one time.

i also have to ask you a semi-rhetorical question, bobmi... i understand how frustrating it is to see young people with unusual views or blindly accepting things. i think that the things you're listing as contributing to this issue (things like the UFO reports, creationism v. evolution, etc.) don't actually have much to do with the problem. whether done under the guise of journalism or not, they're simply providing information that goes in with the wealth of knowledge we already have. what i think society should focus on is how to ingest this information (past and present) and process it on our own. if that leads one person or group to believe that UFO's do exist, for example, don't we have to accept that? it seems as though, by your position, that we should all believe only one option is possible OR that only the option expressed by the most viable source is possible. isn't it reasonable to think that even a corrupt, untrusted source can still have an accurate answer?

 

[Bobmi357]

i get your point about primetime live's show. in any event, i have to say that james randi isn't anyone to be hanging your hat on in this or many other cases. i'm not saying the man's wrong but he's not as brilliant as he was at one time.

James Randi isn't the only serious debunker out there. From the professional Stage Magicians Penn & Teller have done their fair share. From a more scientific aspect you have the folks at CSICOP who do nothing but explore paranormal claims from a distinctly scientific viewpoint.

The biggest problem with most of the debunkers is they get so lost in the enthusiasm to squash the scammers that they themselves begin to look like fanatics.

i also have to ask you a semi-rhetorical question, bobmi... i understand how frustrating it is to see young people with unusual views or blindly accepting things. i think that the things you're listing as contributing to this issue (things like the UFO reports, creationism v. evolution, etc.) don't actually have much to do with the problem. whether done under the guise of journalism or not, they're simply providing information that goes in with the wealth of knowledge we already have. what i think society should focus on is how to ingest this information (past and present) and process it on our own. if that leads one person or group to believe that UFO's do exist, for example, don't we have to accept that? it seems as though, by your position, that we should all believe only one option is possible OR that only the option expressed by the most viable source is possible. isn't it reasonable to think that even a corrupt, untrusted source can still have an accurate answer?

EJ, I can understand your question, and it certainly is relevant to the discussion. As an amateur astronomer and someone very interested in cosmology I'd give my right arm, all my cats and my wife... well maybe not her, for a visit from a UFO. Someday someone may come forward with an artifact of alien origin and science will be forced to change its opinion. Thats the nature of science. Once it was believed no human could survive speeds in excess of 60 miles per hour, then it was the speed of sound etc. Opinions have to change to conform with new data. Believe in something, fine, but if you do, and bring the topic up with me, be prepared for some critical questions about those beliefs and lord help you if you can't respond logically.

The source of the information is as critical as the information itself and how its presented. Science demands repeat-ability from its results. You can discover the cure for your cancer, but if you're unable to duplicate those results in anyone else, its worthless to society as a whole.

Not too many years ago a group of respectable researchers had announced they had discovered a chemical process in which more energy was released than was put in. Cold fusion they called it and for a brief span of time science was turned on its ear as lab after lab scrambled to repeat the results of those experiments. Within a few short months the researchers were forced to retract their statements as NO ONE was capable of duplicating their results. Respected researchers, careers literally overnight became ruined.

So you see, I feel its encumbant on people to question the beliefs of others. I think its part of our makeup to question beliefs, to look at things and ask why they are the way they are. Personally I find the concept of sitting back and letting a large bulk of the population believe in UFOs as nearly as repugnant as sitting back in the 60's and letting the south believe in denying civil rights and voting rights to blacks. And while belief in UFO's might not be as damaging as denying your fellow man his/her basic rights of voting, or eating in the same restaurant, its a path I'd really hate to see us follow.

I'll also point out at this point that we are currently on that path. We've talked about it in several threads, but denying gay marriages is just one step on the path of duhumanizing one portion of our population. A step made possible by what I consider questionable beliefs held by others. We have a responsibility to question, both the direction our government takes and the direction of society.

On UFO's in General.....

The laws of probability imply that we're certainly not alone in the universe, let alone the galaxy. But because a group of people accept something as fact when all the evidence is against them doesn't mean I have to accept their beliefs. Especially when their beliefs get prime time airtime, presented as accomplished fact. What a person believes in the privacy of their own home really isn't an issue to me unless he/she is a neighbor of mine and looking to be a friend. But when a particular point of view is presented and usually presented as fact without a countervailing viewpoint, there is something wrong.

What I rail against, ie the UFO specials on TV, is that its attacted huge followers world wide without any sort of concrete evidence being presented. Carl Sagan once said, "I'll believe in UFO's when I get to hold a piece of one of them, show me a nut, a bolt, a single artifact made of materials unknown on this world and you'll turn me into a believer." Since the late forties when the UFO craze first picked up steam, not one shred of hard evidence has turned up. Hard core UFO fanatics claim government conspiracies covering up the evidence. Strange men in black and black helicopters, CIA coverups and destruction of evidence. They point to strange air bases and the massive security around them as proof positive of the conspiracy. Area 51, part of Nellis Air Force base in Nevada, not far from Vegas.

In a way I think they are right, there has been a government conspiracy of sorts. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to discover that the whole UFO story has been used to cover up the testing of new and secret aircraft. It is, afterall, a perfect cover story. And Nellis was, until recently, one of the US Air Force's premiere testing grounds for new technologies (which makes you wonder where they've moved it to).


On Critical Thinking in General.

I've got a very interesting single page document which I feel anyone interested in learning to be a critical thinker should read. My thanks go to Alyx for finding it for me.

http://www.rogerdarlington.co.uk/thinking.html

Its really worth reading.

 

[EJFan]

The source of the information is as critical as the information itself and how its presented. Science demands repeat-ability from its results. You can discover the cure for your cancer, but if you're unable to duplicate those results in anyone else, its worthless to society as a whole.

sorry i had to clip the hell outta your post, bobmi, but i just wanted to address this one item on a philosophical level. i agree with it but i have to play devil's advocate... it's in my nature and why most people think i'm a bastard.

basically i just want to point out that there is NO unimpeachable source nor is there any objective presentation. history is written by the winners and critical thinking requires that we consider all information regardless of apparent validity (or lack of it).

i don't believe that curing cancer in one person is worthless to society as a whole. just because the exact method can't be useful to anyone else doesn't meant that it's not a step toward something that is. pepsi stock has good quarters and bad quarters... but if you have some shares for 40 or 50 years you'll certainly see a long-term benefit.

there's something else i felt obliged to point out. i think most of the "UFO" programs on tv fail to make the point that UFO's don't necessarily mean aliens or space craft from other worlds. it means what it literally says: an object in the sky that we don't know what it is. these programs are teased to us to lead us to believe that they're addressing life on other planets and visitors to earth... but if you take a close look at them, all they're really saying is, "we have this thing in the sky and no one seems to know what it is." people have turned the term "UFO" into something it isn't... just like we did with "kleenex".

i think you're right when you say we need to exercise better critical thinking skills, and i really can't tell you how much i appreciate your wisdom and humor that's on display here... i admire you a great deal. i just don't believe that critical thinking is limited to being jaded and cynical about the information we get... i think critical thinking is about taking in as much information as possible and forming healthy questions about it. maybe you're not saying this, but i feel like you're suggesting that we're not independent, critical thinkers unless we assume everything's a lie.

selfish plug: you might want to check out my blog, bobmi... the link is in my sig line. sometimes i fire off a good analysis on all sorts of things, some serious and others not so. your comments are welcome.

 

[Bobmi357]

basically i just want to point out that there is NO unimpeachable source nor is there any objective presentation. history is written by the winners and critical thinking requires that we consider all information regardless of apparent validity (or lack of it).

Your absolutely correct, there is no such thing as a single unimpeachable source. The example I gave on cold fusion perfectly illustrated that. Those gentlemen had impeccable credentials, a large university backing them and still they made the blunder of the century.

I don't automatically assume everything is a lie, if someone steps up and says "I have discovered XYZ and offer the following theory based on my observations", I tend to give them a little more credence than the guy claiming that placing a hoop of magnetic material around your head will make you smarter. But in the end, the first guy is just offering a theory. While I don't automatically assume everything is a lie, I do tend to dismiss the quacks outright.

Anyone familiar with high energy particle physics knows that Super String Theory right now offers the best chance of providing a grand unification of physics AND that at moment Super String Theory can come crashing down around their ears rendering whole lifetimes of work wasted. Its a theory and as such remains largely unproven, although the body of evidence is slowly building in its favor.

I will admit to being somewhat biased in as much as I find myself more willing to believe someone who is coming from a research study reporting results than I do the myriad of charletons out there hawking their snake oils.

What irks me is the people that blindly by into schemes without doing ANY sort of research. If you're looking for some sort of personal health aid, you'd think that a little research would be in order since its your own personal health you're dealing with. We rely on doctors for health advice because they have sufficient training (in most cases) to prescribe the proper treatments. I actually feel comforted because my doctor frequently consults his books. He knows theres a lot he doesn't understand and his PDR and other books are his fallback position. I can respect that. Its something I've done all my life as an engineer.

 

[EJFan]

What irks me is the people that blindly by into schemes without doing ANY sort of research. If you're looking for some sort of personal health aid, you'd think that a little research would be in order since its your own personal health you're dealing with. We rely on doctors for health advice because they have sufficient training (in most cases) to prescribe the proper treatments. I actually feel comforted because my doctor frequently consults his books. He knows theres a lot he doesn't understand and his PDR and other books are his fallback position. I can respect that. Its something I've done all my life as an engineer.

this drives me nuts too... i remember a story on (i think) 20/20 many years ago about the rug business that illustrates this beautifully. i may have the figures wrong but you'll see my point.

in the story, this woman was bitching all over creation about how she was "taken" by a rug salesman. he told her she could buy some persian (or indian or whatever) handmade area rug for 50% off. the original price was something like $5000 and she opted to buy it for $2500. she later learned that the rug sold for about $1000 and felt she was shafted.

my initial thought on this jerk-off of a woman was that she obviously felt the rug was worth $2500 to her. i don't know about anyone else, but regardless of any kind of "sale" i don't pay any more than i think an item is worth. the outfit she bought it from may have done something immoral, or even illegal, but isn't she responsible for making the decision herself? has our intellect devolved THIS far?

 

[SweetErika]

this drives me nuts too... i remember a story on (i think) 20/20 many years ago about the rug business that illustrates this beautifully. i may have the figures wrong but you'll see my point.

in the story, this woman was bitching all over creation about how she was "taken" by a rug salesman. he told her she could buy some persian (or indian or whatever) handmade area rug for 50% off. the original price was something like $5000 and she opted to buy it for $2500. she later learned that the rug sold for about $1000 and felt she was shafted.

my initial thought on this jerk-off of a woman was that she obviously felt the rug was worth $2500 to her. i don't know about anyone else, but regardless of any kind of "sale" i don't pay any more than i think an item is worth. the outfit she bought it from may have done something immoral, or even illegal, but isn't she responsible for making the decision herself? has our intellect devolved THIS far?

I agree, EJ, of course she's responsible for making the decision. Family members and friends frequently get upset when they've bought something and I find or purchase the item or something similar at a big savings. But I do the research, check out return policies, and save receipts just in case I'm dissatisfied or find it a lot cheaper elsewhere. I know it's a time trade-off, but 99% of the time, I feel like I've made an excellent decision and gotten a fantastic deal. Same goes for everything else from haircuts to medical care.

 

[Bobmi357]

my initial thought on this jerk-off of a woman was that she obviously felt the rug was worth $2500 to her. i don't know about anyone else, but regardless of any kind of "sale" i don't pay any more than i think an item is worth. the outfit she bought it from may have done something immoral, or even illegal, but isn't she responsible for making the decision herself? has our intellect devolved THIS far?

I don't think its a case of intellect devolving. Its a case of making a decision to use what we have. When I last replaced our computers in the office here I had a maximum limit I wanted to spend. Given that limit I went and researched who could give me the best bang for my buck. They weren't the absolute best money could buy, and certainly far from the worst money could buy, just good quality middle of the road machines with the capabilities I needed.

Caveat Emptor is something every buyer should be aware of. But far too few are it seems. Did the rug merchant cheat her? Probably not. He sold her something at a price which she was willing to pay. Today we buy new computers, fully cognizant of the fact that tomorrow they will be obsolete. The rug merchant didn't really do anything wrong. Theres no law governing the price of rugs. If anyone made a mistake it was the consumer that bought the rug without first finding out what the market rate was for a similar rug.

 

[EJFan]

I don't think its a case of intellect devolving. Its a case of making a decision to use what we have. When I last replaced our computers in the office here I had a maximum limit I wanted to spend. Given that limit I went and researched who could give me the best bang for my buck. They weren't the absolute best money could buy, and certainly far from the worst money could buy, just good quality middle of the road machines with the capabilities I needed.

Caveat Emptor is something every buyer should be aware of. But far too few are it seems. Did the rug merchant cheat her? Probably not. He sold her something at a price which she was willing to pay. Today we buy new computers, fully cognizant of the fact that tomorrow they will be obsolete. The rug merchant didn't really do anything wrong. Theres no law governing the price of rugs. If anyone made a mistake it was the consumer that bought the rug without first finding out what the market rate was for a similar rug.

i like the first sentence in your second paragraph, bobmi... dunno if that was intentional but it gave me a chuckle.

i can't believe this woman actually let herself go on tv with her story... it's almost as bad as going on the springer show. i think, aside from the fact that it shows how some people don't think too well, it shows how much we've become inclined to blame other people and entities for our own mistakes.

much earlier in this thread, you'd said something about how schools focus too much on the quality of their lunches. i agree with that wholeheartedly. it's not the biggest problem, but certainly emblematic of what's going wrong. too many people don't take enough interest in their own well-being. we've become too used to running to organizations and the gov't with our problems... legislation gets penned, initiatives are begun and the next thing you know you're being visited by CPS (as you said) because your kids get stitches too often.

 

[Bobmi357]

Continuing with a thought you originally brought up EJFan, should we accept the fact that a portion of the population believes in something? To some extent I'll have to say yes, we really have no choice in the matter that a significant portion of our population strongly believes that gay marriage will bring about the end of civilization as we know it. You and I both know that population is wrong, but we (at least for now) still live in a majority rule democracy.

There's an issue on which myself and my wife disagree strongly. Every couple of weeks Montel Williams features Sylvia Browne on his show. This "pyschic" has an accuracy track record that is pathetic. My wife believes Montel honestly believes in "her powers", whereas I consider Montel a cruel and sadistic bastard who's staff rounds up the family members of missing persons to be paraded on that same show. Sylvia offers them a cruel hope often telling the family their beloved is alive, then proceeds to give vague clues which 999 times out of 1000 turn up to be either unfollowable or just plain wrong.

What this show does to people is one of the worst forms of cruelty possible. And all the while Montel sits there smiling and grinning as he and Sylvia cause intense pain amoung these poor families. Montel's track record isn't comparable to America's Most Wanted. AMW has been responsible for the capture of over 800 dangerous fugitives in this country. Montel has reunited 0 missing persons with their families. Any normal person wouldn't be able to sleep with themselves because of the pain they've caused others. Any normal person would have put Sylvia to a test and when she failed that test, would have never brought her back on the show. She is a con artist and Montel is her accomplice.

So back to the original question. Should we fight against the beliefs of others? I think we have a moral obligation to do so. To do nothing would be nearly as bad a crime as what others are doing WITH their beliefs. Don't believe me? Ask the kids of Jonestown if they really wanted to drink that poison....

 

[EJFan]

Continuing with a thought you originally brought up EJFan, should we accept the fact that a portion of the population believes in something? To some extent I'll have to say yes, we really have no choice in the matter that a significant portion of our population strongly believes that gay marriage will bring about the end of civilization as we know it. You and I both know that population is wrong, but we (at least for now) still live in a majority rule democracy.

There's an issue on which myself and my wife disagree strongly. Every couple of weeks Montel Williams features Sylvia Browne on his show. This "pyschic" has an accuracy track record that is pathetic. My wife believes Montel honestly believes in "her powers", whereas I consider Montel a cruel and sadistic bastard who's staff rounds up the family members of missing persons to be paraded on that same show. Sylvia offers them a cruel hope often telling the family their beloved is alive, then proceeds to give vague clues which 999 times out of 1000 turn up to be either unfollowable or just plain wrong.

What this show does to people is one of the worst forms of cruelty possible. And all the while Montel sits there smiling and grinning as he and Sylvia cause intense pain amoung these poor families. Montel's track record isn't comparable to America's Most Wanted. AMW has been responsible for the capture of over 800 dangerous fugitives in this country. Montel has reunited 0 missing persons with their families. Any normal person wouldn't be able to sleep with themselves because of the pain they've caused others. Any normal person would have put Sylvia to a test and when she failed that test, would have never brought her back on the show. She is a con artist and Montel is her accomplice.

So back to the original question. Should we fight against the beliefs of others? I think we have a moral obligation to do so. To do nothing would be nearly as bad a crime as what others are doing WITH their beliefs. Don't believe me? Ask the kids of Jonestown if they really wanted to drink that poison....

i agree with you bobmi. i think we have to help these people be objective and realistic. i also think that just because sylvia brown is a charlatan (which i have no doubt about either), it doesn't mean that there's no such thing as psychic powers. someone MAY have them... i wouldn't believe anyone claiming to be psychic but i'd entertain the possibility that it could exist somewhere in someone.

then again, i'm also thinking that if you're going on the montel williams show (or even watching it regularly) you may deserve some kind of false hope. TV is entertainment... even AMW and shows like it are entertainment. just because they serve another purpose doesn't mean i'm going to gleen anything from it on an intellectual level. i'd bet that less than 1% of the viewers of AMW have the foggiest idea how to track and capture (or contribute to tracking and capturing) a criminal, for example. they just watch it 'cause it's fun to hear about deviants and see them get rounded up.

as far as jonestown goes, that's just natures way of weeding out the stupid.

have you had any luck with the lateral thinking by chance?

 

[My Own Way]

So back to the original question. Should we fight against the beliefs of others? I think we have a moral obligation to do so.

I'm not so certain we should necessarily fight against the beliefs of others, but I do feel that too many people today accept conformity and the words of others way too easily. I think part of the problem is that from a very early age, we've been taught that we can be wrong, and frankly, no one likes to be wrong. Therefore it's easier to fall into what the general public believes is right to avoid being in the wrong.

Just last week a three star air force general came into one of my classes to speak about national security, Iraq, and the future of America, and at the end of the lecture he said one of the most shocking things, he turns to all of us and says something like, I don't expect you to believe everything I said just now. In fact, I prefer you didn't. Essentially what he was saying is that we must start questioning everything instead of believing everything we read and see. I think too many people in this world have stopped asking why, and why not, and what if and that we're creating generations of people that will never accept or understand change.

 

[Bobmi357]

Just last week a three star air force general came into one of my classes to speak about national security, Iraq, and the future of America, and at the end of the lecture he said one of the most shocking things, he turns to all of us and says something like, I don't expect you to believe everything I said just now. In fact, I prefer you didn't. Essentially what he was saying is that we must start questioning everything instead of believing everything we read and see. I think too many people in this world have stopped asking why, and why not, and what if and that we're creating generations of people that will never accept or understand change.

He's 100% right and should be admired for his frankness. There are issues which are far too important to rely on a single source of information. Given his situation, I'm sort of surprised, and pleased he'd risk saying what he said.