Debunking frauds & critical thinking
- Thread starter rosros
- Start date
Panda Termint
Cabal Of One
Nice photo, Tory. 
Student of Trinity
Silver Meritorious Patron
I'm sorry, but I don't have time to watch a 41 minute video right now, so I can't comment on this film. On critical thinking and 'alternative' beliefs, though, there is one point I'd like to make that I don't often see made. It's what irritates scientists about pseudo-science; this is different from what irritates many outspoken skeptics who don't actually work on science themselves. (For some scientifically orthodox skeptics, their viewpoint really is just another irrational dogma, defended emotionally.)
Suppose you read about some scientific theory and think, "How are we supposed to know that things are really that way, and not this other way I can think of?" Some trusting souls seem to imagine that scientists have some easy way of dismissing questions like that. Nope. If the theory really is established, then your question and many more like it will have been exhaustively researched, possibly for hundreds of person-years in total. There will be really good reasons, based on plain facts and common sense, why we can be sure that your alternative idea is wrong.
But it may be a long story. Hundreds of person-years of painstaking work may not fit into a soundbite. So the only short answer to your question may be, "We know." Of course, that would also be the short answer you would get if a club of white-coated hierarchs had simply voted, between puffs on their cigars, to dismiss your idea. So people who don't have any idea how much work really goes into science tend to think it must be more like that. But it's really not. It's a huge amount of hard work.
So scientists don't really hold it against pseudoscience that it happens to be wrong. Working scientists investigating fresh hypotheses are wrong almost all the time. That's how we make progress, by proving ourselves wrong, time after time after time, until we can't do it anymore. We don't defend our theories; we attack them with every dirty trick we can dream up. The scientist who publishes a clever disproof of a popular theory gets the loud applause. Newton became famous by shooting down Aristotle, and Einstein became famous by shooting down Newton. Science is a brutal line of work, and being wrong is like bleeding. Happens all the time. Deal with it.
What scientists hate about pseudoscience is that it's lazy, and it avoids hard testing because it's afraid to bleed, and yet it makes money and gets attention by trading on the real work and courage of others.
Suppose you read about some scientific theory and think, "How are we supposed to know that things are really that way, and not this other way I can think of?" Some trusting souls seem to imagine that scientists have some easy way of dismissing questions like that. Nope. If the theory really is established, then your question and many more like it will have been exhaustively researched, possibly for hundreds of person-years in total. There will be really good reasons, based on plain facts and common sense, why we can be sure that your alternative idea is wrong.
But it may be a long story. Hundreds of person-years of painstaking work may not fit into a soundbite. So the only short answer to your question may be, "We know." Of course, that would also be the short answer you would get if a club of white-coated hierarchs had simply voted, between puffs on their cigars, to dismiss your idea. So people who don't have any idea how much work really goes into science tend to think it must be more like that. But it's really not. It's a huge amount of hard work.
So scientists don't really hold it against pseudoscience that it happens to be wrong. Working scientists investigating fresh hypotheses are wrong almost all the time. That's how we make progress, by proving ourselves wrong, time after time after time, until we can't do it anymore. We don't defend our theories; we attack them with every dirty trick we can dream up. The scientist who publishes a clever disproof of a popular theory gets the loud applause. Newton became famous by shooting down Aristotle, and Einstein became famous by shooting down Newton. Science is a brutal line of work, and being wrong is like bleeding. Happens all the time. Deal with it.
What scientists hate about pseudoscience is that it's lazy, and it avoids hard testing because it's afraid to bleed, and yet it makes money and gets attention by trading on the real work and courage of others.
Last edited:
Clueless Morgan
Patron with Honors
Dang, I can't watch this. I always get error 414 if I visit youtube itself, and embedded vids just dont show up. No clue why.
Rene Descartes
Gold Meritorious Patron
"THOSE FIELDS WHICH MOST DEPEND UPON AUTHORITATIVE OPINION FOR THEIR DATA LEAST CONTAIN KNOWN NATURAL LAW."
(Logic 17 - LRH)
Wow another "great" discovery by LRH!
And to top it off he has invented the inverse relationship.
He should have sued the people who stole his discovery/invention centuries ago.
Or send them to Cramming to M9 Data Series #1
Rd00
(Logic 17 - LRH)
Wow another "great" discovery by LRH!
And to top it off he has invented the inverse relationship.
He should have sued the people who stole his discovery/invention centuries ago.
Or send them to Cramming to M9 Data Series #1
Rd00
http://www.checkupdown.com/status/E414.htmlhttp://www.checkupdown.com/status/E414.html
Judging from this article, I'd say there possibly might be something wrong with your system. Although YT is not too reliable these days, F5 (that's Page Reload) usually does the trick for me. I've never had any 414s, though, and the video plays fine on my computer.
Alanzo
Bardo Tulpa
"Scientism" is a word which means: The belief that the assumptions, methods of research, etc. of the physical and biological sciences are equally appropriate and essential in all other disciplines including the humanities and the social sciences.
The guy in the video uses scientism to make his claims sound legitimate which he has no basis to make. Science is much more limited than this guy understands. He is trying to apply science to things to which science does not apply.
Dude is a Scientismist.
That's almost as bad as a Scientologist.
The guy in the video uses scientism to make his claims sound legitimate which he has no basis to make. Science is much more limited than this guy understands. He is trying to apply science to things to which science does not apply.
Dude is a Scientismist.
That's almost as bad as a Scientologist.
Rene Descartes
Gold Meritorious Patron
That poor fellow has been reading too many books about Scientologicalisticism
He is way way too over Scientologicalisticismatically Scientismicizing.
Rd00
Speaking of scientism, belief systems and 'scientific philosophy', isn't it about time we had a celebrity grudge match between that avatar of out of my ass, Ron the Source and the founder of 'Scientific Socialism' and the 'Historical Dialectic', Karl Marx?
That I'd pay to see. Maybe we can get Carl Sagan to referee...
Zinj
That I'd pay to see. Maybe we can get Carl Sagan to referee...
Zinj
Type4_PTS
Diamond Invictus SP
SOT, I pretty much agree with your entire post and feel there is a lot of truth in what you said. And actually I DO have a great deal of respect for real scientists and the work they do. My issue though with certain fields of knowledge, healthcare in the U.S. being one of them, is that they are run by people who make decisions often based upon politics, NOT based upon science. For anyone who looks at the true history of the AMA they'll see what I am talking about. They've got some pretty serious skeletons in their closet. And the FDA which is supposed to be representing the interests of the American people have been exposed repeatedly to be acting in a way contrary to the interests of the American people. And while I respect the scientists that work for the FDA, and they've got some great ones, THEY are not the ones in control of the agency and are not making the policy decisions.
My problem with the video that is the subject of this thread is that there is no intention about communicating the truth about these various things in the video. It's all about squashing competition. As Clam said earlier, this guy is a "disinfo wack job".
Type4_PTS
Diamond Invictus SP
I liked the video and I think the man has a point. It´s damn important to debunk frauds so that scientificly proven remedies can be used.
Guess I am in minority on that one!
I agree that actual frauds SHOULD be exposed as such, and there surely ARE some frauds out there. In my opinion, Brian Dunning is one of them.
lkwdblds
Crusader
I'm with you Type 4 on this one!
I'm with you Type 4. Sure Dunning makes some good points but he paints with too broad of a brush in my opinion, far too broad of a brush.
In his construct, critical thinking means mainly the rejection of everything which is non orthodox in the sense that it is not taught in the universities and has not undergone the rigorous type of testing carried out in the Scientific Journals. To me, if one follows this path, I would not call it exercising critical thinking skills but rather "just playing it safe." Playing it safe is not the worst way to live a life and may even be more productive than the other extreme, of rejecting orthodoxy and believing in most non scientific theories and approaches. To me playing it safe optimizes one's chances of staying out of trouble but tends to lead to a life of mediocrity. You tend not to grown as a being not, learning much new and not contributing any new ideas to your society and your environment. Your comfort level and safety level are maximized but living that way has nothing else to offer but those two benefits.
CRITICAL THINKING - Hubbard made an attempt to develop and employ critical thinking tech in his "Data Series" course and his Data Evaluator post. I beleve he had many worthwhile points in this series as far as detecting outpoints but the overall system usually fails. Hubbard had an agenda and if an Eval ever led back to Hubbard or some Senior Scientology Exec, it was disallowed and the Evaluator who may have found the correct "Why" was busted.
On the Apollo in 1973, I was made a Data Evaluator without having done the Course. My first Eval was to find out why Celebrity Centre in L.A. was becoming more of an upstat Class IV Org than a true center for Celebrities. While on staff at CCLA before arriving at Flag, I had already thought about this situation and had realized the correct why. CC's Div 6. like every other Org in the world, had a stat called "New Bodies in the Shop". The "Why" on not getting in as many celebrities as were desired was that stat. My eval said to change the stat to "New Celebrities in the Shop" This was the correct why and recently I was told that this change has been made but either in the 1990's or the 2000's. Anyway, for insisting on this correct why, I was busted and removed from post. So much for the Hubbard system, too much of an agenda to be effective. It allows no self critique.
CRITICAL THINKING AS USED IN THE LEGAL FIELD - Critical thinking as taught in law schools is what I am trying to cultivate on myself. You look deep, separate out things that do not quite look right, you look for things that are similar but are not the same. Finding separation between similar things which at a cursory glance appear normal or appear the same, to me that is critical thinking. I like to cite three fictional people who indulged in this type of critical thinking and became well known for doing so, those three being, Sherlock Holmes, Perry Mason and Lieutenant Columbo. By doing this, you often undercut societies perception of things. It is fun to attempt this and if you succeed the rewards are great!
Lakey
This guy has some unspoken agenda that would warm the hearts of all pharmaceutical company execs. He is including things in his attack on "pseudoscience" that have hard science backing them up. He's attacking the whole profession of Chiropractic? Sounds as though he is just another AMA mouthpiece. Lots of good science behind Fish Oil and some other things he's attacked.
According to this guy (Dunning) we are not supposed to question our "best theories" and if we did we'd be irrational. Just because a theory holds up for decades or even hundreds of years doesn't require that we "accept" it. If that were required then we would need to throw out quantum physics.
According to Dunning, if a product is advertised as containing "all natural ingredients" then that is a Red Flag. Big Pharma couldn't have said it any better.
I'm with you Type 4. Sure Dunning makes some good points but he paints with too broad of a brush in my opinion, far too broad of a brush.
In his construct, critical thinking means mainly the rejection of everything which is non orthodox in the sense that it is not taught in the universities and has not undergone the rigorous type of testing carried out in the Scientific Journals. To me, if one follows this path, I would not call it exercising critical thinking skills but rather "just playing it safe." Playing it safe is not the worst way to live a life and may even be more productive than the other extreme, of rejecting orthodoxy and believing in most non scientific theories and approaches. To me playing it safe optimizes one's chances of staying out of trouble but tends to lead to a life of mediocrity. You tend not to grown as a being not, learning much new and not contributing any new ideas to your society and your environment. Your comfort level and safety level are maximized but living that way has nothing else to offer but those two benefits.
CRITICAL THINKING - Hubbard made an attempt to develop and employ critical thinking tech in his "Data Series" course and his Data Evaluator post. I beleve he had many worthwhile points in this series as far as detecting outpoints but the overall system usually fails. Hubbard had an agenda and if an Eval ever led back to Hubbard or some Senior Scientology Exec, it was disallowed and the Evaluator who may have found the correct "Why" was busted.
On the Apollo in 1973, I was made a Data Evaluator without having done the Course. My first Eval was to find out why Celebrity Centre in L.A. was becoming more of an upstat Class IV Org than a true center for Celebrities. While on staff at CCLA before arriving at Flag, I had already thought about this situation and had realized the correct why. CC's Div 6. like every other Org in the world, had a stat called "New Bodies in the Shop". The "Why" on not getting in as many celebrities as were desired was that stat. My eval said to change the stat to "New Celebrities in the Shop" This was the correct why and recently I was told that this change has been made but either in the 1990's or the 2000's. Anyway, for insisting on this correct why, I was busted and removed from post. So much for the Hubbard system, too much of an agenda to be effective. It allows no self critique.
CRITICAL THINKING AS USED IN THE LEGAL FIELD - Critical thinking as taught in law schools is what I am trying to cultivate on myself. You look deep, separate out things that do not quite look right, you look for things that are similar but are not the same. Finding separation between similar things which at a cursory glance appear normal or appear the same, to me that is critical thinking. I like to cite three fictional people who indulged in this type of critical thinking and became well known for doing so, those three being, Sherlock Holmes, Perry Mason and Lieutenant Columbo. By doing this, you often undercut societies perception of things. It is fun to attempt this and if you succeed the rewards are great!
Lakey
Francois Tremblay
Patron with Honors
He's a skeptic, what do you expect? Their whole schtick is to reject alternatives while propping up science, even when it's done wrong or even when the scientific establishment is involved in a conspiracy! (Climategate anyone?) They are pro-science, not pro-critical thinking.
Science is wonderful, but only when it's done right.
(as opposed to Scientology, which is supposedly about science, but is not wonderful even when done "right")
Science is wonderful, but only when it's done right.
(as opposed to Scientology, which is supposedly about science, but is not wonderful even when done "right")
lkwdblds
Crusader
Very well stated Francois!!
Very well stated Francois, I am in total agreement with you. Al Gore and company show how science can be made to sell out and back someone's hobby horse. It used to be that the physical sciences were a bastion of truth in our Universitires and the humanities were the only purveyor of false technologies. Now, the powers that be want to also make use of the Science and Math departments in their universities to stand behind them and spew false technologies for politcal gain.
Lakey
Very well stated Francois, I am in total agreement with you. Al Gore and company show how science can be made to sell out and back someone's hobby horse. It used to be that the physical sciences were a bastion of truth in our Universitires and the humanities were the only purveyor of false technologies. Now, the powers that be want to also make use of the Science and Math departments in their universities to stand behind them and spew false technologies for politcal gain.
Lakey
programmer_guy
True Ex-Scientologist
A visual aid
I luv those flow charts. That is so true.
(Maybe I'll suggest those for an ISO 9000 document. <snicker>)
Type4_PTS
Diamond Invictus SP
He did his best to position himself as one who recommends people improve their critical thinking skills when it comes to making health care choices. And to many people who are unaware that there IS strong science backing up the use of many supplements and alternative/complementary medicine, I'm sure that he could be very convincing.
If he REALLY taught people some real critical thinking skills as applied to making choices in this field, he'd be doing a great public service. But that's not part of his agenda. The so called "Red Flags" he's alerting people to are a bunch of bullshit. He says that if a doctor is wearing a white lab coat that that is a Red Flag. Or if a product says "all natural ingredients" that that is a Red Flag.
WTF? He can tell people not to accept at face value the claims on product labels and to study the labels carefully making sure they understand what all the ingredients are, their purpose, and whether they could have any adverse effects, ect. But to just automatically Red Flag a product that states "all natural ingredients" is ridiculous, and for him to tell people that isn't helping them to be able to evaluate the product.
Personally I feel that some skepticism is valuble when it is honest. But this guy isn't a true skeptic. He's not really pro-science. He's the type that starts with a heavy bias and then he'll carefully select the scientific studies that support his position (ignoring studies that don't support his position). These types will do all they can to position themselves as "pro-science" because it convinces many unsuspecting people. There ARE some real frauds out there in alternative medicine just as in many other businesses, so one should be careful in selecting supplements and various practioners, but Dunning is among one of the last people I would use to guide my decisions in this area.