Reddit reviews The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe: How to Know What's Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake

As a scientist myself, I can tell you that it is difficult but not impossible to reach a scientific consensus.

Since it seems like you want practice good skepticism, I have a good book and podcast recommendation for you.

skeptics guide to the universe

Excellent points.

> If your brother came to you and said, "I had a spiritual experience in which God told me that I needed to sell all my stuff and move to Canada because vampires are eating their way north from South America." What would you say? According to OmniCrush you would say something like:

We can even use a more concrete example, such as described here by /u/bwv549 where a friend of his claims to have spoken with Jesus and has special knowledge about a destructive flood coming to Utah valley. Besides cases like this, adherents of almost every single religion can describe to you the supreme feelings of peace or love they've experienced while worshiping (many do interpret this to mean that their religion is the true one [see here and here as well]).

Check out this passage from Dr. Steven Novella's book in the section on neuropsychological humility:

> Perception Is Constructed

> The bottom line is this: Your real-time perceptions are not a passive recording of the outside world. Rather, they are an active construction of your brain. This means that there is an imperfect relationship between outside reality and the model of that reality crafted by your brain. Obviously, the model works well enough for us to interact with that reality, and that's actually the idea. Constructed perception is not optimized for accuracy but rather for functionality. ...
>
> Now you have crafted an image, but it doesn't mean anything yet. The next area of the visual cortex assigns meaning to the image--is that a tree or a whale? Okay, it finds a match, then makes further adjustments to the basic processing so that the image it constructed matches better with the thing it thinks it's seeing.
>
> Did you catch that? Visual processing is a two-way street. The basic visual information is processed up the chain as your brain constructs a meaningful image, and then the brain communicates back down the chain to tweak the construction so it fits better. Essentially, if your visual association cortex thinks you are looking at an elephant, it communicates back to the primary visual cortex and says, "Hey, make that look even more like an elephant." It changes what you actually see, not just how you interpret it. This all happens automatically, outside of your awareness. ...
>
> If you think that's it, think again, because so far I've only been talking about visual processing. Our brains are simultaneously processing auditory information, sensation from our bodies, vestibular information about gravity orientation and acceleration, and feedback from our muscles to tell how we're moving. Our brains favor continuity and internal consistency over accuracy, so all these streams are compared in real time and further adjustments made so they all fit together nicely. In a way, our brains are constructing a narrative about what is happening, and making that narrative make sense to us.
>
> Also in the stream, however, are our prior knowledge and expectations. We know elephants are big, so when we see a small elephant our brains tend to assume it is big and therefore must be far away. ...
>
> The lesson here is that even the most basic components of your existence are actively constructed by your brain. Each component can be disrupted and erased.
>
> How does all this affect critical thinking? Well, just as with memory, be wary of saying, "I know what I saw [or felt (my addition)]." Hmm...no, you don't. You have a constructed memory of a constructed perception based on filtered partial sensation and altered by your knowledge and expectations.

This (among a number of other biases to be aware of) has very significant implications for testimony development. Mormons either grow up learning (or accept based on hearing the testimonies of others, such as the missionaries) that a god exists and that the Holy Ghost will manifest the truth of all things to them and then come to embrace (through elective/religious faith it seems) that Moroni 10 and Alma 32 are valid heuristics to reach objective truth. However, just because the Church as an organization formally embraces a more logical process for reaching objective truth than many other faith traditions does not mean that that process has ever been demonstrated to be reliable (especially to the point of having sufficient confidence in it to warrant being willing to commit your entire life to that ideology by following specific guidelines and spending a significant amount of both time and money).

https://www.amazon.com/Skeptics-Guide-Universe-Really-Increasingly/dp/1538760533

Comes out in a few weeks.

​

https://www.amazon.com/Skeptics-Guide-Universe-Really-Increasingly/dp/1538760533

>Ved du hvad, det er folk der er virkeligt, virkeligt, virkeligt, virkeligt gode til at kontrollere deres krop og kende til deres erfaring osv.

Kan de også lave et undersøgelses design så kan teste deres påstande?

>Og de ved også en masse om hvordan psyke påvirker krop, det er en del af det og man træner det.

Ja, man skal være mentalt forberedt til stort set alle fysiske udfordringer. Havde samme samtale med en parkour udøver for nyligt.

>Så det virker bare usandsynligt på mig, at en verdensmester udfører en aktivitet med nul virkning, fordi de netop har så meget styr på virkningen af de ting de gør.

Du har lige skrevet at de arbejder meget med psyken. At tro at du har overnaturlige kræfter, og at få din modstander til at tro det samme er sgu da det største psych-out du kan finde på.

>Man kan ikke bare stå i en ring og lave mumbo-jombo der ikke har nogen virkning, man er losset 3 gange i hovedet før du når bare at udtale ordene "mumbo-jombo".

Det eneste han har bevist er, at han kan slippe afsted med at sige mumbo-jumbo. Intet andet. Han har på ingen måde vist at der er qi eller energiklokker involveret.

Seriøst, skru op for din skepsis.

Jeg kan anbefale denne her:

https://www.amazon.com/Skeptics-Guide-Universe-Really-Increasingly/dp/1538760533

how about Scientific Skepticism as defined in the awesome new book The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe: How to Know What’s Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake


https://www.amazon.com/Skeptics-Guide-Universe-Really-Increasingly/dp/1538760533

I skimmed all your references and I find it a weird way to teach atheism as it seems to be largely an historical account and nothing explicitly to do with why/how.
The only reason atheism (without god(s)) exists is due to the large population of theists whom have no rational basis for that claim. The only sort of common trait is the use of logic and the scientific method, largely due to the departure from theism which required those skills. But this is not even a requirement either as the lack of belief could have been inherited from parents or from a separate false belief.

If one was to teach atheism, as in why people don't hold the belief that god(s) exist, I would think it would start with logic (valid, invalid, weak, strong arguments, soundness etc), the scientific method, skeptism/critical thinking, common fallacies(with a religious bias), some philosophy and some of the common arguments and counter points Some sort of challenge to try to prove one religion as true over another where you have to apply the same logic to both equally could also be useful for rooting out errors. ie if your holy book is true because the book/author states it is then you have to assume the other holy books self referential claim is true because it also makes the same claim with the same amount/quality of evidence which should show that it invalid as a method for proof.

Some better alternatives to your course material, in my opinion, are A Manual for Creating Atheists, The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe: How to Know What's Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake and this youtube playlist on logic and argumentation

I have a book recommendation for you.

https://www.amazon.com/Skeptics-Guide-Universe-Really-Increasingly/dp/1538760533/ref=mp_s_a_1_1