Bullshit scanners for kiddies.

[dworkin]

The missus is designing a set of lessons on how to recognise pseudoscience for 9 year olds. Given that CSICOP for kids is no longer with us I'ld appreciate some help in a simple list of things to look for if you think an article may be bullshit. Some useful sceptics for kids sites would be handy too (can't seem to find em myself).

Stuff like:

1) The term "scientifically proven"
2) Phrase "mainstream scientific community"
3) Appeals to authority

She's also going to try and use the "moon landings are fake" articles as an example.

This is because her schools teaching philosophy is that students should be able to "make a difference" with what they have learned and the topic is near-earth astronomy. I suggested that they should learn how to recognise pseudoscience for what it is.

The fake moon landing rubbish is also a fairly safe topic given the relativly high fundy quotient.

[Trytostaydead]

For 9 year olds? Hmmm..

The listing you gave may be too generic, and the words by themselves would have no meaning. You'd have to teach them about proof, theories, laws, CITATIONS AND REFERENCES (which ones are valid and which ones are not), the scientific method..

[Darth Wong]

Look for the use of quotes from key individuals who are cited as scientists with no real explanation of what rationale the "mainstream scientific community" used in order to reject their findings. In fact, pseudoscientists will usually claim the "mainstream scientific community" had no rationale or explanation at all for their rejection of this "groundbreaking", "paradigm-shattering", or "controversial" idea, which is a sure sign of deception.

The problem with pseudoscience is that it presents a bunch of premises and facts to you and then leads you to what appears to be a logical conclusion. Unless you are fairly knowledgeable about the underlying science, it is quite easy to be hoodwinked by suppressed or outright false premises.

[Darth Wong]

Actually, the simplest rule is that if the "mainstream scientific community" rejects it, then it's most likely pseudoscience. Remind them that the "mainstream scientific community" is not a social club; it is the accumulated knowledge of the world's most knowledgeable scientists.

Ask them why anyone would be taking scientific arguments directly to the public rather than this august body, when the public is not even remotely qualified to judge such matters.

But for 9 year olds, even this may not be enough. Ultimately, the fact is simply that 9 year olds just aren't mature enough to be judging scientific arguments at all. No one below university level is, quite frankly.

[Trytostaydead]

Heck, even university students have trouble reading proper science journals. There are entire classes devoted to this subject, and yes, there are people that fail these classes too!

[dworkin]

The problem with pseudoscience is that it presents a bunch of premises and facts to you and then leads you to what appears to be a logical conclusion. Unless you are fairly knowledgeable about the underlying science, it is quite easy to be hoodwinked by suppressed or outright false premises.

Yup, that's the wossname. Still, snake-oil ads, astrology articles and pseudoscience often have some 'indicators' which can give them away. At Yr5 (9 years old) teaching them to recognise such articles is a damn good start. Just as we don't expect a 9 year old to duke it out with a molester but still be able to recognise the (often obvious) danger signals.

Bridget will have them looking for examples of pseudoscience in common adverts with tell-tale indicators like 'life energy', 'scientifically proven' and 'alternative'.

[dworkin]

But for 9 year olds, even this may not be enough. Ultimately, the fact is simply that 9 year olds just aren't mature enough to be judging scientific arguments at all. No one below university level is, quite frankly.

At a nine year old level the focus will be on ads on the TV and in magazines. And also "not everything you read on the internet is true".
And some handy tips to recognise bullshit.

Intending them to be able to disect and refute such an article is too much. Getting them able to smell it on the other hand.

[Darth Wong]

Getting them to recognize bullshit in TV ads is easy. The rule is simple: if it's a TV ad, then it's probably bullshit

[Lord Zentei]

Unfortunately, buzzphrases cannot always be used in this way. Note the contradiction between not trusting the words "scientifically proven" and "rejected by the mainstream scientific community". Since pseudoscientists are experienced in rhetoric and nine year olds are not, this may not be the best approach, or at least it must be supplemented.

I submit that explaining the idea of the scientific method and double blind testing with a little roleplay might work better. Teach them the idea that "science is the art of the soluble". If it cannot be falsified, it isn't science. Basic principles like that.

Getting them to recognize bullshit in TV ads is easy. The rule is simple: if it's a TV ad, then it's probably bullshit

Yeah, and a general attitude of skepticism works too.

[dworkin]

Well, yup. Still, I'll yet you know how it goes.

Rant mode on

It's the "make all lessons relavent" and "engaging higher order thinking" ding-dongery. Which makes teaching astronomy a complete arse as how can you do these requirements and still teach all the interesting shit about the solar system? The shit is interesting in and of itself, bugger all kids find it dull and it's plain cool to know.

"But what good is it?" the education gurus say. "How is it useful to their lives?"

I figure it is as useful as knowing that flowing water can move a wheel and if that wheel is a magnet and that magnet is in a coil of copper wire then you can generate an electric current.

That's a pretty cool thing to know. And if these nitwits lived before 1920 they probably would of asked "but what good is it?" too.

[CaptainChewbacca]

The fake moon landing rubbish is also a fairly safe topic given the relativly high fundy quotient.

Do you mean to say that "fundies" are more likely to believe the moon landing was fake? In my experience, its the atheist UFO conspiracy nuts that drive that one.

[Surlethe]

Install bullshit detectors early--as early as possible. However, it has to be a very, very basic-level bullshit detector.

I didn't get one until I actually was an adolescent; as a result, I was a YEC (when I thought about it) from age 5 to 13. Remembering it is painful. So give the kids as much of one as they can understand!

[Straha]

Teach them this:

1. If most scientists say it's true, then it probably is.

2. If someone claims that a large group of people are lieing, he should show proof why they're lieing.

3. Don't always believe someone when they say "a scientist told me this."

4. If it's hard to believe, do more research before you believe it.

5. If someone tells you something that doesn't make sense, ask them about it immeadietly.

6. Never forget, you can be wrong.

[Braedley]

As the saying goes: "If it's too good to be true..."
Some examples (that I have noticed recenty) are the "Q-Ray ionized bracelet" and any overunity machine.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I would jnust teach them how to apply Carl Sagans Baloney Detection Kit

If you can get them to understand these simple things

* Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts

Test and retest. Teach them that one person claiming something is true, doesnt mean it is. Anecdotal evidence is subject to human falibility. To illustrate this, have them A) Play Telephone and B) GIve the example of the fish story"I swear the fish was 4 feet long!"

* Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

Have an in class debate over something harmless. Like maybe... WHat killed the dinos. ALl kids especially nine year olds like to talk about dinos. Have them back up their arguments with citations and references.

* Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").

On the same token, teach them that people in authority can sometimes be wrong, and that just because someone is bigger or stronger, or has a Ph. D does not automatically make them wrong. Teach them that in science, everyone is equal, so long as they know and understand the material.

* Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

* Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours

.

Teach them to not get stuck on one idea and entertain multiple exlanations in case one is wrong.

* Quantify, wherever possible.

YAY math

* If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.

Teach them how to form basic logical arguments, and how a chain is only as strong as its weakest link

* "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.

Use the esxample of little men living inside of a television set

* Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?

Drill The Method into them, make them live and breath it

[Rye]

You should have at least one lesson pertaining to Cold Reading. I remember I did when I was at primary school. Essentially, a guy came in and said he had a psychic hat. Inside the hat were little strips of paper with your average cold reading/horoscope vagueness that could apply to anyone. We all thought the ones we got were magically or psychically chosen, but then it was revealed how it was done.

They'll learn something that'll stay with them, and it's vaguely fun, you get the "psychic" to give them a load of theatrics and bullshit slight of hand and so on, and they can get enthralled by it, before finding the deeper, logical explanation.

Also, getting a magician to come in, do tricks, and then show the kids how he did them might be cool too.

[General Brock]

I'd link it to ethics; don't lie, cheat, or steal, or be a bully, and don't let stupid happen to you. The importance of right thoughts leading to right actions, positive ideals to guide human behavior, how to balance between desire and need.

Memorizing buzzwords and complicated debating/analysis concepts can be difficult for a nine-year-old, but big picture concepts can be grasped and the habit of clear thinking helps the child to find their place in it.

Rye's idea of introducing the kids to the science of magic and illusion is also a good idea, but unfortunately, also an extremely expensive hobby.

Children can also be easily discouraged, so don't go overboard. Ultimately, you want them to be able to think for themselves, which means they need space to figure out their own path to reason.

[Darth Wong]

If, after reading an article, you feel like asking why the scientific community is so close-minded and dishonest, it's virtually guaranteed to be pseudoscience.

[dworkin]

Do you mean to say that "fundies" are more likely to believe the moon landing was fake? In my experience, its the atheist UFO conspiracy nuts that drive that one.

Yes, and there are no 'atheist UFO conspiracy nuts' who are parents in Whangaparaoa. Fundy arseholes who say the earth is ~8,000 yo we have.
Fundy arseholes who will cause a stink which will cause Bridget a lot of unwanted stress.

So, she picked a topic like moon landings which won't cause her to have hours long meetings with these asstards after work rather than exposing flat earthers or creationist rubbish which would.

Teaching is a calm relaxing job only if you used to be a bomb-disposal expert or alligator dentist We don't need more stress.

And the lessons seem to be going well. Thanks for the help guys, gals and herms.

[kaikatsu]

This might be a bit complicated for the level you are teaching, but ask yourself, "The person that is telling me this, what do they gain if I believe it?"

That one alone can be a good warning to turn on the detector.