What is Reddit's opinion of
The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe: How to Know What's Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
By popularity on Reddit, this product is:
32 reviews of this product found across Reddit:
Don’t let downvotes discourage you from asking questions! Just remember to fairly question everything, right?
It would be more time-consuming, but I think you might get a better understanding of where a lot of posters are coming from if you were willing to watch the first season of Cosmos and read the amusing book “Skeptics Guide to the Universe”. These are great stepping stones to establish what is known, unknown, and how good and bad science happens.
The book is available here: https://www.amazon.com/Skeptics-Guide-Universe-Really-Increasingly/dp/1538760533
Critical Thinking
The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe: How to Know What's Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake
>An all-encompassing guide to skeptical thinking from podcast host and academic neurologist at Yale University School of Medicine Steven Novella and his SGU co-hosts, which Richard Wiseman calls "the perfect primer for anyone who wants to separate fact from fiction."
I've been a big fan of The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcast for some years now. They recently put out a self-titled book (subtitle: how to know what's really real in a world increasingly full of fake) which has a lot of information on thinking rationally. Some of the main topics are cognitive biases, logical fallacies, meta-cognition and the difference between science and pseudo-science.
If you check it out on Amazon (Link) and click on "look inside" you can get an overview from the table of contents.
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
Books:
Podcasts:
Other Publications:
Your goal is not to win an argument. Your goal is to convey feedback.
Be professional. You're dealing with a coworker. Doesn't matter what team they are from. You're all working on the same software, and should want to get along to achieve the same goals. Behave as a team, don't put blame on others, don't elevate your opinion or position.
Discuss the bug, not the developer. But before you do, test it to the extreme. Reproduce it a few times, memorize the steps, know the workarounds, grab logs, screenshots. You need evidence. Compare that evidence with any available documentation. Use the evidence and documentation in the discussion. When lacking documentation, try to argue for consistency, compare to a working product, etc.
Learn how to deal with confirmation bias and other logical fallacies. There's plenty of texts on the topic online. I strongly recommend The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe in book form and their podcast.
Use principle of charity. Interpret what the developer with the most benevolence. Assume they are rational and their arguments are sound. This way you might just see something you couldn't before like a new interpretation of the test results, or a new reason for the developers opposing stance.
you are in luck - here is the perfect book for you: The Skeptics‘ Guide to the Universe: How to Know What’s Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake
Oh, definitely.
I listen to the Skeptics Guide to the Universe (SGU) podcast. Before the pandemic, they talked to a filmmaker that had done a documentary on the flat earth movement, which was an interesting look into that world (particularly since a round earth is so well demonstrated by many different aspects of science; flat earthism is a deep and wide anti-science pathology which can be used to illustrate many aspects of anti-science thinking). A lot of it was about belonging to this group with shared beliefs. One of the flat earthers was a fairly smart guy, some sort of engineer, who essentially built a more sensitive Foucault Pendulum with gyroscopes, etc., to demonstrate that the Earth wasn't rotating. When the device actually did show the Earth's rotation, the guy was confused, but then attributed it to errors he'd made in building it. Instead of following the evidence given by his own device, he chose to stay in the beliefs of the this anti-science fringe group. He (and the others) had some deep need for belonging that the flat earthers filled somehow.
During the pandemic, I thought about that sometimes, since the antivaxxers are basically the same. They have a need for belonging to this group -- some deep psychological needs -- that trump facts, even onto illness and death.
Back in the 1990s, Carl Sagan wrote a book called the Demon Haunted World about anti-science beliefs. The SGU has written a spiritual successor to it which builds upon it, as well as what's been learned over the past 25 years about anti-science beliefs. Sagan was wrong in one crucial aspect: he believed that anti-science could be countered by essentially shining the light of knowledge onto dark places, e.g., better education, more information, etc. We know now that a lot of anti-science has to do with belonging, not with facts alone. You can't deal with these sorts of beliefs without also addressing the underlying psychological needs.
If you like podcasts, check out The Skeptics Guide to the Universe. They also wrote a book with the same name.
Yes, I have realized this as well. It seems like he's become recently known for talking about how the spike proteins are "cytotoxic", which has been debunked by the scientific community. Again, he seems to have been invited onto Rogan's because of his """interesting""" takes.
Dude, you are obviously smarter than Joe Rogan's target audience. I'd seriously quit listening to that stuff while you're ahead. I used to listen too for a few months around when he had Bernie Sanders on until I noticed he started featuring quacks heavily.
If I can recommend you another podcast, it's The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, or their similarly titled book.
Dude, none of your arguments make any sense. What you are doing is called whataboutism. Besides that, pretending you are the victim for something you did willingly and benefitted from it also makes no logical sense.
If you want to get better at arguing and recognizing illogical thought processes, please check out this book (yes, it's written by Americans): https://www.amazon.com/Skeptics-Guide-Universe-Really-Increasingly/dp/1538760533
Go buy yourself a copy of Skeptics Guide to the Universe. Have a good read, it will answer all the above points. https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1538760533/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_glt_fabc_7S0D18DYDJPBTTP5FRVP
No, I am simply pointing out that you are misusing the term.
If you want to be a good Skeptic, I have a book recommendation for you.
I have a book recommendation for you.
I have a book recommendation for you.
https://www.amazon.com/Skeptics-Guide-Universe-Really-Increasingly/dp/1538760533/ref=mp_s_a_1_1
Oreskes, N. (2004). BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Science (New York, N.Y.), 306(5702), 1686–1686. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1103618
Doran, P. T., & Zimmerman, M. K. (2009). Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 90(3), 22–23. http://doi.org/10.1029/2009EO030002
Anderegg, W. R. L., Prall, J. W., Harold, J., & Schneider, S. H. (2010). Expert credibility in climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(27), 12107–12109. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1003187107
Cook, J., Oreskes, N., Doran, P. T., Anderegg, W. R. L., Verheggen, B., Maibach, E. W., et al. (2016). Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environmental Research Letters, 11(4). http://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
I'm a scientist. We engage in the opposite of magical thinking.
Also, I've never heard of your song. But I do have a book suggestion for you.
There is near universal agreement among economists who've studied the issue.
> You can’t use a source to make your argument for you since another source can be found that contradicts yours.
Sounds like you don't know how to evaluate evidence, if contradicting sources are treated equivalently. I suggest you read this book.
> The problem seems to be that this will require much more than what the west can do by itself.
The rest of world has already agreed to cut carbon pollution, and many nations have already started taxing carbon.
> what are we supposed to do?
Taxing carbon is in each nation's own best interest, and experts agree the U.S. could induce other nations to adopt climate mitigation policies by adopting our own.
> Everything needed will cost a whole whole lot of money.
It helps to understand how dead weight loss works with externalities. Then it's easy to understand how a carbon tax corrects a market failure.
> the necessary costs and taxes thus depressing our economy
Actually, a carbon tax would improve welfare, and maybe even grow GDP (though GDP was never intended as a measure of the economy, as it has serious limitations). That's even before taking into account the fact that not addressing climate change would likely cost 10% of GDP over 50 years.
> I'm still slightly skeptical due to all the popular world-ending schlock about this consistently being wrong.
There has been a well-funded disinformation campaign with intent of fueling that skepticism.
The evidence is right there. If you don't know how to evaluate evidence, I suggest you learn.
Because it's exhausting trying to explain the obvious to someone intent on not getting it.
Here's a book recommendation for you, though.
I unsubscribed from Food and Water Watch's email list after I saw that it was spreading misinformation about carbon taxes. I would recommend this book if you can't tell what's wrong with its arguments.
> all suggesting that it is not enough
See, when you keep repeating this argument that I have already addressed, it makes you seem like a bot. Do you not understand the logic?
> If we're going to be accusing one another of misrepresenting who we are, I should be carefiul if I were you as it's fairly obvious from your posting history that you are a paid lobbyist working for the Citizens' Climate Lobby
As I said, I am a volunteer. Why would it be so difficult to believe that a scientist is legitimately concerned enough about climate change to try to help recruit the ~24k additional volunteers that are necessary to pass a carbon tax? Do you not truly believe that climate change is a serious issue?
> effective climate solutions we must urgently pursue.
You have yet to present any realistic alternatives.
> Its Advisory Board includes George Shultz (Secretary of State in the Reagan Administration) and Bob Inglis (former Republican representative from South Carolina).
Yes, because it's critically important to attract Republicans to the cause, given that climate policy has a better shot at passing if Republicans introduce it, and Democrats have already shown they can't do it even with majorities in the House and Senate. Just look up the ACES bill.
This should cover the critical thinking part: https://www.amazon.com/Skeptics-Guide-Universe-Really-Increasingly/dp/1538760533
Here's a link to a book I just finished. Not to sound too meta, but...All the answers to your skeptical questions are in these pages.
​
Links are necessarily true, but I cited good, reputable sources, and you're at risk of getting hoodwinked by charlatans if you can't tell the difference.
> But you have to admit that it's possible that the consent was NOT ambiguous. No? Are you really denying the possibility that the guy absolutely thought he had consent (and, let's face it, most likely had it) and the girl is just saying otherwise after the case?
People who say things like that don't understand consent, and are unfamiliar with the research on false allegations:
Lisak, D., Gardinier, L., Nicksa, S. C., & Cote, A. M. (2010). False Allegations of Sexual Assault: An Analysis of Ten Years of Reported Cases. Violence Against Women, 16(12), 1318–1334. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(03)00032-6
> People like you with this way of thinking is why I was ultimately in favour of confirming Brett Kavanaugh.
That's because you're not a skeptic, aren't familiar with the neuroscience, and don't know how to evaluate evidence.
> Looking at how extreme you (and others here) are
Ah, yes, those of us who don't advocate rape. So extreme.
I think you might need help with logic.
Popular alternatives to The Skeptics' Guide to the ...
A Short History of Nearly Everything
