Iksorod and I made a Google doc of intro-level training materials for rationality / critical thinking. We'll keep adding to it as we find more stuff. Please comment with your own additions.
Iksorod and I made a Google doc of intro-level training materials for rationality / critical thinking. We'll keep adding to it as we find more stuff. Please comment with your own additions.
What about this recommendation from the here be dragons video?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Demon-Haunted_World
I'd recommend linking to the main Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast, as well as their "5x5" podcast (which is currently linked to). Most weeks some common fallacy or cognitive bias is mentioned (usually in connection with alternative medicine).
Because it is intro-level material. The sequences require a strong base to read/understand and a lot of endurance
The sequences require a strong base to read/understand and a lot of endurance
I won't argue with endurance, but what do you mean with "strong base"? Where in the sequences are you expected to already know something that's not part of the sequences? I've read most of it (didn't care to learn about quantum physics) and don't remember such a thing.
I don't know math, quantum mechanics or philosophy, i had to open 10-20 pages of references and google searches to follow what was going on(per individual sequence page).
It reads as though it is assumed that you are a AI graduate.
Its also strongly aimed/influenced by american culture, so some things are weird for us Europeans.
(Is there such a thing as an "AI graduate"?)
You know, while I appreciated the pop culture (and cult-classic culture) references in the Sequences while I was reading them, probably because I got almost all of them, I can definitely see the argument that they reduce accessibility for a wider audience.
I don't know math, quantum mechanics or philosophy
Perhaps I'm used to read on, even if I might miss something. I know a bit of math, and there are a few posts that benefit from that, but only a few. I don't know much philosophy either (except the sequences, of course).
i had to open 10-20 pages of references and google searches to follow what was going on(per individual sequence page).
Let's take Making Beliefs Pay Rent (in (Anticipated Experiences) as an example. What would you have to look up there? And don't say "colonial alienation" ;-). For me it might be phlogiston and elan-vital. But A) understanding those words is hardly essential for understanding the post and B) they are explained somewhere else in the sequences (I never said navigating them were easy).
Its also strongly aimed/influenced by american culture, so some things are weird for us Europeans.
I'm European and I don't really know what you mean.
i have tried the read-on thing on 2 pages and it made it even worse, so i dropped back to the opening pages tactic. That page you mention is actually one of the better ones although using examples like "Wulky Wilkinsen" and post utopianism made no sense to me. Having things explained elsewhere is a big problem imho, but i intend to devote some time to help fix that.
You may have been exposed to enough american culture by tv, movie, shows and books to not get overwhelmed by them?
using examples like "Wulky Wilkinsen" and post utopianism made no sense to me
That's sort of the point. The words "post utopianism" and "colonial alienation" don't mean anything.
You may have been exposed to enough american culture by tv, movie, shows and books to not get overwhelmed by them?
Most movies and even tv-shows that run in Germany are actually American. Books might be more of a problem, but if it's a classic like the Christmas Carole, there is a Simpsons episode about it :)
The Case of The Spelunkean Explorers, previously mentioned here in a post by cousin_it, offers a fascinating array of examples of different legal theories. Some of them are useful to think about in the context of metaethics, while others are more useful in discussing the hidden complexity of wishes.
I'd have to dissagree, based on evidence. Even if this gets me more thumbs down.
The evidence is: In his description of conspiricies in part 1, he never even once mentiones the word evidence. He doesnt submit evidence. He doesnt prove that what he considers to be a conspiricy theory IS infact either a theory or even a real conspiricy involving a 'group' and 'secrets'. Can you see that? He never even challanges evidence nore finds any in the whole 15min.
A word which he does mention, is philosiphy. Which, has no place in an evidenced based argument.
Without evidence to verify any of his own argument, he decends into fallacies; gerneralisations, using the words 'all conspiricy theorists', and strawmans, miss representing the point.
He fails hard. Please tell me you can see this by the evidence...
The map is not the territory.
!
You didn't cite any. You didn't provide any reason to believe your claim.
The video's creator's name should be capitalized. Also, she prefers to be addressed as Miss Shirley Representing the Point.
~~~~~~~
Please re... (read more)