|
|
|
aleph_naught
New Member
New Zealand
4 Posts |
 Posted - 07/27/2009 : 02:09:34
|
I'm trying to find a good video or presentation that I can show to a friend which will explain the skeptical/rationalist worldview in a concise manner.
Unfortunately much of what is available online is very much preaching to the choir. Don't get me wrong - I love the diatribe of Dawkins and Shermer and the like, but it's all very dry and academic in tone, and to the layperson I think it has the potential to come across as overly self-righteous.
So, does anyone know of something a bit more upbeat and a bit less preachy that I might be able to use?
(Before anyone asks - yes, I've tried discussing skepticism with the person myself, but unfortunately I come at it from a fairly intellectual angle which they're not particularly well-disposed to and because they hold a number of new-age views which they are quite defensive about, they tend to take it as personal criticism.  Hence, I'm hoping to remove the personal element.)
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2009 : 02:29:20 [Permalink]
|
Have you seen the "Baloney Detection Kit" with Michael Shermer?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU
It's not as preachy as other stuff, and also not as much directed at the choir.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 07/27/2009 02:30:52 |
 |
|
|
aleph_naught
New Member
New Zealand
4 Posts |
 Posted - 07/27/2009 : 03:09:11 [Permalink]
|
Cheers, yeah, I have seen that. It's pretty good but not really what I'm after - I don't think the layperson would see any reason to take Michael Shermer with more than a grain of salt. I need to start at a more fundamental level than that, I think.
The best thing I've found so far is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtCsstLXL9M
But it's problematic in that it's still too intellectual and it spends a lot of time listing psuedosciences, which is going to be a big turn off to my friend who buys these things. I'm looking for something with a bit of subtlety - something that'll get my friend thinking 'well, I guess science does kinda make sense' and lead them to their own conclusions. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2009 : 05:32:47 [Permalink]
|
| Trying taking some other bit of woo-woo, that your friend doesn't believe in, and ask him/her about why he/she doesn't. If your friend doesn't have a skeptical attitude about it (just dismisses it out of hand, for example), lead him/her to one, which should be much easier. Then you can start drawing parallels between it and something your friend does believe in. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2009 : 09:06:17 [Permalink]
|
There is Carl Sagan's story The Dragon In My Garage. It doesn't explain Skepticism in detail, it just demonstrates skepticism in practice, which may come off less preachy and more like simple pragmatism. Then, as Dave says, build from there.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/27/2009 09:07:05 |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2009 : 10:26:05 [Permalink]
|
There is a lot about modern skepticism that is still being worked on.
The easiest way to think of skepticism is as consumer protection against bogus ideas. Dr. Sagan used the "kicking the tires of the used car before buying" analogy. That one is pretty good, and it expresses matters in a way just about everyone can relate to - not wasting money. |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2009 : 10:49:50 [Permalink]
|
As far as videos go, this Youtube video on open-mindedness is pretty good at explaining how skeptics go about evaluating evidence. I seem to recall it being linked here sometime in our forums earlier.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2009 : 11:54:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by aleph_naught
I'm trying to find a good video or presentation that I can show to a friend which will explain the skeptical/rationalist worldview in a concise manner.
Unfortunately much of what is available online is very much preaching to the choir. Don't get me wrong - I love the diatribe of Dawkins and Shermer and the like, but it's all very dry and academic in tone, and to the layperson I think it has the potential to come across as overly self-righteous.
So, does anyone know of something a bit more upbeat and a bit less preachy that I might be able to use?
|
The Burden of Skepticism by Carl Sagan is my go to essay. It's not dry and it pretty much covers why we are skeptics and why we must also keep an open mind. Even if it's not exactly right, it's a great read, even for the uninitiated. Enjoy. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2009 : 13:41:00 [Permalink]
|
Carl Sagan looms rather large in this thread. Even Mab's "Baloney Detection Kit" link to a Shermer video is in reality Shermer explaining Sagan's kit.
Not to take anything away from Randi or any one of the many fine articulators of "scientific skepticism" but hey, Sagan rocked!!!
Just an continuing observation...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2009 : 19:33:56 [Permalink]
|
| You could try a few episodes of Mythbusters. |
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2009 : 20:00:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Carl Sagan looms rather large in this thread. Even Mab's "Baloney Detection Kit" link to a Shermer video is in reality Shermer explaining Sagan's kit.
Not to take anything away from Randi or any one of the many fine articulators of "scientific skepticism" but hey, Sagan rocked!!!
Just an continuing observation...
|
Sagan almost has to be part of any "intro to skepticism" conversation. He is the guy who set many of us on this path I think.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2009 : 22:03:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
He is the guy who set many of us on this path I think. |
I only came back to Sagan after accidentally discovering the Skeptic's Dictionary online. I'd watched Cosmos as a kid, and I'd read Broca's Brain at far too early an age, but then went through a multi-year woo stage, probably because that's what the girls I was interested in were into.
And that never worked out. For the single guys watching at home: don't go chasing women into woo-woo-land. They won't respect you just because you believe the same crap that they do. You actually have to have magic powers (or be really good at faking it) before they'll get into bed with you, unless they're as desperate as you are. And in neither case do you really want what they've got to offer, 'cause the result will be built upon lies or neurosis or both, and long-term it will end in tears (probably your own). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
aleph_naught
New Member
New Zealand
4 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2009 : 00:00:29 [Permalink]
|
Cheers everyone, some great stuff. That openmindedness video in particular is absolutely brilliant.
The wonderful thing about Sagan is that he was so very <i>nice</i> about it all. He didn't try to bludgeon people over the head or belittle them like some of our present-day prophets. No disrespect to Dawkins, Hitchens et al - they are absolute giants of intellect and they have an important place within our movement, but if we want to bring more people round to our worldview being confrontational about it isn't gonna help. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2009 : 01:06:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by aleph_naught
Cheers everyone, some great stuff. That openmindedness video in particular is absolutely brilliant.
The wonderful thing about Sagan is that he was so very <i>nice</i> about it all. He didn't try to bludgeon people over the head or belittle them like some of our present-day prophets. No disrespect to Dawkins, Hitchens et al - they are absolute giants of intellect and they have an important place within our movement, but if we want to bring more people round to our worldview being confrontational about it isn't gonna help.
|
Well, maybe. If you are trying to convince a specific person, who believes whatever, that their belief is nonsense... open confrontation may not be the best approach. You are still confronting them though just from telling them they are wrong.
Dawkins, Dennet, Hitchens, et al are looking at a broader audience with their approach. The target, I think, is the person who hasn't really given much thought one way or another to all the magical claims out there. Ridicule and contempt for ridiculous claims, backed by solid logic/argument, is a powerful tool. It won't work on the really deeply true believers, but nothing you say to them in the way of a rational argument will work anyway, no matter how "nice" you are.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2009 : 08:02:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by aleph_naught
The wonderful thing about Sagan is that he was so very <i>nice</i> about it all. He didn't try to bludgeon people over the head or belittle them like some of our present-day prophets. No disrespect to Dawkins, Hitchens et al - they are absolute giants of intellect and they have an important place within our movement, but if we want to bring more people round to our worldview being confrontational about it isn't gonna help. |
There's a difference between confrontation and ridicule, but both have their place in the "culture war." In fact, nothing will get done without confrontation. You're trying to confront your friend's beliefs, just in a sneaky way that he/she won't reject outright.
While Sagan may have been nice, he could also be blunt:For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
If we long to believe that the stars rise and set for us, that we are the reason there is a Universe, does science do us a disservice in deflating our conceits?
Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.
I maintain there is much more wonder in science than in pseudoscience. And in addition, to whatever measure this term has any meaning, science has the additional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being true.
You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.
The well-meaning contention that all ideas have equal merit seems to me little different from the disastrous contention that no ideas have any merit.
I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking.
Who is more humble? The scientist who looks at the universe with an open mind and accepts whatever the universe has to teach us, or somebody who says everything in this book must be considered the literal truth and never mind the fallibility of all the human beings involved?
Those afraid of the universe as it really is, those who pretend to nonexistent knowledge and envision a Cosmos centered on human beings will prefer the fleeting comforts of superstition. They avoid rather than confront the world.
What counts is not what sounds plausible, not what we would like to believe, not what one or two witnesses claim, but only what is supported by hard evidence rigorously and skeptically examined. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed"? Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way."
Credulity kills. And don't forget that much of the book Contact was an attack on religion. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Good introduction to skepticism?
