Healthy Skepticism Summary

The author of the article shows the reader how marketers try to persuade the consumer to buy the products or items. In the article, the author tries to make the reader feel comforted with his use of strong use of diction. Throughout the article, the author uses words like “sore-footed” “soothes” and “pseudoscience” to describe to

However, these decisions aren’t always as easy as “having common sense” because sometimes, it means deciding whether to have faith in or to doubt those we trust. If Google is “always working to improve its algorithms” in attempts to filter fake news and both Google and Facebook “will take steps to prevent fake news sites from generating revenue though their ad-selling services,” there really is no more we can do but to acknowledge (and spread awareness about) the disquieting fact that some information we receive is true and some is false

“The conspiracy theory detector”, was very interesting as it debates how to figure truth and not rule out thing that may connect natural like a puzzle. It also talked about how to learn what to interpret as truth and what is ridiculous. The point I think to this is weather people just want to challenge events naturally and sometimes we don’t want to hear other opinions. “The act that politicians sometimes lie or that corporations occasionally cheat does not mean that every event is the result of a tortuous conspiracy. Most of the time stuff just happens, and our brains connect the dots into meaningful patterns” (M. Sherman, 2010)

In order for the products of the companies in both essays to be truly impactful to the general public, companies must first understand their potential customers, although the evident intentions for understanding the customers doesn’t shed a positive light on the companies’ products. In Watters’ essay, he notes that a conference of brilliant minds was assembled to help the drug company GlaxoSmithKline understand why Japanese people don’t regularly take antidepressants for depression and how to sell their specific drug. The main point of the conference is presented as, “GlaxoSmithKline needed help solving a cultural puzzle that might be worth billions of dollars” (Watters 516). The fact that Watters mentioned that it “might be worth billions of dollars” signals that Watters believes that money is the company’s main goal. If Watters believed that

In order to gain knowledge and understanding, you must learn how to sift through information. To do this people must exercise a healthy amount of skepticism in everyday life so they are not deceived by false or misleading information. If you’re too trusting of what you read or hear you can easily be misinformed and could likely spread unreliable information. On the other hand, If you choose not to accept most information you can easily become ignorant and uneducated about the world around you. Sadly, in this day and age, journalism has become less reliable, so it is important to seek information from many sources to validate what you may read. Doing so will also aide in keeping an open mind by hearing stories from different

In this article, Chris Mooney refers to how we often prefer to stick to original ideas and refuses to accept any informations that will counteract those ideas. According to Chris Mooney,  due to social media, our confirmation bias get worse day by day because we tend to believe the informations there even if it may turn out to be fiction, than believing the reality with much more information that contains valid sources in the real world around us.” (Mooney, P. 9) And those informations are unbiased and reliable, but people often tend to choose their beliefs instead of consuming correct informations that are from real scientists, and not the media. As for another example, Chris Mooney used  a Yale Law School professor named Dan Kahan, stating

In Baron Reeds, “A New Argument for Skepticism,” a new idea is brought to light to agree with the argument for skepticism. Usually, skeptical arguments require knowledge to be

Most of the time, skepticism can be a difficult subject to talk about. John Pollock, author of “A Brain in a Vat”, introduces the idea of skepticism in an unusual way. He begins his writing by conversing about a man who is facing some unfamiliar circumstances. The man later discovers that an evil scientist has taken out his friend’s brain to relocate it into a vat. While this is happening, the brain continues to stay alive.

Along with education, allowing families to observe therapy sessions can assist in reducing skepticism. In the event that an individual requires electroconvulsive therapy, many patient families become suspicious of mal-practice and patient abuse because non-medical staff is typically not permitted in the therapy room. Additionally, many families go with little or no information on the procedure before it actually happens. Sometimes all they receive from a psychiatrist is a small pamphlet, which does not always act as sufficient reassurance that the patient will be unharmed. If a family is allowed to be near their loved ones and watch psychiatrists perform the procedure, it will help reduce any suspicions they may have that the patient is being

In the video Michael Shermer explains his reasoning for his skepticism. Based on what he said and his reasoning behind why people believe what they do I would have to agree with this modified skepticism. The way Shermer disproves claims that are being made is similar to Socrates’s Socratic method. Shermer’s magazines looks at claims that are being made and figures out what evidence works for that claim and knocks out anything that doesn’t make sense. Similar to what Socrates would do he would ask a question and follow it with another question that would get him closer to the truth. Benefits to living life like Shermer could prevent someone from being tricked by a psychic, buying things like workout bands that you think work, or not vaccinating

There are two kinds of skepticism, local skepticism, which states that some areas of inquiry don’t allow for knowledge, and global skepticism, which states that we cannot know anything about the world, (Bogosian). One of the most common arguments for skepticism is the Brain in a Vat argument, which is very similar to the argument of the Evil Demon who controls us. In opposition to this is a philosopher by the name of Hilary Putnam, who uses language as proof for us not being brains in vats. I am going to explain to you why I think that Putnam is correct.

Skeptics maintaining a naturalistic worldview quickly reject the historicity of the gospel accounts, merely because miracles appear in the narrative. The a priori assumption that a supernatural occurrence is impossible, severely limits their ability to analyze the narrative accurately, and causes them to ascribe the classification of legendary literature to the gospel accounts without investigation. Christian apologists vehemently challenge this worldview, attempting to prove that acceptance of the miraculous remains a tenable position. Apologists leverage two approaches in addressing miracles: 1) the “bottom-up” approach—arguing from miracles to the existence of God, and 2) the “top-down” approach—providing independent reasons

Throughout the article, Hardin uses practical reasoning; he quotes scientists and references studies yet readers’ thoughts on reading the article may be mixed as

Being a skeptical listener will enhance me reaching my maximum potential because listening to “I am good” or “I am smart” will make me think positive and accomplish my goals. It has changed my Way in class as I listen and to what others say, I don’t listen to it.

Van Praet divides his argument into two parts. In the first portion, the author seeks to display to the reader the science behind his theory. First, Van Praet works to dispel the “myth of marketing;” in this the author claims that focus groups and traditional marketing techniques are not accurate, because they do not tell the whole story; in fact, he would argue that they do not even tell the truth. Van Praet claims that, biologically, humans are all individually wired for the decisions they make. Alternatively, Van Praet’s theory is in conflict with what is taught on market research in “Chapter Ten” of Marketing, by Dr. Dhruv Grewal and Dr. Michael Levy. The textbook relates marketing in the traditional ways, where the