My Peace Grand Challenge Competition Entry

I've had a number of requests for copies of my Peace Grand Challenge competition entry, so I've copied it below.  The competition was "to submit an essay describing your idea on the subject ‘Innovative solutions for world peace, 2014-2034.’"  It was evaluated on these criteria:

• Impact (25%) – Ability to impact millions of people
• Technology (25%) – Smart use of technology
• Feasibility (25%) – Project feasibility (including sociological credibility)
• Applicant (25%) – Applicant profile, achievements, and potential 

(Which should explain why I write a bit about myself)

The essay was written by adding more detail to a blog entry that I wrote last year:

A Self-improving, Transparent, Democratic, Meritocratic, International System

About Me

I have been writing software since I was eleven years old. When I was seventeen, I wrote a real time 3D graphics engine with texture mapping, in assembly language (only something that hardcore computer nerds do). Since then I have accumulated sixteen years of professional programming experience. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that my idea is based on software.

The Problem

In order to create world peace, one has to solve the problem of world conflict. These are some reasons for conflict:

• People are divided into groups like religions and countries. Without being classified into a group it's more difficult to find a group to fight.
• People have extreme ideas and are unwilling to be critical of their ideas and consider alternate points of view.
• Desperation, caused by poverty. If one had everything one wanted there would be no reason to fight.
• Lack of a systematic method to change what you care about, leading to ineffective petitions, striking, demonstrating, rioting and civil war.
• Lack of transparency in governments, leading to corruption, lack of trust and anarchy.

Perhaps you can think of more reasons, but I'll leave that up to you to think about as you read my idea and ponder whether or not this idea (or any other idea) addresses the causes of conflict.

According to Wikipedia the countries of the world are governed as follows:

Type of regime	% of countries	% of world population
Full democracies	15	11.3
Flawed democracies	32.3	37.2
Hybrid regimes	22.2	14.4
Authoritarian regimes	30.5	37.1

One might think that the solution to world conflict is to get that 15% up to 100%. but while democracy sounds like a great idea, and generally is much better than a dictatorship, it has many flaws including:

The current archaic voting system.

• Being based on archaic voting systems.
• Only applies within a country.
• The problem that the majority actually know far less about what they're voting for than the minority of experts.
• Highly inefficient, when you think about the £31,000,000 that parties spend campaigning for an election.
• Votes are not only cast by the extremely rare intellectual few who know the ins and outs of every party, but by a large group of people who are influenced by advertising.

I could carry on, but I'm sure you get the general idea.

A Potential Solution

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” 
― R. Buckminster Fuller

My StackOverflow profile.

What annoys me is that we have really great democratic, meritocratic and transparent systems in the IT world, like StackExchange, but the way governments run countries seems to be a bit prehistoric.  I don't know much about politics, but I know a good system when I see one.

Let me start by telling you a bit about StackExchange and why it is awesome:

 On StackOverflow, their sub-site for asking programming questions, one can ask a programming question, and, if it is a well written question, based on their guidelines, one usually has the correct answer within minutes.  Amazingly, this is a free service.  I'm not quite sure if that explains just how incredible the system is, so let me try another way:  One can either spend hours or days trying to solve a complex programming problem, or type it into StackOverflow and have it answered in minutes!

So, how does the system work?

Everyone can earn points by asking questions, answering questions, doing reviews, improving formatting, etc.  One earns these points democratically, meaning that one earns points by other people looking at what one has done and awarding or deducting points.  Once one reaches a certain number of points, one is considered more trustworthy or knowledgeable and therefore more functions are enabled for that person.  The details are quite complex, but the system has obviously been shaped over many years into what it is today, a beautiful and elegant solution.

Imagine what a self-improving and transparent democratic, meritocratic system could be like...

It starts with a well defined end goal, perhaps along the lines of "Increase the level of human happiness throughout the world," in order to focus the users and help the system to evolve with a purpose.

Ideally the system would be universal, however, realistically it would require the ability to make changes in specific geographical areas where there may be a different need, or more users, or perhaps the system is used by a political party.

Perhaps you, as a user of the system, came up with the idea that it might be good for everyone to get benefits instead of just people who are not working, so you go to the website and type your proposal, "Give benefits to everyone, not just those who are unemployed."

The website gives you a list of similar suggestions, and noticing that your proposal is already on the system and is number 273 in the queue, with 834 votes, you click the vote button to increase the value of the proposal and write a comment explaining why it would mean so much to you.

Screen for suggesting a proposal in hypothetical democratic, meritocratic system.

The proposal now has 835 votes and with its new value it is bumped up to position 272 in the queue.  Within the next few weeks a further 7433 people vote for the proposal and it eventually reaches the number one place in the queue.  Your comment on the proposal has been noted by many people and voted up so that it is number five in the list of comments.

People who have earned the most points on the system vote for a group of experts on the subjects involved, including mathematicians and people who are highly clued up about benefits.  This group of experts each records a ten minute video explaining anything that they think is relevant, and then the videos are uploaded to the site and linked to the question.  The people with the most points (trusted) watch all the videos and then vote on whether or not to go ahead with the proposal.  Each vote includes a the voter's reason for voting for their choice.

70% of the voters decide that it is not a good idea to give everyone benefits, so the proposal is disapproved, but you are not happy.  You believe that the system is faulty and you should be one of the people with a large number of points, so you can be included in the final round of voting.  For this reason you need to increase your points to 200.  This takes a lot of work.

You do a logic test, which bumps up your points from 50 to 100.  Then you read all of the recommended books... some history, some critical thinking, some science, some psychology, etc.  One of them doesn't appeal to you, so you create a proposal that the book is changed.  Eventually you do all the tests on the books that you read and your points are bumped up to 150.  Unfortunately you don't quite get the points that you need, so you decide to try to become an expert on benefits.

You go to the expert section on the website and follow the strategy to become an expert.  Eventually you write an amazing article on benefits and are selected as an expert.  The next time the benefits proposal makes its way to the top of the list you are ready with your well researched video on how amazing the world would be if everyone had benefits.

Your video is watched by the people with the most points and 80% of them vote for everyone to have benefits and the new policy becomes reality.

Unfortunately the new policy doesn't work out as well has you'd hoped, but since there is a democratic way to change things, people propose an even better system and the better system is implemented next.

Of course this is a rough idea of a transparent, self-improving, democratic, meritocratic system.  You can probably find faults in this solution... yip, I can see some already, but this is just the start.  The real system should be thoroughly discussed and thought out and would become more complex as it matures and improves. The main point, however, of this system, is that it is self-improving and focused. What better way to find a solution than a system that improves itself and generates solutions?

The system could be used not only for international change, but also for smaller groups, like charities or researchers, trying to figure out the most efficient way to solve a problem.

But imagine if it was used internationally. Imagine if you could see a clear and well defined path that you could take to suggest any change, or become an expert on any matter so that your knowledge, experience and desire for change could make a difference.

Practical Aspects

How to build it

Building the system is the easy bit. A basic, working system, ready to be improved as the system starts working, could be built in a month by a good programmer.

How to make it grow

The system would require regular use by a group of people in order for its' usefulness to be seen and to attract users and grow. For this reason it could start as simply a way for a charity similar to GiveWell to decide the most effective way to spend donations. Perhaps it could be used by activist communities like Zero State and Humanity+ to collaborate internationally. It could be used to run a public company, although that could work against peace, if the goal is to make money, seeing as the most effective ways to make money are not necessarily the most moral.

As the system matures, the charity or activist community could, for example, use the system to figure out better ways to find users. It might want to have donations, and it might want to use some kind of international currency like bitcoins, or it might simply rely on volunteers to complete any tasks that come out of the system.

Imagine an international, virtual community, voting and discussing what to spend money on in an organized fashion in order to achieve their goals.

My dream is...

• that the system could expand to become so large and mature, that the best ideas for peace leap out of it like popcorn
• that petitions, striking, demonstrating, rioting and civil war become obsolete
• that other, better systems emerge as a result
• that eventually the entire world is part of a single system that works for everyone

Thank you for considering my “Innovative solution for world peace.”

I'd be glad to hear any thoughts you have on my idea.

Regards,

Stephen Oberauer

More about me

• 2D & 3D video maker, with a YouTube channel with travel and activism videos, with over 300,000 views.
• Big fan of critical thinking. My critical thinking video for Z-Day 2014.
• Author of the novel, The Mischievous Nerd's Guide to World Domination.

Related links

StackOverflow: http://stackoverflow.com

GiveWell, a non-profit research organization that determines the most effective charities: http://www.givewell.org/about

A slightly similar idea to mine, called LiquidFeedback, used by The Pirate Party:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiquidFeedback

Zero State, an example of a community who would probably like to collaborate on ideas like this: http://wavism.net/group2/

A forum for posting & voting on campaign ideas:  http://38degrees.uservoice.com/forums/189307-campaign-ideas-2013

Loomio, software for group decision making:  http://www.loomio.org (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vCL4I19o9U)

Computer-network based democracy: http://dss.secureid.org/stories/storyReader$14

Images:

1. Courtesy of ProLife at stock.xchng

2. Courtesy of svilen001 at stock.xchng

Support

If you like this idea and would like to see it become reality, all I would like you to do for now is to join one or more of the Democratic Intelligence groups:

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/democraticintelligence
Google+:  https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/118433697403372101600
LinkedIn:  https://www.linkedin.com/groups/Xparent-8209220

Update: http://democraticintelligence.org has been live for a while now, and needs your support.  The best way to make a difference is to use the site regularly.  Please register on the site and participate in order to get the ball rolling.  Here's how you can participate.

Questions & Answers

This is where I'll put questions that I've been asked about the idea, and my answers:

1.  "...would just need everyone to have computers in their home?"

Based on the exponential rate of internet growth, that's probably not going to take as long as most people think.  Nevertheless, if I were to imagine the system growing in stages, I would imagine that the first stage would be for the system to be accessible to whoever has access to the internet via whatever device, e.g. computer, smart phone, tablet, games console, smart tv, etc.  Others could go to their public library or school to gain access, which may be more convenient than getting to a voting station and standing in a queue for a couple of hours. Those who don't have access to such facilities, or aren't able to read would have to wait. In the next stage of the system, those using the system could vote for the needs of the underprivileged - firstly making sure that they have access to the things that they really need, e.g. food, water, shelter, education, and in the next stage they could vote for publicly accessible computers... whatever works to help achieve the goal of the system.

Is the Prevalence of Autism Increasing?

...perhaps, but let me start with my disclaimer:

While not apparent to everyone, it's quite clear to me that anyone who decides to post an opinion on-line should welcome rational criticism.  I consider my beliefs to simply be temporary until I can replace them with better beliefs.  Therefore, if you have read a number of books on critical thinking and, through applying what you have learned thereby, discover that you may have a better view on something I have written, feel free to inform me.  If, however, you haven't even read a single book on critical thinking, you may want to update the thinking software on your necktop computer to include all the amazing insights of the last few centuries first. :)

While having an intellectual discussion on the value of vaccines, I discovered some charts and information on the net that proposed that autism was on the increase.  Before I go any further, let me quickly assure you that the rumour of a link between vaccines and autism does not have a leg to stand on for a number of reasons, including that the experts believe that there is no link, the most notorious quacks (Mercola & co.) say there is a link, and even after vaccine manufacturers removed the scary ingredient, thiomersal, which the quacks believed was causing the autism (and the experts didn't), the quacks continue to spread these rumours.

So, onto the topic at hand:  If vaccines weren't causing autism to be more prevalent, what was?  Could it be that something else had changed over the last 25 years?  No, not possible, because nothing has changed at all.  Everything is exactly the same as it was 25 years ago... we still listen to records, have three television channels and phone people using a funny dialling device that requires sticking your finger in a hole and rotating it clockwise six times.

But seriously though, I recently discovered this study from the peer reviewed journal, Psychological Medicine, published by Cambridge University Press in 2014.  I would recommend taking a peek, not reading the entire thing, but just enough to get an idea of the kind of detail, thought and expertise went into the study.  I have to admit that I can't understand a lot of what they're saying, either because I've forgotten a lot of what I learned in a year of statistics lessons or because my classes were not advanced enough.

Anyway, the gist of the extensive study is this:  "...there was no clear evidence of a change in prevalence for autistic disorder or other ASDs between 1990 and 2010."

Also of interest is this:  "These results support research findings (Fombonne, 2008) that suggest that early childhood factors, for instance vaccinations, have had no observable effect on the occurrence of ASDs.  However, there is some evidence that in-utero stressors (such as maternal stress, obesity and pesticide exposure), birth complications and advanced parental age may be associated with higher risk of ASDs (Scott et al. 2013)."

What if everything you read on the internet was true?

Browsing through my Facebook news feed is usually a boring experience: seeing my friends enjoying their holidays, learning the dull news that someone's pregnant or getting married, and finding out that my brother has eaten a pizza and it tasted good.

Luckily there are times when I come across some fascinating information that someone has shared, with bold captions and exclamation marks!!!, warning about the latest threat of killer budgies, which has been discovered through no research whatsoever.

My typical response is to do a quick Google, find the link to hoax-slayer.com at the top of the search results, and share it so that they no longer have to worry about such things.  Unfortunately this is not usually (actually never) met with, "Thanks Stephen.  I was so worried about the deadly budgerigars that I locked myself in a cage for a week with a bowl of water and a slice of toast.  Your diligence in finding out that the information was baloney is the best thing that has ever happened to me."  Instead I tend to simply annoy people and make them dislike me.

So, in the interest of making the world a slightly more pleasant place, I've decided to give in and agree that everything one reads on the internet is true.

Here are a list of 10 simple patterns to look out for on the internet in order to find truth:


#1.  If it says "SHARE THIS WITH ALL OF YOUR FRIENDS!!!," or some variation thereof, please do!

Every single paranoid claim on the internet is true.  The world needs more paranoid people, and by sharing every single scary sounding claim, especially those that tell you to share them (you must obey), you can make the world a better place.

This is due to the following rule of thumb...

#2.  Extraordinary claims don't require proper evidence.

Consider the newspaper.  It's a useful piece of equipment, which can be used for covering the floor when you're painting, can be rolled up and used for playing duster hockey, or even for wrapping presents to give to children you don't like.  This marvellous piece of equipment doesn't contain anything that anyone needs to know, and therefore chances are that any desperately shareworthy piece of information that has a shred of evidence attached to it has neither been published in the newspaper nor been on the news and since no-one knows what you know,  everyone needs to know about it through you.

#3.  It contradicts what most experts say on the matter.

There is always only one side to a story.  It is the side that you happen to read first.  Don't ever look for an alternative angle, because it will be wrong.

The true side of the story also happens to be the one guy who made an amazing discovery that no-one else could replicate and is not what the majority of experts have to say.

#4.  No reference to a neutral, trustworthy source.

Many statements shared on Facebook consist simply of some text with or without a picture.  Regardless of whether or not it actually references a source, if it has some statistics included, just believe it.

If it does reference a source, ignore the source.  It doesn't matter whether the source says the same thing, or if the source is impartial.  You can be quite certain that one product is better than another simply because the company making it said so.

#5.  No information about the research.

Articles that talk about a study are always completely true.  Does the article tell you who did the study so you can tell if the study was likely to be biased?  Do you know how many subjects were studied?  Was the hypothesis published before the study?  Was information cherry picked from the study, or was the whole study revealed?  Were placebo's used?  Was it a double blind test?  What do all other, similar studies have to say?  What do other people say about the study?  Don't worry, because it doesn't matter... just believe!

#6.  Be especially certain when spotting keywords normally associated with truth:  Alternative, Truth, Natural, Spiritual, Free energy, Vibrations, Crystals, Healing.

Alternative - because alternative is often a way of saying "untested" or "not used by people who've studied this stuff."  Alternative things do not need to be tested, because they're true.

Truth - because scientific articles which simply state the facts, with no desire to impress anyone, are unlikely to use this word.  They are more likely to use words like probability, majority, unlikely, hypothesis and test.  Those words are boring.  "Truth" is the word you're looking for.

FREE BONUS NOTE:  Statements become truer when the word "fact" is combined with "true", e.g. "true fact."  They can become even truer when using bold, capital letters, e.g. "TRUE FACT OF UNDENIABLE TRUENESS" is more likely to be true than just "true."

Natural - because everything that is natural, including poo, is good for one and everything that is unnatural, like being inoculated against polio, is bad.

Spiritual - because everyone can agree as to what spiritual is.  It is also a true fact that everyone believes in the same 3000 deities, is not a member of any of the wrong religions, but is only a member of the one true religion.

Free energy - every kid with a basement and a voltmeter has built a free energy contraption.  The only reason why they don't use it to power the lights in their basement is because they haven't found a way to switch it on yet.






Healing - because real hospitals and all doctors, including specialists, surgeons, dentists and nurses, and even veterinarians, are part of a global money making conspiracy.


#7.  If it sounds sciency, it is science.

It has been discovered that even a computer can generate truth simply by stringing together a random sequence of clever sounding words, such as quantum, neural and transcendence.  If you cannot understand something it means that you are not smart enough to understand truth.

#8.  If it has a picture, it means the picture was taken by the same person that wrote the article.

The picture on the right was used to stir up hatred towards a group who were accused of having child brides.  Of course these days one can upload a picture to Google and check where else the picture is used, find out the origin of the picture and the real context.  In this case the picture was actually taken by one of the brides by herself (the one third from the front), who actually wrote the article too and now has 482 children of her own.

#9.  All conspiracies are true.

All governments (yes, even your one), regardless of which of the 192 countries you're from have conspired together to kill you, your people and themselves.  Yes, I know this means that they won't have anyone to govern, or pay taxes.  Regardless, since this fact agrees with #2 of this list, it is simply true.

#10.  Anyone who offers you money or other free stuff is your friend.

This is because it has been discovered that everyone is honest, especially large corporations, who don't care about profit, and Nigerian princes, who give out money willy nilly, just like the Trojans were always friends with the Greeks.

So now you know what to do:

Kindly share this with everyone you care about!!!  It is true, because I, the true sayer, say thus and 97.2% of all people agree thusly.  I also discovered, using a mixture of alternative, vibrating crystals and concurrent quantum methodologery, powered by my free energy device (a cow in a large hamster wheel), that your government is watching you to make sure that you do.

And most of all, remember that anyone who questions what you share is evil and out to get you.

Images:
1. Thumb print 1 courtesy of georgie c at www.freeimages.com
2. Unhappy Feet courtesy of jaylopez at www.freeimages.com

3. Shapes and Textures courtesy of frtzw906 at www.freeimages.com

4. Money in sock - euro courtesy of kris69 at www.freeimages.com

Critical Thinking Skills

This is the script for a video I made for Z-Day 2014 in London... 

When I was in high school I was particularly good at mathematics competitions.  I never had to study for them; I just rocked up, answered the mathematical problems and got more correct answers than most of the others.  It gave me an over inflated opinion of my ability to think.

One might believe that if I was good at mathematics, then I had a good reason to believe that I was good at thinking, but this belief was challenged one day when I spoke to my uncle, an intelligent cancer researcher, about a game of chess.  Having learnt that he was good at chess, I suggested that we have a game, but my uncle's next question surprised me, "Which books have you read about chess?"

"Books on chess?"  I had never even considered the possibility that there were books on playing chess.  I was smart.  Why would I need to read a book about something that simply required intelligence?

When I replied that I had never read any books on chess, my uncle replied that it would be pointless playing against him.  Chess books have been written by people with decades of experience and insight into the best chess thinking strategies on the planet.  If he knew these and I didn't, there would be no contest.  I would, plain and simply, lose.

The same goes for thinking.  There is a large proportion of people around the world who think that their brains are somehow superior to those who disagree with them.  They believe that their political system of choice is the right one, and their religion is the truth, and anyone who believes anything else is wrong.

But lets say that a member of the local mind control cult knocks on your door to tell you about the one and only true religion, that they happen to be lucky enough to believe in, and you turn to them and ask, "Which books have you read about thinking?"  I'd be quite happy to bet that they would say "None."  Of course, this doesn't just apply to them.  Unfortunately it is rare to find people who have read books on thinking, even though I think it is a topic we should all be educated in.

There are books which have been written, and methods which have been developed which are the product of centuries of thinking, and chances are that if we have not read this information and do not use these methods when we think, then we are nowhere near as good at thinking as we could be.  In a contest of thinking ability, if there were such a thing, those who have never learned thinking skills would plain and simply, lose.

The first book that I read on thinking was called "Software for your brain."  It's a free download, and quite easy to find if you Google "Software for your brain."  It's written by Dr Michael Hewitt-Gleeson, who is also the founder and principal of the School of Thinking, a free, online school at schoolofthinking.org.

A revised version of the book, called "English Thinking, The Three Methods," is now available in Kindle format.  I'd like to share my favourite section of English Thinking, because of the simple and obvious way that it makes a point with examples of what some followers have said about their religions:

Christian Science:

… is unerring and Divine … outside of Christian Science all is vague and hypothetical, the opposite of Truth.

Seventh-Day Adventists:
The General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists is the highest authority that God has upon earth.

Jehovah’s Witnesses:
… alone are God’s true people, and all others without exception are followers of the Devil … At Armageddon all of earth’s inhabitants, except Jehovah’s Witnesses, will be wiped out of existence.

Mormons:
There is no salvation outside the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints … everybody, unless they repent and work righteousness, will be damned except Mormons.

Christadelphians:
None but Christadelphians can be saved.

Islam:
Mohammed is the messenger of God … the last, and final exponent of God’s mind, the seal of the prophets.

The Divine Light Mission:
The Guru Marahaj Ji alone has the key to the knowledge of the source of God.

The Unification Church:
Only the Lord of the Second Advent, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, will be powerful enough to complete the restoration of man to God.

Krishna Consciousness:

Direct love for the Lord Krishna, in the form of chanting, singing and dancing, is the best way to rid the soul of ignorance.

Church of Scientology:
It is only through the exercise of the principles of Dianetics that there is real hope for happiness in this lifetime and the eventual-freeing of the soul from death.

The Children of God:
No power in the world can stand against the power of David. (This refers to David Berg, the sect’s leader.)

Catholic Church:
No one can be saved without that faith which the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church holds, believes and teaches … the One True Church established on earth by Jesus Christ … to whom alone it belongs to judge the meaning and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.

It's quotes like this that make me dislike the word "truth."  One might be forgiven for thinking that if so many of us are deluded that no-one can really know what the truth is, which is why a better method of thinking is required.  Instead of thinking in terms of true or false, right or wrong, black or white, it's more useful to think in terms of the evidence.

For example, before Facebook existed, urban legends and other nonsense used to be passed around by word of mouth, and later by email.  So I received an email, warning the reader that certain shampoos contained an ingredient which was responsible for cancer.  I had a few options:

• I could believe it to be true and send it to everyone else in my address book, thus saving their lives
• I could believe it to be a lie, and delete it, replying back to the person who sent it to me and telling them not to send me such nonsense
• I could admit that I did not have the evidence to know whether or not it was true, contact my uncle, the cancer researcher and find out what he had to say.  

So I forwarded it on to my uncle and expected the reply to say that it was either true, or false.  It didn't.

Instead of true or false, it said something like this:

"This chemical was tested on one thousand rats.  No tumours were found."

This is the way science works; it might not tell us true or false, but simply states the evidence.  Had my uncle told me the email was false, he would have been dishonest.  He did not have any proof that the chemical didn't cause cancer, but merely that when tested, no tumours were found.  There's always the possibility that, had they tested it on a thousand humans, they would have gotten a different result, or if they had tested on one million rats, they would have gotten a different result.  So, in this case we can say that it is highly unlikely that the chemical causes cancer.  The email did not say why they believed that the chemical caused cancer, so they did not have a leg to stand on.

In science and medicine we have a term called "The Scientific Method."  It is the best way that I know of for determining whether a hypothesis is likely or unlikely.

The term is mentioned in The Zeitgeist Movement's mission statement:  "...the defining goal here is the installation of a new socioeconomic model based upon technically responsible Resource Management, Allocation and Distribution through what would be considered The Scientific Method of reasoning problems and finding optimized solutions."

So, what is The Scientific Method?  In theory, it contains steps like these:

• Define a question, for example, I might ask, "Is the sky always blue?"
• Gather information and resources (observe).
• Form an explanatory hypothesis.  A hypothesis could be an if, then, statement, for example, if the sky is always blue, then I will see blue whenever I look at the sky.
• Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
• Analyze the data
• Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
• Publish results
• Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Probably the most important element of the scientific method is testing.  I'm a programmer, in which testing forms an essential part of the work that we do, and I wish that everyone could be involved in a job where testing is required in order to understand how easy it is for humans to make mistakes and how often we do so, and how essential testing is.  In my job, our programs go through about five stages of testing and two reviews before being used by the public.  Once that's done problems are still found and patches have to be developed.

Let's say that I'm using the scientific method to test my hypothesis that the sky is always blue and I did everything except for the last two steps, so I didn't publish my results, and I didn't retest.  I might be deluded to think that the sky is always blue.  However once I've published my results, other scientists can come back to me and say, well, we tried this test at night time, and the sky was black.  As soon as that happens, the hypothesis has been disproved, and one has a definite answer to one's question, and knows that the sky is not always blue.  Alternatively I could ask a different question, like, "Is the sky always blue during the day."

I like to think of the scientific method in terms of a brick and a hammer, where the brick is the hypothesis and the hammer is the evidence used to try to smash the brick.  

If the evidence is strong enough to destroy the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is false.

If the hypothesis is strong enough, then one needs to keep trying using different hammers (or evidence).

If one cannot destroy it by oneself, one should get as many other people as one can to give it a go.  It's often very easy to tell that an extraordinary "scientific" claim is not true, because the person making the claim has skipped this step.  When you actually look up the theory on the internet, you find that no-one else was able to reproduce his experiment, or you find that those who disagree with him have done far more research than those who believe him, then you can be pretty confident that the claim is bogus.

Often one cannot prove that the brick is indestructible.  In other words, one cannot prove that a hypothesis is true, but if it survives long enough, then the hypothesis can be used as a viable argument and to support other bricks in order to be used as a basis for other theories.  This is like placing bricks on top of one another to form a wall.

In the example of a wall, the bottom bricks could be called the premises and the bricks above it could be called the argument.  Here's an example of a valid argument.

But if a hypothesis eventually does get destroyed then the entire wall above it falls down.

Here's an example of an invalid argument, since one of the premises is invalid.

You can also tell an argument is flawed when you draw a diagram to try to understand an argument and instead of getting a wall, you end up with spaghetti.  Albert Einstein once said, "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."  There is also the possibility that, if one's argument looks like spaghetti, it might just be nonsense.

Sometimes there are valid, complex arguments, and some arguments are too detailed to be understood by the human brain, like predicting the weather, or determining the origin of a star. Such arguments need to be simulated on computers.  I would love for a simulation of a resource based economy to be developed.  Such a simulation would be very useful for understanding its effectiveness.

Most people think in the opposite way to the scientific method.  Instead of forming a hypothesis and finding ways to disprove it, it's a lot easier to believe something which sounds good, and then try to find evidence to support that belief.  An example is a religious person who is simply a member of a religion because he grew up in it, and spends his time reading books written by that religion instead of reading anything by anyone opposed to the religion.  Another example could even be someone who hates the concepts of money and politics, because they've read bad things about them, but has never tried to find out if the concept of money has any value, and has never read any books on politics, so he doesn't actually understand it properly.  Instead he should learn the good and the bad sides of money and politics.  Of course we should try to be unbiased, learning about both sides of a story, otherwise we are not scientific, but religious.

Human Fallibilities

Cognitive Dissonance

My favourite big word in the critical thinking books is something called "cognitive dissonance."  I throw it around whenever I want to sound intelligent because I don't know many big words.  I like to explain it as being an uncomfortable feeling one has when one comes into contact with information which contradicts ones' beliefs.

An example could be someone who's taken over the family healing business.  He sells all sorts of fancy remedies and is quite proud of his ability to help people.  He's anti all established medical and pharmaceutical  companies, because he's been told that they're just out to make money and that their products have all sorts of side effects that his don't have.  Then one day he reads an article about the scientific method, and that when it was used to test his remedies, the scientists discovered that nothing that he sold did what it was supposed to do.

At that point he feels very discouraged, because the information conflicts with his beliefs and if he were to take the information seriously, he would be admitting that he's a phony and would have to give up his family business.  That's a very large dose of cognitive dissonance.  What people tend to do when they experience cognitive dissonance is stick to their existing beliefs and make excuses for them.  It's very difficult to be unbiased when experiencing cognitive dissonance.  He will most likely tell himself something like, "There must have been a mistake in the tests.  I've dealt with many people who are happy with my products."  Then he'll throw the article away and continue to deceive both himself and his customers.

In medical testing, the scientific method is used.  There is a very important technique used in medical testing to counteract the placebo effect and biased testers and biased subjects.  This technique is called a double blind test.

In case you don't know about the placebo effect, it's a psychological reaction when one thinks one is being treated.  So, for example, someone with depression might feel better if they're taking pills, regardless of what's actually in the pills.  The pills could simply contain water or sugar, but the person taking them might still consider them to actually work.

The double blind test therefore means that real medicine and placebos are given to test subjects and neither the person administering the medicine nor the person receiving the medicine knows whether they're receiving the real medicine or the placebo.

Lets say our friend who took over the family business continues to operate, but now he has a little bit of doubt in his mind, so he asks one of his customers what their experience has been.  Why does that customer keep coming back if his medicine doesn't work?  "Well," the customer replies, "I took one of your green tea pills and I was instantly cured of my flu which I got after having the flu shot.  Every doctor I've spoken to says there's no cure for flu, so to hell with them.  I buy from you every time."  The business owner is now satisfied that his pills do work.

But lets analyse what actually happened:

Firstly, the customer never had the flu.  He actually had a cold, which is a completely different virus and is not prevented by the flu shot.  I find it interesting that many people believe they have the flu, when in fact they have a cold.  They think that if they have the sniffles then they have a cold, but if they're coughing then it's flu.  Of course that's just what they've been told, but if they actually thought to look it up, they'll find out that there's only about a one in ten chance of getting the flu in a year.

Another interesting point about colds and flu is that they're not caused by running around without your socks on.  Colds are caused by a virus which is more common in winter than in summer, and are not caused by feeling cold.  I hope some of you are thinking, "No, that's not true... my parents always told me to wear my socks and I tell my children the same thing."  Hopefully you're experiencing some cognitive dissonance; some discomfort at hearing things which contradict your beliefs.  So obviously, the appropriate thing to do, if you disagree with what I'm saying is to look it up with an open mind and find out for yourself.

So, the customer happened to have a cold, which was just about to end anyway, because his immune system was fighting it.  When he took the green tea pill, the placebo effect made him feel better.  He got out of bed, got some exercise and sunshine, which also helped him feel better and by the next day the virus was defeated because of his immune system.

In his mind it seemed like the pill had worked, however, he would have had the same results by having a shower, doing yoga, or even picking his nose if he thought that would help.  The next time that he got a cold he took the same pill, and of course it didn't work, but because he already believed that the pill would work, he had a small dose of cognitive dissonance and made excuses, like perhaps he had a very strong flu, or perhaps he had a second batch of flu, or he had eaten food with the pill, or whatever.

Eventually he forgets about the second time that he took the pill and only remembers the time he thought it cured him.

This is an example of something called "anecdotal evidence."  Anecdotal evidence is evidence from a single instance or person.  In real science anecdotal evidence is not used.  Hundreds or thousands of samples need to be used in order to get proper statistics.

Believing something based on anecdotal evidence is called a logical fallacy.  There are many logical fallacies, so I won't cover them, but it's very important to be aware of them, and understand the important ones.  You can read about them in a good book about critical thinking skills.  There's also a good audio book, which explains many logical fallacies.  It's called, "Your Deceptive Mind: A Scientific Guide to Critical Thinking Skills" by Steven Novella.

There's also a video of a very good talk on logical fallacies, done at Z-Day 2013 by Matt Berkowitz, which got a very big round of applause at the end.

There's a nice, neat little website, at yourlogicalfallacyis.com which lists twenty-four common logical fallacies.
I imagine that the idea is that whenever someone argues with you and uses a logical fallacy you can simply respond by saying http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/[insert your logical fallacy here].  Logical fallacies are also very cool, because they are big words that most people don't understand, and make one sound intelligent :)

So if someone says to me, you can't tell me about critical thinking... you're not a professor and you smell funny, I can simply reply, "yourlogicalfallicyis.com/ad-hominem."

Memory

Another area in which humans are very good at making thinking errors without knowing it, is their memory.

A study was done in which people in the UK were asked if they had seen the CCTV footage of the 7th of July 2005 bus bombing in London.  Eighty-four percent of the participants said that they had.  The interesting thing about the study is that the CCTV footage doesn't exist.

Our minds are not video recorders, recording precisely what we see and hear.  Instead our imagination fills in the gaps.

In our minds, everything can feel very clear and organized.  We feel like we know so much, but we could easily have misinterpreted statistics, been swayed by emotion, or simply imagined a memory without realizing it.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/audio/2008/sep/16/false.memories.james.ost
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/study-shows-memory-surprisingly-unreliable/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24286258

Open Mindedness

I consider the most important trait of a good critical thinker to be open mindedness.  One needs to be aware that statistically it is very likely that there is a lot of nonsense stored inside our heads.  When our beliefs are challenged, the normal reaction is cognitive dissonance and rejection of anything that contradicts our precious beliefs.  That is being closed minded.  We need to have open minds, so that instead of not thinking and reacting on instinct, saying, "You're talking nonsense," it's more useful to say, "That's interesting.  I believe that the sky is blue.  Why do you think that it is red?"  Then we should evaluate the response, determine whether or not the answer is appropriate, remove any nonsense from our minds and replace it with whatever is more probable.

Labels

One thing that makes it difficult for people to be open minded is assigning themselves a label.  For example, calling oneself an atheist, or a Christian or a socialist or a capitalist makes it difficult to be open minded, because people tend to try to be consistent with their identity.  If someone tries to talk to an atheist about a deity, they will be more inclined to say something like "I don't believe you.  I'm an atheist," rather than a more open minded approach like, "That's interesting.  What makes you think that a deity exists?"  Or "What method did you use to come to that conclusion?"

Instead of having a label, or identity that someone else has come up with, I'd like to propose the following... always try to be better.  If you have to have a label or identity, use words that allow you to improve.  Like if you have to label your philosophy, you could say "kaizen," the Japanese word for continuous improvement, or if you want to have a religion, you could call yourself a "truth seeker," or if you have to have a political point of view, it can be "a happiness promoter."

In my time in the Zeitgeist Movement, I've come across members who are great thinkers, and some who believe anything, without any critical thinking or investigation; people who are willing to listen to criticism and those who get very angry when anyone disagree's with them.  I'd love to think of the Zeitgeist Movement as being scientific;  experts in analysing evidence.  I'd love that if whenever people heard the name Zeitgeist Movement, they'd think, "Oh, yes, that's that scientific group, or that's that group of people who really understand evidence.  That's that group that are extremely thorough and knowledgeable, who don't just believe things, but are unbiased and methodical in their thinking."

I would really love for everyone watching this video to read books on thinking and critical thinking.  The information I've shared is simply an introduction to these topics and I have left out lots of information intentionally in order to keep this video short.  Learning about critical thinking can help you to become a more effective communicator, it can help you understand which kinds of statistics are valid and invalid, why we make so many mistakes, which types of medicines are worth taking, which conspiracy theories are improbable and whether or not global warming is being caused by human behaviour.  Having good thinking skills can give you more appropriate goals and better ways of accomplishing them.  I consider learning about thinking to be one of the most important things that people can learn to combat all the nonsense that one hears and reads.

I'll repeat the authors I've mentioned before:

Michael Hewitt-Gleeson
Steven Novella

There books are a good place to start.  Once you've read them, and have a good understanding of critical thinking, you can continue learning about related subjects, like

Cognitive dissonance.  The man who came up with the cognitive dissonance theory, Leon Festinger, also released an interesting book called "When prophecy fails," in which some researchers join a flying saucer apocalyptic cult and observe the behaviour of the members.

Nonsense on Stilts was written by Massimo Pigliucci, and covers a variety of topics that people are skeptical about.

Of course reading good books is very important, but if one just reads and doesn't apply the information to one's own thought processes, then it's not very helpful.  So I'd like to end with the following thoughts:

• "Believe those who seek the truth.  Doubt those who find it." - Andre Gide
• "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
• Be open minded, considering your beliefs to be temporary until better beliefs replace them.  
• Try to disprove your own beliefs.  
• Be honest with yourself.

Written by Stephen Oberauer

Other interesting resources:

10 questions to distinguish real from fake science.
How to spot a quack
Why do people believe weird things?

Baloney detection kit

The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan - Free PDF
The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan, audio version on YouTube

Images:
1. Chess board courtesy of GiniMiniGi at stock.xchng
2. Books courtesy of juliaf at stock.xchng
3. Priest courtesy of tome213 at stock.xchng
4. Mormon temple courtesy of kbeard1 at stock.xchng
5. Krishna courtesy of asifthebes at stock.xchng

6. Shampoo bottle courtesy of nezabarom at stock.xchng

7. Beakers courtesy of 123dan321 at stock.xchng
8. Vial courtesy of barky at stock.xchng
9. Blinded heads courtesy of Victor Habbick at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
10. Flu virus courtesy of vectorolie at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
11. Search for person courtesy of Master isolated images at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
12. Open minded courtesy of chanpipat at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
13. Employee badge courtesy of sixninepixels at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

14. Spaghetti courtesy of tiverylucky at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

15. Pyramid courtesy of irum at stock.xchng