Why do we need critical thinking?

[Windom]

The question is not so stupid as it looks like.

Imagine I'm one of those "standard" people. I live in a rich country, say, USA. I earn a lot. I believe in:
1. Creationism. It does no harm to me. I still earn lots of money.
2. UFO abductions. Whatever, it doesn't affect my everydays life. Not at all.
3. Astrology, a little bit. When it is not related to really serious business I believe, when it is - I do not. It's a bit spurious logic but hey, it does no harm to me.
4. Jesus ofcourse. I go to church every Sunday. I enjoy it. I have a good time there.
5. GMO food makes your children mutants too. So I never buy GMO. No problem, there are plenty "organic" food in supermarkets.
6. That crystal powers can heal minor diseases. Ofcourse they do. I experienced it. Maybe it was what clever people call placebo or so, I don't care. I do not trust them in real cases however, and go to serious doctor then. Friends say it's a bit illogical but I don't care again. Yes I pay lots of money for those crystals. So what? I can afford it. No problem at all.
7. Uri Geller is a true psychic. Again, this belief doesn't affect my life in any way.

Some people say I must be skeptic. Why? It costs a lot. It costs your time and your brains work. I'm too lazy for that. I don't wanna think is it true or not when I read my newspaper about some random psychic. I don't care that I spend my money for astrology, feng shui and crystals - I can afford it. I don't want to use my brains where it is not absolutely neccessary. As simple as that. Why shall I become a skeptic if it will not affect my life in any way apart from maybe some additional money? Hey, I'll spend more on the beer in weekends. And yes, I'm very good skeptic when I buy a car or make a business contracts. In those cases I am, because it directly affects my life.
-------------------------------------

I admit this is kinda devil's advocacy (if it is not clear anyway). But I'm really interested in serious answers - why should one become a skeptic in a rich country where he already lives a reasonably good life. Thanks

 

[clarsct]

Do you care that people are duping you?

 

[Arg9]

why should one become a skeptic in a rich country where he already lives a reasonably good life. Thanks

Good life or not, rich country or not - I think skepticism develops as a reaction to what we call reality. This reality is something we ALL share (or most of us) and is much broader than being separated by rich or poor. For me personally, I feel I've lived a good life but I've never been able to shake this way of thinking. It's a way of trying to interpret this whole mess we call life and keep my butt from being taken advantage of...rich or poor. Thanks to critical thinking and skepticism - I've been able to maintain it.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Windom, you are a skeptic, skeptical of some things anyway.

I don't believe everyone needs to be skeptical of the same things skeptical organizations are to have a happy, healty life.

 

[CFLarsen]

Windom, you are a skeptic, skeptical of some things anyway.

I don't believe everyone needs to be skeptical of the same things skeptical organizations are to have a happy, healty life.

What do people need to be skeptical of, then?

Are you saying the general public doesn't need skepticism?

 

[MG1962]

I was a bit disapointed to find a persons faith in this list. Faith is something that comes from within. Each person senses their faith differently. There people deeply devoted to their faith. Others who feel no need for faith in their lives.

No skeptic can mount an arguement that God does not exist. Conversly a person of faith can never offer absolute evidence he does exist.

In a sense it is the same as two blind people arguing the colour of orange. How does either prove their case?

 

[Dancing David]

There is no case for saying that other people must be sceptical. That would be akin to religion as opposed to critical thinking, to demand other people think as one does is:
1. lacking in critical thinking skills because it assumes a lack of understanding of the boundaries of one's own power.
2. lacking critical thinking skills because it makes the assumption(outside of life and deasth situations) that you know what is best for the other person.
3. is a tremendous sort of hubris just as it is in many religously fantatical people.


But if you wish to give money to charlatans, that is a personal choice.

I have met people who believe in alien abduction, they are usualy very unhappy people and it does not bring them joy.

 

[Correa Neto]

So, you think one must not be skeptical about what is presented? Without thinking about or asking for evidence?

Like, say, a politician claiming he can stop crime in two years?

Someone selling a copper gizmo that is supposed to clear your aura?

Bigfoot parking it's flying saucer at your backyard?

 

[Foolmewunz]

I was a bit disapointed to find a persons faith in this list. Faith is something that comes from within. Each person senses their faith differently. There people deeply devoted to their faith. Others who feel no need for faith in their lives.

No skeptic can mount an arguement that God does not exist. Conversly a person of faith can never offer absolute evidence he does exist.

In a sense it is the same as two blind people arguing the colour of orange. How does either prove their case?

Why should this dissapoint you? Any belief should be viewed with skepticism. Maybe you're accepting the Truther or IDer definition of a skeptic? Skeptics have had our chief rationale hijacked by the CT movements... "Just asking questions..."

The thing you're concerned with (IMHO) is what we do with the answers. Does one question the existence of a deity and then finding no proof, dismiss its existence? Or does one decide, "Oh, well, I believe in Ed anyway?"

I don't know of anyone I respect as a skeptic who insists that persons are not allowed to believe.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Or the value of rhetorical questions?

 

[CFLarsen]

Or the value of rhetorical questions?

What do people need to be skeptical of, then?

Are you saying the general public doesn't need skepticism?

 

[T'ai Chi]

One has to have a lot of faith to ask that.

 

[Pyrrho]

Skepticism involves critical thinking, but skepticism is not identical to critical thinking. It is not a given that if critical thinking is applied, all people will arrive at the same conclusions. Critical thinking might genuinely lead some people to decide that skepticism is not useful, or it might genuinely lead some people to conclude that actively debunking paranormal claims is useful. It all has to do with one's priorities in life.

I think critical thinking, i.e. honest self-examination and critical evaluation of one's own thoughts and opinions as well as those of other people, especially the careful evaluation of external evidence and data, is important and useful. But "critical thinking" is not the same as "skepticism".

 

[T'ai Chi]

Skepticism, about one thing or another, is always useful IMO.

The following things related to skepticism are some troublespots:

1) Does one have to be skeptical about all the things that organizations in the organized skeptical movement are skeptical about to be a 'real' skeptic? If Browne doubts reiki (who knows), she is skeptical about reiki. But who in the skeptical movement would call Browne a skeptic? IDers are skeptical about the explanatory power of Darwinian processed. Are they skeptics?

2) If skepticism by itself is doubt, is there much positive to offer in the skeptical movement? Saying it offers 'the real world' is not skepticism, because the real world is the real world, regardless of whether we engage in doubt.

3) Does the inescapable skepticism about ones' own skepticism debunk the value of skepticism?

4) Is one right to ignore challenges from the skeptical movement as not having much to do with science and focus more on the standard channels of science?

5) Is the interpretation of skepticism by the skeptical movement just a way so one can say they are never wrong? That is, if one strongly doubts X (think the flight of planes, continental drift, etc.) due to lack of evidence, and calls X bunk, etc., they can say they are justified because of the lack of evidence or even theoretical framework. But if evidence comes in for X, they can say they are now justified in calling it sound because of the evidence. In either way, they are justified, even though the statements and conclusions reached are opposite. How in this scenario can the skeptical movement be judged as making an incorrect decision?

 

[Windom]

I was a bit disapointed to find a persons faith in this list. Faith is something that comes from within. Each person senses their faith differently. There people deeply devoted to their faith. Others who feel no need for faith in their lives.

No skeptic can mount an arguement that God does not exist. Conversly a person of faith can never offer absolute evidence he does exist.

In a sense it is the same as two blind people arguing the colour of orange. How does either prove their case?

I'm sorry but this is clearly offtopic. But it's interesting point, if you'd create a thread to discuss is faith different from belief in Uri Geller, I would be happy to discuss it

 

[Pyrrho]

Skepticism, about one thing or another, is always useful IMO.

The following things related to skepticism are some troublespots:

1) Does one have to be skeptical about all the things that organizations in the organized skeptical movement are skeptical about to be a 'real' skeptic? If Browne doubts reiki (who knows), she is skeptical about reiki. But who in the skeptical movement would call Browne a skeptic? IDers are skeptical about the explanatory power of Darwinian processed. Are they skeptics?

Anybody can wear a badge and uniform--doesn't make them a police officer.

It's useful for the blatant purveyors such as Sylvia Browne to blur the meaning of the term "skeptic". IDers might be skeptical of Darwin's theories, but the underpinnings of their own theories are "faith based" and are not based on skepticism, but on belief.

Nobody has to agree with everything a skeptic organization says or does, but if a person is going to call themselves a skeptic, it is expected that they are going to follow a general path of critical thinking, scientific analysis, and doubt.

2) If skepticism by itself is doubt, is there much positive to offer in the skeptical movement? Saying it offers 'the real world' is not skepticism, because the real world is the real world, regardless of whether we engage in doubt.

Skepticism is part doubt, part critical thinking, part logic, and part science. Skepticism offers a means of analysis of reality and of analyzing claims that are made about reality. There is much that is positive about applying reason, logic, and methodical analysis to a chaotic, confusing world.

3) Does the inescapable skepticism about ones' own skepticism debunk the value of skepticism?

Nope. That's critical thinking--checking one's own thinking is fundamental to skepticism.

4) Is one right to ignore challenges from the skeptical movement as not having much to do with science and focus more on the standard channels of science?

That assumes the person ignoring the challenge is actually focused on the standard channels of science. People are free to ignore whatever they wish to ignore, generally speaking. I'm personally grateful to live in a country where the luxury of being able to ignore challenges exists...and that the luxury of being able to issue challenges exists. Eh, that's political...don't want to go there.

5) Is the interpretation of skepticism by the skeptical movement just a way so one can say they are never wrong? That is, if one strongly doubts X (think the flight of planes, continental drift, etc.) due to lack of evidence, and calls X bunk, etc., they can say they are justified because of the lack of evidence or even theoretical framework. But if evidence comes in for X, they can say they are now justified in calling it sound because of the evidence. In either way, they are justified, even though the statements and conclusions reached are opposite. How in this scenario can the skeptical movement be judged as making an incorrect decision?

If they make a claim that is later discovered to be false, based on the evidence. If I state, "Continents cannot drift," that's a claim, shown to be false based on empirical evidence. If I state, "I seriously doubt that continents can drift--please show your evidence," I am not making a claim. I am withholding judgment until the facts are in. I can make statements with reasonable certainty based on current scientific understanding of the laws of physics, such as, "Spoons cannot be bent by remote mind power," or "People cannot live on nothing but air." If I am proven wrong, I can agree with the conclusions based on new evidence--that is not the same as claiming that I have always been right. I was right to doubt--now I am right to agree, and my doubt was an honest error, based on the facts that were available.

Honest appraisal requires that we re-evaluate according to the available evidence. That is good science.

 

[CFLarsen]

1) Does one have to be skeptical about all the things that organizations in the organized skeptical movement are skeptical about to be a 'real' skeptic?

What is the "organized skeptical movement"?

What do you mean by a "real" skeptic?

If Browne doubts reiki (who knows), she is skeptical about reiki. But who in the skeptical movement would call Browne a skeptic? IDers are skeptical about the explanatory power of Darwinian processed. Are they skeptics?

What do you think?

2) If skepticism by itself is doubt, is there much positive to offer in the skeptical movement? Saying it offers 'the real world' is not skepticism, because the real world is the real world, regardless of whether we engage in doubt.

Skepticism isn't merely doubt. You are perfectly aware of that.

5) Is the interpretation of skepticism by the skeptical movement just a way so one can say they are never wrong? That is, if one strongly doubts X (think the flight of planes, continental drift, etc.) due to lack of evidence, and calls X bunk, etc., they can say they are justified because of the lack of evidence or even theoretical framework. But if evidence comes in for X, they can say they are now justified in calling it sound because of the evidence. In either way, they are justified, even though the statements and conclusions reached are opposite. How in this scenario can the skeptical movement be judged as making an incorrect decision?

For some reason, you want to make it a point of criticism that skeptics change their minds, based on the evidence.

 

[T'ai Chi]

There's really no hard relation between following skepticism and following science, as my Browne example demonstrated.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If Browne doubts reiki (who knows), she is skeptical about reiki. But who in the skeptical movement would call Browne a skeptic? IDers are skeptical about the explanatory power of Darwinian processed. Are they skeptics?

Mistake #1: "Skeptical" <> Skeptic

(!= for the C folks)

 

[Pyrrho]

Mistake #1: "Skeptical" <> Skeptic

(!= for the C folks)

People who play fast and loose with the definitions of words won't agree with that. That's why people seem to think that a "true" or "real" skeptic, being doubtful, must also be open-minded and accept all claims as nominally true until proven otherwise. That's also a misunderstanding of how science works.