Towards a kinder, friendlier skepticism in 2010

Besides proofing my Twitter posts for errors and potentially misconstrued verb use before updating, I’ve resolved to improve my communication and skeptical relation skills for 2010. I’m well on my way. I don’t really need people to tell me what to improve on since my self-critical conscience screams at me after a bad experience and lingers much longer nagging me never to do that sort of thing again.

It takes practice, I guess. One must start somewhere; recognizing some aspects to work on is the place to start. Here are my objectives: Continue reading

What’s the most convincing type of evidence?

Evidence is factual statements (or perceived to be factual) offered in support of the speaker’s claim. There are, generally, three kinds of evidence – statistical, causal and anecdotal.

‘Statistical’ is numerical summaries of many instances. ‘Causal’ provides an explanation for an occurrence in which I’ll also include “expert opinion”. ‘Anecdotes’ are from specific instances. I’ve already mentioned why anecdotes are problematic.

Considering evidence isn’t simple. There are many variables involved including who presents it, what situation it is presented in, our political slant and personal values. Continue reading

The emotionally and cognitively satisfying anecdote

I used to have a cat. That cat was pretty mean. He hated other people and animals. He messed up my house. I’ll never have another cat because they don’t make good house pets.

The little story above is an anecdote. It has characters, reflects a real-life experience in a narrative form and is intended to provide you with “facts”, an opinion and my reasoning for the conclusion I’ve made there at the end.

Did it convince you? Perhaps – if you are open to the idea that cats are bad pets. Is it generalizable to the entire population of people considering pets? No. It’s simply one person’s experience with a cat. Continue reading