Richard Dawkins' cognitive tookit item.

I stumbled upon this and it made me think of some of the threads I've read over the years. Feel free to comment on Mr. Dawkins, who was responding to the Edge.org 2011 question of the year:



http://ift.tt/1rC2qUh

Quote:

Why do half of all Americans believe in ghosts, three quarters believe in angels, a third believe in astrology, three quarters believe in Hell? Why do a quarter of all Americans believe that the President of the United States was born outside the country and is therefore ineligible to be President? Why do more than 40 percent of Americans think the universe began after the domestication of the dog? Let's not give the defeatist answer and blame it all on stupidity. That's probably part of the story, but let's be optimistic and concentrate on something remediable: lack of training in how to think critically, and how to discount personal opinion, prejudice and anecdote, in favour of evidence. I believe that the double-blind control experiment does double duty. It is more than just an excellent research tool. It also has educational, didactic value in teaching people how to think critically. My thesis is that you needn't actually do double-blind control experiments in order to experience an improvement in your cognitive toolkit. You only need to understand the principle, grasp why it is necessary, and revel in its elegance. If all schools taught their pupils how to do a double-blind control experiment, our cognitive toolkits would be improved in the following ways: 1. We would learn not to generalize from anecdotes. 2. We would learn how to assess the likelihood that an apparently important effect might have happened by chance alone. 3. We would learn how extremely difficult it is to eliminate subjective bias, and that subjective bias does not imply dishonesty or venality of any kind. This lesson goes deeper. It has the salutary effect of undermining respect for authority, and respect for personal opinion. 4. We would learn not to be seduced by homeopaths and other quacks and charlatans, who would consequently be put out of business. 5. We would learn critical and skeptical habits of thought more generally, which not only would improve our cognitive toolkit but might save the world.