I grew up in a Southern Baptist fundamentalist household in a small rural town in northeast Arkansas. So my entire existence and identity was cemented in that strict religious tradition throughout my childhood, my adolescence, into my early twenties. Also throughout my entire life, I had an extremely passion for learning about archaeology, paleontology, anthropology, astronomy, and biology. I collected rocks, fossils, and built an absurd collection of books on history and science because I desperately wanted to learn what were the causes that created the world and the events that led our civilization to what it is today. The more I learned, the more I realized that I was having to intentionally reject the parts of scientific knowledge that conflicted with the religious beliefs I grew up believing in. In my mid twenties, I finally found the courage to accept the fact that religion is of human construct. Once I was able to get to that point, the world and the universe and humanity became so incredibly more beautiful and meaningful. I can only speak for myself. This is my personal story.
I was so surprised to see who produced this because I was thinking the part about not "othering" people came directly from Jesus. It's not easy to do in a world that so often belittles Christianity, but why should any given Christian be good at Christianity? It's the first time around for all of us. People who are merely bad at Christianity are not valid evidence Christianity is false.
@@mcitheaterclass537 Well, fortunately for Christians who feel that they can present evidence that can be tested, repeated, and demonstrated by anyone, anywhere and at anytime, there are countless ways for them to prove, once and for all, that the claims they assert are valid and true. It’s not the responsibility of those who aren’t convinced of the claims they assert. The burden of proof falls upon those who are making the claims. I for one would have no problem whatsoever changing my position whenever new evidence is presented. That’s how we grow as a society. There was a time when humans were convinced that diseases and illnesses were brought on by curses, demon possessions or a form of punishment from their god(s). We adjusted our system of thought on the causes of disease when we learned about germs and bacteria and developed the germ theory. We tossed the demon possession notion into the trash bin of bad ideas. Evidence. Have a Christian present evidence to prove their claim that their particular religious belief is true. Until then, I prefer to withhold any judgement on whether Christianity is true or false. As of now, nobody has brought forth any evidence. They just point to an old book and say that the book is true because the book says it’s true.
The justice system in the United States is a human construct. My marriage is a human construct. The more I study biomedical engineering, the more awed I am of the human brain. Around 50% of your brain is dedicated to visual processing. When you see an object 10 feet away, what you are really seeing is what your brain was able to piece together from 4 million or so light detectors in your eyes. No only that, but this all happens in real time. In addiction, your brain is able to interpret what's coming in through your two audio detectors(which are operating at a totally different frequency) and sync up that information such that it makes senses to you. And instead of trying to store all that information, it's able to toss the irrelevant stuff and keep the helpful stuff. So no, I don't believe in evolution any more. Science changes. We used to think the world was flat. I used to be a conservative Republican. I became a Democrat when I started studying clean energy and discovered this stuff is too cheap and a lot Healthier for you. So I had to ask myself why? All I had to do is follow the money in Washington. So while Republicans say they are for family values, what they are really for is economic enslavement through monopolization.
I've been writing my diatribe responses, but I usually delete them instead of engaging. Not only do I recognize I don't know everything, but most often the person is a stranger. I don't think I've changed the mind of a single person through arguing.
@@SonovaBishvery true. Sometimes I just write a comment - then copy it and put it in a word document where I collect them all as ideas or notes for a possible book or something.
What’s beautiful about science is that it’s life all around us. I was lost in biology class in high school. No amount of tutoring cracked the code. Then community college and the best teacher I ever had, taught in a manner that spoke to me. She opened up a whole new world. Science turned into my favorite subject. I thought I was stupid in high school. I blossomed in community college and I continue to love learning. After my bs degree I went on to work as an environmental radiation health and safety specialist working on a superfund clean up site. I’m 71 now and so impressed with my journey. The dumb girl from a family of 5 male siblings that were the chosen, spread my wings to shine and raise two children alone as a single parent. What a wonderful world the gift of science provided for me. 🎉
You are my age and share my experiences. My brother was the golden boy. My parents didn’t want to spend any money sending my sister or I to college because girls just get married and have babies. My brother was not a student, but my parents paid for him to go to college anywhere. Neither my sister nor I had kids. I went from a BS in science to a law degree. I am a passionate advocate for social justice . All my education was paid for with academic scholarships. My sister is a retired educator with multiple advanced degrees in education. (Yet she is MAGA, so degrees don’t mean you have critical thinking.) ☹️
So glad she touched on tribalism. Today we can belong to so many because of social media and of course the mainstream media. When you criticise a tribe and especially its leadership, cognitive dissonance becomes an impenetrable barrier. This was crucial for our survival as a species but now has become a huge problem in modern day society imo.
the question is, why are people still being tribal. how do we get people out of their tribes. i am not sure how this really applies to tribalism: "drill down to their reasoning & connect at t a fundamental level empathy modeling humility curiosity skepticism how sure are you that your belief is true?"
Check out the Oatmeal's video on the backfire effect and how challenging ideas that we have incorporated into our core sense of self trigger our Psychosomatic, physiological, amygdala responses. It's learning to sit in those moments, to let that adrenaline rush through our bloodstream for the next 90 seconds or so, and to not make any rash decisions/knee jerk reactions. But then the next step is discovery, the, *_do your own research,_* process, that Search Engine Optimization and algorithms could still deliver us the wrong information that further feeds our confirmation bias, especially in realms like Young Earth Creationism, where the apologists use jargon and terminology that will bring someone to their sites and videos first and foremost. Most people are not going to look much further. And that's how we end up with perpetuating tribalism instead of the rising tide of the Information Age lifting all ships
@@danielstadden1149Saying your tribe is human is like saying your nutrition comes from food. Just as some food is bad for you( processed foods, foods high in sugar and fat, et) some human tribes are bad or just plain evil. One has to use discernment. When your cooking, your choosing the correct ingredients to bring out the flavor. Are you going to put garlic in your cake?
Wow, this is brilliant. The only thing I might add is that the individual's desire to be accepted, respected, loved and admired is so strong and it is the group that we belong to that provides us with that. It is not too difficult to see why some of us can do terrible things or believe in weird things because that is what "our" group expects from us
I like that about asking if you're 95% confident, ask them why they aren't 100% confident? although most theists we've come to debate with would claim they're 100% confident, and that's the problem.
Thanks, Seth for this wonderful video. Melanie is complete right about this. We need these techniques to help us bring together with those with whom we have been fighting.
This is a great video! And it is smart for any atheist to refocus their public engagement around the themes addressed in this analysis. Religious believers (especially Christians and Muslims) in later modernity (where we find ourselves) are in the business of building communities around the promise of certainty of knowledge in a confusing and fast-changing world. Their 'kryptonite' is advanced critical thinking (and critical rationalism more specifically) that (1) opens up our beliefs to critical scrutiny and self-reflection, (2) accepts that our knowledge is always model-dependent and provisional, (3) and factors pragmatic considerations into deciding which beliefs (or convictions) are to be acted on. In other words, it understands knowledge as subject to evolutionary pressures. That is why most apologists are desperate to frame their atheist opponents as selling an alternative (and less secure) certainty of knowledge. It is essential not to claim against apologists that we know categorically that there is no God. Instead, rigorous critical thinking leaves us with no satisfactory rational grounds for believing in God - given our current information environment and the analytical tools we have at our disposal right now. It helps a lot that, in a world where (at least in constitutional democracies) they can no longer deploy outright oppression to shut their opponents up, apologists are also bound to rely on advanced critical thinking to combat other beliefs and the atheist challenge. That brutally exposes their inability to use the same standards of critical scrutiny on their own beliefs. As a result, they inevitably come through as hypocrites and dogmatists.
I've heard the statement that I think is very true, you can't logically convince somebody out of something that they didn't logically convince themselves into...
@@Soapy-chan "Happens all the time..." How are you quantifying your statement of all the time? I mean, do you often reason people out of their beliefs on a routine basis without appealing to emotion. Is there a study you can point to that shows how just logical reasoning will get people to change their mind about things? Because religion, propagandist, hostage negotiators, and sales all know (and there is lots of literature to) that you never bring people on your side through logical reasoning but emotional appeal.... As the old saying goes, "you sell the sizzle, not the steak". Meaning that if you can get someone to feel good about the decision then they'll make up the reasons why it was good. And once those reasons have become core to their identity, no amount of logic is going to just get them to throw away their identity...
@@williammcfarlane6153 it's very easy, if they'd never do it, we wouldn't have all the deconverts we have. since we have deconverts of massive magnitudes, it literally happens all the time.
I became a Christian due to the way I was raised and a spiritual experience. It wasn't logic. But logic (delivered with empathy from those whom I respected) slowly tore down all of my dogma. I certainly was convinced by logic out of things I had arrived at out of emotion and tribalism. I do think, though, that logic wouldn't have worked if the logic was provided as an attack, instead of an empathetic set of questions by friends.
@@robertbrown2706 But as you highlighted... The logic would only be accepted when there was emotional safety and there was an emotional opening from you for new information that may have conflicted with your previously held beliefs. If the person had not to work to make sure you felt safe and you weren't in a place of willingness to accept information that may conflict with what you previously held, then no amount of logic would have convinced you out of your emotional connection to the belief.
The humility Melanie exhibits is incredibly inspiring! It is what I strive to achieve, to put her approach into practice, both for my own growth, as well as to improve my effectiveness when I am communicating with someone else. But it isn't easy, especially when that other person (I'm already "them-ing" them, ha ha) is... not so humble.
@@bobs182 Hmm, I'd be careful with that. There's so much mis/disinformation out there that anything you want to be true, you can have confirmed to be true. A lot of "research" people do is really 'conclusion shopping.'
I wish this video was at least an hour long. How amazing this video is. I do appreciate that it’s short and sweet, however, because it’s a good video to rewatch to check myself.
Neuroscience and neuropsychology has made huge gains in understanding how the human brain works and how it develops from childhood to adulthood. We don't see the world how it really is but our brains make up stories to help us cope and survive in today's world using brain structures developed over millions of years for survival in dangerous environments. Human brains have not developed to handle and cope with the fast-paced modern world. Our brains are overloaded, and we can't keep up.
Exceptional advice on consideration of how to develop an attitude of patient sharing and teaching to those who may differ from us in their views of life in this crazy world where proven facts continue to be habitually replaced with "true belief" or "a need for greater faith" in order to continue to belong to a specific group, tribe, nation or religion. Somehow, I have taken 83 years of life to learn that reality is much more fun and how to properly communicate with those who prefer the fantasy that promises reward for the good and a hellish revenge for the wicked who use science and critical thinking.
This is an excellent video ! Yes, why we wonder can’t the eight billion people on this planet understand we are all people!? Mel’s analysis is spot on…
She is right that people usually just remember in order to pass a test and then soon forget. I like sciences that are less about memory and more about problem solving, such as physics and chemistry. While learning biology can eventually lead to problem solving, there is a lot of up front memorization of the many systems at work. She brings up another good point in that how many beginner classes get taught is enough to bore most people out of interest to pursue any further. When a person is already interested in a subject it is easy to forget many people don't yet have that interest and you have to be a bit more creative in cultivating that interest. In terms of facts not changing minds, we call that being irrational. Irrational people often don't know they are irrational and use a special kind of rationalization that makes them feel they are rational when they are not. I think understanding you are just as prone to irrationality as anyone else at least gives you a fighting chance to actually listen and consider the facts and reasoning provided by others rather than that wall we are all familiar with where no amount of facts and reasoning are going to get through.
Great talk. If I may add one point. There’s a small danger of taking this to an extreme and saying “nothing is true”. Saying “all facts are just opinions”. There are some truths in the world. Some facts do exist. Overall you’re right that there’s a bigger danger of believing only what agrees with your world view. Thanks for the video.
If you have a conclusion and go looking for any justification (no matter how slim) for it, you'll find it. You are the easiest person to convince when you want your conclusion to be true.
It's so frustrating for me that facts don't change minds. I accept the data on this, it's quite clear, but it was ultimately facts that *did* get me to change my mind. It took time, and it took a lot of them, but they eventually got me there. I think my frustration is probably rooted, at least in part, in that I'm much better at facts than I am at being empathetic and encouraging and meeting people where they are. Still, this seems like my problem for me to fix rather than asking the world to change for me.
I don't think it is about changing minds. It is about people knowing there are differing points of view. For some people that alone is a radical notion.
This is brilliant! and explains a lot about human nature. The sub-title could be "Critical Thinking About Critical Thinking." Thank you Melanie! Trecek-King and Seth Andrews!
What a powerful message. I really needed to hear this because I struggle with this very issue and sometimes I feel like I'm alone on an island of people that don't share my views and opinions on the topic of faith and religious beliefs and find myself trying really hard to not let it get to me and trying to stay humble along the way.
She is exactly right. I was a high school physics teacher for years. I tried to get the administration to understand that learning particular physics equations was absolutely useless to MOST students. All it did was make them hate the very notion of science. This country's attitude toward science is because of what students experience in 10th grade. I tried to implement Sagan's attitude of science as a "way of thinking" rather than a "collection of facts". That was a big, huge NO GO from the bureaucrats. I'm a carpenter now. I enjoy my job, but I will always regret that I was unable to positively influence the lives of more students because a bunch of people who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about make the decisions.
This is the sixth time I've watched this video. It's actually done a lot for breaking me free of some personal bias and reset my mind back to what can be proven and not just what I believe. However, I believe in science and my mind has always been open to the possibility that I could be wrong and any new and valuable information is happily accepted. I can't say the same for my friends, though, who are so proud of their beliefs that they're smug about them. I have friends who are very much conspiracy theorists because I think they are part of the growing number of people who are too lazy, broke, or fearful of the challenge of academia. So they go for the sexy. The dark web, the "rabbit hole", whatever you want to call it. Here's my fear about that. The mind is a wonderfully adaptive organ. Kind of like AI. Those who are lost in the conspiracy theory mess will watch something like this and adapt their defenses to strengthen their firewall. As much as I want my flat earth/hurricane machine/take DMT and see the matrix in a laser beam(yeah) friend to see this, he will most certainly turn this back on itself and start talking about the overconfidence of others. There's no way he can possibly be one of the others and he'll fight to be right all the way to the end.
Funny -- your approach to teaching science is epistemology. I used to teach "social studies," but I called the class "How not to get the wool pulled over your eyes." I also used to get really angry at creationists who argued, "Evolution is just a theory!" as if theories were easy to come by, and facts weren't. I was cheered to hear you describe facts as observations that had been confirmed (but which could be disconfirmed later). That does make science more interesting! Keep it up.
I'm a cognitive scientist. I focus on computational cognitive psycholinguistics, but if you say things like that they make you register as a religion in California. I blame rationalism, especially Descartes, but most of the problems date back to Aristotle at least. It's as dangerous as religious faith, often more so. The central falsehood is that human reason reduces to logic and logic reduces to binary first-order predicate logic. Both are empirically false. We know how human reasoning works in many cases down to single neurons, and it isn't rational. There is a secondary mechanism that enables us to do predicate logic, but it is not basic. We share the basic mechanisms with all mammals; ours is just more complex and, for want of a better term, sophisticated. Rationalism eschews the enormous amount of mental processing needed to decide a fact from sensory input, so it glosses over epistemology. Because predicate logic holds that the arguments are purely symbolic and their validity is formal, for them to be generally applicable, the terms must be assignable to.anything. That leads to the assumption that facts are true or false in the world outside our skulls. Rationalists see a flower as purple and presume the flower *is* purple, that _purple_ is a property in the world, but this is false-purple is in the skull; it does not have meaning as a property of light. The Berlin-Kay color work was a major input to cognitive science. CS views meaning as embodied using a cognitive metaphorical processes and categorization based on prototypes. What you describe as tribalism and the ineffective and counterproductive use of mockery-something the political left, especially progressives, evidently do not get-is a form of reasoning the brain does quickly and easily. Predicate logic is not a part of it. Instead, it is done by structures in the cortex that are used _e.g._ to run through forests without running into trees. These structures are huge: the cortex has wrinkles for more of them, and they are very slow compared to basic reasoning. Furthermore, most cognition doesn't even get to the cortex; the number usually given is 2%. It's filters mostly by the prefrontal lobe. So someone who, as you suggest may fear isolation may not even be able to access factual arguments. This is not because they are stupid but because the conscious parts have a limit to the number of things they can simultaneously access. There may be thousands of competing ideas active at once, but only about Miller's Magic Number [5...9] can be considered at once. Some of these are used to understand language, which is why you often think of interpretations later when it's quiet. It's also why many lose the ability to do good faith in an argument. Good faith requires the ability to consider multiple interpretations of another's speech to pick one the other means rather than what you would mean, and those are severely limited when hearing an utterance for the first time. So CS not only explains why arguments don't always land but why people often speak poorly. Broca's area is not as limited as Wernicke's area because typically, unless one speaks a pun, there is generally only one idea (senseme) to be put into words, when listening requires considering more sensemes. My computer simulations have shown that even in a simple sentence of around a dozen words, there are about 200 ways to parse and interpret it. Fortunately, a the time it takes to hear a sentence is really quite a long time, but it still may not get the appropriate meaning. There have been times I finally understood a meaning after a quarter of a century when I hear a word used in a way I was not accustomed to. Then I generally understand about half a second later. I guess most of that time is spent recalling, but recall works fast, which is why seizures can happen with some brains. Anyway, rational presumptions make brains work worse.
I recently started following her on facebook and sometimes share her little videos… hoping some friends and family can benefit from being correctly taught critical thinking skills. See how useful they are.
I was religious, but I also loved science. I got a bit of a reputation for debunking pseudoscience and creationism, especially on-line. Some of my friends were atheists, some agnostic, some religious. There was a little bit of mocking, and facts thrown my way. But I had set myself up as being "intellectually honest" so I HAD to address the charge that I had insufficient evidence to believe in god. An understanding of the epistemological problems of belief came later. But others, and myself, mocked my belief!. It was an unsustainable position. So I became an atheist. I think the ability to step back from one's beliefs is crucial to having an open, analytical mind. I have also found that different people respond to different approaches. My history or religious belief helped me to understand where people were coming from. Beliefs are often centered on identity. The who you are [or think you are]. It is seldom productive to attack these head-on. Instead, I try and find some common ground. It is rare for folks to disagree on EVERYTHING. You you that as a base, and build on it. For example, I am against the death penalty as an atheist, but also when I was a Christian. Some religious folks are against the DP, and some are for it, so I don't think a religious stance is very efficient, so I use a secular argument which may have a more universal appeal. eg "The law is imperfect, so some innocent people will be found guilty, if found guilty, the the DP will put them to death. Death is irreversible, so imprisonment is best because it can be reversed if the person is found innocent later." I find that much more efficient and acceptable than throwing parts of scripture at each other, and they may refer to a different holy book anyway, or be atheist or agnostic. So a secular argument can have a wider appeal. You can refer to common facts in society. A religious argument about the DP can end up with one trading insults about who's god or interpretation of scripture is correct or incorrect. ie Usually pointless and unproductive.
I think the othering of others who disagree with us is sometimes related to the issues such as we have been facing lately where one group is acting aggressive and spouting vicious rhetoric, enough that we begin to fear viscerally so we feel we need to push them away and let them know that such moral depravity is not how we do things here in America. If we recognize that we are right, it makes sense to try and traverse that last five percent with those other people instead. I still think, though, that there is a purpose in putting forth stalwart facts. A man will not be cowed by a coward. It's sort of a man thing. But you are right. Honesty and empathy is the way to go.
What she said in the first 60 seconds is the reason I homeschool, my kid could memorize and regurgitate information for a little while, but it never stayed as a long term memory or as a truly learned concept, it was just there to help them pass an exam and then poof, gone! Once we started doing more hands on learning experiences and discussing things back and forth rather than just reading a book of facts, that all changed!!
Certainly, facts change minds, those who use their mental capabilities to make decisions are constantly on the search for the facts. For those who use emotions to make decisions, facts get in the way. When you use emotions to make decisions, you can be easily taken advantage of by those who prey on your emotions. All of us sometimes are emotional, it's part of being human. The task we all have is to gain maturity to control our emotions, especially when making critical decisions. And yes it's about love and acceptance, etc. that dictate our path to being able to rise above the emotions and use intellect. That unfortunately is typically created by environment we are brought into, and as a result we have a significant effort to rise beyond.
My issue with her claims are that different people are convinced by different reasons and sometimes multiple reasons. Mocking works, facts work, basically everything she said didn't work actually does work. They don't all work on all people but they all do in fact work.
Empathy is often toxic if guided towards those who believe differently. Sympathy is better, it doesn't pretend to understand their context and doesn't arrogantly assume superiority.
The other question is whether any scientific method reveals “facts”. There is the underlying dilemma of what’s comprises reality or if there is such thing and even then if we can perceive it.
Facts have little impact on most people's beliefs. As emotionally motivated beings, most people reject information that conflicts with their beliefs. The evidence for that statement is overwhelming.
I have learned the “other side” is about winning, not about being right/correct. In America, specifically Tennessee, I defend my position but admit to its flaws or my lack of knowledge. This is when they pounce … because they’re never wrong about anything. They never admit to ignorance. It seems I’m almost always talking to Dunning-Kruger types, the willfully stupid and proud of it.
@8:00 Also ask what it would take to change their mind, your mind, to revise or replace the belief. Very nice. Thank you! I recommend Steven L. Goldman's "Science Wars" to those interested in thinking styles and how the current methods used by scientists developed-evolved. Perhaps Melanie could do a video on how authoritarians think (see Bob Altemeyer) and the work of Leor Zmigrod on ideological thinking. I'd really like one that compares/contrasts abductive thinking to deduction and induction.
Some people like to believe regardless of actual facts or reason. Others like to seek the truth that never ends. 2 kinds of people were one likes to believe the other one likes to know or trying to. So yes facts don't change a believers minds.
"It's impossible that everything we know is true." Bad idea, as far as I'm concerned: Saying this insists that some gap must always exist between our belief, or confidence of our perception...and the reality that we live in. If I think I'm eating healthy food, and my body thinks I'm eating healthy food, and it can be tested and explained why what I'm eating is good for me, then it's true...and this demonstrates the very possibility of an accurate belief. I think what she really wanted to say, really make a video about, is the people who fall on wrong side of the Dunning-Kruger Effect and who regard stubborn, hopeless disagreement with something like an original, valid point of view. The scary music doesn't really make me want to stay and listen, either.
The concepts covered here are illustrated in a new book published by Austin Macauley Publishers titled From Chemistry to Life on Earth which outlines abiogenesis in great detail using 290 references, 50 illustrations and several information tables with a proposed molecular natural selection formula with a worked example for ATP. The scenario in the book is so long, 268 pages including references, that a lifelong scientists contributions cover only a few sentences. Inevitable but occasional errors of fact can be corrected without changing the plausibility of the scenario.
I have always sought truth over approval and have no problem letting go of those who don't. Sadly, spent most of my life believing the bible was true. That may be why deconstruction came easy once I learned it was not.
Great talk! I was raised in a very religious family, but embraced evolution with no God from science classes and books, and then after studying for decades, on this topic, I again believe in God as it takes significantly more faith to not believe in God and intelligent design, but also see that the vast majority of religion is complete nonsense and completely man-made, and keep my mind open to all facts and truth, as presented.
One only really learns this when one does a doctorate, the nature of ontology (the nature of reality) and epistemology (the nature of knowledge). Nursing research has changed the nature of research dramatically. Critical thinking takes into account the paradigm we use, and it is a spectrum from constructivism to positivism. And the the type of logical thinking we use also needs to be taken into account. This is a very tough road to understand.
When you spoke about picking out facts, ignoring facts, etc… that is a combination of “confirmation bias” (choosing only facts/things that support of view) and “cognitive dissonance” (ignoring facts/things that contradict our view).
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
I grew up in a Southern Baptist fundamentalist household in a small rural town in northeast Arkansas. So my entire existence and identity was cemented in that strict religious tradition throughout my childhood, my adolescence, into my early twenties. Also throughout my entire life, I had an extremely passion for learning about archaeology, paleontology, anthropology, astronomy, and biology. I collected rocks, fossils, and built an absurd collection of books on history and science because I desperately wanted to learn what were the causes that created the world and the events that led our civilization to what it is today.
The more I learned, the more I realized that I was having to intentionally reject the parts of scientific knowledge that conflicted with the religious beliefs I grew up believing in.
In my mid twenties, I finally found the courage to accept the fact that religion is of human construct. Once I was able to get to that point, the world and the universe and humanity became so incredibly more beautiful and meaningful.
I can only speak for myself. This is my personal story.
I was so surprised to see who produced this because I was thinking the part about not "othering" people came directly from Jesus. It's not easy to do in a world that so often belittles Christianity, but why should any given Christian be good at Christianity? It's the first time around for all of us. People who are merely bad at Christianity are not valid evidence Christianity is false.
@@mcitheaterclass537 Well, fortunately for Christians who feel that they can present evidence that can be tested, repeated, and demonstrated by anyone, anywhere and at anytime, there are countless ways for them to prove, once and for all, that the claims they assert are valid and true.
It’s not the responsibility of those who aren’t convinced of the claims they assert. The burden of proof falls upon those who are making the claims.
I for one would have no problem whatsoever changing my position whenever new evidence is presented. That’s how we grow as a society. There was a time when humans were convinced that diseases and illnesses were brought on by curses, demon possessions or a form of punishment from their god(s). We adjusted our system of thought on the causes of disease when we learned about germs and bacteria and developed the germ theory. We tossed the demon possession notion into the trash bin of bad ideas. Evidence. Have a Christian present evidence to prove their claim that their particular religious belief is true. Until then, I prefer to withhold any judgement on whether Christianity is true or false.
As of now, nobody has brought forth any evidence. They just point to an old book and say that the book is true because the book says it’s true.
Congratulations on your success. It took me over 50 years. Still haven't told my family because they might disown me as an apostate.
Totally agree.
The justice system in the United States is a human construct. My marriage is a human construct. The more I study biomedical engineering, the more awed I am of the human brain. Around 50% of your brain is dedicated to visual processing. When you see an object 10 feet away, what you are really seeing is what your brain was able to piece together from 4 million or so light detectors in your eyes. No only that, but this all happens in real time. In addiction, your brain is able to interpret what's coming in through your two audio detectors(which are operating at a totally different frequency) and sync up that information such that it makes senses to you. And instead of trying to store all that information, it's able to toss the irrelevant stuff and keep the helpful stuff. So no, I don't believe in evolution any more. Science changes. We used to think the world was flat.
I used to be a conservative Republican. I became a Democrat when I started studying clean energy and discovered this stuff is too cheap and a lot Healthier for you. So I had to ask myself why? All I had to do is follow the money in Washington. So while Republicans say they are for family values, what they are really for is economic enslavement through monopolization.
“It’s impossible that everything we believe is true.” What a psychological swing!!
I believe I will have a drink. Always true!
Even what you "see" is an approximation. That's why folks are getting out of prison because of mistaken identity.
"First ask yourself, 'why do I want to engage?'" The single most important question in the social media era.
I've been writing my diatribe responses, but I usually delete them instead of engaging. Not only do I recognize I don't know everything, but most often the person is a stranger. I don't think I've changed the mind of a single person through arguing.
@@SonovaBishvery true. Sometimes I just write a comment - then copy it and put it in a word document where I collect them all as ideas or notes for a possible book or something.
@@MrSeedi76 that's not a bad idea, but I'm not going to write a book. Title it 'Shit I Didn't Say, A Collection'.
Because TODAY is my last day on this planet to speak up.
@@SonovaBish I think I would like to read that book.
What’s beautiful about science is that it’s life all around us. I was lost in biology class in high school. No amount of tutoring cracked the code. Then community college and the best teacher I ever had, taught in a manner that spoke to me. She opened up a whole new world. Science turned into my favorite subject. I thought I was stupid in high school. I blossomed in community college and I continue to love learning. After my bs degree I went on to work as an environmental radiation health and safety specialist working on a superfund clean up site. I’m 71 now and so impressed with my journey. The dumb girl from a family of 5 male siblings that were the chosen, spread my wings to shine and raise two children alone as a single parent. What a wonderful world the gift of science provided for me. 🎉
What an inspiring story. Nice job turning things around in your life. Congratulations on raising those kids too.. ☮
You are my age and share my experiences. My brother was the golden boy. My parents didn’t want to spend any money sending my sister or I to college because girls just get married and have babies. My brother was not a student, but my parents paid for him
to go to college anywhere. Neither my sister nor I had kids. I went from a BS in science to a law degree. I am a passionate advocate for social justice . All my education was paid for with academic scholarships.
My sister is a retired educator with multiple advanced degrees in education. (Yet she is MAGA, so degrees don’t mean you have critical thinking.) ☹️
So glad she touched on tribalism. Today we can belong to so many because of social media and of course the mainstream media. When you criticise a tribe and especially its leadership, cognitive dissonance becomes an impenetrable barrier. This was crucial for our survival as a species but now has become a huge problem in modern day society imo.
the question is, why are people still being tribal.
how do we get people out of their tribes.
i am not sure how this really applies to tribalism:
"drill down to their reasoning & connect at t a fundamental level
empathy
modeling
humility
curiosity
skepticism
how sure are you that your belief is true?"
Check out the Oatmeal's video on the backfire effect and how challenging ideas that we have incorporated into our core sense of self trigger our Psychosomatic, physiological, amygdala responses.
It's learning to sit in those moments, to let that adrenaline rush through our bloodstream for the next 90 seconds or so, and to not make any rash decisions/knee jerk reactions.
But then the next step is discovery, the, *_do your own research,_* process, that Search Engine Optimization and algorithms could still deliver us the wrong information that further feeds our confirmation bias, especially in realms like Young Earth Creationism, where the apologists use jargon and terminology that will bring someone to their sites and videos first and foremost.
Most people are not going to look much further.
And that's how we end up with perpetuating tribalism instead of the rising tide of the Information Age lifting all ships
My tribe is Human, my Home is Earth
@@danielstadden1149 we need more Humanists 👍
@@danielstadden1149Saying your tribe is human is like saying your nutrition comes from food. Just as some food is bad for you( processed foods, foods high in sugar and fat, et) some human tribes are bad or just plain evil. One has to use discernment. When your cooking, your choosing the correct ingredients to bring out the flavor. Are you going to put garlic in your cake?
Well said! “We can’t learn if we’re certain we’re right “.
One of the most valuable videos I've seen in a long, long time. Thanks for this.
can you explain why you feel this way?
Wow, this is brilliant. The only thing I might add is that the individual's desire to be accepted, respected, loved and admired is so strong and it is the group that we belong to that provides us with that. It is not too difficult to see why some of us can do terrible things or believe in weird things because that is what "our" group expects from us
I like that about asking if you're 95% confident, ask them why they aren't 100% confident? although most theists we've come to debate with would claim they're 100% confident, and that's the problem.
This is a great explanation, especially the part about thinking "you're too smart to fall for misinformation". Thank you!
Thanks, Seth for this wonderful video. Melanie is complete right about this. We need these techniques to help us bring together with those with whom we have been fighting.
Mel. Im 95% sure you're the best!
When I discovered logical fallacies are and exist ,it opened my mind to so many things and truly humbling.
More of this please!
Thank you for the wonderful presentation. Epistemology & Empathy are are, I agree, necessary bedfellows for engagement and growth
This is excellent. I will have to listen to this again later on.
I will be watching this at least three more times.
This is a great video! And it is smart for any atheist to refocus their public engagement around the themes addressed in this analysis.
Religious believers (especially Christians and Muslims) in later modernity (where we find ourselves) are in the business of building communities around the promise of certainty of knowledge in a confusing and fast-changing world. Their 'kryptonite' is advanced critical thinking (and critical rationalism more specifically) that (1) opens up our beliefs to critical scrutiny and self-reflection, (2) accepts that our knowledge is always model-dependent and provisional, (3) and factors pragmatic considerations into deciding which beliefs (or convictions) are to be acted on. In other words, it understands knowledge as subject to evolutionary pressures. That is why most apologists are desperate to frame their atheist opponents as selling an alternative (and less secure) certainty of knowledge.
It is essential not to claim against apologists that we know categorically that there is no God. Instead, rigorous critical thinking leaves us with no satisfactory rational grounds for believing in God - given our current information environment and the analytical tools we have at our disposal right now.
It helps a lot that, in a world where (at least in constitutional democracies) they can no longer deploy outright oppression to shut their opponents up, apologists are also bound to rely on advanced critical thinking to combat other beliefs and the atheist challenge. That brutally exposes their inability to use the same standards of critical scrutiny on their own beliefs. As a result, they inevitably come through as hypocrites and dogmatists.
I've heard the statement that I think is very true, you can't logically convince somebody out of something that they didn't logically convince themselves into...
that's not true though, it happens all the time.
@@Soapy-chan
"Happens all the time..." How are you quantifying your statement of all the time? I mean, do you often reason people out of their beliefs on a routine basis without appealing to emotion. Is there a study you can point to that shows how just logical reasoning will get people to change their mind about things?
Because religion, propagandist, hostage negotiators, and sales all know (and there is lots of literature to) that you never bring people on your side through logical reasoning but emotional appeal....
As the old saying goes, "you sell the sizzle, not the steak". Meaning that if you can get someone to feel good about the decision then they'll make up the reasons why it was good. And once those reasons have become core to their identity, no amount of logic is going to just get them to throw away their identity...
@@williammcfarlane6153 it's very easy, if they'd never do it, we wouldn't have all the deconverts we have. since we have deconverts of massive magnitudes, it literally happens all the time.
I became a Christian due to the way I was raised and a spiritual experience. It wasn't logic. But logic (delivered with empathy from those whom I respected) slowly tore down all of my dogma. I certainly was convinced by logic out of things I had arrived at out of emotion and tribalism. I do think, though, that logic wouldn't have worked if the logic was provided as an attack, instead of an empathetic set of questions by friends.
@@robertbrown2706
But as you highlighted... The logic would only be accepted when there was emotional safety and there was an emotional opening from you for new information that may have conflicted with your previously held beliefs.
If the person had not to work to make sure you felt safe and you weren't in a place of willingness to accept information that may conflict with what you previously held, then no amount of logic would have convinced you out of your emotional connection to the belief.
Great video and explanations of how we can correct for our own biases and try to have meaningful conversations with those we might not agree with.
The humility Melanie exhibits is incredibly inspiring! It is what I strive to achieve, to put her approach into practice, both for my own growth, as well as to improve my effectiveness when I am communicating with someone else. But it isn't easy, especially when that other person (I'm already "them-ing" them, ha ha) is... not so humble.
The trick I use is the more I hear something I want to hear, or the more my biases are confirmed, the more suspicious I become that I might be wrong.
I want so much for the earth to be mostly spherical and everyone I know thinks it is - but...
Yet things that are true get confirmed because they are true.
@@bobs182 Hmm, I'd be careful with that. There's so much mis/disinformation out there that anything you want to be true, you can have confirmed to be true. A lot of "research" people do is really 'conclusion shopping.'
There is some real wisdom here. I shall use it.
This is so cool! I had you at Massasoit, and I can still identify the sunk cost fallacy, whataboutism, red herring, etc. in everyday conversations!
I wish this video was at least an hour long. How amazing this video is. I do appreciate that it’s short and sweet, however, because it’s a good video to rewatch to check myself.
Neuroscience and neuropsychology has made huge gains in understanding how the human brain works and how it develops from childhood to adulthood. We don't see the world how it really is but our brains make up stories to help us cope and survive in today's world using brain structures developed over millions of years for survival in dangerous environments. Human brains have not developed to handle and cope with the fast-paced modern world. Our brains are overloaded, and we can't keep up.
Oh wow, than you I needed that. So much in there. I may watch it a few more times until I fully grasp it. Thank you again. Peace ❤❤❤❤
A beautiful presentation, thank you, from a thinking theist!
A wonderful presentation
Thanks for sharing your wisdom with us
Exceptional advice on consideration of how to develop an attitude of patient sharing and teaching to those who may differ from us in their views of life in this crazy world where proven facts continue to be habitually replaced with "true belief" or "a need for greater faith" in order to continue to belong to a specific group, tribe, nation or religion. Somehow, I have taken 83 years of life to learn that reality is much more fun and how to properly communicate with those who prefer the fantasy that promises reward for the good and a hellish revenge for the wicked who use science and critical thinking.
Thank you for this.
She speaks so genuinely I love listening to her❤❤
This is an excellent video ! Yes, why we wonder can’t the eight billion people on this planet understand we are all people!? Mel’s analysis is spot on…
Excellent Summary. Cheers from Michael. Australia.
Wow. Impressed inside the first minute.
I was already but subscribed, but just now watched. Terrific! You take up lots in 10 minutes, and you do it just right. Home run!
Brilliant video. Great points and love the idea. Thanks for sharing 👍 😊.
I read human behavior too, and you are spot on. Excellent video.
She is right that people usually just remember in order to pass a test and then soon forget. I like sciences that are less about memory and more about problem solving, such as physics and chemistry. While learning biology can eventually lead to problem solving, there is a lot of up front memorization of the many systems at work. She brings up another good point in that how many beginner classes get taught is enough to bore most people out of interest to pursue any further. When a person is already interested in a subject it is easy to forget many people don't yet have that interest and you have to be a bit more creative in cultivating that interest.
In terms of facts not changing minds, we call that being irrational. Irrational people often don't know they are irrational and use a special kind of rationalization that makes them feel they are rational when they are not. I think understanding you are just as prone to irrationality as anyone else at least gives you a fighting chance to actually listen and consider the facts and reasoning provided by others rather than that wall we are all familiar with where no amount of facts and reasoning are going to get through.
Great talk. If I may add one point. There’s a small danger of taking this to an extreme and saying “nothing is true”. Saying “all facts are just opinions”. There are some truths in the world. Some facts do exist. Overall you’re right that there’s a bigger danger of believing only what agrees with your world view. Thanks for the video.
The arrogant and ignorant spend their lives trying to prove themselves right. The wise spend their lives trying to prove themselves wrong.
Wrong -- the wise sit back and watch the shitshow aware that neither matters
If you have a conclusion and go looking for any justification (no matter how slim) for it, you'll find it. You are the easiest person to convince when you want your conclusion to be true.
It's so frustrating for me that facts don't change minds. I accept the data on this, it's quite clear, but it was ultimately facts that *did* get me to change my mind. It took time, and it took a lot of them, but they eventually got me there. I think my frustration is probably rooted, at least in part, in that I'm much better at facts than I am at being empathetic and encouraging and meeting people where they are. Still, this seems like my problem for me to fix rather than asking the world to change for me.
Sounds like facts changed your mind on this one. So perhaps it still occurs sometimes and it might still be worth the effort of sharing the facts
@@Emiliapocalypse always worth sharing them, for sure. But I have to wildly alter my approach, which is going to be difficult.
Facts absolutely changed my mind. Don't give up.
Brilliant, thank you!
Helpful suggestions. Communicate, not alienate.
This is where the contributions of Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin are so important.
Good points!
Excellent speech
I don't think it is about changing minds. It is about people knowing there are differing points of view. For some people that alone is a radical notion.
Most people know there are other points of view; they just think all but their own are wrong.
@@505Hockey I know many viewpoints are wrong. Creationism, White Supremacy, Homophobia are wrong positions to have.
You mean like perhaps that nature itself might have a mind?
@@aetherkid What about drug dealers?
This is brilliant! and explains a lot about human nature. The sub-title could be "Critical Thinking About Critical Thinking." Thank you Melanie! Trecek-King and Seth Andrews!
That is a great video, a lot to think about.
She says you can't change people's minds with facts, but I'm going to prove her wrong!!
What a powerful message. I really needed to hear this because I struggle with this very issue and sometimes I feel like I'm alone on an island of people that don't share my views and opinions on the topic of faith and religious beliefs and find myself trying really hard to not let it get to me and trying to stay humble along the way.
It's that societal pressure that keeps people trapped by bad ideas, unfortunately. We are social creatures.
For me, the best way to think of science is a way of behaving that subverts my will to reality.
I like to ask myself ‘why am I wrong about this?’. Then try to argue against my own conclusions with evidence. It helps slow down my own biases.
This is fantastic!
Excellent...
She is exactly right. I was a high school physics teacher for years. I tried to get the administration to understand that learning particular physics equations was absolutely useless to MOST students. All it did was make them hate the very notion of science. This country's attitude toward science is because of what students experience in 10th grade.
I tried to implement Sagan's attitude of science as a "way of thinking" rather than a "collection of facts". That was a big, huge NO GO from the bureaucrats.
I'm a carpenter now. I enjoy my job, but I will always regret that I was unable to positively influence the lives of more students because a bunch of people who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about make the decisions.
This is the sixth time I've watched this video. It's actually done a lot for breaking me free of some personal bias and reset my mind back to what can be proven and not just what I believe.
However, I believe in science and my mind has always been open to the possibility that I could be wrong and any new and valuable information is happily accepted.
I can't say the same for my friends, though, who are so proud of their beliefs that they're smug about them.
I have friends who are very much conspiracy theorists because I think they are part of the growing number of people who are too lazy, broke, or fearful of the challenge of academia. So they go for the sexy. The dark web, the "rabbit hole", whatever you want to call it.
Here's my fear about that. The mind is a wonderfully adaptive organ. Kind of like AI.
Those who are lost in the conspiracy theory mess will watch something like this and adapt their defenses to strengthen their firewall.
As much as I want my flat earth/hurricane machine/take DMT and see the matrix in a laser beam(yeah) friend to see this, he will most certainly turn this back on itself and start talking about the overconfidence of others.
There's no way he can possibly be one of the others and he'll fight to be right all the way to the end.
beautifully spoken... thank you 🌺🌺
Funny -- your approach to teaching science is epistemology. I used to teach "social studies," but I called the class "How not to get the wool pulled over your eyes." I also used to get really angry at creationists who argued, "Evolution is just a theory!" as if theories were easy to come by, and facts weren't. I was cheered to hear you describe facts as observations that had been confirmed (but which could be disconfirmed later). That does make science more interesting! Keep it up.
I'm a cognitive scientist. I focus on computational cognitive psycholinguistics, but if you say things like that they make you register as a religion in California.
I blame rationalism, especially Descartes, but most of the problems date back to Aristotle at least. It's as dangerous as religious faith, often more so.
The central falsehood is that human reason reduces to logic and logic reduces to binary first-order predicate logic. Both are empirically false. We know how human reasoning works in many cases down to single neurons, and it isn't rational. There is a secondary mechanism that enables us to do predicate logic, but it is not basic. We share the basic mechanisms with all mammals; ours is just more complex and, for want of a better term, sophisticated.
Rationalism eschews the enormous amount of mental processing needed to decide a fact from sensory input, so it glosses over epistemology. Because predicate logic holds that the arguments are purely symbolic and their validity is formal, for them to be generally applicable, the terms must be assignable to.anything. That leads to the assumption that facts are true or false in the world outside our skulls. Rationalists see a flower as purple and presume the flower *is* purple, that _purple_ is a property in the world, but this is false-purple is in the skull; it does not have meaning as a property of light. The Berlin-Kay color work was a major input to cognitive science.
CS views meaning as embodied using a cognitive metaphorical processes and categorization based on prototypes. What you describe as tribalism and the ineffective and counterproductive use of mockery-something the political left, especially progressives, evidently do not get-is a form of reasoning the brain does quickly and easily. Predicate logic is not a part of it. Instead, it is done by structures in the cortex that are used _e.g._ to run through forests without running into trees. These structures are huge: the cortex has wrinkles for more of them, and they are very slow compared to basic reasoning. Furthermore, most cognition doesn't even get to the cortex; the number usually given is 2%. It's filters mostly by the prefrontal lobe. So someone who, as you suggest may fear isolation may not even be able to access factual arguments. This is not because they are stupid but because the conscious parts have a limit to the number of things they can simultaneously access. There may be thousands of competing ideas active at once, but only about Miller's Magic Number [5...9] can be considered at once. Some of these are used to understand language, which is why you often think of interpretations later when it's quiet. It's also why many lose the ability to do good faith in an argument. Good faith requires the ability to consider multiple interpretations of another's speech to pick one the other means rather than what you would mean, and those are severely limited when hearing an utterance for the first time. So CS not only explains why arguments don't always land but why people often speak poorly. Broca's area is not as limited as Wernicke's area because typically, unless one speaks a pun, there is generally only one idea (senseme) to be put into words, when listening requires considering more sensemes. My computer simulations have shown that even in a simple sentence of around a dozen words, there are about 200 ways to parse and interpret it. Fortunately, a the time it takes to hear a sentence is really quite a long time, but it still may not get the appropriate meaning. There have been times I finally understood a meaning after a quarter of a century when I hear a word used in a way I was not accustomed to. Then I generally understand about half a second later. I guess most of that time is spent recalling, but recall works fast, which is why seizures can happen with some brains.
Anyway, rational presumptions make brains work worse.
I recently started following her on facebook and sometimes share her little videos… hoping some friends and family can benefit from being correctly taught critical thinking skills. See how useful they are.
I was religious, but I also loved science. I got a bit of a reputation for debunking pseudoscience and creationism, especially on-line. Some of my friends were atheists, some agnostic, some religious. There was a little bit of mocking, and facts thrown my way. But I had set myself up as being "intellectually honest" so I HAD to address the charge that I had insufficient evidence to believe in god. An understanding of the epistemological problems of belief came later. But others, and myself, mocked my belief!. It was an unsustainable position. So I became an atheist.
I think the ability to step back from one's beliefs is crucial to having an open, analytical mind. I have also found that different people respond to different approaches.
My history or religious belief helped me to understand where people were coming from. Beliefs are often centered on identity. The who you are [or think you are]. It is seldom productive to attack these head-on.
Instead, I try and find some common ground. It is rare for folks to disagree on EVERYTHING. You you that as a base, and build on it.
For example, I am against the death penalty as an atheist, but also when I was a Christian. Some religious folks are against the DP, and some are for it, so I don't think a religious stance is very efficient, so I use a secular argument which may have a more universal appeal. eg "The law is imperfect, so some innocent people will be found guilty, if found guilty, the the DP will put them to death. Death is irreversible, so imprisonment is best because it can be reversed if the person is found innocent later." I find that much more efficient and acceptable than throwing parts of scripture at each other, and they may refer to a different holy book anyway, or be atheist or agnostic. So a secular argument can have a wider appeal. You can refer to common facts in society. A religious argument about the DP can end up with one trading insults about who's god or interpretation of scripture is correct or incorrect. ie Usually pointless and unproductive.
Thank. You. For. This. Video.
I am pretty sure that if Melanie watched a Good Liars video on TH-cam, that she would tear up.
Great stuff
The key problem is we judge ourselves with the same brain that got things wrong in the first place.
I think the othering of others who disagree with us is sometimes related to the issues such as we have been facing lately where one group is acting aggressive and spouting vicious rhetoric, enough that we begin to fear viscerally so we feel we need to push them away and let them know that such moral depravity is not how we do things here in America. If we recognize that we are right, it makes sense to try and traverse that last five percent with those other people instead. I still think, though, that there is a purpose in putting forth stalwart facts. A man will not be cowed by a coward. It's sort of a man thing. But you are right. Honesty and empathy is the way to go.
As soon as I saw Carl Sagan’s photo, you had my attention. Thank you from a 66 year old lawyer.
What she said in the first 60 seconds is the reason I homeschool, my kid could memorize and regurgitate information for a little while, but it never stayed as a long term memory or as a truly learned concept, it was just there to help them pass an exam and then poof, gone! Once we started doing more hands on learning experiences and discussing things back and forth rather than just reading a book of facts, that all changed!!
A Flat Earther or a Scientologist who stops believing will definitely lose their group. Motivated belief is extremely powerful.
Certainly, facts change minds, those who use their mental capabilities to make decisions are constantly on the search for the facts.
For those who use emotions to make decisions, facts get in the way. When you use emotions to make decisions, you can be easily taken advantage of by those who prey on your emotions. All of us sometimes are emotional, it's part of being human. The task we all have is to gain maturity to control our emotions, especially when making critical decisions. And yes it's about love and acceptance, etc. that dictate our path to being able to rise above the emotions and use intellect. That unfortunately is typically created by environment we are brought into, and as a result we have a significant effort to rise beyond.
My issue with her claims are that different people are convinced by different reasons and sometimes multiple reasons. Mocking works, facts work, basically everything she said didn't work actually does work. They don't all work on all people but they all do in fact work.
Empathy is often toxic if guided towards those who believe differently. Sympathy is better, it doesn't pretend to understand their context and doesn't arrogantly assume superiority.
Empathy should not be conflated with understanding. The fake bit is claiming to understand when you don’t.
It’s easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they have been fooled…MT
The other question is whether any scientific method reveals “facts”. There is the underlying dilemma of what’s comprises reality or if there is such thing and even then if we can perceive it.
Facts have little impact on most people's beliefs. As emotionally motivated beings, most people reject information that conflicts with their beliefs. The evidence for that statement is overwhelming.
I suspect folks who might need this most won't watch it.
Well, but just in case they find it it's there
I became a Christian at age 15 because of an emotional, psychologically disturbing event. I left Christianity because of reason and logic.
I have learned the “other side” is about winning, not about being right/correct. In America, specifically Tennessee, I defend my position but admit to its flaws or my lack of knowledge. This is when they pounce … because they’re never wrong about anything. They never admit to ignorance. It seems I’m almost always talking to Dunning-Kruger types, the willfully stupid and proud of it.
Great job!
@8:00 Also ask what it would take to change their mind, your mind, to revise or replace the belief. Very nice. Thank you! I recommend Steven L. Goldman's "Science Wars" to those interested in thinking styles and how the current methods used by scientists developed-evolved. Perhaps Melanie could do a video on how authoritarians think (see Bob Altemeyer) and the work of Leor Zmigrod on ideological thinking. I'd really like one that compares/contrasts abductive thinking to deduction and induction.
Wonderful!
Some people like to believe regardless of actual facts or reason. Others like to seek the truth that never ends. 2 kinds of people were one likes to believe the other one likes to know or trying to. So yes facts don't change a believers minds.
This is really useful. Thank you
Ignorance has a cure. Willful ignorance is terminal.
This is so, so important. This information could save our society. It could save our planet. This is how we save the future.
"It's impossible that everything we know is true."
Bad idea, as far as I'm concerned: Saying this insists that some gap must always exist between our belief, or confidence of our perception...and the reality that we live in.
If I think I'm eating healthy food, and my body thinks I'm eating healthy food, and it can be tested and explained why what I'm eating is good for me, then it's true...and this demonstrates the very possibility of an accurate belief.
I think what she really wanted to say, really make a video about, is the people who fall on wrong side of the Dunning-Kruger Effect and who regard stubborn, hopeless disagreement with something like an original, valid point of view.
The scary music doesn't really make me want to stay and listen, either.
The concepts covered here are illustrated in a new book published by Austin Macauley Publishers titled From Chemistry to Life on Earth which outlines abiogenesis in great detail using 290 references, 50 illustrations and several information tables with a proposed molecular natural selection formula with a worked example for ATP. The scenario in the book is so long, 268 pages including references, that a lifelong scientists contributions cover only a few sentences. Inevitable but occasional errors of fact can be corrected without changing the plausibility of the scenario.
Thanks!
refreshing to hear that reason still exists in this world… some days i feel like going to live on a deserted island to die in peace…
I have always sought truth over approval and have no problem letting go of those who don't. Sadly, spent most of my life believing the bible was true. That may be why deconstruction came easy once I learned it was not.
Great talk! I was raised in a very religious family, but embraced evolution with no God from science classes and books, and then after studying for decades, on this topic, I again believe in God as it takes significantly more faith to not believe in God and intelligent design, but also see that the vast majority of religion is complete nonsense and completely man-made, and keep my mind open to all facts and truth, as presented.
If facts are disputed, you're not left with much to discuss
People believe a lie for 2 primary reasons. They are afraid it is true, or they want it to be true.
And the Christian cultist does a really good job of this.
One only really learns this when one does a doctorate, the nature of ontology (the nature of reality) and epistemology (the nature of knowledge). Nursing research has changed the nature of research dramatically. Critical thinking takes into account the paradigm we use, and it is a spectrum from constructivism to positivism. And the the type of logical thinking we use also needs to be taken into account. This is a very tough road to understand.
This is great, thanks for posting this. So much of what you're talking about can be explained by Dunbar's Number
Love it, Bayesian
When you spoke about picking out facts, ignoring facts, etc… that is a combination of “confirmation bias” (choosing only facts/things that support of view) and “cognitive dissonance” (ignoring facts/things that contradict our view).
"You can't learn when you're certain you're right." I think she's talking to me. Dammit.
Nor can one learn believing to already know