CSICOP News

On Leaping and Looking d Critical Thinking Boulder Critical Thinking Workshop

J. p. MCLAUGHLIN

here couldn't have been a more University, who is an expert on Munc- ed to showing us the mental traps many appropriate locale for a meet- hausen syndrome; and Jerry Andrus, an fall into when trying to solve them. ing of skeptics last August in illusionist from Oregon who specializes (The simplest and most egregious T in "up-close magic" and sage observa- Boulder, Colorado—a theater of sci- example: How many animals of each ence where the only stars are the stars. tions on the human condition. Hyman kind did Moses take on the ark? Look About 80 of us gathered in Fiske and Beyerstein serve on CSICOP's twice before you leap.) Planetarium on the University of Executive Council. Our four leaders all touched on the Colorado campus for the CSICOP Those attending the workshop evolutionary aspects of thinking, how Workshop on Critical Thinking, a ranged from a Fermi Lab physicist to a brain evolution, in its pragmatic way, four-day conference that took apart the homemaker, a preschool teacher to causes us to leap before we look. For phenomenon of human thinking from several college professors, a substitute survival, it is indeed better to be safe the standpoints of evolution, psychol- teacher to a salesman ("We need pro- than sorry. ogy, and pathology. motion. Where are the TV cameras?), "Evolution leads us to jump to con- An even simpler theme of the work- computer specialists to psychologists, clusions—it is functional to survival shop may have been "Look Before You a former fundamentalist preacher but not necessarily the best way," Leap," a warning that echoed and re- racked by doubts, an antireligion pros- Beyerstein said. "Evolution provided echoed across the black-domed planetar- elytizer, and a journalist. that 'seeing is believing,' which is usu- ium many times during the four days. An 18-page syllabus was given to ally good enough to save our skins. If Along the way, our hosts presented workshop participants. Its first few pages we see a tiger appearing to get bigger, a laundry list of perceptual weaknesses brought us up to date on die latest, best we assume it's moving toward us and to which the brain is heir—sessions evidence about thinking: "Thinking, as run like hell," he added. with titles that included: "Illusions and classically conceived, will not by itself Hyman noted that "the brain Distortions of Thinking," "Anomalous result in better conclusions, solutions, evolved before the agricultural revolu- Thinking and the Brain," "Rationality arguments or ideas. Thinking, to be suc- tion—the problems in the syllabus and Human Error," and "Coming to cessful, requires good and reliable infor- aren't the problems of small bands of the Wrong Conclusion for the Right mation"—i.e., garbage in, garbage out, hunter-gatherers." Reasons." no matter how sophisticated and power- Beyerstein also laid our lack of ful the computer. Workshop leaders in our journey objectivity in thinking at evolution's through die brain were Ray Hyman, a Most of the syllabus was devoted to doorstep: "We always come up short of cognitive psychologist from the more than 40 mind-bending problems, evaluating our lives objectively because University of Oregon; Barry Beyerstein, all illustrating how thinking can go hope is an evolutionary advantage." a physiological psychologist from wrong, how the brain can be fooled. In other words, survival depends on Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Conferees were asked on die first day to believing that you're right, which most B.C.; Loren Pankratz, a psychologist work the problems that evening. Then, a humans seem to do regardless of evi- from Oregon Health Sciences day or more of the workshop was devot- dence—a fact addressed by workshop

SKEPTICAL INQUIRER • MAY/JUNE 1995 leaders as they compared "true believ- Hyman said that after he walks his Hyman challenges his students with p r o b l e m s they must examine with a ers" with skeptics. students through his series of ques- Socratic tool he has developed. Hyman "Believers arc not interested in tions, they discover how thin the evi- said he asks his students a series of truth; they are comforted by their dence is supporting the claim for dows- questions, forcing them not only to beliefs," Hyman said. ing success and what kind of controlled analyze the problem but to organize Beyerstein said, "Skeptics don't feel tests would be required to prove that it their analysis: threatened by the lack of answers to is a real skill. metaphysical questions, but believers • What's the question or issue? Working through problems like fear being pawns of the universe." • What is the claim? (If what, then this in a fixed framework demonstrates Beyerstein also pointed out that in what?) that students can think if pushed, he perceptual breakdowns, "believing is • What arguments and evidence are said. If they are forced to go through seeing"—people sometimes see what offered in support of die claim? the steps, they come to the right con- they want. "The brain makes up a story • How good is the support? clusion, discovering the unreliability about what you see," he said. • What would constitute adequate of testimony and learning the necessi- Andrus said those who question support? ty for double blinds and controls to their faith may find reasons to abandon • What alternative reasons might validate tests. it. "That's why faith is largely unexam- During the conference, workshop ined," he said. Principles of Skepticism leaders were careful to distinguish So, where docs thinking come in? between skepticism and cynicism. Hyman made it clear at the outset that • Extraordinary claims demand Andrus noted that the word skeptic extraordinary proof. he believes critical thinking can be has a bad connotation: "It's often taught. Based on his classes in thinking • The burden of proof lies with equated with 'cynic,' but I call skepti- and cognition, he has come to two the claimant; it is not the skep- cism the 'cult of common sense.'" tic's job to prove a claimant conclusions about students and people right or wrong. The workshop's definitions of the in general: terms: skeptic: one who demands rea- • Claims, in principle, must be • "They can think, but they don't sonable evidence and logical justifica- testable (which eliminates tion before granting provisional assent want to. It's hard work." metaphysical claims). • "The process is the least important to claims of truth (most important, a • The evidence must be public part. Having good data is most impor- skeptic will modify beliefs based on and accessible to all competent new evidence); cynic: one who consis- tant, but finding good data is tough. critics. You need tools to get it." tently attributes base motives to others' Hyman said that in the 1960s "I Testing must include: actions. read all the books on improving think- The bottom line of the conference ing, wrote down all the ideas I could • Adequate control groups. leaders, laid out in their principles of find, and discovered 695 principles. I • "Blind"rating procedures. skepticism and minimum rules of boiled them down to a small group of • Public methods and data. observation and testing (see box principles, looked for psychological "Principles of Skepticism"), is the sci- • Replicability of results by any studies backing them, then boiled uy any entific method of gathering and assess- competent, well-equipped crit- them further down to only three." ped crit- ing information. ic (one study, even if welell They are: done, is not enough). As Beyerstein noted, "We need con- • Look before you leap (know the trolled, quantitative observation to facts before you reach a conclusion). there be for believing such claims, i.e., protect us from the fallibility of the • Break out of the rut into which why do people believe them? human cognitive process." thinking falls. One problem Hyman gives his stu- The first principle of skepticism was • Always check your answers. dents (and included in the syllabus) is set down in the eighteenth century by To sharpen their thinking skills, an anecdote from a book touting the the English philosopher David Hume "amazing skill" of dowsing. It tells of a and popularized in recent yean by Carl / P. McLaughlin is a veteran newspaper famous dowser who, while on naval Sagan and others: Extraordinary claims and magazine writer and editor who now reserve duty as a young man, was require extraordinary evidence. teaches journalism at Metropolitan State forced by his disbelieving fellow offi- In that spirit of rationality, we have College of Denver. He wonders why more cers to demonstrate his abilities. Tired the means to overcome our weaknesses journalists don't attend CSICOP work- of his proselytizing about his dowsing in perception and thinking. If we begin shops, since critical thinking is as vital in skills, they decided to hide his pay- demanding solid evidence for claims of their field as in science. He intends to check and make him find it with his truth, we can put behind us the often incorporate classes on critical thinking dowsing rod—which, of course, he deadly game of leaping without look- into his college's journalism curriculum. did, according to the story. ing. D

SKEPTICAL INQUIRER • MAY/JUNE 1995 7