<p>^ Sure it might not happen at college, since the level was already set from 18 prior years of osmosis through living with one’s family (but not through orchestrated dinner conversations over xmas break). If you really value this stuff, you would probably already be providing a rich, intellectual environment and not have to ‘Work At It’…and I say any parent working this hard is probably pretty worried about it… </p>
<p>Sort of reminds me of a family that might read about the correlation between SAT scores and how many books a family has in their home, especially if it’s more than 500. And so they decide to run out and buy a lot of books to put on the shelves. Lol. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is what i assumed Bunsen…since it otherwise seems a bit too weird for me.</p>
<p>I’m going to stick with my original premise: I think that an actual direct confrontation of issues such as: what kind of information is reliable, when are our opinions being manipulated, what constitutes a valid argument and what is actually just clever “spin,” etc. is pretty helpful, particularly to college-aged individuals. Adults are vulnerable to being tricked by slick propaganda, certainly, but young people are even more so. So it can actually be helpful to peel back the layers of the logic behind things like 9/11 truthers, global warming deniers, the “birthers,” etc. to assist our offspring when the next conspiracy theory comes 'round the bend - and it will, of that we can be sure.</p>
<p>Young people can be vulnerable to carefully packaged narratives, especially if the narrative resonates with commonly-held preconceptions. (That’s why cults typically target college-age “recruits.”) It’s easy to simply laugh at the “birthers” but to spend some time thinking about how they manage to reconcile the obvious inconsistencies and illogic of their sincerely-held beliefs can be a way of gaining wisdom. (“Confirmation bias”, by the way, is the primary explanation.) Bringing up thorny questions like the plausibility of hundreds of people flawlessly cooperating in the conspiracy of silence needed to hide the “truth” being revealed by the conspiracy mongers (9/11 “inside job”, AGW “hoax”, etc) can assist young people to formulate reasoning powers that don’t always come naturally and aren’t taught in most college courses. The ability to recognize that something is implausible despite superficially seeming to be logical is an important skill. There’s still stuff a caring, responsible parent can teach his or her bright college-aged kids, even if they can run circles around us with things like technical knowledge, logical analysis, and quick thinking.</p>
<p>Of course, at family gatherings my kids are more likely to be teasing each other, hiding the last piece of the jigsaw puzzle, and laughing over what crazy cousin Tim said at Thanksgiving than engaging in deep thought. But that doesn’t mean a little analysis for the holidays would be a bad thing.</p>
<p>Like I said, kudos to Stitch for bringing it up for the kids with a classic example of the logical fallacy of ad hominem argument. They can learn from that, assuming it’s presented in a rigorously rational way, and not presented as a reliable proof of a concept for some reason. That, of course, would be a shame.</p>
<p>The author starts out by defining a fundamental principle: the scientific method. He states the fact that the process of science contributes to its integrity. So much so, that the person who makes a hypothesis (not second or third party) is responsible for disconfirmability/falsifiability. Meaning, if you say X is going to happen, **you<a href=“no%20one%20else”>/b</a> must also provide the conditions to prove yourself wrong. (BTW, this is where Creationists and Intelligent Designers get tripped-up with their ‘hypotheses’.)</p>
<p>This is such an important principle, that as a scientist you get ‘extra credit/kudos’ if you’re the first one to prove your own hypothesis wrong. Research that proves you wrong has value and utility. It also demonstrates your respect —nay, reverence-- for the scientific method. </p>
<p>If the e-mails didn’t show this, I would be in full agreement with the ad hominem assertion. But the author backs up his assertions with specific evidence from the email communications detailing how the integrity of the process was being eroded by the attempts to keep the falsifiable conditions from reaching the light of day. Any scientist that does so “can’t be trusted” with regard to the claims they’re making and possibly beyond as may be determined by a board of ethics. </p>
<p>In the spirit of intelectual honesty, there’s little question human activity can have [localized</a>, long-term climate effects; both positive and negative](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island]localized”>Urban heat island - Wikipedia). Scientists may yet develop models that explain past, current, and future climate change and human’s contribution to it at a global scale. However, as the author argues, it must be done with integrity.</p>
<p>We’ve had tons of fun types of discussions around our dining table as our kids (and their friends) were growing up. All have had HUGELY differing opinions. All of us (adults and kids alike) learn something.
Starting points:
What kind of info is reliable? that goes to advertising, science, politics, “spin” of any kind.
What do you consider a reliable source of information?
Cults? What makes a cult? Could you recognize one?
Religion? Is one better than another? What do you believe? Why? Why are there so many religions?
Politics? Democrat? Republican? Independent? Libertarian? Why? History of your desired party? What would you do if you were president? Who would you trust to take you there? Secretary of State? World affairs? what’s wrong today? what needs changing?
So, what do you want to be when you grow up? (adults and kids!) How you gonna get there?
Bucket list? Where would you go if…?
Most fun–back up your argument!
And many times we’ve started dinner with “okay, what do you want to talk about? Pick something fun!”
The most important thing in discussions like this is to keep it neutral . It’s a clear playing field where all opinions are welcome. Some tongue biting is in order. It’s more of a fact finding mission…find out how others feel on subjects, how they react to various arguments. Just entertaining banter, not an argument in any way, shape or form. A teaching moment for both sides. It is not a time to sway someone to your viewpoint.
But everything is on the table…politics, religion, whatever. Anyway if kept fun, it is a totally great way to spend time finding out about your kids and friends.</p>
I think our kids were separated aat birth. Mine has also perfected the art of texting under the table without ever breaking eye contact with one parental unit.</p>
<p>My kids would be very much at home in your house. They rib me by jokingly finishing the following mantra before it completely comes out of my mouth:
[“[E]verything is the way it is because it got that way”](<a href=“Center for the Study of Complex Systems | U-M LSA”>Center for the Study of Complex Systems | U-M LSA). I use it when counseling/challening them to build up their arguments from first principles.</p>
<p>Last year at Christmas dinner, our photographer friend and his wife talked for quite a while about how important it was to eat only organic foods. He then asked another guest what she did for a living. Answer: “I genetically engineer food crops”. Silence. Next comment at the table: “How about those Bears?”</p>