Are you a critical thinker?

[Bobmi357]

Critical thinking is the art of viewing the world from a pragmatic standpoint. Its an important skill to develop especially in today's society.

We stand on the brink of advances in science and technology that will change the way we live and yet still so many people believe in ghosts and ufo's, homeopathy and psychics. In some ways our fear of the unknown remains unchecked from the very first time man looked at the full moon and howled at it in terror.

Attached to this post is a rather popular image which has circulated the net for some time now. Many people might have seen it before, some of you might be seeing it for the very first time. I won't go into great detail about the photo, but I'd like you all to look at it very very closely, then pm me with your thoughts about the photograph. PLEASE DO NOT POST anything here until I've reposted to this thread. Consider this something of an experiment and I don't want anyone to influence anyone else by posting comments about the photo.

Once I've had enough pm's in response I'll post again.

 

[Monazwx]

I guess I'm not much of a critical thinker, since my first thought was, "What a little cutie!"

 

[Bobmi357]

I guess I'm not much of a critical thinker, since my first thought was, "What a little cutie!"

Look at the photo again.

And please, do not post to this thread until I've repost.

 

[Bobmi357]

OK. Here's the scoop on the pic.

First off, a little background on the image. The image first appeared online during the mid 90's. It was picked up by many so called "Ghost" experts as a true ghostly photograph. The photo recieved special prominence when it was exhibited on Art Bell's website as a valid example of spirit photography.

The truth of the image is simple. The woman in the photograph is trotting, one leg is hidden by the post, the other is out of view, extended up and hidden by her coat. The image has not been altered in any way from the original, it wasn't photoshopped, or digitally edited.

Interestingly enough, of those people that took the time to reply to this little test, it broke down as follows;

Five people thought it was a photo of a ghost.
One person claimed it was photoshopped.
One person didn't offer any explanation, but said it wasn't a ghost.
One person commented that the kid in the stroller was too big for the stroller (probably right on, but not what we were looking for.)
and finally, one person didn't even spot the floater....

If you examine the photo again with a critical eye, our floater is slightly blurry, so she's moving at a faster rate than the people around her. Her posture says she's off balance, like one would be if they were trotting along at a faster pace than walking, but still not all out running. The missing legs are explained away by the simple fact that one post hides one leg, and the other leg is out of site, bent at the knee and hidden from view by the coat she's wearing. This is, in effect, a trick photo, taken entirely by chance.

THIS IS NOT A PHOTO OF A GHOST....

Critical thinking is a way of looking at the world in general. In essence when you think critically you end up asking yourself "What am I really seeing here? What could make this image ordinary and mundane?". A critical thinker refuses to jump to conclusions until all the evidence has been examined.

The upside of learning to think critically is that you will learn to be skeptical of scams and assumptions of others. The downside is that the skeptical viewpoint will not make you popular as you burst the fondly held beliefs of your friends and family. On the other hand, you'll never fall for stupid things, like spending a small fortune on rocks that supposedly make your stereo sound better (this is true! There's a company selling rocks and claiming they make your stereo sound better, it only costs you 1500 bucks to find out they don't work!)

I'll open this thread for comments at this point, but periodically I'm going to post ideas and maybe even photos for people to comment on.

 

[SweetErika]

Interesting topic, Bob. Maybe it's just me, but it seems critical thinking is becoming less and less popular these days...that people are more likely to accept ideas as fact, rather than analyze the issues and make up their own minds. I'd be interested to hear some opinions/theories on why that is.

 

[Bobmi357]

Interesting topic, Bob. Maybe it's just me, but it seems critical thinking is becoming less and less popular these days...that people are more likely to accept ideas as fact, rather than analyze the issues and make up their own minds. I'd be interested to hear some opinions/theories on why that is.

Erika, you can bet every bra you own that critical thinking is becoming less popular these days and win hands (or boobs) down!!

People fall for the silliest of things, partly because they don't know any better and are confused by psuedo-scientific explanations. Let me give you an example.

What follows is taken from the Penta Water website. A company that sells water.

Penta undergoes a patented physics process using high-energy sound waves that gives Penta many unique properties. This proprietary technology, known as the “Penta Process,” actually changes the structure of the water. Penta is the only bottled water that uses physics, not chemicals, to restructure its water. The water is cycled through the Penta Process until a specific set point of thermal energy is released for approximately 7-8 hours, which also effectively pasteurizes the product at or above 140ºF (60ºC).

Proof that Penta is restructured water: Penta has been shown through highly technical scientific testing (spectroscopy) to have 30 percent smaller molecular water clusters. It has also been observed that Penta has a higher boiling point than normal water. Penta’s unique structure is patented and has been verified in a published, peer-reviewed study conducted by scientists at Moscow’s General Physics Institute.

Sounds amazing, sounds fantastic, sounds like a load of bullshit. Water molecules do not clump or cluster and as to the claim that they somehow have managed to reduce the size of them, I'll say again, bullshit. Water is made up of 2 hydrogen atoms for every oxygen atom. Atoms are collections of protons, neutrons and electrons. Their sizes are fixed and short of splitting an atom, nothing in our technology is capable of reducing the size of this basic components. Finally lets not overlook the obvious. If they are capable of reducing the molecular clusters by 30%, then the same 16 ounces of penta water should be capable of fitting into a bottle that is 30% smaller than a regular 16 bottole of water. As to the reference to the Moscow General Physic's Institute? Its a real research organization that used to be widely highly regarded. However with the fall of the Soviet Union and the loss of 90% of their state funding they have lost a lot of respect in the scientific community by accepting money from all sorts of organizations in return for performing tests of limited use and validity.

Here you have a lot of scientific mumbo jumbo thrown at people and instead of thinking it through, or admitting ignorance and doing a little research online, they think "WOW! THIS STUFF HAS GOT TO BE GOOD!" and pony up tons of money for what is little more than tap water.

Use of scientific buzzword to confuse and befuddle the masses isn't new. With every new scientific breakthrough, there comes new scams to part you from your money. Back at the turn of the century, and despite Madam Curie's death due to radiation poisoning, people were actually told that wearing a chunk of radioactive material would be good for you!!! Here's an excerpt from a book review from randi.org, the book is about the radioactive heath craze in the 20s and 30s.;

Unfortunately there were a few products that actually did deliver what they promised and thus claimed victims:

. . . well-known industrialist, playboy and three-bottle-a-day Radithor (radiation infused water) user Eben Byers. Byers's gruesome death in 1932 inspired the Wall Street Journal headline "The Radium Water Worked Fine until His Jaw Came Off."

And, as we all know, when a high profile person dies, the public and the government will finally have no more of that! The FDA was brand-new back then and told the companies to put up or shut up: prove your products are safe and effective or quit making them.

We face similar problems today, although I would like to hope that most people here on lit are smart enough to recognize that radioactive material is deadly, but sometimes I'm not so sure.

Its my intent here to talk about critical thinking and point out how the lack of critical thinking has allowed all sorts of scams into our lives. Some of you are going to get really mad because I'll be pointing out some basic facts and some long held beliefs are going to be questioned. I'm sorry and if you don't want to speak or reply to my posts anymore I'll understand. But I'll urge all of you to think and question! Do not just accept any claim blindly!

Its an urban myth, PT Barnum did not say this, but he might as well have said it and its certainly true. "A fool and his money are soon parted!".

 

[Eilan]

The ability to think critically seems to be disappearing. I used to teach college composition courses. In Comp. II we required a textbook that focused on critical thinking skills. It was intended to help the students when they wrote their argumentative essays. When we studied the critical thinking unit, I tried to get the students engaged in some sort of dialogue. While I wasn't trying to change their beliefs (I was more of a moderator), I was trying to get them to look within themselves and question how/why they hold the beliefs they do.

One of my former students had a very strict, ultraconservative upbringing. For example, she wasn't allowed to watch Oprah on TV because Oprah lives with a man that she's not married to. I don't think she had an original thought in her head because she was constantly being told what she should believe. I know that some people rebel, but she accepted her father's beliefs without question.

What's really interesting right now is the fact that if legislators in some states (Ohio recently had such a bill introduced) have their way, any ability to teach critical thinking on college campuses will be hampered because the subject matter that's best used to illustrate critical thinking processes will be considered controversial and therefore unacceptable. Not that college is the only place to learn to think critically. . .

 

[Ezzy]

Its an urban myth, PT Barnum did not say this, but he might as well have said it and its certainly true. "A fool and his money are soon parted!".

A fool and his money are soon parted!

Thomas Tusser (Born England 1524, died 1580)

And here was what I sent Bobmi357 as my comments on the picture.

ghostornot?

Ok so it is an interesting picture, it does not appear to be double exposed though it might be.

The picture was taken in England, some time after 1984, possibly near to Covent Garden.

I can't ascertain if the lady with the stroller can see the "apparition" or is looking at the child next to the curb, the boy in the stroller does not appear to be reacting to the woman crossing in front of his stroller.

It is hard to tell time of day or position of the sun on the obviously cloudy day, but it appears to be early afternoon by the shadow under the white Rover car, and under the Ford Orion parked sideways on.

The sidewalks are slick with rain, but there is a shadowy area under the “apparition” that could be shadow from the “apparition” or just a discoloration of the sidewalk, due to the rain.

The “apparition” could be a one legged lady hopping, but I would expect more surprise on the faces of the woman with the stroller and the child in it. The other thought I had, if it is near Covent Garden, is that it might be a woman on a unicycle, but I don’t really believe that, I think an "apparition" is more likely. LOL

If the figure has not had tricks played on it (digital imagery tricks) then she (the apparition) would have to be falling forward to not have a leg in the shot.

All in all a very interesting picture, that I have seen here for the first time, thanks for the chance to view it.

As you can see I attempted to show my skepticism but using quote marks around the word apparition, but I did state I thought "apparition" was more likely than unicyclist!

 

[Bobmi357]

The ability to think critically seems to be disappearing. I used to teach college composition courses. In Comp. II we required a textbook that focused on critical thinking skills. It was intended to help the students when they wrote their argumentative essays. When we studied the critical thinking unit, I tried to get the students engaged in some sort of dialogue. While I wasn't trying to change their beliefs (I was more of a moderator), I was trying to get them to look within themselves and question how/why they hold the beliefs they do.

One of my former students had a very strict, ultraconservative upbringing. For example, she wasn't allowed to watch Oprah on TV because Oprah lives with a man that she's not married to. I don't think she had an original thought in her head because she was constantly being told what she should believe. I know that some people rebel, but she accepted her father's beliefs without question.

What's really interesting right now is the fact that if legislators in some states (Ohio recently had such a bill introduced) have their way, any ability to teach critical thinking on college campuses will be hampered because the subject matter that's best used to illustrate critical thinking processes will be considered controversial and therefore unacceptable. Not that college is the only place to learn to think critically. . .

The problem is fundamental. Critical thinking challenges belief systems. People do not like to have their beliefs challenged. When you point out the inconsistencies in someone's belief system, nine times out of ten, they rebel against it tremendously. Why? Because you are challenging something which they have used as a cornerstone of their existance.

I have, in this thread, tried hard to shy away from the concept of religion because it becomes a heated topic. People feel threatened when you start looking at their religion with a critical eye.

Whether you believe in spirits, the fairy godmother, or a sun god, if you take a serious and critical look at your belief system you'd come away shaken and unsure because you've eroded your very foundations. Our core beliefs are such that people would rather die than face up to the possibility of them being wrong. Its one of the reasons why suicide bombing has become the national sport in Iraq. The bombers are convinced they will go to their own personal version of vahalla and the bigger the casualty count, the bigger the honor guard will be on their arrival in paridise.

Of course we westerners scoff at their beliefs, think them nuts, mind controlled, indoctrinated, deluded etc. But are we any less nuts and mind controlled? Bombing an abortion clinic or the Murray building in Oklahoma city may seem a bit of an extreme way of getting your point across. Suing a school board because they are teaching evolution or trying to get a professor fired because he made public statements which conflict with your beliefs are just other examples of how we're dealing with issues as a people. The suicide bomber's beliefs and the beliefs of the ultra conservative aren't much different in the final analysis.

Both feel their belief system is being threatened and both are taking action to stop it.

We, as a race, are facing very troubled times. In some ways our technology has brought us so far, but in others, it hasn't gone far enough. And I think thats part of the problem. We're seeing a backlash against science because of its achievements. Think about it, just 100 years ago millions died in a worldwide flu pandemic. Today with modern medicine that number would be far smaller. But there are diseases and conditions which medicine cannot touch. We can split the atom, and fuse it, we can land on the moon and have made it possible to talk to anyone on the planet just by dialing a number on a minature hand held radio (cell phones to everyone else). People rebel against science because it trivializes the human condition. It shows us that we're really not that important in the grand scheme of things.

People do not like to feel worthless, meaningless, and yet in some ways science cannot help but make us feel like that. We have superstring theory which suggests all matter is made up of vibrating strings, we have astronomy which puts us into a scale of magnitude where we totally dissapear. Science is so busy exploring the world around us that the scientists have forgotten to toot the horn of the human race. We should be proud of what we've accomplished, but few are, and fewer still even bother to try to understand what we've accomplished these last 200 years.

So yes, progress is an assault on people's belief systems, and because of that, they are fighting it. What they fail to understand is that the genie is out of the bottle. And once let out, it can't be put back in. Countries like the US who are attempting to stifle its scientific community will lose in the long run as the scientists will flee to places where they can work under a free system. Our loss will be a gain to a country like canada, or germany.

 

[Bobmi357]

I'd like to point out to those folks that have read this and not commented that you do not have to be super smart to think critically. You don't have to be a brainiac, or an Einstein. In fact good old Albert once screwed up royally because he had a conflict with his beliefs and his work.

Once upon a time Albert Einstein came up with his theory of general relativity. I won't go into a lot of detail here concerning it, if you want, you can find a lot of material about his theory online. But you see, he had a problem. The math behind the theory suggested that the universe was expanding and he didn't like that one bit. NO SIREE!!! He hated it. He found that if he fudged his equations slightly by adding in something called a Comoslogical Constant, then his theory would predict a steady state universe. Which he believed God would have created.

For the next 20 years or so he worked and reworked his theory because he actually found the idea of a cosmoslogical constant somewhat offensive. It made the math behind the theory difficult and awkward. It wasn't until he met with Edwin Hubble, a famous astronomer, who developed the idea of applying the doppler shift to the visible light coming from distant galaxies and thus proved they are moving away from us, that meant that Albert's original concept, minus the cosmological constant was correct!

Albert Einstein subsequently modified his theory accordingly. The observational evidence clearly had shown that the universe was expanding, he was strong enough to recognize that his beliefs had gotten in the way of his science. And he also recognized that his refusal to believe his own original work had resulted in years of wasted effort.

So you see, even the brainiacs among us can fall victim to non critical thinking. Its not how smart you are that makes you a critical thinker, its how you approach issues.

 

[SweetErika]

Use of scientific buzzword to confuse and befuddle the masses isn't new. With every new scientific breakthrough, there comes new scams to part you from your money. Back at the turn of the century, and despite Madam Curie's death due to radiation poisoning, people were actually told that wearing a chunk of radioactive material would be good for you!!! Here's an excerpt from a book review from randi.org, the book is about the radioactive heath craze in the 20s and 30s.;

Unfortunately there were a few products that actually did deliver what they promised and thus claimed victims:

. . . well-known industrialist, playboy and three-bottle-a-day Radithor (radiation infused water) user Eben Byers. Byers's gruesome death in 1932 inspired the Wall Street Journal headline "The Radium Water Worked Fine until His Jaw Came Off."

And, as we all know, when a high profile person dies, the public and the government will finally have no more of that! The FDA was brand-new back then and told the companies to put up or shut up: prove your products are safe and effective or quit making them.

We face similar problems today, although I would like to hope that most people here on lit are smart enough to recognize that radioactive material is deadly, but sometimes I'm not so sure. .

I just heard that story last night on "Modern Marvels: Failed Inventions" on the History Channel (good show ). The prevalence of email myths/hoaxes is also very interesting...people accept and pass on crazy ideas that could be checked with a simple search. I was looking at one of the hoax-busters websites the other day, and I noticed a lot of the warnings are about brand-name products. I know that gives it a certain sense of credibility, but I have to wonder if many of them weren't started by competitors with the knowledge that the public at large is extremely gullible and often fails to employ critical thinking.

Sometimes it seems people don't think critically out of sheer laziness. It's a lot more difficult to research the issues, candidates, and make a decision than to simply vote for the party you've always voted for, for example.

 

[Bobmi357]

Sometimes it seems people don't think critically out of sheer laziness. It's a lot more difficult to research the issues, candidates, and make a decision than to simply vote for the party you've always voted for, for example.

I'm sure laziness comes into play quite often. But I think a large reason why so many do not think critically is because they refuse to consider any possibility that their core beliefs can come into question.

I have to admit, I tend to look with disdain at people that blindly dig a hole then gleefully jump into that hole. If you can't take the time to do a little bit of research on a topic, then you get what you deserve. Be it from using a defective sex toy or falling for a 1500 dollar stone that supposedly makes your stereo sound better.

 

[LuciousBi-Writes4U]

hi, how's everyone?

 

[indigoboy]

I wasn't sure what you were getting at. But I wondered if the person with their leg behind the pole was what you were referring to.

OK. Here's the scoop on the pic.

First off, a little background on the image. The image first appeared online during the mid 90's. It was picked up by many so called "Ghost" experts as a true ghostly photograph. The photo recieved special prominence when it was exhibited on Art Bell's website as a valid example of spirit photography.

The truth of the image is simple. The woman in the photograph is trotting, one leg is hidden by the post, the other is out of view, extended up and hidden by her coat. The image has not been altered in any way from the original, it wasn't photoshopped, or digitally edited.

Interestingly enough, of those people that took the time to reply to this little test, it broke down as follows;

Five people thought it was a photo of a ghost.
One person claimed it was photoshopped.
One person didn't offer any explanation, but said it wasn't a ghost.
One person commented that the kid in the stroller was too big for the stroller (probably right on, but not what we were looking for.)
and finally, one person didn't even spot the floater....

If you examine the photo again with a critical eye, our floater is slightly blurry, so she's moving at a faster rate than the people around her. Her posture says she's off balance, like one would be if they were trotting along at a faster pace than walking, but still not all out running. The missing legs are explained away by the simple fact that one post hides one leg, and the other leg is out of site, bent at the knee and hidden from view by the coat she's wearing. This is, in effect, a trick photo, taken entirely by chance.

THIS IS NOT A PHOTO OF A GHOST....

Critical thinking is a way of looking at the world in general. In essence when you think critically you end up asking yourself "What am I really seeing here? What could make this image ordinary and mundane?". A critical thinker refuses to jump to conclusions until all the evidence has been examined.

The upside of learning to think critically is that you will learn to be skeptical of scams and assumptions of others. The downside is that the skeptical viewpoint will not make you popular as you burst the fondly held beliefs of your friends and family. On the other hand, you'll never fall for stupid things, like spending a small fortune on rocks that supposedly make your stereo sound better (this is true! There's a company selling rocks and claiming they make your stereo sound better, it only costs you 1500 bucks to find out they don't work!)

I'll open this thread for comments at this point, but periodically I'm going to post ideas and maybe even photos for people to comment on.

 

[Lynxie]

I just heard that story last night on "Modern Marvels: Failed Inventions" on the History Channel (good show ). The prevalence of email myths/hoaxes is also very interesting...people accept and pass on crazy ideas that could be checked with a simple search. I was looking at one of the hoax-busters websites the other day, and I noticed a lot of the warnings are about brand-name products. I know that gives it a certain sense of credibility, but I have to wonder if many of them weren't started by competitors with the knowledge that the public at large is extremely gullible and often fails to employ critical thinking.

Sometimes it seems people don't think critically out of sheer laziness. It's a lot more difficult to research the issues, candidates, and make a decision than to simply vote for the party you've always voted for, for example.

I think it's a combination of laziness and fear - fear of what thinking for themselves might produce (nor not produce, as the case may be). A lot of people fear rejection and, rather than have their ideas blasted by their peers, choose to conform to ideas that are presented to them. Why challenge something if it's going to be hard work?

My mother often infuriates me because she's one of the best examples of not thinking critically that I know. A short visit to my mother's bathroom will show that she takes every ounce of advice she hears when it comes to supplements and other pills/medications. Ask her about any one of them and she'll tell you that so-and-so said (where so-and-so is often the News, Dr. Phil, or the Ellen show) that they're good for you. Does she do any research before taking any of these things? Never. Likewise, she got an email last year about the dangers of canola oil. She fowarded this to me, and it was so outrageous that I had to call her to thank her for the laugh. In the email, it said that canola oil will cause your flesh and internal organs to rot, at a rather rapid pace. Canola oil is widely used in our society, particularly in restaurants. I've never known anyone who died of internal organ failure due to excessive use of cooking oil, have you? Nonetheless, she switched to cooking with grapeseed oil (because someone said it's good for your cholesterol) for a few months, until the news said it contains "bad" fats. If she lived back in the 20s and 30s, she'd be one of those blissfully ignorant folks wearing a chunk of uranium around her neck. She drives me nuts.

In our society (and many others around the world), this conformist method of believing is pushed on us from childhood. How many times have you heard parents teaching their children to question anything? In my case, the answer is never. Instead, I hear them say things like, "Just because," "Don't argue with me, I'm your mother," or "That's just the way it is" whenever their children question something. Sure, teaching compliance makes for well-behaved children - but how does that help them later in life?

School, religion, television - these are all sources that push this same "blind faith" behavior on us. If you speak with the right measure of confidence and authority, everyone will believe you. A website that sells rocks that will make your stereo sound better? All you need to do is make sure it looks professional and has a few well-written testimonials thrown in and people will buy it. We condemn con-artists, but what happens when those con-artists turn out to be your teachers, your government, or your priests and ministers?

 

[SweetErika]

<snip> In our society (and many others around the world), this conformist method of believing is pushed on us from childhood. How many times have you heard parents teaching their children to question anything? In my case, the answer is never. Instead, I hear them say things like, "Just because," "Don't argue with me, I'm your mother," or "That's just the way it is" whenever their children question something. Sure, teaching compliance makes for well-behaved children - but how does that help them later in life?

School, religion, television - these are all sources that push this same "blind faith" behavior on us. If you speak with the right measure of confidence and authority, everyone will believe you. A website that sells rocks that will make your stereo sound better? All you need to do is make sure it looks professional and has a few well-written testimonials thrown in and people will buy it. We condemn con-artists, but what happens when those con-artists turn out to be your teachers, your government, or your priests and ministers?

Excellent points, Lynxie! I can't exactly remember how, but my parents somehow taught me to be a well-behaved critical thinker. I think they encouraged me to ask 'why?' and know they always said, "You're unique....it's good to march to the beat of your own drum."

Maybe this would be better in TTPYO, but I think it's a good example of conning our kids... The fact that the federal government is only funding abstinence-only education now is extremely disturbing. The school districts that have implemented this program are only covering how birth control and condoms fail, often use incorrect statistics and tell outright lies (like condoms aren't an effective prevention against many STDs), and some have seen increases in teen pregnancy and STDs. So instead of presenting a set of options and teaching kids to think critically and make the best decision, we're sending them out with a bunch of misinformation and unreasonable expectations, hoping they won't think about how to be more safe and healthy.

 

[Monazwx]

Look at the photo again.

And please, do not post to this thread until I've repost.

Sorry about that.

I didn't realize what you were asking until I had already posted.

Interesting pic though, esp. since it hasn't been altered.

 

[Bobmi357]

School, religion, television - these are all sources that push this same "blind faith" behavior on us. If you speak with the right measure of confidence and authority, everyone will believe you. A website that sells rocks that will make your stereo sound better? All you need to do is make sure it looks professional and has a few well-written testimonials thrown in and people will buy it. We condemn con-artists, but what happens when those con-artists turn out to be your teachers, your government, or your priests and ministers?

Schools are a core source of the problem because teachers fail to teach the children to think critically. Instead they are taught to blindly accept what the teacher gives them as truth. Religion? Well I won't go there yet.

Television? Well its not really televisions fault. The folks on TV are capitalizing on two things.

#1:

The government will not allow companies to sell anything which supposedly affects your health and is bad for you. This is sort of true! Medicines which do not pass proper testing, or are shown to be harmful to you are pulled from the market. Prescription and non-prescription medication undergo clinical trials using scientific methods to evaluate the drug, its side effects and its benefits.

#2:

(This is where the people make the mistake. They go from #1 to #2, assuming #2 to be correct when it isn't.)

Since its being sold on TV, it must be safe for consumption and the people selling it are claiming all sorts of "Clinical" trials (there goes one of those buzzwords again).

What people do not seem to understand is there are no regulations whatsoever for the sale of "supplements" Hell I could sell tap water claiming it cured acne and as long as I sold it as a supplement, the government couldn't touch me. All I have to do is phrase it such that I imply it cures acne, but never come out and say it, and I'll lock up the 13 to 19 age bracket with my miracle water.

As I pointed out in my earlier postings, some people resort to these quack cures because they are rebeling against modern medicine. These quack cures aren't really curing anyone, but they've convinced themselves anyway. Here's a quote on why people think they've worked;

John Doe does not usually realize that most ailments are self-limiting and improve with time regardless of treatment. When a symptom goes away after he doses himself with a remedy, he is likely to credit the remedy with curing him. He does not realize that he would have gotten better just as quickly if he had done nothing! Thousands of well-meaning John and Jane Does have boosted the fame of folk remedies and have signed sincere testimonials for patent medicines, crediting them instead of the body's recuperative power for a return to well-being. . . .

The unscientific healer does not need to observe the restraints of reputable medicine. Where true medical science is complex, the quack can oversimplify. . . . Where ailments are self-limiting, the quack makes nature his secret ally

Source

Think about it.

 

[Bobmi357]

A patient come into a hospital emergency room complaining of headaches, vomiting, diarrhea, he seems confused. Subsequent testing shows damage to his liver, kidney and lungs, and he's admitted to the hospital. A later examination shows discolored fingernails and the patient has started convulsing.

If this were a regular hospital, he would be diagnosed with arsenic poisoning and he would be administered a chelation therapy (injections of ethylenediaminetetra aacetic acid) to remove the heavy metal from his system.

But this isn't a regular hospital. Its a homeopathic hospital. Homoepathy works under the concept of the "laws of similars", which I will add has yet to be scientifically proven and there is almost no evidense that the concept is scientifically valid.

The "laws of similars" is a notion that symptoms of disease can be cured by extremely small amounts of substances that produce similar symptoms in healthy people when administered in large amounts. The word "homeopathy" is derived from the Greek words homoios (similar) and pathos (suffering or disease). So in effect, as in the case of our mythical patient, in order to make him better, according to homeopathy we must give him more arsenic, not remove it from his system. Lets forget for the moment that arsenic is a heavy metal and is not naturally expelled from a body, therefore it has a cummulative effect. Of course this is all assuming that the patient is correctly diagnosed in the first place since he has not been seen by a trained physician. Yes, homeopathic doctors are allowed to call themselves doctors, but they are not medical doctors.

If the dice rolls well for our hapless patient, someone along the line might get smart and insist a real doctor see him in a real hospital. If the dice isn't in his favor, he'll continue to be dosed with quackeries right up until the moment of his death.

(Is anyone else besides me getting the willies just realizing how crazy all this sounds?)

Homeopath remedies are designated by the dilution factor. A dilution of 1 to 10 would be 1X, 1 to 1000 would be 3X, 1 to 1 million would be 6X etc... Similarily a dilution measured by hundreds would use C. For example one to one hundred would be 1C (1/100), one to one thousand would be 2C (1/1,000), one to one million would be 3C 1/1,000,000).

Many homeopathic remedies at marketed at 30X, or 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!!!

Assuming that a cubic centimeter of water contains 15 drops, this number is greater than the number of drops of water that would fill a container more than 50 times the size of the Earth. Thats a lot of water!!!!

Oscillococcinum, a 200C product "for the relief of colds and flu-like symptoms," involves "dilutions" that are even more far-fetched. If a single molecule of the active ingredients were to survive the dilution, its concentration would be;

1 in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000!!!!

Yes, thats a 1 with 200 zeros behind it. Or if you want, its GOOGLE*2
(A google is a what mathematicians call the number 1 with 100 zeros behind it).

Ok if that isn't enough to scare you off, when asked by physics and chemists how any solution could possibly contain any of the original ingredients at that level of dilution, homeopaths smugly reply that the solution retains a "spirit-like" essence -- "no longer perceptible to the senses" -- which cures by reviving the body's "vital force." Excuse me, but this is water we're talking about here. You know, one oxygen atom to two hydrogen atoms? It has no ability to remember anything.

Where are the critical thinkers to see the problems with this?

A little digging, a little thought, looking at something from the outside and considering carefully what people are saying as well as what they are not saying. Suddenly something as accepted as homeopathy (to the general public, not to the real medical establishment) starts looking like little more than rubbing chicken bones in the dirt while the shaman dances naked under a full moon.

 

[Lynxie]

I agree, Bob. When I said television, I didn't mean that it's enforcing this conformist, non-critical mode of thinking on the people of the world. Rather, it's reenforcing it. It's just another source of information that is passed off as being true, so that consumers can apply their ingrained skills and believe what they see without thinking about it. We see the pretty pictures on tv, and listen to the authoritative voices tell us that products are "clinically proven" or "guaranteed" and assume them to be true. Did you know Oreo cookies have less trans-fatty acids in them now? That must make them okay to eat now!

I promise not to go down the religion road until you deem it okay, Bob. On a thread like this, though, it's a mess just waiting to happen.

One of the big problems with the general public's mode of thinking is the overwhelming narrow-mindedness of human beings. People frequently fail to look at the big picture. This is exemplified in the John Doe home remedy exerpt. John Doe assumes that his wellness can be credited to his home remedy, but he fails to analyze the other factors that come into play in his situation. Maybe the illness just ran its course, maybe he has a particularly healthy immune system, maybe it was something that he ate for lunch three days earlier that gave him a boost of vitamins that he needed, etc etc. Mr. Doe has it stuck in his head that this one supposed remedy was going to cure him, and did cure him. It's absolutely ridiculous.

"Clinically proven" is one of my favorite marketing phrases. All that means is that the product worked once. It's not guaranteed to work ever again. "Clinically" and "scientifically" are two very different things. If something is proven in a scientific manner, it's tested repeatedly under the same conditions. Many people don't even know (and possibly don't care) that there's a difference between these two phrases. They just assume that "clinically proven" is a guarantee of a product's reliabilty and trustworthiness.

I make it a point to analyze pretty much everything in my life. I research decisions as much as I can (lots of doctors hate people like me...I ask too many questions). I'm constantly evaluating and reevaluating everything, most especially who I am. My parents didn't raise me to be this way, I think it's just part of my nature. I even dream in the third person, and I think it stems from this habit of mine of viewing everything objectively.

I like Bob's threads...they make me think

 

[Bobmi357]

Here's another little brain twister. Look at the photograph below. I know you haven't seen this photo as I have never put it online before. Yes, I took this photo myself. Look carefully at the photo. If you want, jump to a conclusion, but then apply some critical thinking as to what you're seeing.

Now what do you think you see?

 

[Seattle Zack]

I've always enjoyed your posts, Bob, and this discussion got me thinking about one of my favorite authors, social critic Wendy Kaminer. She's a columnist for the Atlantic Monthly and a fellow at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Studies. In Sleeping with Extraterrestrials: The Rise of Irrationalism and the Perils of Piety she takes on the various ways in which society has come to value emotion over reason, faith over fact, and she argues that declarations of intense belief have largely taken the place of rational discourse. In a world which "How do you feel?" seems to be a more frequently asked question that "What do you know?" Kaminer's examination of the rise of spiritualism, the mushrooming of digitial culture, junk science, and the habitual merging of political and evangelical speech surely makes for a refreshing read. I'm sure you'd enjoy it.

And the picture? Looks like the moon with something stuck on the lens of the telescope.

--Zack

 

[Bobmi357]

And the picture? Looks like the moon with something stuck on the lens of the telescope.

--Zack

There are a bunch of books out there detailing the scams society is falling for. Unfortunately, for every one of those books sold, 200 others are sold encouraging people to follow blindly with the rest of the sheep.

Its been a while since I put that online and with the sole exception of yourself and lynxie, no one commented. Hehehe... I am beginning to think that people have been frightened off by the topic.

As to the photo, its actually a combination of two photos, thanks to photoshop. I was experimenting with taking pictures afocally and having problems getting the camera to turn the flash off and keep it off. I'm pretty sure the orange squiggle is from one of the flash photos where I got reflection off the eyepiece of the telescope.

One of the points I've tried to make here in this thread is that what the eye sees, and what really is, can be two different things. Do not always let the eye fool your brain into jumping to a conclusion. Photographic evidence is a powerful tool in a court of law, today, but the tools exist that make it possible for me to put online a photo of GW Bush and Osama Bin Laden holding hands. Just because you see something online, or on TV, doesn't make it true.

I wish more people would have joined in this discussion. It could have been rather interesting. But I think some might have felt it was too deep a discussion and others perhaps felt their belief systems threatened by a critical examination. Oh well. Sooner or later someone will come up with a thread we all can chime in on.

 

[SweetErika]

There are a bunch of books out there detailing the scams society is falling for. Unfortunately, for every one of those books sold, 200 others are sold encouraging people to follow blindly with the rest of the sheep.

Its been a while since I put that online and with the sole exception of yourself and lynxie, no one commented. Hehehe... I am beginning to think that people have been frightened off by the topic.

As to the photo, its actually a combination of two photos, thanks to photoshop. I was experimenting with taking pictures afocally and having problems getting the camera to turn the flash off and keep it off. I'm pretty sure the orange squiggle is from one of the flash photos where I got reflection off the eyepiece of the telescope.

One of the points I've tried to make here in this thread is that what the eye sees, and what really is, can be two different things. Do not always let the eye fool your brain into jumping to a conclusion. Photographic evidence is a powerful tool in a court of law, today, but the tools exist that make it possible for me to put online a photo of GW Bush and Osama Bin Laden holding hands. Just because you see something online, or on TV, doesn't make it true.

I wish more people would have joined in this discussion. It could have been rather interesting. But I think some might have felt it was too deep a discussion and others perhaps felt their belief systems threatened by a critical examination. Oh well. Sooner or later someone will come up with a thread we all can chime in on.

Oops. I thought we were just supposed to think about the last photo and keep our comments to ourselves, so as not to influence others. I thought it was some reflection of a flash or the house lights, and hubby thought it looked like the running lights of a plane, though even under different circumstances, I don't think either of us would have jumped to the UFO conclusion.

I think this is a great thread, Bob, but if we're dedicated to avoiding discussion on anything controversial, it's a little difficult to keep the ball rolling. How about posing a variety of topics or questions people have that might/should/do require critical thinking (e.g. various scams/hoaxes, science, religion, politics, social and economic issues, health, or even just everyday stuff like why that woman didn't think about how cutting me off in traffic would only put her a measly 12 feet ahead, etc.)?

 

[Ezzy]

There is a certain "brain enhancing" product advertised late at night...

The seller (who needs to face the camera the other way to reduce the wandering eye that he has) tells that he has taken it every day since the company started selling it.

Well I really think he should ask for a refund, or boy was he in a bad way before he began. Then we get the Daughter, Son, and Mon all in hospital, or psych wards scrubs, saying how good it must be. Mom even uses the saying that reminded me of it that bobmi used, (they send you the first bottle free and her comment is) "It's free...It must be good!"

I wonder if they could just bottle "air" not special air, not toxin free air, I can see the same sales pitch working like the charm this brain food must do, after all "It's free...It must be good!"