Entry tags:
Review: How to Think About Weird Things
How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age by Theodore Schick, Jr. and Lewis Vaughn, foreword by Martin Gardner
Yet another book about thinking that I am about to deacquisition for sloppy thinking. Ironic isn't it? I will give two examples. The authors make much of the idea that Babylonian astrologers did not survey people about personality traits to determine the efficacy of astrology. If they had actually studied the history of astrology, they would have known that the current personality trait style of astrology was not what early astrologers did. They were more concerned with the fate of nations--predicting storms, quakes, floods, invasions and so forth, predicting events in the ruler's life that might affect the nation: will he have heirs, will he die in battle, etc. The contemporary emphasis on intangibles such as personality is a reaction to the rise of scientific criticism of astrology rather than part of the original mission.
Homeopathy is another subject that the authors have apparently not bothered to inform themselves about. I have read accounts of trials of homeopathic remedies that really ignore the basis of the treatment. For instance, the researchers may decide to gather a reasonable number of people who have a common cold and give half of them THE homeopathic remedy for the common cold. There is no such thing. Anyone who has had more than one cold in their life knows that what we lump together as colds can run different courses. Some start with a sore throat, turn into a chest cough and gradually clear up. Some start with copious runny mucus, a red nose, postnasal drip, etc. For a homeopathic practitioner these are two different conditions that would require different remedies. And even two people with the same general symptoms might receive a different remedy depending on their food cravings, sleep patterns, psychological state or previous history of receiving remedies. The authors, following general science, dismiss higher potency (more diluted) remedies as having nothing of the original substance in them. Well, no one educated in the theory would claim they do. Homeopathic theory says that the energy pattern of the original substance has been transferred and increased by agitation. Since modern science refuses to try to detect or measure the theorized energy patterns this explanation is dismissed as nonsense. Dismissing a system because you don't understand its principles is like dismissing literature in a foreign language.
I thoroughly approve of teaching people how to approach novel or mysterious claim; how to detect flaws in logic and arguments, but distorting the actual history and theory of claims you are testing is not the way to do it.
Yet another book about thinking that I am about to deacquisition for sloppy thinking. Ironic isn't it? I will give two examples. The authors make much of the idea that Babylonian astrologers did not survey people about personality traits to determine the efficacy of astrology. If they had actually studied the history of astrology, they would have known that the current personality trait style of astrology was not what early astrologers did. They were more concerned with the fate of nations--predicting storms, quakes, floods, invasions and so forth, predicting events in the ruler's life that might affect the nation: will he have heirs, will he die in battle, etc. The contemporary emphasis on intangibles such as personality is a reaction to the rise of scientific criticism of astrology rather than part of the original mission.
Homeopathy is another subject that the authors have apparently not bothered to inform themselves about. I have read accounts of trials of homeopathic remedies that really ignore the basis of the treatment. For instance, the researchers may decide to gather a reasonable number of people who have a common cold and give half of them THE homeopathic remedy for the common cold. There is no such thing. Anyone who has had more than one cold in their life knows that what we lump together as colds can run different courses. Some start with a sore throat, turn into a chest cough and gradually clear up. Some start with copious runny mucus, a red nose, postnasal drip, etc. For a homeopathic practitioner these are two different conditions that would require different remedies. And even two people with the same general symptoms might receive a different remedy depending on their food cravings, sleep patterns, psychological state or previous history of receiving remedies. The authors, following general science, dismiss higher potency (more diluted) remedies as having nothing of the original substance in them. Well, no one educated in the theory would claim they do. Homeopathic theory says that the energy pattern of the original substance has been transferred and increased by agitation. Since modern science refuses to try to detect or measure the theorized energy patterns this explanation is dismissed as nonsense. Dismissing a system because you don't understand its principles is like dismissing literature in a foreign language.
I thoroughly approve of teaching people how to approach novel or mysterious claim; how to detect flaws in logic and arguments, but distorting the actual history and theory of claims you are testing is not the way to do it.