My Critical Thinking Lesson and the aftermath

Shrinker said:
My point is that the first thing a potential critical thinker needs to understand is the possibility he/she might be wrong. Guzzling a bottle of pills is not compatible with that outlook. To me, that says, 'I'm 100% right about this.'
Click to expand...

Absolutely, and this is the correct message to send in this case.

The chances of being hurt (or helped) by a homeopathic remedy are, as I just said, on the same level as the odds of being struck down by Thor.

It's not skepticism in the sense we normally use it to say "I will not tell kids that that Thor does not exist, because Thor might be real and that might offend Him". I would call that stupidity myself. Homeopathy is very much in the same basket as Thor.

A classroom experiement, bit of logical thinking, and the word of a single authority figure should not be enough to form an absolute concrete opinion, especially for kids who might not have all the facts.
Click to expand...

It depends on the opinion. I could show you with a brief experiment using blocks and some simple mathematical logic that 2+2=4, and I could back it up with my own authority. Similarly I could show you that tap water is harmless, and that a "solution" of any substance diluted to the extent that it is identical to tap water is also harmless, and I could back that up with my own authority.

Entertaining skepticism at that point would be stupidity more than skepticism.

Philosophically it is conceivable that someone might show me evidence that homeopathy works as advertised and that 2+2=5, and as a good skeptic I would have to take that evidence into account. But I'm more likely to win the lotto every day for a year than I am to ever see such evidence.

After all, without a good guiding influence you can use those things to conclude that Global Warming is a myth, man never went to the moon, the holocaust never happened.
Click to expand...

Some issues are complicated, like these. Others are simple matters of fact like the existence of Thor, the usefulness of homeopathy and the sum of two and two.

Using dramatic stunts to teach kids homeopathy doesn't work is okay, but teaching them the ability to critically assess their own conclusions is much more important. IMO...
Click to expand...

I don't see any strong reason to teach one to the exclusion of the other, especially since they are complimentary.
 
moopet said:
I've mentioned this before. Re: the sleeping pill taking - according to homeopaths, taking less of one of their preparations increases the effectiveness. So if you'd accidentally swallowed a homeopathic sleeping pill, logically the way to reduce its effect would be to swallow a hole lot more.
Click to expand...
But what if I don't take any homoeopathic sleeping pills? Will I juszzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..........
 
Two Shanks,

Your OP moved me to enlist Randi's support. Your lesson should not have to be abandoned because of a woo's complaints. This was my email to Randi, sent moments ago:

Randi,

I thought you might like to pursue this story from "Two Shanks." He writes of teaching a critical thinking class in which, among other things, he repeats your Congressional homeopathy demonstration from a while back. One student's mom was a budding homeopath and (shocking, I know) complained to the school. "Two Shanks" was asked not to repeat that class lesson. I don't think this "gag order" should go unchallenged, and I don't think "Two Shanks" wants to risk his/her job over it. On the other hand, I think "Two Shanks" could use some high-powered support to teach such a valuable class lesson.

Post can be found at: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1330580#post1330580

Best Regards,
Bill Hoyt
Click to expand...
 
Shrinker said:
I sounds like a great lesson, but I'm not surprised by the pills complaint. You're teaching them that its okay to ignore the advice printed on a label if you think it's wrong. That could have nasty consquences for kids who don't know how evaluate mediacal advice for themselves. I think one of the first lessons for critical thinkers is to always be aware that you could be wrong.
Click to expand...
No, sir, TwoShanks is teaching them that people lie. That even manufacturers of pills lie. Moreover, TwoShanks is teaching them that they must think crtically. While I agree that TwoShanks needs to be quite cautious with the pill demonstration and must ensure the kids don't take home the wrong message, this has little to do with the "you could be wrong" admonition.
 
Last edited:
Shrinker said:
My point is that the first thing a potential critical thinker needs to understand is the possibility he/she might be wrong. Guzzling a bottle of pills is not compatible with that outlook. To me, that says, 'I'm 100% right about this.'
Click to expand...
I can't say with 100% certainty that gravity exists. Should I not take a step on a windy day for fear of being blown off the planet?
 
So Two Shanks; any new developments in the story? Anything else from the administrators, parents, or students?

LLH
 
**sigh** This is really quite offensive. Due to one false complaint, you're told not to teach science in a science class?

I agree that the "war of complaints" might be the way to go, but then again, the administrator might simply decide that the problem is the person being complained about, which wouldn't be good at all.

But in any case, I wonder if you're looking for a job elsewhere...
 
TS, welcome to the life of a teacher who teachers critical thinking in a UK school. Think of this as a sort of 'initiation rite'. I've had the same battle, and unfortunately met with much the same criticism.

Don't give up the good fight. I need to know somebody is still changing Essex from the root-level up, dammit! Subtlety is the key; weave the critical thinking in, stand by your beliefs. There's no way they'll fire your arse. They know they can't afford to lose a good teacher.

Well done, dude! I'm proud of you.

Athon
 
TwoShanks:

I also take an occasional lesson in my classes and do “Bad Science.”

I use James Randi’s “Secrets of the Psychics” video and the occasional Mythbuster’s show. (lately, I have shown the TAM3 dvd—the challenge is to see how Banachek is not psychic!) The students do appreciate the info and have even suggested a new class on the subject. I have a blast teaching it too.

I encourage you to keep doing the lessons. Just use different subjects—dowsing, the moon hoax and crop circles are good subjects that I have used successfully before. I avoid chiropractic stuff--may step on some toes--wait, that's what they do...sort of. (now, I have not been contacted by parents yet…but I am sure it will happen soon.)

glenn:boxedin:
 
clarsct said:
There's a million ways a experiment can be made 'different' while teaching the same thing. Persevere, my friend!
Click to expand...


I think that's a very good point. I used to want to be a highschool science teacher for just this reason: I wanted to teach the material in context.

In terms of teaching critical thinking, I had some opportunity to sit in a friend's science class (he taught grade 12 biology) and my critical thinking demonstrations did not use specific ongoing scams such as homeopathy, specifically because I didn't want to introduce hostility. Sometimes it's the kid who's into homeopathy - not just their parent - and this would make them feel like a target.

What I did instead was take a page from Ray Hyman and I did some magic tricks, and a homeopathy analogue.

The point of the magic tricks is: "I saw it with my own eyes" is not good enough. I do a trick with a magician's egg, show them how it's done, and when I demo it the second time I do it a different way without reveal so they also understand that there are many ways to do the same illusion. It's also entertaining.

The homeopathy analogue was to test how far you had to dilute an acid to eliminate its effect. We started with a concentrated solution, and the students reported their observations when pouring the acid dilutions over a coin. At the end of the experiment, I revealed that there was no acid in the original mixture before dilution, and any observation of erosion was caused by expectations alone. Some kids understood the lesson, others remained convinced that there was acid in the original mixture, even though I drank it in front of them.

In any case, I also recommend against mentioning specific books or websites, if they're not publically managed. eg: NSF, NASA are OK, but JREF would not be a choice IMO.
 
blutoski said:
The homeopathy analogue was to test how far you had to dilute an acid to eliminate its effect. We started with a concentrated solution, and the students reported their observations when pouring the acid dilutions over a coin. At the end of the experiment, I revealed that there was no acid in the original mixture before dilution, and any observation of erosion was caused by expectations alone. Some kids understood the lesson, others remained convinced that there was acid in the original mixture, even though I drank it in front of them.
Click to expand...

So what % of students reported erosion? Just curious.

LLH
 
LordoftheLeftHand said:
So what % of students reported erosion? Just curious.
Click to expand...

I don't have the charts around right now, but as expected, it diminished as we diluted. They worked in groups, and some groups had difficulty reaching a consensus even on the first dilution.

I did ask them not to consult with other groups, but you could see which ones collaborated. It was very informal.

Actually, I sort of gave it away to one of the more astute kids, because I called it 'placebic acid', and got eye contact and a big smile immediately. So, her group had the closest results to straight zeros.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom