Skepticism 101: How to Think like a Scientist
4.6 4.6 out of 5 stars | 9 ratings
Price: 13.08
Last update: 10-18-2024
About this item
Despite our best efforts, we're all vulnerable to believing things without using logic or having proper evidence—and it doesn't matter how educated or well read we are.
But there is a method for avoiding such pitfalls of human nature, and it's called skepticism. By using rational inquiry and seeing subjects from a scientific perspective, we can approach even the most sensitive claims with clear eyes to ultimately arrive at the truth.
During 18 lectures that will surprise, challenge, and entertain you, you will learn how to think, not just what to think—and you'll come to understand why extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
You'll discover how skepticism can help differentiate between real science and pseudoscience, as well as between "scientific" history and pseudohistory—distinctions that have serious educational and political implications.
Fascinating case studies illustrate how you can apply the methods of skepticism to detect specious claims and faulty logic in any scenario you encounter such as:
- The methodology employed by Holocaust deniers
- Arguments made by proponents of creationism
- The biology of near-death experiences and the sensed-presence effect
- Psychic abilities and other "paranormal" phenomena.
As you learn how our brains work to form beliefs, you'll examine the classic fallacies of thought that lead us to experience mistakes in thinking and to form bad arguments in favor of our beliefs.
Is there a God? Is there life after death? Is there a basis for morality without God? Skepticism 101 doesn't shy away from controversial questions, nor does it give final answers. What it offers are methods and hard evidence for rationally evaluating various claims and positions, and an opportunity to understand why you believe what you believe.
Top reviews from the United States
For instance, he presents the concepts of creationism and intelligent design in a sort of straw man fashion, by quickly summarizing it all as being a part of the supernatural, so unexplainable and therefore, unscientific. He even goes so far as to say that all religious people should just “believe the theory of evolution.“ Well, he doesn’t seem to have to apply that same “rigorous skepticism“ to that theory as he did with creationism.
Also, at times, since it is an audio, he has trouble sounding as though he’s an unbiased, for instance, when he quotes those he doesn’t agree with, he makes his voice sound cartoonish. This implies a bias before he even states his opinion.
Another place is when he talks about how not believing in a higher power should still lead one to live a “moral” life, but then uses the false equivalence fallacy of comparing morality and being “horny” (yes, he uses that word multiple times). You’d think saying “horny” would get a laugh out of the audience that is applauding at the end of each segment, but I’m skeptical as to their sense of humor.
Regardless, I do like his take on conspiracies vs. conspiracy theories and how easily manipulated people can be about those things. He also shares some wisdom re: the practical ways of being a skeptic at the end of the series. I do think that part should have been more emphasized with more time and detail. It felt a bit rushed.
My final word on it is: i still haven’t decided if this was a “Great Course,” as it claimed to be.
The title is a bit ironic. It implies that you should want to think like a scientist. However, once listening to the lecture he spends time talking about how even scientists are fools and fall for this and that magic trick.
At the same time, his skepticism is a far cry from anything that I have ever been accustomed to knowing as skepticism. For instance, when it comes to topics like climate change or evolution he doesn’t question how these scientists (who he admits are fallible) have come to their conclusions. He just accepts them. He even says, “when it comes to climate change I used to be a skeptic but I no longer am because the majority of scientists agree with it.” Why not an investigation into the reasons behind the dissent among those that don’t? The majority has been wrong the majority of the time if you are to give any credence to history. My first thought in this lecture series was, “Since when did accepting the status quo because it is the status quo become skepticism.” When it comes to skepticism I think he could do well to perhaps read some of the critiques that Thomas Nagel of New York University puts forward in “The Last Word” or “Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament.”
When he discusses the scientific method and what it is he backtracks to say that not all science is done this way. Well, then what makes it science?
The book is good in those places where it tracks Shermer’s own exploits and investigations into the “paranormal” showing how the ruse behind card and palm reading works, the inconsistencies behind fortune telling and astrology. In the end, though, he falls victim to the same confirmation bias he warns against for others and shows himself remarkably unwilling to apply his same methods of criticism to evolution and scientific naturalism as he is willing to apply to creationism. A topic that occupies a good portion of the book.