sudo life

Lifehacker is talking about the benefits of skepticism.

Creativity – The best way to prevent new solutions is to believe you already have the answer. Allowing a gap of doubt can allow creative alternatives to flow in. If you are adamant that advertising will not work for your product, you might cut off hundreds of ideas for improving your business.

Amen to that!  There are several others listed, and I completely agree with what is being said.  Skepticism has been the route to balance in my life, the route to understanding.

There is also an amusing story from The Big Room calling for a government War on Science. I find the idea amusing.

Life Hacks creativity, Science, skepticism

From a blog entry about psychiatry:

“When Marco Polo saw the exotic one horned quadruped, his frame of reference required that it could be none other than a unicorn, even though it did not conform exactly to his prior conception of it. Marco Polo made his observation fit his existing paradigm of zoology. While superficially (and in retrospect) this may seem silly and arbitrary, it is in fact the opposite, Marco Polo believed the only thing he could believe—because the alternative was to believe he had discovered an entirely new, unheard of, creature.“

While the original post dealt with psychiatry directly, I think there is a wider lesson to be learned here. Our assumptions about knowledge and authority can lead us down the wrong path.

Philosophy Science, skepticism

I’ve been a scientific skeptic for over nine months now, and I’ve discovered that most people don’t really know what this means. So, I’m going to attempt to explain it.

You can boil down the concept of scientific skepticism down to one single concept: we know things based on empirical evidence. But what does that mean? It means that the only evidence acceptable in support of something is that evidence that is available to everyone and can be verified by anyone.

When looking at the phrase ’scientific skepticism’ it’s important to focus on the first word. A scientific skeptic uses science and the scientific method to verify or discover new evidence.

There are many famous scientific skeptics you probably already know about. Here is a short list: Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, James Randi, Penn & Teller, and even the Mythbusters crew.

Using the scientific method, there are several things already know. We understand the effects of gravity (but are still working on how it works), the concepts of thermal-dynamics, the workings of the atom, evolutionary biology.

The things that there isn’t empirical evidence for are the things that the skeptic rejects. Examples of these things include: homeopathy, psychic readings, telepathy, and faith healing.

Sometimes the question arises about things everyone feels that they know, but we don’t really have evidence for. There is a scene in the movie, Contact, that illustrates this. The main character is asked to ‘prove’ that she loved her father. The point is that this was something she knew was true, but couldn’t really prove.

But is this a proper application of the skeptic epistemology?

There are several ways I’ve approached this problem. The first goes something like this. Personally, she has a lot of evidence for the fact that she loves her father. She has no problem knowing beyond all doubt that it is a simple fact. However, getting proof to this fact demonstrable and verifiable to a third person would be a bit more difficult. Some say that it would be possible for her to be hooked up to an MRI or EEG machine and readings of her brain to be taken. Or perhaps measurements of her body chemistry and how it reacts to thoughts of her father. In the end, however, there is an important thing to note that makes all of this rather pointless. She’s not trying to get other people to believe that she loved her father. It doesn’t really matter what anyone else believes. If she were to take on the task of trying to get other people to believe, perhaps then it would be necessary to provide such evidence.

When approaching a new idea, a skeptic will take a neutral stance and then look at the evidence. If the evidence contradicts the idea, then the idea is wrong, or incomplete. If the evidence is not enough to render a judgement either way, the skeptic will withhold judgement. This is an extremely important point. Skeptics are more tied to the method of knowledge discovery than to the knowledge itself. If contradictory evidence appears, the original idea is discarded and the search for a new one begins, one that fits with the evidence. Sometimes such new ideas are easily located, others may forever be out of our reach.

Philosophy meaning, Philosophy, Science, skepticism

Why is it that people are so willing to confine themselves to the smallest possible world they can create?

I want to yell at them, “Your god is too small!”  They don’t want to open their minds to the bigger world.  They go along spouting things from their mouth that they themselves were once told, and they never questioned.

“Well, that sounds right,” is their creed, and they do not know the meaning of truth, corrupting the very idea of it with their vile incompetence.  They take joy in not understanding the world around them, to the point that they think every one else should celebrate that same joy.  “Have no worries, have no questions, but trust god.”  It is evil to try to understand the world.  It is evil to look for knowledge!

It horrifies me and fills me with despair.

I look around and I see the corruption of everything I hold dear: justice, understanding, knowledge, freedom, love, and truth.  Justice is at the whim of the people, understanding and knowledge are divinely revealed from god, more security for more freedom, sexuality paraded around as momentary lust replaces a deep emotion, and truth is unreachable.

What is this world that is so backwards, and how did I come to see it as such, being a part of this world?

Am I the one that is backwards?

Can it be backwards to believe that justice and understanding is a product of reason?

Can it be backwards to believe that knowledge is a product of evidence?

Can it be backwards to believe that freedom means without control?

Can it be backwards to believe that love is the product of a deep emotional connection?

Can it be backwards to believe that truth can be verified through the application of the scientific method?

If any of these things be considered backwards, then god damn it, I’m going to be backwards!

We have but one life to live on this earth, and we’re lucky to have that.  There are no second chances, no ‘do-overs,’ no reprieves.  This world is what we make of it, and we must do our best to not allow ourselves to let our short time here slip away.

Personal Philosophy, Science, skepticism

I can’t think of anything (at the moment) that frustrates me more than a bad teacher. I have a class this semester, speech, which I was sort of looking forward to, but I also had a bit of aprehension. So far, it’s been terribly easy, but that’s not what bothers me.

It’s the teacher. Here is a sample dialogue (if you can even call it that) from the class:

Teacher: What does equivocal mean?
Me: Ambiguous
Teacher: Ok, but was does that mean?
Me: …
Teacher: Well?
Me: Not clear, has more than one meaning.
Me (thinking): I didn’t know Ambiguous has more than one meaning now…

That doesn’t seem like a big deal, but breaking a word down into the simplest words possible is just annoying. I guess we can’t really use bigger words in college today.

Here’s something else that just gets into my crawl. I’ve asked several questions now and pointed out a few things that didn’t make sense to me because I thought they were wrong. EVERY SINGLE TIME, the teacher has answered, ‘because that’s what the book says.’

Goddammit, how is that helpful? At least one of the things has been blatantly wrong and I got the smackdown in class, when I was right! If that’s not the height of incompetance as a teacher, I don’t know what is.

Here’s a few other things that we absolutely cannot do in class, or other rules that we have to follow:

1. Never, ever, use an abstract as a source in a speech
2. Follow obscure outlining practices simply because that’s what the book reccommends. I argued a logical alternative, and was told, ‘because that’s what the book says.’ Then I was further instructed to just do it without asking questions.
3. We MUST use notecards while giving our speech.
4. We MUST stand behind the podium while giving our speech.

There are others, but that just gives you the general idea. ANY movement away from these things recieves a reprimand.

The teacher also absolutely refuses to use blackboard (our Universities course software) because by putting notes on there, students might feel they can just skip class, even though she already has an attendance policy in place. This request came from multiple students, including myself. Using blackboard would provide a central forum for discussing class issues, grade access, and access to course documents such as the syllabus and class schedule. Assignments can be posted for easy access.

The teacher has refused to accept e-mailed work from us as she doesn’t want to use her ink and paper for printing it out (it’s provided by the University), but has no problem using that same ink and paper to give us the assignments in the first place.

Getting back to the original point – the thing that really sets me off. How in the world can ‘because that’s what the book says’ be seen as an acceptable answer for any college level student? It’s not like we’re talking rocket science, either. We’re talking basic procedure, techniques, and facts! If the teacher can’t explain these things – as her job requires – then what good is she?

From the way I see it, she’s just a talking hot water bottle with no purpose other than reguritating the book and imposing stupid rules without basis.

I would have gained more knowledge by reading wikipedia and joining a club where I could give presentations.

For once, I’m truly looking forward to teacher evaluations at the end of the semester. It probably won’t make any difference at all, but it might make me feel better to evaluate this teacher as she really is: incompetent.

Personal education, rants, skepticism