43 thoughts on “Lawrence Krauss on How to Develop Your Critical Thinking Skills”

  1. The last person i would look to for advice about what I believe is Krauss.

    This is what
    atheistic evolutionists believe, without any observable and testable evidence.

    That life arose
    from non-life. Refuted by the Law of Biogenesis which has never been disproved.

    That a first
    cell evolved into all life we see today. Never observed to have happened.

    That one type of
    animal can evolve into another type of animal. Never observed to have happened.

    That coded,
    complex and specified biological information can arise by time and chance. Such
    information only comes from an intelligent source.

    That the
    universe, and all matter and energy, arose from absolutely nothing. Untestable
    and unobserved and illogical.

    That the Earth is 4.55 billion years old. (They like to throw in that extra .05 to make it look more scientific.)

    Most believe
    that there is life elsewhere in the universe. Zero evidence.

    They believe
    that dinosaurs evolved into birds. No observable or testable evidence, but it
    is all they have.

    They believe
    that the fossil record supports Darwinism. Refuted by paleontologists.

    They believe
    that vestigial organs point to a common ancestor. A loss, not a gain, of

    They believe in
    convergent evolution. A mental construct. (That amuses the heck out of me!)

    They believe in
    uniformitarianism. Even though we see catastrophe all the time.

    They believe in
    whale evolution. Another theory that has been acknowledged to have been faked.

    They believe
    there is massive amounts of junk Dna, discredited now by science.

    They believe
    that there is no objective basis for morality. 100 million people killed in the
    last century by atheistic tyrants.

    They believe the
    human eye, which works extremely well, is poorly designed.

    They believe
    that dinosaurs died off 65 million years ago despite the overwhelming evidence
    to the contrary.

    They believe
    there is no God of the bible.

    There is no
    observable and testable science that supports any of these beliefs.

    Many of these
    beliefs are anti known science.

    Darwinism is a religion masquerading as science.

  2. 0:50 – 1:00
    "Is this consistent with my experience or the people around me…
    and if it isn't… then it's probably wrong."

    This is poor logic, suggesting that just because we haven't observed something that it likely isn't true.
    This is the core that promotes ignorance and bias.

    He redeams himself by quoting:
    "The only way we learn anything is by confronting our own misconceptions"

    I want to like parts of what he says here a lot, but it's just on the uncanny valley for me of big ideas juuuust slightly missing the point. Like a few great ideas glued together the wrong way.

  3. Scientists know we have a genome e.g. do you believe that genome has an architecture that can motivate a certain type of mental function??? Can it help you prevent destroying your health mentally and physically??? Please talk about this so everyone can hear you.

  4. Faith in science is not different to faith in a religious belief. It is still a faith. How can anybody say he knows enough to tell the difference between reality and mere faith, considering the immense quantity of knowledge that exists and the incredibly tiny fraction that a person can get to know in its lifetime. Nobody can tell where faith ends and where reality starts, even if the person feels sufficiently superior. Actually nothing can be done without faith. And be it faith in natural laws, like the faith that you can fall asleep without having to worry if you will keep on breathing or that if you jump gravity will bring you back to the ground. The strict seperation between faith and "reality" of atheist neo-liberals lacks of logic and is more a psycologic mechanism in order to reject the undeniable past.

  5. A superb summary of critical thinking skills in six minutes, very well done Dr. Krauss and the filming/editing team at Big Think. From an overview on how to filter out incorrect information to a set of rules on how to steer oneself towards correct information, this was great. Also, the point about constantly being skeptical of ones own prejudices and biases is a very important one.

  6. What if your experiences are not entirely indicative of truth? E.g. I have not seen a Black Swan, therefore there are no Black Swans.

  7. the only point i disagree with is 'reliability' .. is there not such a device in narrative fiction called .. the 'unreliable author' ?

  8. I love the 'finger in the flame' analogy. Mainly because not all flames burn at the same temperature. Some fuels/substances are actually known to 'burn cool'.

  9. Could somebody create a YOUTUBE for SCIENCE, DOCUMENTARIES….and the like….KEEPING OUT RELIGIOUS AND NONSENSE…..

    Keep SCIENCE ALIVE!!!!

  10. In a universe where nearly anything is POSSIBLE, Scientific Method is, by far, the best way to determine what is most PROBABLE!   BTW, Dr. Krauss' "A Universe from Nothing" blew my mind!

  11. Many religions and the tribalism/ethnocentrism/misogyny that they inspire are anachronistic relics that are a detriment to all life on the one planet we can live on, so must therefore be phased out. It can be a gradual withdraw, after all, long-term addictions are not easy to overcome all at once, but it IS possible & of critical importance to the world. We are all kin, hate must die out!

  12. Yeah this is kind of narrow minded what if all of your friends are of the same nationality? And you try to asses the data based on similar data. Your answer could be wrong. I get what he's saying but it's outdated.

  13. Enter "nonbeliefism".

    Belief in anything is worthless/irrelevant, especially when science is true, whether or not one believes in it.

    (nonbeliefism point com)

  14. 11 Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld
    Hebrews 11:1 …. Just thought a definition would be helpful.

  15. myopia — my·o·pi·a — mīˈōpēə — noun — nearsightedness.
    lack of imagination, foresight, or intellectual insight.
    "historians have been censured for their myopia in treating modern science as a western phenomenon"

  16. im going with that is 101 dislikes from religious idiots.. and no i dont think everyone that is religious are idiots.. but if you disliked what he said because of that then yes you are an idiot.

  17. Pielke, an expert on expertise (who gave evidence to the US senate) on the really obvious reasons why one should never trust approved (science) experts

    If the practice of science advice is to improve, scientific leaders in and outside government will have to show a deeper commitment to strengthening institutions of scientific advice. This means that some scientific leaders should step back from the political battles of the day.
    For instance, Ann Glover, chief scientific adviser to the president of the European Commission, recently complained that politicians often seek out scientific advice to support a particular agenda. She said politicians routinely ask their experts to, “Find me the evidence that demonstrates that this is the case.”


  18. Richard Horton – editor of The Lancet

    The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”. The Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put their reputational weight behind an investigation into these questionable research practices.


  19. America has massively corrupted science .

    "Most scientists 'can't replicate studies by their peers'

    The problem, it turned out, was not with Marcus Munafo's science, but with the way the scientific literature had been "tidied up" to present a much clearer, more robust outcome.

    "What we see in the published literature is a highly curated version of what's actually happened," he says.
    "The trouble is that gives you a rose-tinted view of the evidence because the results that get published tend to be the most interesting, the most exciting, novel, eye-catching, unexpected results.
    "What I think of as high-risk, high-return results."

    The reproducibility difficulties are not about fraud, according to Dame Ottoline Leyser, director of the Sainsbury Laboratory at the University of Cambridge.

    That would be relatively easy to stamp out. Instead, she says: "It's about a culture that promotes impact over substance, flashy findings over the dull, confirmatory work that most of science is about."

    She says it's about the funding bodies that want to secure the biggest bang for their bucks, the peer review journals that vie to publish the most exciting breakthroughs, the institutes and universities that measure success in grants won and papers published and the ambition of the researchers themselves


  20. "You don't lose anything by losing faith, what you gain is reality". That is a really important statement. I think many people see the opposite of faith as some kind of cynicism and despair. "I have lost faith in you", or whatever. But, to be cynical is not to be rational. That is as irrational as blind faith. A cynical person, by definition, draws the wrong conclusions and hence is irrational.

  21. Krause is awesome!! People like him have made science cool!! We need more like him and Tyson and the like!!

  22. So i should be skeptical about this guys arguments because they immediately appealed to me? Got it! Thats some inception type of shit right here

  23. The first question should be, do I like this answer…

    So I asked myself if I liked that advice and I didn't. I like to accept things that I like. And then I laughed at myself for thinking that. That simple advice actually worked. I didn't like it, so maybe I should investigate honestly and when I did I found out that the advice is sound and it works and that I am now thinking in circles because I applied the method on the method to see if it works and I didn't like it but it works and that just made me burst out in laughter :p

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *