Subscribe to the blogs

Triple A Learning IB Blogs

January 15, 2012

memory and forgetting

Filed under: TOK meets global citizenship — Tags: , , , , , — Eileen Dombrowski @ 5:22 pm

This excerpt from an article by Ingrid Wickelgren, writing in the Scientific American, has really made my morning.  I have valued being able to remember, and despaired at times over my own vague blanks.  But now I’m heartened (as a blurry-headed person) and fascinated (as a teacher of critical thinking) by the important role for decision making and emotional health of forgetting.  Wickelgren documents the case of Solomon Shereshevsky, who remembered so readily and completely that “the weight of all the memories, piled up and overlapping in his brain, created crippling confusion.”

“The act of forgetting,” she writes, “crafts and hones data in the brain as if carving a statue from a block of marble. It enables us to make sense of the world by clearing a path to the thoughts that are truly valuable. It also aids emotional recovery. …. In recent years researchers have amassed evidence for our ability to willfully forget. They have sketched out a neural circuit underlying this skill analogous to the one that inhibits impulsive actions.”

Read more…

January 6, 2012

The Debunking Handbook

Filed under: TOK meets global citizenship — Tags: , , , , , — Eileen Dombrowski @ 5:49 am

In a very simple model of knowledge, we accept ideas — believe them — on the basis of good justification.  The more the evidence and the better the reasoning, the more likely we are to believe a knowledge claim.  Alas that such a fine idea should be flawed!

It would appear, instead, that attempts to counter misinformation often have exactly the opposite effect: the very attempt to debunk a myth may entrench it the more firmly in people’s minds.  The Debunking Handbook, by John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky, downloadable free on the website of Skeptical Science, treats some of the psychological factors of which communicators should be aware in trying to counter false information and the myths within which they are very often embedded.  It identifies three major “backfire effects”:  countering a myth involves talking about it and thus making it more familiar; providing an explanation that is overly complicated may make people reject it in favour of a simpler myth; counter-arguments that threaten people’s worldviews may strengthen their own views in resistance.  I recommend highly this short, clear, free pamphlet.  It adds some interesting complexity to a TOK treatment of the relationship between justification and belief.

Read more…

November 12, 2011

science and language: communicating climate change

In my posting on “Science and politics: packets of opinion” on November 8, I promised to return to the question of why many people, especially in the United States, reject the conclusions of scientists on a scientific topic, climate change.  It seems clear that the correlation between political affiliation and acceptance of scientific consensus is significant:  those on the right of the political spectrum are less likely to believe the findings of science on this topic than those on the left (and certainly thereafter less likely to assign government a role in problem-solving).  Yet that correlation raises yet more questions.  Those questions involve central issues in a course on critical thinking: factors other than evidence that influence belief in climate change and the way language is used as a way of knowing.

As a resource for exploring these questions, I recommend highly an article from last month in Physics Today, “Communicating the science of climate change”.  Its opening summary line reads:  “It is urgent that climate scientists improve the ways they convey their findings to a poorly informed and often indifferent public.”

Read more…

November 8, 2011

science and politics: packets of opinion

Which of the following do you think more strongly influences whether people believe the conclusions reached by scientists:  (a) the extent to which the conclusions are justified by evidence  (b) the beliefs that the people hold in the field of politics?  If you chose the first, it’s possible that you are being far, far too logical.  If you chose the second, it’s possible that you’ve pushed aside pure logic and have been observing the world.  Although I concede that the either/or split of my question does oversimplify the interaction between people’s scientific and political beliefs, the science of global warming surely stands as an excellent contemporary example of how people actually do ground their beliefs and the influences upon them.

Take recent studies, for instance, of American and Canadian public perceptions on climate change.  “Climate Compared:  Public Opinion on Climate Change in the United States and Canada”, a paper from the Brookings Institute”, compares the two countries for the following: levels of belief that climate change is occurring, correlation with political affiliations, and the role of government in finding solutions.  The executive summary consists of nine concisely expressed points, quick to read and therefore potentially useful in class.

Read more…

May 27, 2011

knowing the future: prophetic dreams

Filed under: TOK meets global citizenship — Tags: , , , , — Eileen Dombrowski @ 4:48 am

“Believing you have seen the future in a dream is surprisingly common,” writes Richard Wiseman, “with surveys suggesting that around a third of the population experience this phenomenon at some point.”  The topic of prediction and justifications for accepting versions of the future is a magnetic issue in TOK, running through a number of areas of knowledge (as I have commented in my previous two postings). In this extract from his recent book Paranormality, Wiseman raises a number of issues relevant to accepting dreams as giving us prophetic knowledge of the future.

Examining the justifications for believing that events we experience have been foretold in our dreams, Wiseman rejects them all for the following reasons:

Read more…

May 21, 2011

disappointing the doomsday cult: prediction

Filed under: TOK meets global citizenship — Tags: , , , — Eileen Dombrowski @ 11:56 pm

As I write these words, the end of the world has not yet come.  If it didn’t occur to you that it might have done so, you’re clearly not a follower of prophet Harold Camping, an 89-year-old Christian Californian predicting “the Rapture”. He worked out the time of the event by mathematical calculation based on Biblical text — not a method, perhaps, that most of us would care to adopt. Apparently during “the Rapture” all the people saved by Jesus are meant to rise to heaven, while the rest of us stay on earth and get wiped out.  Perhaps, however, I shouldn’t relax too soon.  6pm Saturday is still an hour away in my own time zone, which I share with the prophet.

The topic of doomsday cults in class can animate a number of knowledge issues:

Read more…

October 1, 2010

scientific information sharing: interview with a scientist

After making my last posting, I wasn´t satisfied. I wanted to understand the process of scientific information sharing and peer review a bit better. And so, I did the obvious thing: I asked an experienced research scientist. Dr. Patrick Decowski is a nuclear physicist, part of a number of research teams working out of California, Japan, and the Netherlands. (A long time ago he was also one of my students in TOK.)

About peer review and scientific publication

Read more…

June 11, 2010

“The Memory Doctor”: “memory…is a fragile thing”

Filed under: TOK meets global citizenship — Tags: , , , , — Eileen Dombrowski @ 11:14 pm

Memory, as we recognize, is fallible and malleable.  In 2010, none of us is likely to believe that memory is a reliable and stable recording device.  I’d like to flag a recent article for your attention, though, in that it goes into many of the knowledge issues associated with investigation of memory and brings out some significant implications of its manipulation for law courts, advertising, politics, and other areas where the desire to persuade might be given, by some, a higher value than the desire for truth.

“The Memory Doctor” by William Saleton (June 4, 2010. Slate) follows the career of Elizabeth Loftus , known as both a debunker of false memories and a creator of them.  It treats her early investigation of semantic memory and eyewitness testimony, and the uses to which her growing expertise was put: “She was exactly what defense lawyers needed. The chief threat to their clients was incriminating witness testimony. Loftus could shake the jury’s faith in such recollections without attacking the witness personally.”  It goes into greater detail on her discovery of the extent to which memories could be modified and even entirely false memories implanted in a patient’s mind, and her identification of a “recipe” (involving a trusted source and imagination) for creating memories.  In treating this form of deception, the article touches on informed consent and ethics, and the possible negative or positive effects, quoting Loftus on the latter: “We seem to have been purposely constructed with a mechanism for erasing the tape of our memory, or at least bending the memory tape, so that we can live and function without being haunted by the past. Accurate memory, in some instances, would simply get in the way.”

Read more…

March 12, 2010

magic tricks and belief

Don’t watch this video if you faint over needles.  I had a hard time watching it to the end, but was far too interested in magic and belief to stop. Magician Eric Mead, in context of TED talks, does a couple of tricks on video and comments simultaneously on the placebo effect:  “For some time I have been interested in the placebo effect, which might seem like an odd thing for a magician to be interested in, unless you think of it in the terms that I do, which is something fake is believed in enough by somebody that it becomes something real.”


Read more…