How does humanism help people solve problems?

Humanism encourages a science based approach to solving problems. We look for the real problem we need to solve, we look for the real causes of those problems and we look for real solutions that will really work. Scientific literacy takes work, but it pays off in more effective problem solving.

There are 3 main ways Humanism helps people solve problems. 

Rejection of supernaturalism. A hallmark of the philosophy is that we reject supernaturalism. We do this for mostly pragmatic reasons. If something can’t be proven to work as a solution to a problem then there is no point in us wasting time, energy and money on it. We look for solutions that have proven their efficacy - and so reject supernatural solutions. For instance, is the reason it isn’t raining because of weather patterns beyond your control? Or did a neighbor put a curse on you? How you answer that question may be a matter of life or death. It’s important to get it right. If you think there is a curse, you are going to put your energy into lifting that curse. That is energy probably better spent - on finding other ways to irrigate your fields.

We judge solutions based on compassion. A solution is deemed good if it helps people and bad if it hurts people. We want to create the solutions that do the most good for the most people and do the least harm. We are not looking for solutions to get revenge. We do not look for solutions that help us and hurt our community. We are looking for win win solutions. This focus - tends to yield better results - not just for our community - but for ourselves as well.

We recognize our fellow humans as being fully human. This helps with problem solving because - most of our problems involve other people and the solutions require the help of other people. Treating people with dignity - helps us to avoid common thinking mistakes that result from dehumanizing other humans and discounting their knowledge and perspectives. The result is - we are slightly less likely to fall prey to certain fallacies that involve dismissing knowledge because you don’t like the person sharing the knowledge. Additionally, because we attempt to check our biases, we also do better at including people and making people feel valued and this helps them want to help us collectively solve our problems.

Critical thinking and free thought. Humanists are dedicated to this as a fundamental skill for problem solving.

Making Sense of Science Reporting

Scientific Literacy is a necessary life skill. It isn’t optional anymore. To be an active citizen and to make sense of your health care choices – you must be scientifically literate. So, a) what does it mean to be scientifically literate and b) how does one become scientifically literally.

First – a definition: “Scientific literacy means that a person can ask, find, or determine answers to questions derived from curiosity about everyday experiences. It means that a person has the ability to describe, explain, and predict natural phenomena. Scientific literacy entails being able to read with understanding articles about science in the popular press and to engage in social conversation about the validity of the conclusions. Scientific literacy implies that a person can identify scientific issues underlying national and local decisions and express positions that are scientifically and technologically informed. A literate citizen should be able to evaluate the quality of scientific information on the basis of its source and the methods used to generate it. Scientific literacy also implies the capacity to pose and evaluate arguments based on evidence and to apply conclusions from such arguments appropriately. “(National Science Education Standards, page 22)

Or to put it more bluntly – a scientifically literate person knows how to evaluate claims being made to know what is true and what is false.  This has wide ranging implications for all aspects of life, from health care, to jobs, to politics and more.

In many cases scientific literacy is a life and death matter and it is not a joke to not know what is scientifically true and validated.

When people aren’t scientifically literate they make bad decisions.  Those bad decisions can obviously cause personal harm and even death (see What’s the Harm for all the ways people who don’t think scientifically harm themselves http://whatstheharm.net/)

Bad decisions taken by groups can have far ranging consequences for the entirety of society. Pretty much every major civilization that failed, failed because of bad decision making. For those of us who would like to not only live, but live well – we view scientific literacy as the foundation of all good decision making.

Deborah Howell – at the Washington Post – wrote an opinion on – how to make sense of science reporting. Consider this your first lesson in how to be skeptical of science reporting – and really all reporting. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/05/AR2008120502959.html   

•       Double check your sources.
•       Always try to read the source material to make sure that the headline matches the actual findings
•       Look for contradicting information
•       Stick with facts and not with opinions.

To learn more - check out my online course: Reality Based Decision Making for Effective Strategy Development. 

https://humanistlearning.com/realitybaseddecisionmaking/

Also available as a streaming video, audio book, dvd, ebook and paperback: 

http://amzn.to/2tkcjir

How to read and understand a scientific paper

Scientific Literacy is required for citizenship. We cannot understand the proposals to fix our problems if we can’t tell what is true and what isn’t.

Science is a methodology. It’s about trying to figure out what is objectively true. To do that scientists use various methods to try and test for what really is happening and account for bias and other things that might be impacting whatever it is they are looking at.  Some scientists do this better than others.

This is why scientists submit their work to peer review and everyone else in their field critiques their work looking for problems. It seems adversarial, but, we all have biases and we all miss things and having other people double checking our work for mistakes helps catch mistakes. This is a good thing and something we all should welcome.

When something is reported in the news, journalists and others report what the study says. But what happens if the journalist isn’t scientifically literate? Or the editor has biases and wants a big splashy headline?  When that happens, the headlines may not be supported by the paper or the findings.

Because our lives literally depend on science it’s important that we become scientifically literate, meaning we must all learn how to read reports and papers and make judgements about whether what they are claiming is likely. We need to learn to be skeptical. In other words, we need to learn to think like a scientist, and look for reasons why the study doesn’t say what it purports to say.

I am linking to an article about how to read and understand a scientific paper for non-scientists. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2016/05/09/how-to-read-and-understand-a-scientific-paper-a-guide-for-non-scientists/

First things first. Get the actual paper. If you are reading an article about a study – link through to the study. Eventually you will get to a pdf put out by the scientist or their university.  It will look something like this: https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/mediacloud

On this page – you should be able to download the entire paper or read the summary and introduction, methods used and key takeaways. If the key takeaways are different from reported, congratulations, you’ve passed step one.

Next, look for caveats to the findings. Scientists will always tell you what the limits of their findings are and how they aren’t valid in all sorts of situations they didn’t control for. Knowing what this paper doesn’t say – is useful and will help prevent you from believing the hype about whatever the paper is about.

Now, read the article. Yes, they are long. Yes, they use all sorts of terms that may seem complicated. But, you won’t be able to tell whether you agree with their conclusions if you don’t. And, they are often very fascinating because of things that are down deep in the data. For instance, the paper I linked to makes claims at the top that seem a bit outrageous, but as you read through and realize how they got there-  it makes sense.

If you aren’t sure whether a method used by the researchers is problematic – go and look for critiques. Not political critiques, scientific critiques. Politicians try to debunk science they don’t like all the time. They may be correct, but they may not be. Often, they are just spouting propaganda -and cherry picking the evidence. You want to know what is true and whether you can trust the politician so find out what other actual scientists say and remain skeptical.

Good luck – our society depends on all of us getting this right.

Scientific Literacy is a Basic Life Skill

What the vaccine debate can teach us about the importance of scientific literacy

On a parenting discussion board, one of the parents was discussing vaccines. She doesn't trust the government and so doesn't trust the government’s guidelines on vaccination schedules for her kid. And when presented with the evidence that the vaccination schedule is actually REALLY good and that kids and society benefit from vaccines she said this: “There are all kinds of studies that prove or disprove and it is hard to decide what to believe.”  In other words, in the face of evidence to the contrary – she is sticking to her decision.

I don’t want to get into a vaccine debate here. What I want to do is to debunk her comment that “there are all kinds of studies that prove or disprove and it is hard to decide what to believe,” because – that simply isn’t true. Anyone who is scientifically literate can figure out which studies to believe. It isn't actually all that hard to figure out which competing claims are reality based or not. It just takes a little effort to get the information and to see if there is any information debunking the claim.

Given the life or death nature implications of the vaccine debate it is clear that the scientific literacy required to judge whether any particular study is reality based or not should be considered a basic life skill.

Scientific Literacy

To figure out which competing claims are true and which are false requires a skill known as scientific literacy. Being scientifically literate is something you can learn if you make an effort to do so. To be scientifically literate means you know how to evaluate claims being made using basic science.

For instance, what constitutes a valid study? What do the statistics used in a study mean or don't mean? What constitutes a statistically significant finding? Scientific literacy also requires that you cultivate the critical thinking skills necessary so that you can recognize the most common logical fallacies and a few other thinking skills that involve overcoming personal biases in your own thinking.

Saying - it's so hard to figure it out - is a cop out. You are basically telling everyone that you are too lazy to think well and that you suffer from confirmation bias so you didn't bother to question a claim because you didn't want to have your opinions challenged by actual facts.

It's good this woman was willing to hear competing information, but having asked for that information she shouldn't have then claimed that it's too hard to figure out what is true and what isn't. It isn't too hard. You just have to put in a little effort. More if a claim confirms your personal biases as we all have our blinders.

To learn more about how to figure out if a claim is true or not – consider taking “Living Made Simpler – https://humanistlearning.com/livingmadesimpler1/