D. Alan Bensley wrote an article for Skeptical Inquirer in 2006 titled, "Why Great Thinkers Sometimes Fail to Think Critically"
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_/ai_n26919280 Quoting: "It was not because they [Arthur Conan Doyle and Alfred Russel Wallace] lacked the skills to think critically. Both had the ability to evaluate the quality of evidence and draw a sound conclusion (Bensley 1998). Rather, they were not motivated to use their skills to think critically about spiritualism and related paranormal claims. The problem was with their disposition to think critically--that is, the attitudes and traits that disposed them to use their critical thinking skills. To better understand their problem, I will first examine critical thinking dispositions and skills. Then, I will use this distinction to analyze the thinking of Conan Doyle and Wallace, comparing them to Charles Darwin, who did not fall prey to these false paranormal claims." -- Paul Bernhardt Frostburg State University Frostburg, MD, USA On 10/2/08 10:49 AM, "Gerald Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was just blogging about true believers and belief perseverance when I > learned of the Colin Ross case. The political arena is another fascinating > example, but there, pointing out you were wrong can be the kiss of death. > In science however, pointing out our limitations and mistakes is supposed to > be valued, but of course is not always so honored. I argued that a key issue > is the ideological framework that often provides identity and meaning to those > clinging stubbornly to beliefs with little or no strong evidence. I was > writing however, about so-called cult or extremist groups. > I know the science writer/skeptic Michael Shermer has suggested that > smart people are more skilled in rationalizations and self-serving > meta-reflections to counter evidence that contradicts their favored beliefs. > It would be interesting to see/test if that is the case. I have > colleague/friends who still hold out for psychic powers of some sort despite > the lack of reliable evidence. They typically employ an "You can't explain > all the cases, or not all the research is flawed, so there must be something > to it" argument. I agree, but point out the ad ignorantium issue here. I > know T. Gilovich has some research that might be relevant here, but do not > know if the explanatons or rationalizations of different types of folks have > been examined. See: Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, > Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time by Michael Shermer and Stephen > Jay Gould (Paperback - Sep 1, 2002). Interesting area to bring in to class > discussion. Gary > > > Gerald L. (Gary) Peterson, Ph.D. > Professor, Psychology > Saginaw Valley State University > University Center, MI 48710 > 989-964-4491 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
