# Bullshit (Teaching Skepticism in Schools) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 25, 2017, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bullshit-teaching-skepticism-in-schools/780689 "2017-02-25T02:45:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2017, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bullshit-teaching-skepticism-in-schools/780689/41 "2017-03-10T13:10:21Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > A biology professor told us that some of what he was teaching us would likely one day be shown to be incorrect. He stressed he wanted to teach us _how_ rather than _what_ to think. Ditto for me as a World and Peruvian history teacher. It’s always “this is what we know NOW” but 20 years ago we thought differently. Recognising bias in sources is something I stress. Teaching skepticism doesn’t work, it’s like teaching values. No ammount of direct teaching is as valuable as the you convey them through your teaching. Your example as a teacher is THE most important thing you have for soft skills. If a student brings up, when I’m teaching the Space Race, “the moon landing was a hoax” it’s the moment to do some bullshit-detectin’ and, because it came from them and not from the teacher, they like it and take it much better. But if you start a weekly lesson for three years of CT, they zone out. ---
**Author:** ![shiftless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9c0ed/32.png) [@shiftless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shiftless)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2017, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bullshit-teaching-skepticism-in-schools/780689/42 "2017-03-10T13:14:23Z")
At some point skepticism becomes inefficient and even paralyzing. There has to be a limit the time and effort each of puts into any given topic before we accept what we have and move on. Otherwise we would be stuck discussing this subject forever. This is perfect example. I’ve heard the story (Wasn’t it a Seinfeld episode?), might have thought ‘huh, that seems crazy,’ then moved on. I’d already spent more brain space and time on the topic than it deserves and now I’m back thinking about it again. Whatever the truth of the matter, the result for 99.9% of us is the same, isn’t it? Certainly critical thinking should be taught earlier and more often but Sagan’s Baloney detection device, while very interesting, seems like a heavy hammer for each of us to apply to every topic that comes up throughout the day. Halfway through article I began to question his authority, look for confirmation of his ideas and for other hypothesis on boloney. Never made it to the end. ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2017, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bullshit-teaching-skepticism-in-schools/780689/43 "2017-03-11T15:43:10Z")
In 1937 Aldous Huxley (“Ends and Means”) proposed teaching skepticism to arm children against commercial puffery. To get children’s attention the course has to be relevant. That is likely to get the instructor in deep trouble. Stuff like: Give a quick review of the punishments for heresy then have children analyze Christian love Have each child analyze an irrational argument given by a parent Analyze the flood myth Analyze the tweeted statements of President Trump Analyze the benefits and dangers of premarital sex Such topics might overcome the window shade effect but I doubt the teacher could survive the wrath of parents. Crane ---
**Author:** ![sear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sear)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2017, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bullshit-teaching-skepticism-in-schools/780689/44 "2017-03-11T17:28:22Z")
a) Thanks er for the topic. b) There are several important insights already posted, including your own er #8. It’s not merely that we “should” spend years at it; but instead that: - half the people you know are below average, and - the slower, below average ones are the ones that’ll need it most; yet likely take the longest to learn it. Critical, objective analysis is a valuable skill. If you want it, get an advanced degree in engineering. But that kind of skill would be difficult to integrate into high school curricula. I believe if it had been our education standard for a few decades already, Donald Trump would never have gotten the Republican nomination. So the capacity to analyze critically and objectively may actually help determine the fate of our nation. It’s not merely the rationality of our electorate. It’s the competence of our airmen, the ones that fly the planes that keep us safe. It’s the workers Microsoft hires to %$#@ up our computers. In this 3rd Millennium, naïvety is not the People’s most likely recipe for prosperity. For us to continue to compete successfully, we’re chasing a moving target. Our competition continues to get better and better and better. If we fall behind, cascade failure will lower our standard of living compared to them. It’s sink, or swim. ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2017, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bullshit-teaching-skepticism-in-schools/780689/45 "2017-03-11T19:40:50Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > Which got me to thinking (again), should our schools teach bullshit? That is, not disseminate invalid information, but require courses in recognizing nonsense. Am I naive to assume that that is already what education in any subject is all about, or should be? You could always start with this website on the effects of [Dihydrogen Monoxide](http://www.dhmo.org/) ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2017, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bullshit-teaching-skepticism-in-schools/780689/46 "2017-03-11T19:55:54Z")
The false “pencil” meme is also illustrative of the true Soviet approach to their space program, using the same hardware for multiple purposes, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2017, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bullshit-teaching-skepticism-in-schools/780689/47 "2017-03-11T20:32:40Z")
In the Logic course I took at San Jose State I was given a list of seven arguments of irrelevance as a guide to things to avoid. A couple of weeks later I was given the same list (different wording) in my public speaking class as a guide to things to use to convince your audience. Do we teach bullshit in our schools? Yes. Crane ---
**Author:** ![sear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sear)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2017, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bullshit-teaching-skepticism-in-schools/780689/48 "2017-03-12T01:08:09Z")
ED #45 Is this an allusion to the U.S. r&d drive to develop a pen that ended up costing $hundreds of $thousands, to get a pen the NASA astronauts could use while in orbit, while the cosmonauts used pencils? I’ve heard the story. I don’t know if it’s true or not. BUT!! I believe the story about the Reagan / Gorbachev summit in Reykjavik. The U.S.’ photo-copier broke down, so the Soviets loaned the U.S. team some carbon paper. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2017, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bullshit-teaching-skepticism-in-schools/780689/49 "2017-03-12T01:38:30Z")
> [@sear](#): > > ED #45 > > Is this an allusion to the U.S. r&d drive to develop a pen that ended up costing $hundreds of $thousands, to get a pen the NASA astronauts could use while in orbit, > while the cosmonauts used pencils? > I’ve heard the story. I don’t know if it’s true or not. [Not](http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp). > [@](#): > > BUT!! > > I believe the story about the Reagan / Gorbachev summit in Reykjavik. > The U.S.’ photo-copier broke down, so the Soviets loaned the U.S. team some carbon paper. [Ludicrous](https://books.google.com/books?id=JQGHqScEFtoC&pg=PA263&lpg=PA263&dq=Reykjavik+photocopier+carbon+paper.&source=bl&ots=X8VrzXIXA0&sig=rww5OEIF4zx_KdRx4rCgiWEBqw8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiuhcTM6c_SAhUo2IMKHSR-A-kQ6AEIPjAI#v=onepage&q=Reykjavik%20photocopier%20carbon%20paper.&f=false). ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2017, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bullshit-teaching-skepticism-in-schools/780689/50 "2017-03-12T01:47:36Z")
> [@shiftless](#): > > At some point skepticism becomes inefficient and even paralyzing. There has to be a limit the time and effort each of puts into any given topic before we accept what we have and move on. Otherwise we would be stuck discussing this subject forever. Of course. One of the central goals in training young people in The Art of Doubt would be to teach them to find the balance between accepting just any wild-ass claim at face value vs. being crippled by skepticism. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2017, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bullshit-teaching-skepticism-in-schools/780689/51 "2017-03-12T02:01:00Z")
> [@sear](#): > > ED #45 > > Is this an allusion to the U.S. r&d drive to develop a pen that ended up costing $hundreds of $thousands, to get a pen the NASA astronauts could use while in orbit, > while the cosmonauts used pencils? > I’ve heard the story. I don’t know if it’s true or not. > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > [Not](http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp). And of course, a pencil is perhaps not the best substitute because it creates minuscule graphite shavings, and as anyone who has spilled potato chips in zero G will tell you, it’ll clog the instruments! ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2017, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bullshit-teaching-skepticism-in-schools/780689/52 "2017-03-12T20:24:42Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > In the Logic course I took at San Jose State I was given a list of seven arguments of irrelevance as a guide to things to avoid. A couple of weeks later I was given the same list (different wording) in my public speaking class as a guide to things to use to convince your audience. > > Do we teach bullshit in our schools? > Yes. This raises an important point, namely: there are individuals–and more importantly, powerful entities such as corporations and governments–who _directly benefit_ when the populace is ignorant of such topics as bullshit detection, fallacious arguments, and taking a critical approach to evaluating the pronouncements of authorities. As Trump said: “I love the poorly-educated.” The fact that the powerful benefit from the ignorance of the masses is why any movement to teach skepticism in schools is probably doomed to failure. That doesn’t mean that efforts to promote the idea are valueless, of course: it’s good to point out the means by which we are manipulated. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2017, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bullshit-teaching-skepticism-in-schools/780689/53 "2017-03-12T21:00:21Z")
I think the question is somewhat misstated. “Skepticism” just means refusing to accept assertions without sufficient evidence, but there is also the essential converse: the need to accept truths in the presence of sufficient evidence. The essential skill here isn’t being skeptical of everything, it’s critical thinking. And that just seems to come from general education, and not from any particular directed learning. People who are educated tend to have two basic discriminatory capabilities in regard to bullshit. One is the ability to distinguish between credible sources and bullshit sources. Credible examples: National Academy of Sciences, major peer-reviewed journals like _Nature_; non-credible examples: Breitbart, Facebook feeds from your friend’s sister’s uncle. The other is a sufficient grasp of the basics about most factual issues that crazy claims stand out like red flags and demand the highest standards of credibility and evidence to even be taken seriously. The absence of those basic discriminatory capabilities is why people believe in ghosts and UFOs, the lies of politicians, economic fantasies that favor the dominant power base, religious superstitions, and of course the awesomely fine-tuned secret global conspiracy of the climate change hoax. ---
**Author:** ![Gukumatz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/74df32/32.png) [@Gukumatz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gukumatz)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2017, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bullshit-teaching-skepticism-in-schools/780689/54 "2017-03-13T07:53:43Z")
I’d like to see such a course presented in the same way as maths was presented to me as a kid. A short theoretical lecture on how to work a formula, then extensive coursework using that formula, then a longer theoretical lecture on what exactly we were doing with that formula, how it worked and what practical uses we could find for it in our non-academic future. "This week’s coursework will be to analyze three extraordinary claims you find in this newspaper. Your job is to identify those claims, assess their truth value, document it, and prepare to defend that assessment on Tuesday. Remember your sourcing lessons and keep in mind that I will be sitting in class next Tuesday googling exerpts from your hand-ins." ---
**Author:** ![sear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sear)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2017, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bullshit-teaching-skepticism-in-schools/780689/55 "2017-03-13T08:27:39Z")
> [@](#): > > “The fact that the powerful benefit from the ignorance of the masses is why any movement to teach skepticism in schools is probably doomed to failure. That doesn’t mean that efforts to promote the idea are valueless, of course: it’s good to point out the means by which we are manipulated.” S #51 The problem is, they vote. And the result is we end up with a president that gets elected by promising to: “Make America Great Again” It’s quite grim really. None the less, we are obliged to try. And any significant effort should yield significant results, even if we’ll never render 100% of the population geniuses. > [@](#): > > “I think the question is somewhat misstated. “Skepticism” just means refusing to accept assertions without sufficient evidence, but there is also the essential converse: the need to accept truths in the presence of sufficient evidence. The essential skill here isn’t being skeptical of everything, it’s critical thinking.” wp #52 I agree about honing the skill of critical analysis. I’m skeptical about your “essential converse” assertion. For example - anthropogenic global warming: Am I convinced human industry is causing climate change? In truth I don’t know for certain. BUT !! I don’t NEED to know for certain. The science, and the consensus of experts leads me to conclude common sense steps may be reasonable. I think windmills look kind of nice. For the downside, perhaps you can talk to a coal miner. If I’ve missed your point, could you cite an example of an “essential converse”? > [@](#): > > “What I learned in Zen was that all the higher spiritual truths resolve into paradox.” Leo Volont ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2017, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bullshit-teaching-skepticism-in-schools/780689/56 "2017-03-13T14:39:08Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The problem is that most people forget everything they learn in school. I know there is a meme going around that if only we educated people properly, they wouldn’t do stupid things like vote for Trump, but that’s not the way it works in the real world. I think you meant to say “liberal” instead of “for Trump”. Perfect example of the statement. ---
**Author:** ![sear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sear)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2017, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bullshit-teaching-skepticism-in-schools/780689/57 "2017-03-13T14:43:13Z")
PS Whether teaching it in school is debatable. But where it is learned may be secondary to that it is learned. U.S. government provide some modest $help to conduits like PBS & NPR. President Trump seems intent on reducing government, perhaps including helping to fund these enterprises. Should government funding for them be: - kept unchanged? - decreased or eliminated? - increased, & if so by how much. Why? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2017, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bullshit-teaching-skepticism-in-schools/780689/58 "2017-03-13T22:51:28Z")
> [@sear](#): > > I agree about honing the skill of critical analysis. > > I’m skeptical about your “essential converse” assertion. > > For example - anthropogenic global warming: > Am I convinced human industry is causing climate change? In truth I don’t know for certain. > > BUT !! > > I don’t NEED to know for certain. The science, and the consensus of experts leads me to conclude common sense steps may be reasonable … You’re right, you don’t need to know for certain in terms of personally knowing many of the technical details about AGW. What you do need – what society needs from our voters and other decision makers – are the two key skills I mentioned before: the ability to distinguish between credible sources and bullshit sources, and a sufficient grasp of the basics about most factual issues to be able recognize obvious, stupid, non-credible lies and bullshit. We are awash in lies and bullshit and it’s just amazing what so many people believe, and conversely, of facts (AGW, that 9/11 was a real terrorist attack the destroyed the WTC, that men landed on the moon, that life on this planet evolved) that they refuse to believe. Let’s look closely at two of your comments, for instance. You say you “don’t know for certain” whether human industry is causing (one should say “is a major factor in”) recent climate change. But how on earth could you, personally, expect to know for certain unless you were devoting a career to studying the question? What possible evidence could you imagine seeing on the basis of casual observation? Clearly, the skills I mention must be applied here: one must have _a sufficient grasp of the basics_ to understand it to be a very complicated area of scientific investigation and not one subject to the whims of personal intuition, and one must have _the ability to distinguish between credible sources and bullshit sources_ so that one’s beliefs are guided by the consensus of expert and impartial scientific opinion. Likewise, you say “The science, and the consensus of experts leads me to conclude common sense steps may be reasonable …”. Fair enough, but here again, the concept of what constitutes justifiable action has to be guided at least in some large measure by quantified objective analysis and not personal intuition. It might, for instance, strike you as too much money to spend a billion dollars on building a seawall or ten billion on replacing a coal-fired power plant and therefore not “common sense”, but if an objective analysis shows a significant risk of ten times that amount in storm damage and health impacts over the next several decades, then your personal intuition of what constitutes “common sense” is only emotionally and not factually relevant. > [@sear](#): > > Whether teaching it in school is debatable. But where it is learned may be secondary to that it is learned. > U.S. government provide some modest $help to conduits like PBS & NPR. > > President Trump seems intent on reducing government, perhaps including helping to fund these enterprises. > > Should government funding for them be: > > - kept unchanged? > - decreased or eliminated? > - increased, & if so by how much. > > Why? Funding should be increased. Because PBS and NPR are credible sources and are more likely to enhance the above-stated goals of a more informed and discriminating voter base which promotes a more functional democracy than a population that spends its time watching _Celebrity Apprentice_. This isn’t mere snark – every advanced democracy on earth spends many times more per capita on public broadcasting than the US does, and often on other media, too, like subsidizing newspapers – all in the aid of a more informed public – and are largely successful in that venture. For anyone who doubts that there is any problem with the public’s factual knowledge or discrimination I would point them to the results of an election held last November 8th whose results most of the world still regards as some combination of farcical and tragic. ---
**Author:** ![standingwave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@standingwave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/standingwave)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2017, 8:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bullshit-teaching-skepticism-in-schools/780689/59 "2017-03-14T08:58:56Z")
> [@Gatopescado](#): > > Huh. I figured 90% of the shit they foisted on me in High School was Bullshit. When I think back On all the crap I learned in high school It’s a wonder I can think at all ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2017, 9:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bullshit-teaching-skepticism-in-schools/780689/60 "2017-03-14T09:21:42Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The whole zero-g pen story has been debunked for a long time. It’s probably symptomatic of something that the OP is only just now hearing of the debunking. Of what, though, I’m not sure. It’s so ancient, I was vaguely worried that the debunking was somehow disproved. The real story itself sounds a little too good to be true–the plucky American capitalist dreams up the perfect pen, funds the research on his own dime, and makes a killing despite charging a fair price (and, of course, selling to anyone that would buy it–including the Soviets). As for the OP: a class on skepticism sounds like a great idea in principle. However, I haven’t noticed that elementary or high school teachers are any more resistant to bullshit than the general public. On the contrary, they seem to be filled with weirdly specific misconceptions, like about how airplane wings work or certain rules of grammar. So I think students might be better served if one started with the teachers. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bullshit-teaching-skepticism-in-schools/780689.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bullshit-teaching-skepticism-in-schools/780689.md?page=4)