Improve your critical thinking skills in just 6 minutes | Alex Edmans for Big Think+

My critical inquiry skills led me to believe that there's a possibility this guy got paid by a food company to create even more confusion to what we consume. I mean there're so many things to talk about, why food? even worse formula in one particular perspective? This could be a video made to secretly promote formula and bread/grain.

Great Video!

I would loathe taking a class from that guy.

as soon as you use iq for a metric of quality you lose the argument

tl;dr: trust, but verify. Thank you. Your KGB.

Loved this, cant wait to read your book!

Skepticism is going to be key factor to get the better of it all

This is so simple. Not learning much here.

My critical inquiry skills led me to believe that the furniture in this video wasn't real and that this wasn't even filmed at a real location. I can confirm that I feel all the healthier for my skepticism.

Annoying accent. Obvious, well-known ideas.

Carnivore diet ppl are choking on lamb chops over this video! 🤣

Excellent video and subject.

YT stop deleting my comments, for gods sake. I an expressing my opinion in a civilized manner. WHY are you acting like a secret police ?

Harris Paul Brown Donna Miller Richard

I think "trust but verify" has been a good policy from trusted sources and outright skepticism from others. Always let the data guide you to the best or most-correct answer/solution.

The underlying premise is right but the examples and conclusions were dumbfounding. Breastfeeding was possibly the world’s worst analogy to prove this point. Is it possible that 200,000 years of homo sapien evolution has ensured that Breastmilk is far superior for human babies than dessicated bovine milk lacking all stem cells, hormones and antibodies…urm yes. Logic not bias has led to that conclusion and I don’t need a randomised controlled trial to prove it! And can we eat naturally occurring carbohydrates such as those found in vegetables …oh indeed yes I would naturally conclude, but my diet shouldn’t only be one of eating solely pasta, rice and couscous…this could have had much greater impact if the examples given were not so inane.

ty!

Just because it's right doesn't mean it's right! Lmfao

The irony. Following the advice from this video means you should be skeptical about following the advice from this video.

Blah, blah, blah.

Just use google, wikipedia and chat gpt. Double checking ia a key

I’m skeptical that we need carbs. There are essential fatty acids and essential amino acids but no essential carb equivalent.

Karl Popper’s Theory of Falsification

HEY! YOU GUYS NEED TO DISCLOSE THAT YOU ARE USING AI IN YOUR VIDEOS. Also, how bad is our information literacy if people are saying things in books are trustworthy? Like what? Things published in academic, peer reviewed journals are trustworthy. Or at least, more trustworthy. Or at least, it has mechanisms to verify or disprove what's being published. Is that what he means? What dunce is out there saying something in a book is trustworthy because it's in a book? A 10 second search on amazon will disabuse them of that notion pretty fast.


The irony is "do your own research" has become the battle cry of disinformationists everywhere to the point where it's a meme. Many disinformation campaigns specifically exploit a lack of trust in authorities too. To the point where it's explicitly stated that the idea of being able to find the truth about anything should be made to seem hopeless. So... Idk. Are academic institutions perfect? Of course not. But this idea that we should IMMEDIATELY be rejecting scientific consensus AT ALL TIMES is toxic af. It's undermining our society and democracy. Healthy skepticism, yes. Oppositional defiant disorder, no.

And also, hard disagree. A very basic knowledge of statistics is absolutely critical today. Numbers are *everything*. You cannot gauge how concerned about something you should actually be without them. As a matter of fact, understanding how statistics can correct for confounding factors is a great reason to become familiar with it.

He cites confirmation bias, then gives us a tool to engage in it freely by hand waving studies with "must be confounding factors. And also, correlation doesn't mean causation!"

Is "soul" a misinformation?

I just finished a topic about skepticism from my psychology class.

Science can be viewed as a game. The theorist that proposes X to be true or works in the way he or she describes, has to be disproved in order to be not true or not to be a standard.

Einstein's relativity theory for example. He had observations about this topic, had a theory and then hypothesis followed by experiments afterwards.
When he shared the results and no other scholar or scientist could disprove him validly, Einstein continued with his theory by making, or writing down, more observations, theories and hypothesises followed by experiments that to him approved the theory to be correct or the case.

The game here is that as a scientist; bring out theories and make them un-disprovable for as long as possible. Something Einstein succeeded in.
But also be skeptical and try to validly disprove the theory. Even if it's the scientists own, or best friend's, family or celebrity crush's, theory.

If the scientists fail to be skeptic, we might've actually believed telepathy or water-divining were true.

Yes, he´s totally right.

Sponsored by the ministry of truth

Skepticism or critical thinking is bad.
NPC is good

Here is a fact. 50-13.

We all know what fact that is.

Now, here is the problem : why do people who cite this ONLY cite this?

There is a crime statistic they don’t like to talk about.

Sexual abuse is done by Yt men more than any other group.

What’s that? “Per capita”?

That’s a bad interpretation.

Because here is the thing : the criminal population and the law abiding population have nothing to do with one another.

The fact that normal people don’t want to hire or associate felons is proof of that.

When you remove that racist interpretation, you are left with the reality that white criminals out number black criminals and that is a fact.

Why isn’t that brought up?

Because, facts can be manipulated by hateful people to subcommunicate “I’m in this group, so I’m better than you.”

And it is, ruthlessly.

So what you're telling me is to question everything, all the time, even when it's from "trusted" sources. Got it.

Especially now we need more information like this, more ways we can ferret out what is playing on our biases and what is more likely the truth. Emotion is especially being used to coerce us into believing certain things and if I find a story or some news that uses inflammatory speech, presents on small bits of a talk or something else that supposedly supports their arguments, I will take a step back from it. I can see the manipulation which I can easily step away from.

preach brother preach

Yes, the basic idea is right, but the examples he gives are a bit on the edge.
I can't possibly believe that BREASTMILK is NOT beneficial as opposed to formula. I mean, I hope Nestle's giving him some money at least...
This is stupid and he is discreetly misinforming, after he warned about misinformation. Find a less harmful example, please. I don't think anyone in the world would suggest formula is as good as breastmilk. It's not just about the IQ. What does he actually believe, if we were to ignore the hypothetical?

Also, how do you choose the neutral? Why does he suppose that "formula" is just as good, if the studies show otherwise, even if the studies might be biased? Why does he say that formula is ok, if the studies are done by the formula manufacturing companies? Are those not biased? A better idea would be to integrate knowledge of science, economics and psychology to understand that big companies are in it for the money and would say anything to make you buy their product and that humans evolved eating "natural" food so it would make sense that breastmilk would be more healthy. I think....

Are there any other channels like Big Think. Introduce me, guys.

Truth

E