The other day I wrote about Critical Thinking and how important it is. But knowing it’s good for you and actually using it in your daily life are two very different things. I want to put together a Critical Thinking Toolkit.

One important tool is going to be Occam’s Razor: “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity” (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem). That’s it in a nutshell right from William of Ockham, a Franciscan monk and English philosopher, theologian and logician in the 14th century.
Another way to put it is: The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. But don’t get confused by the term, simple. It means: The hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is usually the correct one. When giving explanatory reasons for something, don’t posit more than is necessary. Or, don’t make any more assumptions than you have to.

So let’s say you have 2 competing hypotheses that are basically equal in most respects. Then this principle would suggest that you choose the hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions while still sufficiently answering the question. In science Occam’s Razor is used as a rule of thumb (a heuristic) to help researchers develop good models.

In your life it can help you make decisions and choose what to think and what to believe (or not believe). You can use it as a heuristic as well, a great rule of thumb in your Critical Thinking Toolkit.

Sometimes atheists use Occam’s Razor to argue against the existence of god since everything can be explained through natural means without complicating it with the supernatural.

Another example: Crop circles. There used to be 2 competing ideas for where crop circles came from. One was that flying saucers from an alien world made them. Another was that a person  (or people) used some type of instrument to make the designs in the grass. Since there is no evidence for the flying saucers from outer space, and given how complicated and how many assumptions need to be made to make that argument work, Occam’s Razor would suggest that the simpler explanation would be that humans did it with instruments. That is the argument that makes less assumptions.

Of course, the second argument could be wrong, but until there was more information, it was the preferable hypothesis. Then 2 guys admitted to the crop circle hoax in the 1990′s. So that ended that debate for most people.

A quote by Carl Sagan is appropriate here: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. When it comes to the supernatural, Occam’s Razor is a very valuable tool indeed.

Sources:

For some time now, I’ve wanted to talk to you about critical thinking. I remember the bad old days when most of my thinking was emotional and reactive and I had no idea that such a thing as critical thinking even existed. It wasn’t a happy time. Over the last few years I’ve learned to think for myself and I can’t express how liberating and empowering that is.

If there is one gift you can give to a child or anyone else, it is to teach them to think for themselves. The educational system doesn’t teach this important skill. It teaches rote memorization and focuses on test taking. Therefore it’s up to you to learn it for yourself.

Unfortunately, I’m self taught and have no formal training in this realm. Which means sharing it with you is harder. So instead of putting it off even longer, I thought maybe we could explore the subject together and develop a plan for sharing with others in our lives or on the web. First, let’s define it.

Here is a quote: [Critical thinking is a] desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to consider, carefulness to dispose and set in order; and hatred for every kind of imposture. ~ Francis Bacon (1605)

Here is the short and sweet definition:

Critical Thinking: n: the mental process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information to reach an answer or conclusion. Read the rest of this entry »

The following is an article by GMNightmare which follows up from a previous post titled Your god is Not Omnipotent:

To start out, the definition I am using for god is any given being that can supposedly create matter out of nothing, is omnipotent, and is unbound by physical spatial traits. Furthermore I derive that an omnipotent god constitutes as an unstoppable force or can be the causation of such. The existence of such a god forms my hypothesis (which I will regard as true for this proof); therefore the following mainly concerns itself with monotheistic brands of gods.

Using the above traits, the god from my hypothesis could create an object of infinite size and maximum density. This theoretical object would literally fill the entirety of the universe, with every small speck of space filled with matter. This rock constitutes as an immovable object as there is nowhere left to move the rock and thus it is incapable of movement. As an aside it happens that god can create an object so large that he cannot move it.

However the existence of an immovable object by definition means that an unstoppable force cannot also exist. Since that is a part of the definition of god outlined above, I therefore must reject the hypothesis and assert that such a god cannot and does not exist. In particular a god that can create matter unrestrained cannot also be omnipotent in all regards.

Simple, short, and sweet… but the devil is in the details (ha ha). Any god with boundaries and limitations obviously escapes the above, but from my experience that’s the last thing any monotheist will even begin to contemplate (god being the biggest baddest supernatural being that ever was—who also happened to create everything—just isn’t enough, seemingly god must also have limitless power and ability). So please qualify objections to the below considerations.

1)      Can god create an object so large even he cannot move it? Read the rest of this entry »

Have you ever caught a glimpse of something out of your eye and thought, “oh that looked like a face!” “Look, Jesus is in my bar of soap!” “That cloud looks like a dog running!” That’s pareidolia. You see something random and your mind fills in the blanks so that you think something is there.

Pareidolia: a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being perceived as significant.

In psychology, the Rorschach test is a series of images used to invoke pareidolia to delve into the psyche of the patient. In religion and superstition, a vague stimulus is believed to be divinely sent. Here is a news story of Mary in bird shit. Notice how the people react to a random stimulus.

No matter how much I look at this picture, it looks like a face. The sink looks a bit shocked or frightened.

Carl Sagan hypothesized that detecting faces is a hard wired evolutionary advantage. This allows people to use only minimal details to recognize faces from a distance and in poor visibility but can also lead them to interpret random images or patterns of light and shade as being faces.

In 2009 a study was done to show that objects incidentally perceived as faces evoke an early (165 ms) activation in the ventral fusiform cortex, at a time and location similar to that evoked by faces, whereas other common objects do not evoke such activation. This activation is similar to a slightly earlier peak at 130 ms seen for images of real faces. The authors suggest that face perception evoked by face-like objects is a relatively early process, and not a late cognitive reinterpretation phenomenon.

Which would explain why everyone sees the following simple line drawing as a face: Read the rest of this entry »

I just found this on Facebook and had to share it with you:

I don’t know who the artist is, but it’s pretty obvious they understand the way indoctrination works.

Here are some other comics and images to amuse you:

Philosophy Airlines: Read the rest of this entry »

This morning Elizabeth left a brilliant comment on The Law of Attraction – And The Secret – Is Bullshit post and I had to share it with you. For those of you who have read The Secret, or worse dealt with someone who has read it and taken it to heart, you might recognize the disorder that Elizabeth has coined “Superior Spirituality Complex Disorder”

Here is her comment:

“Attracting” and “manifesting” are merely seductive words meant to increase one’s complex sounding vocabulary of incredible denial. As well as having great sales potential. I have another term I would like to add to this “special sauce” that I coined myself after reading some of this stuff. I might just send it in to the researchers who publish the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV) to see if it can be added to the list.

“Superior Spirituality Complex Disorder”

It strikes those who’s capacity for believing in self serving bullshit is so high, that you can actually see it splattered all over the ceiling.
I have personally witnessed one’s very unattractive manifestation of “SSCD” while reading “The Secret.” In fact, I was inspired to name this disorder because
there was no other way I could describe the people I knew who felt they were owed something after reading it. Here are some common signs of SSCD.

  1. Falling in love with her/him self post completion of “The Secret”and her/his subsequent newfound spirituality of “attracting” and “manifesting” to the point of ignoring/denying the needs, opinions and consideration of others. They believe they not only deserve special consideration from the universe, but the universe will hear them and acquiesce to their wishes. This is at the heart of those who have SSCD. Read the rest of this entry »

Awhile ago I wrote about Advertisements and Logical Fallacies. It was basically just an overview, but this time I thought I’d list some of the actual fallacies in advertising. No matter where we go, we’re bombarded with advertising and marketing. While companies have to follow the letter of the law and be “truthful” there are loopholes and ways to avoid following the spirit of the law.

This is part of a series on Logical Fallacies.

People are highly suggestible. That’s just the way it is. I’m a skeptic and I still fall prey to suggestibility. Usually I catch myself and then put on my critical thinking cap, but it happens to the best of us. The fact that companies (anyone using a marketing campaign, including governments) go out of their way to trick us into buying their stuff, meaning that more than ever we have to be critical thinkers in our everyday lives.

Ad Hominem: often used in political campaigns where some character flaw is brought up. If it doesn’t have anything to do with their ability to do their job, it’s irrelevant, and therefore a logical fallacy.

Appeal to Emotion: any emotion can be exploited. If they manipulate your feelings of sympathy, sexuality, anger, fear, love, pity, pride, flattery, wishful thinking, ignorance, etc., the company then snags you. You make a decision based on that feeling. No logic or real benefit is addressed. This is a type of Red Herring.

The Bandwagon: everyone else is doing it or buying it so you should too. But that is irrelevant. Even if 99 people in 100 buy X toothpaste, it doesn’t mean X toothpaste is a good product. It just means the company is good at marketing. Do your research! Read the rest of this entry »