Skepticism 101: How to Think Like a Scientist (Review)
Skeptics are open to many kinds of ideas, including those that are unusual and paradoxical. They will not accept a given idea as true, however, until that idea is supported by sufficient evidence. Before then, depending on the quality of the evidence presented, they will suspend their judgment or consider the idea to be improbable.
People who are intelligent, experienced, and educated can still believe in strange and illogical ideas. Just because a person is smart in one area doesn’t mean that they are smart in another.
Many people are prone to believing in superstitious ideas such as fairies, fortune telling, demon possession, telepathy, knocking on wood for good luck, and peeing on a wart for its removal.
Smart people not only believe in strange ideas sometimes, but they may argue their case better than the average person does. Even if they are incorrect, they may come up with a number of justifications for their beliefs while resisting any counter arguments.
Often someone will claim a supernatural event happened to them, such as one of their dreams predicting a future event, while ignoring all the times when their “premonitions” did not occur.
It is common for people to remember a significant event while ignoring an insignificant event. Such events, which seem unique, may occur more frequently than assumed. They may even be unlikely to happen, but still probable. Insignificant events that happen, however, are not accounted for nearly as much when considering the total number of events. The hits are recorded but the misses are not.
Science is a method that leads to provisional conclusions. It aims at objectivity under external validation.
There is a tension in science between skepticism and credulity. For paradigm shifts to occur in the field, scientists need to be willing to challenge established views. They need to criticize the cherished beliefs of civilization.
What distinguishes science from pseudoscience is the testability of each claim, the consistency of those claims with other theories, and the measures taken to ensure that the evidence is not biased.
It is important to be rigorous when investigating claims about the nature of reality because people are deeply flawed thinkers, prone to biases, misconceptions, and mistakes in perception.
Many people are seduced by compelling anecdotes but don’t question whether those anecdotes are valid. Anecdotes are not adequate enough data alone, despite how many people believe in them, until they are backed by sufficient enough evidence.
The burden of proof is on those who make claims about reality rather than on those who do not agree with the claims presented. Skeptics don’t have to disprove every story invented. There are countless beliefs out there, despite whether they are true or false.
When confronted with competing claims about reality, a skeptical person should look for sound reasons. It is all too common for proponents of a particular belief to argue on irrational grounds, appealing to tradition and custom and emotion.
One fallacy that people often use is the argument from ignorance. They say that if they or someone else cannot explain X or Y, then their explanation must be true. It is more rational to say “I don’t know” than to assume a conclusion (especially when that conclusion is favorable to the person arguing their case).
Another common fallacy comes from equating correlation with causation. The human mind naturally seeks out relationships and patterns. Even though a certain number of events are coincidental, they may not be necessarily connected. After more research is done, it may turn out that there is no significant relationship between those events. Furthermore, there may be variables that are unconsidered.
Often during arguments, people will use the ad hominem fallacy. They will insult their opponents rather than addressing their arguments directly. Even if such insults are true, that still doesn’t invalidate the other person’s argument. An ad hominem argument, rather than dealing with the substance of the argument, acts to distract from it.
Many of these fallacies occur because of cognitive biases. Cognitive biases are often unconscious.
For example, individuals look more readily for information that confirms their beliefs while resisting information that contradicts their beliefs. They may justify their poor choices with rationalizations. They may form conspiracies about past events once they’ve been given the benefit of hindsight.
It is common for people to consider their cherished views as rational. They usually see their opponents, however, as emotional and illogical.
There are other cognitive biases out there such as trusting in authorities because they are authorities, generalizing a trait of one person to fit all people of that same group, and focusing on the negative more than the positive.
Scientists are as prone to biases as everyone else. They may not realize they are making errors in their reasoning. That is why there needs to be a rigorous standard for evidence.
People have evolved to find patterns, even when there are none, and to look for threats, even when they don’t exist.
It’s normal for individuals to ascribe agency to natural patterns (like the constellations in the night sky) and to find great significance in probability (like a pair of dice landing on the same number three times in a row).
When a previously unknown idea gains validity, it will eventually be incorporated into science. Ideas that can’t be tested, or carefully examined, under peer-reviewed conditions, are considered unknown, meaningless, or indeterminate until there is enough evidence in support of them.
Ideally, science is a method that filters good ideas from bad ideas. It is a long, self-correcting process.
Even the most obvious, ordinary phenomena, which are assumed to be true by most people, still have to undergo the same amount of scrutiny as the wildest ideas imaginable. Some ideas that appear to have solid evidentiary support may become falsified in time. Superior models will replace inferior models while new evidence will challenge established paradigms.
With so many claims about reality, it is important to be skeptical. As the astronomer and public educator, Carl Sagan, once said in his Cosmos series, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Scientists don’t have the burden of proof to disprove every idea ever dreamed up. It is up to those who make positive assertions to prove themselves.
At the same time, scientific thinkers must be aware of the vast number of biases that interfere with their judgments over what evidence is credible or not. Hindsight bias, confirmation bias, and many other biases affect everyone to a certain degree. Science is a method that cuts down on these biases over time.
No scientific principles are absolute. Ideas must be tested and theories must lead to predictable results. It is important to question what is obvious and challenge the premises for any given conclusion.
Claims about reality should always be taken cautiously until those claims gain enough evidence in support of them being true. In the future, they may be shown to be limited or incorrect.
Not all claims are created equal. Many claims are opinions, wild speculations, misperceptions, misconceptions, hallucinations, lies, and manipulations.
Those who believe in irrational ideas can influence not only their own behavior, but the behavior of those around them. They may join groups that are destructive to the well-being of others. These groups can form hostile divisions, where the out-group is seen as inferior and immoral.
Dogmatic groups tend to conform to in-group values while being antagonistic to outsiders. They listen to authorities that support their views, even when those authorities are prejudiced. They isolate themselves from opinions that threaten them.
Uncritical people can be convinced of outlandish ideas. Even smart people can fool themselves.
It is normal for people to trust in supernatural events because they are hardwired to be social creatures, to feel good when they believe in the transcendent, following what those in their closest social environments have followed before them. There may even be a genetic predisposition toward believing in supernatural ideas, inherited from past ancestors.
People are natural-born believers. While it is crucial for them to be open to future possibilities, they must not be so open that they forgo their critical thinking skills.
To be duped into joining cults and stupid fads, to be manipulated into voting for politicians who promote disastrous policies, to be fooled into ordering sham products, to be tricked into donating vast sums of money to charlatans, to waste decades trying out false solutions to medical ailments, to unwittingly spread misinformation to close friends, is not only unwise. It may ultimately be deadly for the ignorant. It may destroy the minds of the most vulnerable.
