10 ms·

How many of the people that think the virus isn’t real are critical thinkers though (meaning Occam’s razor, the scientific method, etc)? It’s not just education

by geertj 6y ago

How many of the people that think the virus isn’t real are critical thinkers though (meaning Occam’s razor, the scientific method, etc)? It’s not just education per se that we need, but education in critical thinking, and also history.

giantg2 6y ago
I'd love to see logic taught in schools. Like philosophy of argument style courses. Of course this won't fix all the problems, since it depends on the acceptance and practice of the knowledge presented (US grades and high school graduation rates aren't great). But maybe it would give us a chance at being a little better. I think citizenship tests should be extended to all via school curriculum. If we require people who immigrate to know our laws and how the system is supposed to work, then I don't see why the people already here shouldn't also be required to know this basic info.
- blisterpeanuts 6y ago
  Immigrants are required to possess a modicum of knowledge about the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the system of government, not to mention some level of command of the English language (my wife teaches citizenship courses to immigrants). I, myself, am a naturalized citizen, from Canada, and I had to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, forbear allegiance to foreign powers etc. It's a ritual, but rituals have meaning and power. It would be nice to see more native-born Americans with a strong grounding in democracy and electoral politics. When we had a mandatory military draft, at that time most able bodied young men were required to put on a uniform, salute the U.S. flag, march to patriotic music, etc. Today this sounds trite and even anti-democracy -- weren't we indoctrinating generations of gullible young people to just blindly follow the leader? Yet, today, many young people including college graduates are hardly patriotic at all, and are mind-numbingly ignorant of even the most basic facts, as illustrated by man-in-the-street interviews posted on Youtube by wags like Ami Horowitz and Mark Dice, getting college students to admit that the triceratops (an extinct dinosaur) is endangered and trophy hunting of this poor beast should be banned, and similar ridiculous notions. Even during the Vietnam War, one survey in about 1970 found that 25% of Americans thought Vietnam was in South America. Education is the key, and by that I believe you and I both agree that indoctrination in particular directions is not the same thing. My kid in high school... well, I could tell you stories, but I'd better stop :)
  - viridian 6y ago
    I tend to agree actually, and would go a step further and suggest that citizenship should be a requirement to vote in any election, and that persons born in the US should not be granted citizenship without being able to pass the citizenship test. I'm less comfortable granting people a bid based on general knowledge and intelligence though, I think the uninterested citizenry is a far larger problem than the uneducated citizenry.
    - wry_discontent 6y ago
      I agree uninterested citizenry is a bigger problem than uneducated, but what about a citizenship test (which is absolutely, without a doubt, going to be immediately used as a disenfranchisement tool by a particular political party) is going to get people interested? It seems like that'd fix absolutely nothing but create further class distinctions between people who are represented and people who aren't. In fact, I'd prefer to see things go radically in the opposite direction. I think it's unjust to prevent non-citizens from voting. If you live in place x, you should have a say in how place x is run.
      - giantg2 6y ago
        We can do it that way. You just end up with many of the same issues we see today being exacerbated further, like rule of law not being followed and a lack of understanding about the legal structure. The point of citizenship distinction is part of organizing a democratic government and maintaining cohesion. It tests a person on the basic form and laws of the government and their allegiance to the tribe. The point here is that you have a group off like-minded people allowing other like-minded people into the group. This creates a cohesive group that agrees on basic principles and can function well. Think about trying to conduct a system architecture design meeting with the non-technical users weighing in through a democratic vote on each suggestion - are you excited to do your job in that scenario? Do you end up with lemmings following the best salesman without understanding what is going on? (Different opinions are fine as long as they are legitimate and don't violate the common principles) Letting anyone in makes the knowledgeable people feel disenfranchised by mob rule, not to mention making the organization susceptible to subversion. There's anecdotal evidence (probably statistical evidence if we look around) to support that citizenship that is earned results in a population that is more involved (look at voter turnout in places that never before had free elections). So while I agree that people in a given location should have say over their government, I also believe that in being a part of that democratic government they have the responsibility to learn the basics by which the government functions. This minimum requirement at least shows a good faith effort on the part of the individual to be a diligent member of society.
darepublic 6y ago
What critical thinking is involved in believing the virus is real? Apart from those who made some independent study I would say there is little critical thinking at all... Just faith in the institution of government and press.
- boston_clone 6y ago
  It's not an appeal to authority to tell you to trust in doctors that have been studying and fighting infectious diseases their whole life; for me, however, the fact that so many countries have independently developed their own testing methodologies; that certain quantitative elements of the virus - e.g. transmissibility, CFR - are relatively consistent, with outliers and anomalies having additional evidence to justify their uniqueness; and the unfortunate human toll of this is undeniable.
- InitialLastName 6y ago
  That you've made this point is part of the problem. I'm judging that the virus is real and a problem based on having had it, knowing people who died from it, knowing other people who had severe symptoms, from knowing (via other acquaintances) what the hospitals in my area were like, and from seeing freezer trucks full of dead bodies in the streets. OTOH, I'm from an area that got crushed by the virus early. I can't say for sure that if I were in an area that hadn't had much contact with the virus my "Critical thinking" hat wouldn't be saying, "wait, what if they're just telling us there's a virus outside to keep us locked up".
- seankimdesign 6y ago
  Believing that the virus is real means considering the possibility that the virus might be fake (manufacfured, overblown, non-existent, etc) and then discarding them based on critical thinking. I don't have to believe the US government to see how North Korea was one of the first countries to completely block Chinese people from entering the border. We could all see how quick New Zealand was to implement travel and tourist restrictions. One has to stop and think about why all these nations are doing things that are actively harmful to their bottom line. To actively look away from these facts is what gets you away from critical thinking. Listening to the government does not equal sheeplike blind acceptance despite what the conspiracy theorists might have you believe.
esja 6y ago
It would be wonderful if epistemology was taught in schools and universities. But it would need to be embedded into every subject and focused on practical exercises. Whenever I've seen this sort of thing taught, the students learn about good reasoning methods, but they don't really internalise them.
matz1 6y ago
The problem is not everyone are the same. For example, regarding covid, for some people they think the risk is low, for some people they think the risk are high. Some think the lockdown are worth it, some think the lockdown are not worth it. Both are correct，it highly depends on your personal preference. This will always cause conflict. This is democracy, both side will fight and to convince other. Whoever gain the majority/power is the winner. Unless facebook taking sides, i don't think it harm democracy. Both side too can utilize facebook for their advantage.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > This is democracy, both side will fight and to convince other. Whoever gain the majority/power is the winner. > Unless facebook taking sides, i don't think it harm democracy. Both side too can utilize facebook for their advantage. The problem is, for the most part, there's harm to democracy if no compromise is ever reached, and the "fight" on every issue becomes constant and intractable. For instance, the fight around the response to COVID has pretty thoroughly undermined the response to it. You have people refusing to wear masks for the most part to just to say "fuck you" to the other side. This kind of over-the-top fractiousness is a clear propaganda win for authoritarianism. China, for instance, is pretty effectively using it (and their corresponding success) to reduce the appeal of democracy among its people.
  - matz1 6y ago
    I think The fight is inevitable. Eventually winner will emerge, democracy doesn't care who the winners is and how it get there as long as both side still allowed to fight. Even to reach compromise, fight may still be necessary. >You have people refusing to wear masks for the most mart to just to say "fuck you" to the other side. Mask has real downside (for some people), you can't just dismissed that (not just to say fuck you), although there is of course people like that. Similarly, You have to acknowledge there also people who want to force other to wear mask to just to say "fuck you" to the otherside.
    - Shared404 6y ago
thegrim33 6y ago
Yes there ARE people that believe the virus isn't real, the same way there's people that believe the world is flat, but ironically I find your viewpoint about all the "stupid" virus doubters to be what's actually the real problem. You'll say that Trump called the virus a hoax, or push narratives that imply there's actually any significant percentage of people that think the virus doesn't actually exist. You treat it in black and white, and ignore all the shades of gray and all of the extra dimensions to the issue. It's either "you're with me and everything I believe about every aspect of the issue" or "you're an evil stupid virus denier". There's so much more to the issue than that, and 99% of the people you think believe the virus isn't real DO believe it's real, they just don't agree with you on how severe it is and how it should be responded to.

by geertj 6y ago

giantg2 6y ago

I'd love to see logic taught in schools. Like philosophy of argument style courses. Of course this won't fix all the problems, since it depends on the acceptance and practice of the knowledge presented (US grades and high school graduation rates aren't great). But maybe it would give us a chance at being a little better. I think citizenship tests should be extended to all via school curriculum. If we require people who immigrate to know our laws and how the system is supposed to work, then I don't see why the people already here shouldn't also be required to know this basic info.

blisterpeanuts 6y ago
Immigrants are required to possess a modicum of knowledge about the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the system of government, not to mention some level of command of the English language (my wife teaches citizenship courses to immigrants). I, myself, am a naturalized citizen, from Canada, and I had to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, forbear allegiance to foreign powers etc. It's a ritual, but rituals have meaning and power. It would be nice to see more native-born Americans with a strong grounding in democracy and electoral politics. When we had a mandatory military draft, at that time most able bodied young men were required to put on a uniform, salute the U.S. flag, march to patriotic music, etc. Today this sounds trite and even anti-democracy -- weren't we indoctrinating generations of gullible young people to just blindly follow the leader? Yet, today, many young people including college graduates are hardly patriotic at all, and are mind-numbingly ignorant of even the most basic facts, as illustrated by man-in-the-street interviews posted on Youtube by wags like Ami Horowitz and Mark Dice, getting college students to admit that the triceratops (an extinct dinosaur) is endangered and trophy hunting of this poor beast should be banned, and similar ridiculous notions. Even during the Vietnam War, one survey in about 1970 found that 25% of Americans thought Vietnam was in South America. Education is the key, and by that I believe you and I both agree that indoctrination in particular directions is not the same thing. My kid in high school... well, I could tell you stories, but I'd better stop :)
- viridian 6y ago
  I tend to agree actually, and would go a step further and suggest that citizenship should be a requirement to vote in any election, and that persons born in the US should not be granted citizenship without being able to pass the citizenship test. I'm less comfortable granting people a bid based on general knowledge and intelligence though, I think the uninterested citizenry is a far larger problem than the uneducated citizenry.
  - wry_discontent 6y ago
    I agree uninterested citizenry is a bigger problem than uneducated, but what about a citizenship test (which is absolutely, without a doubt, going to be immediately used as a disenfranchisement tool by a particular political party) is going to get people interested? It seems like that'd fix absolutely nothing but create further class distinctions between people who are represented and people who aren't. In fact, I'd prefer to see things go radically in the opposite direction. I think it's unjust to prevent non-citizens from voting. If you live in place x, you should have a say in how place x is run.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      We can do it that way. You just end up with many of the same issues we see today being exacerbated further, like rule of law not being followed and a lack of understanding about the legal structure. The point of citizenship distinction is part of organizing a democratic government and maintaining cohesion. It tests a person on the basic form and laws of the government and their allegiance to the tribe. The point here is that you have a group off like-minded people allowing other like-minded people into the group. This creates a cohesive group that agrees on basic principles and can function well. Think about trying to conduct a system architecture design meeting with the non-technical users weighing in through a democratic vote on each suggestion - are you excited to do your job in that scenario? Do you end up with lemmings following the best salesman without understanding what is going on? (Different opinions are fine as long as they are legitimate and don't violate the common principles) Letting anyone in makes the knowledgeable people feel disenfranchised by mob rule, not to mention making the organization susceptible to subversion. There's anecdotal evidence (probably statistical evidence if we look around) to support that citizenship that is earned results in a population that is more involved (look at voter turnout in places that never before had free elections). So while I agree that people in a given location should have say over their government, I also believe that in being a part of that democratic government they have the responsibility to learn the basics by which the government functions. This minimum requirement at least shows a good faith effort on the part of the individual to be a diligent member of society.

darepublic 6y ago

What critical thinking is involved in believing the virus is real? Apart from those who made some independent study I would say there is little critical thinking at all... Just faith in the institution of government and press.

boston_clone 6y ago
It's not an appeal to authority to tell you to trust in doctors that have been studying and fighting infectious diseases their whole life; for me, however, the fact that so many countries have independently developed their own testing methodologies; that certain quantitative elements of the virus - e.g. transmissibility, CFR - are relatively consistent, with outliers and anomalies having additional evidence to justify their uniqueness; and the unfortunate human toll of this is undeniable.
InitialLastName 6y ago
That you've made this point is part of the problem. I'm judging that the virus is real and a problem based on having had it, knowing people who died from it, knowing other people who had severe symptoms, from knowing (via other acquaintances) what the hospitals in my area were like, and from seeing freezer trucks full of dead bodies in the streets. OTOH, I'm from an area that got crushed by the virus early. I can't say for sure that if I were in an area that hadn't had much contact with the virus my "Critical thinking" hat wouldn't be saying, "wait, what if they're just telling us there's a virus outside to keep us locked up".
seankimdesign 6y ago
Believing that the virus is real means considering the possibility that the virus might be fake (manufacfured, overblown, non-existent, etc) and then discarding them based on critical thinking. I don't have to believe the US government to see how North Korea was one of the first countries to completely block Chinese people from entering the border. We could all see how quick New Zealand was to implement travel and tourist restrictions. One has to stop and think about why all these nations are doing things that are actively harmful to their bottom line. To actively look away from these facts is what gets you away from critical thinking. Listening to the government does not equal sheeplike blind acceptance despite what the conspiracy theorists might have you believe.

esja 6y ago

It would be wonderful if epistemology was taught in schools and universities. But it would need to be embedded into every subject and focused on practical exercises. Whenever I've seen this sort of thing taught, the students learn about good reasoning methods, but they don't really internalise them.

matz1 6y ago

The problem is not everyone are the same. For example, regarding covid, for some people they think the risk is low, for some people they think the risk are high. Some think the lockdown are worth it, some think the lockdown are not worth it. Both are correct，it highly depends on your personal preference. This will always cause conflict. This is democracy, both side will fight and to convince other. Whoever gain the majority/power is the winner. Unless facebook taking sides, i don't think it harm democracy. Both side too can utilize facebook for their advantage.

ardy42 6y ago
> This is democracy, both side will fight and to convince other. Whoever gain the majority/power is the winner. > Unless facebook taking sides, i don't think it harm democracy. Both side too can utilize facebook for their advantage. The problem is, for the most part, there's harm to democracy if no compromise is ever reached, and the "fight" on every issue becomes constant and intractable. For instance, the fight around the response to COVID has pretty thoroughly undermined the response to it. You have people refusing to wear masks for the most part to just to say "fuck you" to the other side. This kind of over-the-top fractiousness is a clear propaganda win for authoritarianism. China, for instance, is pretty effectively using it (and their corresponding success) to reduce the appeal of democracy among its people.
- matz1 6y ago
  I think The fight is inevitable. Eventually winner will emerge, democracy doesn't care who the winners is and how it get there as long as both side still allowed to fight. Even to reach compromise, fight may still be necessary. >You have people refusing to wear masks for the most mart to just to say "fuck you" to the other side. Mask has real downside (for some people), you can't just dismissed that (not just to say fuck you), although there is of course people like that. Similarly, You have to acknowledge there also people who want to force other to wear mask to just to say "fuck you" to the otherside.
  - Shared404 6y ago

thegrim33 6y ago

Yes there ARE people that believe the virus isn't real, the same way there's people that believe the world is flat, but ironically I find your viewpoint about all the "stupid" virus doubters to be what's actually the real problem. You'll say that Trump called the virus a hoax, or push narratives that imply there's actually any significant percentage of people that think the virus doesn't actually exist. You treat it in black and white, and ignore all the shades of gray and all of the extra dimensions to the issue. It's either "you're with me and everything I believe about every aspect of the issue" or "you're an evil stupid virus denier". There's so much more to the issue than that, and 99% of the people you think believe the virus isn't real DO believe it's real, they just don't agree with you on how severe it is and how it should be responded to.