Skeptic » eSkeptic » March 25, 2015

The Skeptics Society & Skeptic magazine


THE VILLAGE EFFECT: How Face-to-Face Contact Can Make Us Healthier, Happier, and Smarter

Sun., Mar. 29, 2015 at 2 pm
Baxter Hall, Caltech

Dr. Susan Pinker (photo by Susie Lowe)

Credit: Susie Lowe

IN THIS ENTERTAINING AND PERSUASIVE LECTURE based on her new book, psychologist Susan Pinker shows how face-to-face contact is crucial for learning, happiness, resilience, and longevity. From birth to death, human beings are hardwired to connect to other human beings. Face-to-face contact matters: tight bonds of friendship and love heal us, help children learn, extend our lives, and make us happy. Looser in-person bonds matter, too, combining with our close relationships to form a personal “village” around us. Not just any social networks will do: we need the real, in-the-flesh encounters that tie human families, groups of friends, and communities together. Marrying the findings of the new field of social neuroscience with gripping human stories, Susan Pinker explores the impact of face-to-face contact from cradle to grave, from city to Sardinian mountain village, from classroom to workplace, from love to marriage to divorce. Creating our own “village effect” makes us happier. It can also save our lives.

A book signing will follow the lecture. We will have copies of the book, The Village Effect: How Face-to-Face Contact Can Make Us Healthier, Happier, and Smarter , available for purchase. Can’t attend the lecture? Order The Village Effect online.

TICKETS are available first come, first served at the door. Seating is limited. $10 for Skeptics Society members and the JPL/Caltech community, $15 for nonmembers. Your admission fee is a donation that pays for our lecture expenses.

Read about other
upcoming lectures

Donald Prothero
Annus Mirabilis

Donald Prothero celebrates a century of the geological revolution of Alfred Wegener’s theory of continental drift.

Read the Insight

Mike McRae
A Token Thought for the Ancient
Seeds of Science

Mike McRae describes how the development of Ionian coinage may have provided a metaphorical scaffold for considering an economics of nature—a rules-based system, upon which science is built.

Read the Insight

Daniel Loxton
The Masked Debunkery of
Captain Disillusion!

Daniel Loxton shares the most recent viral video debunking from skeptical YouTuber "Captain Disillusion."

Read the Insight

james Krupa
Defending Darwin

This episode marks the 250th episode of Skepticality. The 10th Anniversary of the show is coming up very soon! Derek announces where you can see the 10th anniversary episode, in person, when it is recorded. Later, he joins evolutionary biology professor Jim Krupa to discuss his latest article which was recently published in Orion magazine. Find out more about this award winning science professor and defender of evolution.

Skepticality (the Official Podcast App of Skeptic Magazine) is available on the App Store
Skepticality (the Official Podcast App of Skeptic Magazine) is available at Amazon for Android
Skepticality (the Official Podcast App of Skeptic Magazine) is available on Windows Store

Get the Skepticality App — the Official Podcast App of Skeptic Magazine and the Skeptics Society, so you can enjoy your science fix and engaging interviews on the go! Available for iOS, Android, and Windows 8 devices.

About this week’s eSkeptic

In this week’s eSkeptic, Kevin Mccaffree and Anondah Saide present a meta-analysis of peer-reviewed empirical studies that evaluate the success of teaching critical thinking strategies in the classroom. In addition, they discuss some reasons for the limited impact of these strategies.

Dr. Kevin McCaffree is a sociologist of religion and morality. He teaches social psychology and research methods at Chapman University. His current research is on ideological differences among religious non-affiliates.

Anondah Saide is a graduate student in the psychology department at the University of California, Riverside. She works in the Childhood Cognition Lab at UCR and conducts research under the umbrella of the Cognitive Science of Religion.

This article appeared in Skeptic magazine 19.4: Diet Myths. This issue is available digitally in the Skeptic magazine App, and is sold out in print format.

Why is Critical Thinking
so Hard to Teach?

by Kevin Mccaffree & Anondah Saide

Critical thinking has long been recognized as the vehicle by which individuals make informed decisions. Yet, shockingly little understanding exists of how critical thinking strategies are best diffused to the public. In the U.S. there are several regional grassroots organizations such as the Center for Applied Rationality that exist to encourage the development of critical thinking skills. Strategies are numerous and varied, ranging from straightforward group discussions of cognitive biases to thought experiments designed to improve objectivity and to develop the ability to see things from another’s perspective. In addition to such organizations that target individuals, groups and corporations, many colleges and universities offer classes that teach critical thinking strategies.

The Skeptics Society’s own Skeptical Studies Curriculum Resource Center, informally known as Skepticism 101, provides hundreds of resources from professors across the country actively teaching their own critical thinking courses. The skeptical and secular community feel the high percentage of the general public who believe pseudoscientific claims is worrisome, and education is seen as the means by which believers can be reasoned out of their misconceptions. Indeed, with survey data showing that between 67 and 73 percent of adults in the U.S. subscribe to at least one paranormal belief1, 2 this topic needs empirical clarification.

Education and Paranormal Belief

Unfortunately, the empirical relation between educational attainment in general, and belief in the paranormal (e.g., in ghosts, astrology, telepathy) is a murky one. The results of research on whether education (as measured by number of years of formal education received) decreases belief have been mixed. Sociologist Erich Goode3 has shown that educational attainment doesn’t necessarily reduce belief in supra-empirical ideas, but rather it appears to moderate it. Educated people tend to simply believe different (demonstrably false) things than less educated people. For example, in a study by Tom Rice, college educated individuals were more likely to believe in psychic healing and déjà vu, while those with only a high school education were more likely to believe in traditional religion and astrology.4 The Baylor Religion Survey found that individuals with less than a high school diploma were more likely to have consulted a psychic, while college graduates were more likely to claim an out-of-body experience.1 This suggests that rather than decreasing belief, education influences the nature of the beliefs a person holds (e.g., belief in homeopathy v. astrology).

Critical Thinking and Paranormal Belief

Given that educational attainment in general is not a prophylactic against holding supernatural or paranormal ideas, researchers have zeroed in on critical thinking training. However, research on critical thinking indicates that current training strategies in general do not necessarily decrease belief in the supernatural. An Austrian study that utilized both the Cornell Critical Thinking Test and Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal found no significant relation between these measures and belief in the paranormal. On the other hand, there is some evidence showing that individuals with an analytical cognitive style subscribe to distinctly less conventional views of God (e.g., deistic, pantheistic).5 Other research has shown that individuals usually endorse supernatural beliefs simply because of a perceived consensus among others that these beliefs are, in fact, justified.6, 7 Thus, individuals may not necessarily—or at least consistently—engage their critical faculties in the assessment of supernatural beliefs; they may evaluate only the probability of their truth given the beliefs of others in their environment, and choose to believe (or not) on that basis.

Read more great articles like this one in Skeptic magazine 19.4: Diet Myths. This issue is available digitally in the Skeptic magazine App, and is sold out in print format.

This paper provides some evidence in support of the view that critical thinking may be as social as it is psychological. For the most part teaching critical thinking has focused on imparting specific cognitive skills to an individual thinker. What many critical thinking seminars and college courses overlook is the role of “fitting in”—critical thought may be as much about avoiding judgment and punishment from others as it is about the deployment of some “toolbox” of thinking strategies.

Despite the commonly held view that being aware of our cognitive biases is useful in combating faulty thinking, we argue that critical thinking is not strictly a cognitive issue. Too much focus on the psychological aspects that influence critical thinking may obscure the role played by a strong need to be social and to fit in. We present a meta-analysis that combines the results of multiple peer-reviewed studies published over the last several decades that evaluate the success of teaching critical thinking strategies in the classroom. In addition, we discuss some reasons for their limited impact.

Data and Methods

The purpose of this research is to consider the effectiveness of college courses in reducing belief in the paranormal and supernatural. These courses all had one or more of the following primary objectives: (1) to teach what science is, (2) to teach how to distinguish science from pseudoscience, and/or (3) how to think critically about new information. Our search criteria included peer-reviewed empirical studies that: (1) measured belief in the paranormal pre- and post-course content, (2) took place at a university or college within the United States, and (3) in most cases, also measured critical thinking pre- and postcourse content. One caveat to this last criterion is that although the critical thinking tests used were not the same across studies (e.g., Cornell Critical Thinking Test v. Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal) they were all administered for the same purpose (i.e., to measure critical thinking) and have been independently statistically validated by other empirical work.

Each of the courses utilized in these studies took a slightly different approach and placed a different degree of emphasis on various paranormal phenomena. For example, course titles included: “Parapsychology,” “Science & Pseudoscience,” “Paranormal Phenomena,” “Paranormal Statistics,” “Research Methods in Psychology,” and “Psychology of Critical Thinking.” Researchers from each study gave students a survey to measure their belief in the paranormal (e.g., using the Paranormal Belief Scale) before and after exposure to the course content. Although research exists on the relation between critical thinking and religious belief8, we were more interested in how successful college level courses specifically designed to increase critical thinking were in decreasing belief in the paranormal (though “traditional religious beliefs” is one of seven subcategories measured in the Paranormal Belief Scale [PBS]9 that many researchers use).

We were able to collect statistics for only eight courses10 that measured the magnitude and direction of the change in paranormal belief. No other studies matched the search criteria listed above. Of the courses that did match, most had been taken by psychology undergraduates, and the studies contained significance tests to determine if paranormal belief scores changed in a statistically significant way after students were exposed to the course content. Basically they asked the question “Did the students’ general belief in paranormal phenomena decline?” In five out of those eight studies, critical thinking was also measured both pre- and postcourse.11 The significance tests in these studies answered the additional question: “Did the students’ critical thinking scores increase?” We were most interested to see if belief in the paranormal decreased along with an increase in critical thinking ability. With the few studies that met our criteria we conducted meta-analytic procedures that converted the significance tests to correlations between the pre- and post-scores. This allowed us to combine and contrast the studies as well as ascertain the strength of the relation between the preand post-change in scores.


The first set of analyses explored whether or not these courses decreased students’ paranormal belief. The second set examined whether or not critical thinking scores increased.

First, the average effect size associated with a change in level of belief in paranormal phenomena pre- and post-course content was r=.67 which is very high, and statistically significant. The students’ purported belief in the paranormal declined significantly and substantially from the time they started the course to the time it ended. The reduction in paranormal belief was so significant that over 200 studies showing no such relationship would need to exist in order for these results to be statistically questionable.12 Therefore, it appears that these courses decrease purported belief, at least in the short term.

On the other hand, the average effect size associated with a change in critical thinking, as opposed to paranormal belief pre- and post-course content was r=.08. This tiny correlation wasn’t statistically significant—that is, this effect may well have shown up by mere chance. Taken together, we find that although students’ paranormal beliefs decline by the end of a course, their actual ability to think critically exhibits no corresponding increase. This suggests that they did not abandon paranormal beliefs because they became better critical thinkers.

It also suggests there may be other variables lurking here: tribal identity and social inclusion.

The Social Dimension of Critical Thinking

There are several reasons why students may report decreased levels of paranormal belief despite little or no increase in critical thinking. First, a caveat. It is possible that these students have actually employed their new critical thinking “toolkits” in the service of reducing paranormal beliefs, and that, for whatever reason, this increase simply wasn’t picked up in post-testing. However, this is highly unlikely to have occurred consistently across five studies. What more likely occurred is what we suggested above—a reduction in paranormal belief without any parallel increase in critical thinking ability.

Social Mechanisms

Why did paranormal beliefs decrease across these studies without an increase in critical thinking? We suggest three social mechanisms. First, the content of these courses might have raised more cognitive dissonance for some individuals than typical course content in psychology and philosophy. Calling upon students in an introductory course to question their “sacred” views on karma, astrology, spiritual healing and the like is probably more emotionally complicated than learning about Freud or Socrates. As a result, students may disengage from the course (consciously or not) and experience something akin to apathy. They may report a decrease in paranormal belief simply because they know this is what the course was designed to do. And they want to avoid the discomfort created by the introduction of conflicting new material— they just don’t want to think about it. While it seems desirable that they reported that their belief in the paranormal has declined that may be entirely motivated by apathy, due to a mildly uncomfortable social environment (in this case, the course and the classroom).

A second social mechanism might be fear of group exclusion. A classroom (or critical thinking “workshop”) is intrinsically hierarchical. In these instances, a leader (e.g., professor or organizer) disseminates knowledge about how to think to a group of students, who are expected to understand the information and internalize it as true. In this kind of social environment, hierarchies are rigid—there is a teacher and there are learners. In such a setting, self-reported beliefs may not be reliable if they simply reflect fear of reprisal or punishment for disagreeing with the views of the teacher and class. Fear of punishment or of ostracism may motivate students to report lower levels of paranormal belief at the end of the class. They may also be motivated by a powerful need for social inclusion, acceptance, and rewards—to “fit in” with a class that, it is assumed, tacitly endorses the professors’ views as the correct ones. Unlike the socially-induced apathy described above, fear of social exclusion may actually be sufficient to change the beliefs of students. Fear of reprisal or punishment may be enough to motivate genuine belief change. But such a belief change would be emotionally motivated, without the need for developing a critical thinking “toolbox.”

The third social mechanism is related to the second. In social environments with a rigid hierarchy (such as classrooms or workshops), students might report reduced beliefs in the paranormal simply due to an appeal to the authority of the hierarchy. That is, students might report lower levels of paranormal belief because they believe authority figures in general (i.g., professors) tend to be correct, whether or not the student understands the reasons for this (i.e., the professor’s supposed superior level of critical thinking). The appeal to authority is also a social environment mechanism because the professor is almost always the sole authority in the environment. If classrooms had two professors instead of one, and each had a different opinion about the validity of paranormal beliefs students might have responded differently. Again, it isn’t necessary that students learn to think critically in order to jettison supernatural beliefs. They could simply be responding to a generalized trust of authority figures.

If any one of the above mechanisms is operating in these classrooms or workshops, student belief in the paranormal will likely return to its original level as soon as they are removed from: (1) an environment that makes them apathetic, (2) an environment that ties critical thinking to social inclusion, or (3) an environment that contains an authority figure who promotes critical thinking about paranormal beliefs. Thus observed decreases in paranormal belief among students who take courses aimed at increasing critical thinking may be real in the short term, but not in the long term. Further study is required to understand how best to teach critical thinking that more permanently reduces belief in the paranormal and supernatural. END

  1. Bader, Christopher, F. Carson Mencken, and Joseph O. Baker, 2009. Paranormal America: Ghost Encounters, UFO Sightings, Bigfoot Hunts, and Other Curiosities in Religion and Culture. New York, NY: New York University Press.
  2. Moore, David W. 2005. “Three in Four Americans Believe in Paranormal: Little Changes from Similar Results in 2001.” Gallup News Service.
  3. Goode, Erich. 2011. The Paranormal: Who Believes, Why They Believe, and Why it Matters. NY: Prometheus Books.
  4. Rice, Tom W. 2003. “Believe It or Not: Religious and Other Paranormal Beliefs in the United States.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42(1).
  5. See, for example, Pennycook, Gordon, James Allan Cheyne, Paul Seli, Derek J. Koehler, and Jonathan A. Fugelsang. 2012. “Analytic Cognitive Style Predicts Religious and Paranormal Belief.” Cognition 123, no. 3: 335–346.
  6. Shtulman, 2013. “Epistemic Similarities Between Students’ Scientific and Supernatural Beliefs.” Journal of Educational Psychology 105(1).
  7. Gilovich, Thomas. 1991. How We Know What Isn’t So: The Fallibility of Reason in Everyday Life. New York: Free Press.
  8. For example, see work by Gordon Pennycook.
  9. A Revised Paranormal Belief Scale
  10. Based on the following studies (for a full reference list email authors): (1) Benziger, 1984, (2) Burke, Sears, Kraus,& Roberts-Cady, 2014, (3) Manza, Hilperts, Hindley, Marco, Santana, & Hawk, 2010, (4) McLean, & Miller, 2010, (5) Morier, & Keeports, 1994, and (6) Stark, 2012.
  11. Two of the studies did not measure critical thinking in addition to paranormal beliefs and a third study was an outlier.
  12. A “fail-safe N” was calculated to determine how many subsequent studies with a finding of no effect must exist. Our fail-safe N equaled approximately 242.



  1. Bad Boy Scientist says:

    After reading that article on critical thinking I have a few comments:

    1) So, people _know how_ to think critically but they do not always do so. Not much of a surprise. People know how to exercise but don’t always do so. There are a lot of things people know how to do but don’t.

    2) Critical thinking has a cost – and that cost can exceed the cost of believing something wrong. It takes time and effort to carefully weigh all evidence in hand to make decisions. NO ONE does this for all decisions. There are far too many decisions. If the consequences of making a bad decision are less than the cost of making a decision through rigorous critical thinking then why sweat it? If someone’s belief in Bigfoot or Aliens or Adam Sandler’s talent doesn’t cost them anything then maybe that belief doesn’t tell us anything about them. In fact, the cost of believing in Big Foot is far, far less than the cost of doing a thorough literature search and weighing all of the evidence (including evaluating the reputation of each person claiming expertise).

    3) Critical thinking in and of itself is worthless without the relevant background knowledge. If critical thinking were sufficient we wouldn’t need to give Ph.D.s in biology and Chemistry and Physics – just one program in Critical Thinking could produce all of the scientists and scholars humanity needs. To think critically about Big Foot requires a lot of background knowledge (and if you just accept some skeptic’s word for that background knowledge you AREN’T thinking critically – you are just pushing back your thoughtless acceptance one level)

    4) If you really want to test a person’s critical thinking ability then don’t talk about ghost or demons, try to rip them off. Offer them a 2014 Porsche in mint condition for $2000 … see if they look for a catch! Now, _that_ is a test of critical thinking!

  2. Lynne Daniels says:

    Not only is education not a prophylactic against a lack of critical thinking, that might be a feature, not a bug. Education in the USA is based on the Prussian model, which was supposedly designed to actively DIScourage critical thinking. The Conspiracy Theory is, generations of American students were deliberately subjected to “education” meant to make them docile, punctual, fearful of standing up to authority and against the group, and not capable of doing much but mindless, repetitious work for hours on end with minimal complaint. The perfect factory workers…Too bad the US economy no longer has much use for factory workers. So goes the Conspiracy Theory, at least.

    As for the Paranormal belief questionnaire in the e mail…Eh. I think many of the questions are poorly worded, with a lot of unanswered assumptions which the questioned is REALLY being asked . For example, take #10. Witches do exist. What’s really being asked is, Witches do exist [and they really have supernatural powers]. Of course witches exist; in my crappy little town of 20,000 people I can buy books at the local bookstore with titles like Witchcraft For the Solitary Practitioner or Love Spells. So do I say No to question 10 or Yes? Am I answering the stated question or the unspoken one?

    Ditto for 3. Of course black magic exists; anyone can go to Amazon and buy books on how to cast curses and hexes. The question is really asking the implied unstated [-and it has power to create bad luck.])

    As for 24 : Same thing. “Real cases of witchcraft” certainly exist; Hell, in major cities covens probably advertise for new members in the local ‘alternative’ paper! These covens get together for ceremonial group magic-but again, the unstated question is , that there’s real power in magic spells (rather than that all the spells cast in the world haven’t produced enough power to boil an egg, to paraphrase Arthur Clarke.)

    And number 1 : Shouldn’t that question ‘The soul continues to exist though the body may die’ be divided into 2 separate questions, 1.There is something called a soul and 2.This soul exists independently from the body and can survive death? Let’s establish whether the questioned believes in a soul before subjecting him to a double barreled question about its properties!

    And 20 :There is life on other planets. There is no proof of life on other known planets at this time, but I would not feel comfortable answering yes or no to that question. It’s unprovable.

    I suppose some will call these quibbles, but I first ran across the questionnaire in Bader’s Paranormal America (a book I highly recommend BTW), and I found too many of the questions irritatingly worded … But at least this article, like Bader et al’s book, doesn’t commit the common triumphalist error of dividing people into ‘educated=intelligent’ and ‘uneducated=stupid and superstitious’. I believe that error has more political implications than many of us care to admit (take a look at the comments on articles posted to both liberal/progressive/Democratic sites and at conservative/libertarian/Republican sites, and you’ll see what I mean… )

    • Bob Pease says:

      Maybe the “test” is meant to spot the lack of critical thinking in the test questions??


      • Ray Madison says:

        We should, if we could, limit the critical thinkers to a select few and then select a few other “logical” thinkers that would be left free to advise us when they spotted an area of the supernatural that with both newer and re-examined evidence had been logically determined to be natural. As has more recently been done with the discovery of intelligent evolution.

    • Roy Niles says:

      It’s highly probable that there’s life on other planets because even if there isn’t, there should be, and we’ll never know for sure that there isn’t. However, that depends on the acceptable definition of probable in a world that may have had its future predetermined.
      And further depends on the proper use of trial and error thinking to determine probabilities for the short term that either will or won’t peter out in the more or less likely long term. And now as to whether accidents had initially produced intelligence, is it not possible that it’s not impossible?

      • Ray Madison says:

        Nothing isn’t possible.

        • Roy Niles says:

          Are you trying to say that intelligence can come from accidents because it can’t come from nothing? If so, then where did accidents come from? How do you know they’ve not been intelligently intended mistakes?
          Reminding me to ask: Do critical thinkers look for intelligent mistakes? As according to this article they only seem to look for unintelligent certainties.

  3. brad tittle says:

    Bad Boy Scientist & Lynn Daniels: Two people now on my list of “People who get it!”

    A friend and I both went through Nuclear Power School. He went back and taught at the school. They don’t quite teach critical thinking at NPS. They teach procedure and why the procedures are there. The goal is to make as many of the people inside the Engineering Spaces cognizant of what is going on to keep the vehicle they are in moving forward and to be aware of why not moving forward is a really bad thing.

    That doesn’t mean that they don’t want the people to think critically though. The procedure method works and gets many more people to the Engineering Spaces than trying to create critical thinkers. Evidence some might say of the Prussian Model in action. My friend watched the people he taught. His off the cuff comment on this was “Maybe 1 in 50 students will get it and make the leap beyond the procedures!”

    There is a huge need for people who can read and follow a procedure. Critical thought on the other hand is a mixed blessing. Sometimes stupidity keeps things going forward and illumination causes things to come to a stop. The boat goes down if you come to a stop.

    The boat does not stop. (Suddenly the movie “Snowpiercer” has more context.)

  4. brad tittle says:

    @Bad Boy Scientist — The background needed to discuss things like Big Foot and Global Climate Change is great. The bounds of a comment section are never big enough to try express the knowledge. If a critical thinker wants to chase big foot, I am not going to tell him he isn’t thinking critically. If he gets caught wearing a fir suit with stilts, I will put him into a different category of person. This does not mean he isn’t thinking critically though.

    I recently ran into a concept being taught in math from 1st grade that made me pause. Estimation. It is like critical thought. You don’t just start with estimation. The Prussian Method reigns again. Except it isn’t the prussian method so much as the “try and get the fundamentals in place before you pile on more advanced concepts”. Estimation is a great tool to have. It is not fundamental.

    Watching some of the gyrations people are going through to either defend or attack Common Core math is a clear signal both sides can be a little bit daft. Both sides get the math. Both sides seem to miss the leaps imputed into both the old school methods and the new school methods. We want the best for the kids. We want them to learn as quickly as they can. Trying to explain how both sides are wrong is awkward because I can’t point at the exact problem. My answer is to dump a pile of bricks in front of the kid and start with “show me 1 block!”

    That one block is the first step down the process of critical thinking.

    It can also be the first step down the process to making a numerologist.

    If that person as a numerologist can feed, clothe, sire, etc, is he a failure?

    If the person can think critically, is he a success?

  5. Richard says:

    Another question is why people fight thinking so desperately or make errors they themselves know are errors. Even Michael Shermer, in his Skepticism 101 course for the Great Courses gives good rules of thought in the first few lectures and then relies upon the fallacy of the majority later in the course to support a proposition he is arguing. I am not criticizing him in the observation, in fact, I admire him, but I am pointing out how truly difficult constant critical thinking is.

  6. Pat Dunlap says:

    Interesting comments. Refusing to think critically is, indeed, much like rejecting physical exercise since critical thinking is mental exercise. It takes time, mental calisthenics, and information, but it generally steers one to decisions that are far more correct and, therefore, useful than those made without the effort to think critically. Critical thinking has never been meant to be the end-all of education, but the pathway to creative originality. One should understand how to analyze ideas and situations in order to develop a complete understanding of one’s academic field. That is not meant to be a substitute for knowledge of the content of that field. Students of chemistry must still learn the Periodic Table. Students of history must learn dates and dynasties. At the same time, if they do nothing but memorize, they’ll never understand their fields in ways that allow them to be creative and to discover “newness” within their endeavors.

  7. Christopher Bonds says:

    An interesting article. If I read it correctly, it seems that what they actually found was not that critical thinking skills did not improve, but that there was not a significant correlation between reduction in paranormal beliefs and increased critical thinking skills. And on that basis they suggest that social factors may be responsible for the lack of correlation.

    I was also conscious of the fact that the courses they looked at seemed specifically geared toward scientific skepticism of the paranormal, which is great–we need much more of that! However, I think that courses designed to develop across-the-board critical thinking, which focus not only on scientific reasoning but also on the virtues of intellectual autonomy and intellectual integrity are at least as necessary in order to get at some of the more recalcitrant underpinnings of irrational thinking.

  8. awc says:

    It is not a single course that has people critically thinking. Although I guess it could provide the epiphany.

    Likely we require a series of insights and recurring supporting circumstances that nudge people towards critical thinking.

  9. Jenny H says:

    One of the
    joys of life can be playing “Devil’s Advocate” when reading scientific papers. Or silly assertions made by ‘opinionated’ people.

Get eSkeptic

Science in your inbox every Wednesday!

eSkeptic delivers great articles, videos, podcasts, reviews, event announcements, and more to your inbox once a week.

Sign me up!

Donate to Skeptic

Please support the work of the Skeptics Society. Make the world a more rational place and help us defend the role of science in society.

Detecting Baloney

Baloney Detection Kit Sandwich (Infographic) by Deanna and Skylar (High Tech High Media Arts, San Diego, CA)

The Baloney Detection Kit Sandwich (Infographic)

For a class project, a pair of 11th grade physics students created the infographic shown below, inspired by Michael Shermer’s Baloney Detection Kit: a 16-page booklet designed to hone your critical thinking skills.

FREE Video Series

Science Based Medicine vs. Alternative Medicine

Science Based Medicine vs. Alternative Medicine

Understanding the difference could save your life! In this superb 10-part video lecture series, Harriet Hall, M.D., contrasts science-based medicine with so-called “complementary and alternative” methods. The lectures each range from 32 to 45 minutes.

FREE PDF Download

Top 10 Myths of Terrorism

Is Terrorism an Existential Threat?

This free booklet reveals 10 myths that explain why terrorism is not a threat to our way of life or our survival.

FREE PDF Download

The Top 10 Weirdest Things

The Top Ten Strangest Beliefs

Michael Shermer has compiled a list of the top 10 strangest beliefs that he has encountered in his quarter century as a professional skeptic.

FREE PDF Download

Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future (paperback cover)

Who believes them? Why? How can you tell if they’re true?

What is a conspiracy theory, why do people believe in them, and why do they tend to proliferate? Why does belief in one conspiracy correlate to belief in others? What are the triggers of belief, and how does group identity factor into it? How can one tell the difference between a true conspiracy and a false one?

FREE PDF Download

The Science Behind Why People See Ghosts

The Science Behind Why People See Ghosts

Do you know someone who has had a mind altering experience? If so, you know how compelling they can be. They are one of the foundations of widespread belief in the paranormal. But as skeptics are well aware, accepting them as reality can be dangerous…

FREE PDF Download

Top 10 Myths About Evolution

Top 10 Myths About Evolution (and how we know it really happened)

If humans came from apes, why aren’t apes evolving into humans? Find out in this pamphlet!

FREE PDF Download

Learn to be a Psychic in 10 Easy Lessons

Learn to do Psychic “Cold Reading” in 10
Easy Lessons

Psychic readings and fortunetelling are an ancient art — a combination of acting and psychological manipulation.

Copyright © 1992–2017. All rights reserved. The Skeptics Society | P.O. Box 338 | Altadena, CA, 91001 | 1-626-794-3119. Privacy Policy.