Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Should Skepticism be taught in school?


S2F

Recommended Posts

When I was asked, as a kid, what I learned in school that day I never really had an answer except "Nothing" because that is what I basically learned...nothing.

LOL I should be so lucky, I help them with their homework. Their parents don't have enough education to help them so they come to me. They are all above average in intelligence. The one is in middle school and is #1 in his school. He is getting a good education because he demands they go above and beyond. Look out Harvard, U of M or whichever one he picks, he is on his way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is for you guys in the US.... what ever happened to that crazy suggestion of teaching cretionism in schools?

Still an ongoing battle in some places.Makes me cringe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And to balance logic and critical thinking, we need creativity to be taught as well. We need to uphold the balance of the mind, left (fem) and right ( mascu) integrated as one instead of in conflict.

I would definitely agree with that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think all scopes of philosophy should be taught, especially faith and the working of spiritual principles. Faith and skepticism perhaps should be offered across the hall from each other

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instinct and natural suspicion, I don't see anything at all natural coming from skeptics. Unless they yet want to give us some highlights on exactly how natural they can be, 'natural' is usually only a complement that some people receive at their own funeral.

Teach kids to think critically and they might be less apt to fall for ideologues and snake oil pitches.Maybe there will then be hope that the future will be better than the past, in terms of the mistakes societies have made historically.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definition of critical thinking from critical thinking.org: Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.

Definition of skepticism from dictionary.search.yahoo:


  • One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

I thought the definitions might be helpful to the conversation. It seems to me that critical thinking is more proactive, and avoids the "instinctive" or "habitual" traps. Maybe skepticism is an attitude, whereas critical thinking is a skill.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teaching critical thinking includes teaching people how to entertain another notion, possibility, or philosophy outside of their own "parameters" for exploration and expansion of consciousness purposes without feeling insecure.

Theory of mind comes to mind. You can always spot the intelligent and well educated by that factor alone in discussion/debate and it makes for a more productive exchange of ideas rather than the lower level of attacking / discriminating, witch hunting towards person(s) for what ever ideology or philosophy they hold.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The four pillars of Education:

Learning to know

Learning to do

Learning to be

Learning to live together

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/networks/global-networks/aspnet/about-us/strategy/the-four-pillars-of-learning/

I like this, skepticism would fall under "learning to know" with critical thinking.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instinct and natural suspicion, I don't see anything at all natural coming from skeptics. Unless they yet want to give us some highlights on exactly how natural they can be, 'natural' is usually only a complement that some people receive at their own funeral.

I honestly do not understand this part of your statement (the part I bolded).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teach kids to think critically and they might be less apt to fall for ideologues and snake oil pitches.Maybe there will then be hope that the future will be better than the past, in terms of the mistakes societies have made historically.

And finally, you 'choose' to show your true colors. Bravo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And finally, you 'choose' to show your true colors. Bravo.

If you mean by true colors that I am in favor of rational thought determining courses of action over rhetoric and two minute sound bites then I don't think my true colors were ever hidden.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far I have NOT seen any critical thinking being taught in schools. I see kids being taught to memorize information then regurgitate it on command.

Then you must have missed out on Math, Science, language, and most every other class in basic education. In these various venues, one not only processes and regurgitates boring information: one is supposed to see how this information works and why, which often leads to why information doesn't work and why.

Critical thinking assignments are also often blatantly given in classes, as it is a known important part of learning, despite your hyperbolic claim otherwise. Much of my teachers' lectures and lesson plans were filled with critical thinking questions.. the text books having critical thinking sections written to make you look at things from a different perspective. IT goes on and on.

Skepticism is fine, and a professor could probably even squeeze a semester long college class out of it that students would likely enroll in to pad their GPA. But let's not kid ourselves here, for sake of argument or whatever else. People generally know to be wary of ideas deemed 'skept' worthy, but simply choose to ignore their doubt or not for their own personal reasons. They don't really need to be taught how to question an idea. It is a choice.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was asked, as a kid, what I learned in school that day I never really had an answer except "Nothing" because that is what I basically learned...nothing.

↑ The level of exaggeration needs to stop well before this point. I'm fairly certain that you learned to build skill in reading, mathematics, science, language, the arts, human relation and social skills, possibly music, and many, many more things. The moody adolescent or child replies 'nothing' because they aren't interested in what they've learned or who they are talking to; not because they spent the daily equivalent of placing their forehead against a stucco wall for 6 hours.

Maybe I'm wrong and you personally were above anything that others deem as having educational value, but I can't help but be skeptical of your claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the definitions might be helpful to the conversation. It seems to me that critical thinking is more proactive, and avoids the "instinctive" or "habitual" traps. Maybe skepticism is an attitude, whereas critical thinking is a skill.

Absolutely.

As a self-confessed skeptic/atheist/etc. I don't find the "skeptic" label useful in a wider viewpoint. Skepticism is unnecessarily (or maybe even necessarily) associated with anti-religion, anti-science, anti-ghost, anti-UFO, etc. points of view. It might result in those viewpoints, but that's not what it means to those who use the label.

I am some and all of the above but I don't like using the overall 'skeptic' label to describe myself.

Even this post is getting lengthy and I want to simply grab a beer and watch a movie. Internet labels are too long and boring and prone to the kind of crap this post is possibly going to be subject to.

TL;DR: Skepticism isn't a skill that should be taught, critical thinking is a skill that needs to be taught.

Edited by JesseCuster
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you must have missed out on Math, Science, language, and most every other class in basic education. In these various venues, one not only processes and regurgitates boring information: one is supposed to see how this information works and why, which often leads to why information doesn't work and why.

Critical thinking assignments are also often blatantly given in classes, as it is a known important part of learning, despite your hyperbolic claim otherwise. Much of my teachers' lectures and lesson plans were filled with critical thinking questions.. the text books having critical thinking sections written to make you look at things from a different perspective. IT goes on and on.

Skepticism is fine, and a professor could probably even squeeze a semester long college class out of it that students would likely enroll in to pad their GPA. But let's not kid ourselves here, for sake of argument or whatever else. People generally know to be wary of ideas deemed 'skept' worthy, but simply choose to ignore their doubt or not for their own personal reasons. They don't really need to be taught how to question an idea. It is a choice.

It has been a very long time since I was in school so they may have improved since those days but I still think critical thinking should be stressed on it's own and not just as part of another subject. As far as your statement that people generally know to be wary of skept worthy ideas, that doesn't really match my observation of people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The KEy is "Learning" and learning to know what Skepticism is. THen Learning how to Keep Learning .THere`s always going to be opinions. LEarning the Facts and weighing ones opinions !

THen Look further for others that have opinions and facts. And On & On & On ! Then you get it Right?

Wrong then its still your opinion . Need we say more? :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Critical thinking is applied skepticism and are the most important skills a person will ever learn.

Edited by sinewave
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skepticism of the "I'm from Missouri -- show me" type is the only reasonable thing for any inquiry into claims people make. Therefore of course it should be taught. This is really two things -- how to recognize and refute logical fallacies and how to recognize and deal with propaganda techniques.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was speaking more of something like middle school or high school.

Who has time? They are spending those years learning the basics. Plus, teaching children to question everything is kind of counter productive when we are kind of counting on them falling in line to accepting the authority of the teacher. Again, that's why these things are taught in college. Do we really need little Thomas asking the teacher to prove that there is no oxygen on Neptune? No, we want them to accept a huge amount of basic information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good topic! One very close to my heart and experience... In my opinion critical thinking (named appropriately for the level, natch) should start in pre-school and be a required subject all the way thru education. If it was, this planet would be a much better place.

.. one is supposed to see how this information works and why, which often leads to why information doesn't work and why.

Yes, supposedly. But that's EXACTLY the problem. We are taught the information, not the why and how, nor how to spot fakery. Maybe my education was different (although listening to folks here, I suspect not), but it was ALL about memorising stuff and to a much lesser extent, understanding stuff. The process of critical thinking/evaluation, of 'systems analysis' was almost completely and utterly absent - yes, there may have been odd examples of a hint or two, but nothing formal whatsoever.

In my second adult job in the mid eighties, I volunteered to assist in developing a department-wide database system, with a view to it being put onto one of those new fangled computer-thingies. Basically the job was to completely understand and analyse a paper-based system and define it (refining as we went) in terms that could be used to develop the software. The guy who taught me on-the-job (Hi Richard - and thanks!) was a superb systems analyst and he gave me a few textbooks to read and I learnt as we went thru the process (over a two year period - it was an enormously complex system - a very big gov't department). And I was stunned - why the heck wasn't this approach *taught* in school? The basic concepts of how to approach and solve problems are the key to .. everything we do. And in all my schooling, it was essentially absent. So it's hardly any wonder that many folks just seem to have not a clue about how to methodically problem solve. At a forum like this it becomes very clear just who does, and who doesn't...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a pattern, and tradition of fantasy spoon fed to young children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a pattern, and tradition of fantasy spoon fed to young children.

Well that's helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, supposedly. But that's EXACTLY the problem. We are taught the information, not the why and how, nor how to spot fakery....

You're going to have to clarify that, because I am confused in what information you are talking about that is taught in school that doesn't involve why and how. I can list ways 'why' and 'how' is explained in all of the classes I took through the years I vaguely remember of school, and have already given ways that critical thinking was also employed in my teaching. So what is the difference here? Was I being taught things differently, or was I learning differently?

I am going to go out on a limb and say that it is possible that you took such a favorable turn to learning in your job because it was something that

a. you didn't dislike learning about

b. you had a vested interest in figuring out

c. highly motivated you, through a combination of a and b

It feels like people forget how much of an active part they undertake in the learning experience, as opposed to a passive observer, as many feel they were in this thread, due to their teachers. The learning is ultimately done in your mind, and maybe I'm seeing that people have vastly different ways that they take in and process similar information. Did this group not hear the same critical thinking questions and seeds that were given to me in school, or did you just not care?

I really think it could be a case of the latter in many of you, and I see it in myself with the classes I'm taking now. I am learning a different way, because I am older, have a little bit of wisdom, and am approaching learning (which is for the most part the same type I received all my life) with a new view and intent. And I am enjoying it, and retaining quite a bit, a big part of that due to my hypothetical reasons a, b, and c listed above.

Long story short, it's possible that you were invited to think critically at many points in your education, but just didn't care to take that route, opting for the memorization and 'getting by' route. I did my fair share of that too, but still remember the opportunities I had to exercise my brain in a different way. I can list many more if needed, but I think I am beating a dead horse now. Skepticism employs critical thinking, but is simply doubt until absolute evidence supports a stance or idea. It is apparent here that some want to bump the idea more to its favorable attributes, which makes total sense if it's a label they proudly define themselves with here in their discussions and disagreements on this forum. To them, okay, fine. Let's learn critical thinking from birth, and no one will believe in aliens, Bigfoot, or Jesus. But that fantasy aside, I'm still telling you that belief is a choice usually fueled by personal interest, which supersedes the opposite part of the brain that is saying to think a different way about the belief. And that is a two way street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to be clear, skepticism is not withholding assent until proof is presented. That's being an a-hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admittedly this topic doesn't deal directly with UFO's or ET however I'd like the input of some of this forum's regulars on the matter.

Should skepticism be formalized and taught as part of a school's curriculum? It is inherent in the science class as part of the core concepts of science itself however many students, unfortunately, gloss over science as not being important to them in the future if they have no interest in pursuing a scientific career. Admittedly, how important is it to be able to calculate the molarity of a solution if you are going to be a police officer (for example). Skepticism however is a valuable tool that has a great many benefits in everyday life as well as in the scientific arena. Keeping con-men and charlatans at arms length (thus the connection to the UFO/ETH phenomena) springs readily to mind. Thoughts are welcome. :tu:

I would much prefer neutrality and lack of bias on the school agenda.

Also suitable topics would be:

1) The dangers of falsifying or spinning data to achieve a scientifically palatable outcome (E.g Bob White artefact).

2) The dangers of Government with holding vital information from the public.

3) The importance of sharing experiences without fear of public censure.

All far more important than skepticism which by definition is a highly negative trait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.