What do you think?
Rate this book
Skepsis - guide til kritisk tenkning
Det skorter ikke på informasjon i vårt samfunn. Det meste finnes bare noen tastetrykk unna. Evnen til å vurdere informasjonen er litt vanskeligere å skaffe seg. Ikke bare må man ha kunnskap, man må også ha kunnskap om hvordan man skaffer seg kunnskap ... Hva er sannsynligvis sant? Hvordan og hvor sikkert kan vi vite noe?
Man må også vite hvordan noe som presenterer seg som kunnskap, uten å være det, ser ut, og ha verktøy til å vurdere det med. Og man må ha trening. Masse trening.
Denne boka skal forhåpentligvis gi deg litt av alt dette. Den gir deg verktøy til å vurdere påstander kritisk, og innsikt i hvorfor vår egen private overbevisning ikke alltid er til å stole på.
Boka er utgitt i samarbeid med Skepsis, og støttet av Institusjonen Fritt Ord.
Man må også vite hvordan noe som presenterer seg som kunnskap, uten å være det, ser ut, og ha verktøy til å vurdere det med. Og man må ha trening. Masse trening.
Denne boka skal forhåpentligvis gi deg litt av alt dette. Den gir deg verktøy til å vurdere påstander kritisk, og innsikt i hvorfor vår egen private overbevisning ikke alltid er til å stole på.
Boka er utgitt i samarbeid med Skepsis, og støttet av Institusjonen Fritt Ord.
300 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2012
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
April 28, 2024
Everybody should read a book like this to realign their minds to truth and reality. This one starts very basic by introducing the concept and the terms before going into specific cases. There are parts here that are very strong, but then the weakness shows when dealing with things that connect to religion - as is normal when atheists write. It does not mean that one should avoid this book, far from that! Another weakness is that each topic, or at least some of them, should have been given a much longer treatment - as the arguments put forth barely scrape the surface and do not always make a strong enough case for those who believe in the given conspiracy or false belief.
The authors do seem to respect Christianity as something that is not necessarily on the other side of being skeptical, even though it shines through that they are no friends of belief. It would have been nice to introduce one chapter on Christianity's false beliefs (as they kind of did with creationism) and then on the contrary one chapter that exposes atheistic wrong beliefs(as there are a bunch of misconceptions that are uncritically taken for granted in the atheist camp as well). I would say, if doing this, a book like this would have all my respect instead of just a big part of it.
The authors do seem to respect Christianity as something that is not necessarily on the other side of being skeptical, even though it shines through that they are no friends of belief. It would have been nice to introduce one chapter on Christianity's false beliefs (as they kind of did with creationism) and then on the contrary one chapter that exposes atheistic wrong beliefs(as there are a bunch of misconceptions that are uncritically taken for granted in the atheist camp as well). I would say, if doing this, a book like this would have all my respect instead of just a big part of it.
June 15, 2013
Skepsis – Guide to kritisk tenkning* is an introduction to skepticism compiled by Mona Hilde Klausen and Kjetil Hope, two especially active members of the skeptical movement in Norway and until recently committee members for Foreningen Skepsis, Norway’s national skepticism association. Split into two sections, the book first gives a general overview of the scientific method, cognitive psychology as it relates to the reliability, or otherwise, of our perception and memory, and argumentation and logical fallacies https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/home. The second section contains a discussion of pseudoscientific staples such as alternative medicine, psychics, aliens and conspiracy theories, each chapter written by a different author.
First a caveat/disclosure: I am someone who is slowly settling into life in Norway and sticking my fingers in lots of skeptical pies, including Foreningen Skepsis, and can consider myself an acquaintance of both the editors and most of the contributors. I have tried to ignore this and judge the book on its own merits and done my best to be good skeptic, by, just as the book advises, being critical and trying to avoid things like confirmation bias. I get that it's weird to review the book English but I'm good not good enough to write in Norwegian. I can now understand (most) of the vocabulary subtleties of the language but generating it is a whole different matter. Given that most Norwegians have a better grasp of English than me anyway, I don't think it's too much of a problem, but I will switch to writing in Norwegian about Norwegian things as soon as I can.
As a guide to critical thinking, the book starts from the bottom up, with clear explanations of what counts as science and the strength and value of the scientific method. It might have something to do with the fact that I am familiar to some degree with most of the material, but it’s worth saying that as a non-native speaker still getting to grips with the language, and particularly the idioms, I was able to understand the definitions and explanations without losing track or getting bogged down. This is quite a feat considering I have read many a book in English that try to explain, for example, logic and argumentation – and fail miserably. There is a lot of ground-work covered in the first section, with an impressive breadth, but this breadth does mean that it may well take multiple readings for all the different definitions, types of scientific studies and fallacies to sink in and make sense.
As an aside, it was a really interesting exercise keeping track of how words and phrases in the sphere of science and skepticism were carried over from English and how and when their translations to Norwegian worked. For some phrases, like ‘cherry-picking’, the literal translation ‘kirsebær-plukking’ work well, others, like ‘kald-lesing’ for ‘cold-reading’, just don’t conjure up the same imagery and meaning. In this case, ‘tenke-fisking’, meaning ‘thought-fishing’, was used, which is so good I think the same phrase should be adopted in English.
I found the second section of the book, which applied the principles outlined in the first section, a little patchier, but still very good. The chapters on alternative medicine and vaccines are good for being open and even-handed. To the question of whether alternative medicine works or not, the answer given is that we just don’t know because there is so little research, and the research that has been conducted is of such poor quality. That’s not to say that that is a wishy-washy look at alt-med; physically impossible and patently absurd ideas like homeopathy are put firmly in their place. The even-handedness comes from acknowledging the limits of ‘proper’ medicine, particularly in the excellent section that breaks down common arguments against conventional medicine, such as doctors not treating the whole patient and that they’re under the thumb of Big Pharma. For a more in-depth analysis of alternative medicine I would thoroughly recommend Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst’s Trick or Treatment (Bløffeller behandling in Norwegian), and Ernst’s blog for its frequent and consistently excellent articles.
I picked this chapter to single out especially because of its importance: I’ve come to see that alternative medicine and anti-vaccine movements have a depressingly strong hold in Norway. Critical thinking and understanding evidence is vitally important with medical matters because lives are literally at stake, making discussions about ghosts, UFOs, corn circles and aliens feel rather trivial in comparison.
What I most enjoyed about the book, and my strongest reason for recommending it, is the clear question and answer format adopted across all of the chapters. For seasoned skeptics it serves as a starting point to thinking about the answers to give to those questions when confronted with them in everyday conversations, for others they are a good way to critically analyse what they themselves think about something they had previously done or believed unthinkingly.
With pro-alt-med, ghosts, aliens and parapsychology continuing to pop up in the Norwegian news with depressing regularity, and infamous conspiracy theory hive Nyhetsspeilet continuing to be one of the most visited Norwegian websites, the need for a book like Skepsis – Guide to kritisk tenkning, which makes skepticism accessible to a wider audience of Norwegians, is obvious.
First a caveat/disclosure: I am someone who is slowly settling into life in Norway and sticking my fingers in lots of skeptical pies, including Foreningen Skepsis, and can consider myself an acquaintance of both the editors and most of the contributors. I have tried to ignore this and judge the book on its own merits and done my best to be good skeptic, by, just as the book advises, being critical and trying to avoid things like confirmation bias. I get that it's weird to review the book English but I'm good not good enough to write in Norwegian. I can now understand (most) of the vocabulary subtleties of the language but generating it is a whole different matter. Given that most Norwegians have a better grasp of English than me anyway, I don't think it's too much of a problem, but I will switch to writing in Norwegian about Norwegian things as soon as I can.
As a guide to critical thinking, the book starts from the bottom up, with clear explanations of what counts as science and the strength and value of the scientific method. It might have something to do with the fact that I am familiar to some degree with most of the material, but it’s worth saying that as a non-native speaker still getting to grips with the language, and particularly the idioms, I was able to understand the definitions and explanations without losing track or getting bogged down. This is quite a feat considering I have read many a book in English that try to explain, for example, logic and argumentation – and fail miserably. There is a lot of ground-work covered in the first section, with an impressive breadth, but this breadth does mean that it may well take multiple readings for all the different definitions, types of scientific studies and fallacies to sink in and make sense.
As an aside, it was a really interesting exercise keeping track of how words and phrases in the sphere of science and skepticism were carried over from English and how and when their translations to Norwegian worked. For some phrases, like ‘cherry-picking’, the literal translation ‘kirsebær-plukking’ work well, others, like ‘kald-lesing’ for ‘cold-reading’, just don’t conjure up the same imagery and meaning. In this case, ‘tenke-fisking’, meaning ‘thought-fishing’, was used, which is so good I think the same phrase should be adopted in English.
I found the second section of the book, which applied the principles outlined in the first section, a little patchier, but still very good. The chapters on alternative medicine and vaccines are good for being open and even-handed. To the question of whether alternative medicine works or not, the answer given is that we just don’t know because there is so little research, and the research that has been conducted is of such poor quality. That’s not to say that that is a wishy-washy look at alt-med; physically impossible and patently absurd ideas like homeopathy are put firmly in their place. The even-handedness comes from acknowledging the limits of ‘proper’ medicine, particularly in the excellent section that breaks down common arguments against conventional medicine, such as doctors not treating the whole patient and that they’re under the thumb of Big Pharma. For a more in-depth analysis of alternative medicine I would thoroughly recommend Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst’s Trick or Treatment (Bløffeller behandling in Norwegian), and Ernst’s blog for its frequent and consistently excellent articles.
I picked this chapter to single out especially because of its importance: I’ve come to see that alternative medicine and anti-vaccine movements have a depressingly strong hold in Norway. Critical thinking and understanding evidence is vitally important with medical matters because lives are literally at stake, making discussions about ghosts, UFOs, corn circles and aliens feel rather trivial in comparison.
What I most enjoyed about the book, and my strongest reason for recommending it, is the clear question and answer format adopted across all of the chapters. For seasoned skeptics it serves as a starting point to thinking about the answers to give to those questions when confronted with them in everyday conversations, for others they are a good way to critically analyse what they themselves think about something they had previously done or believed unthinkingly.
With pro-alt-med, ghosts, aliens and parapsychology continuing to pop up in the Norwegian news with depressing regularity, and infamous conspiracy theory hive Nyhetsspeilet continuing to be one of the most visited Norwegian websites, the need for a book like Skepsis – Guide to kritisk tenkning, which makes skepticism accessible to a wider audience of Norwegians, is obvious.
July 16, 2013
Skepsis is a Norwegian book, the title of which translates into "Scepticism". It presents itself as being a 'guide to critical thinking', containing tools and methods one can use in order to critically evaluate the plethora of information and arguments we encounter every day. The book is split into two parts. The first part discusses some of the theory behind the scientific method and experimental design, as well as some logical fallacies, common methods used to manipulate opinions, and so on. Part of me likes to think I am already rather well versed in most of this. Over the five years I have been studying for my degree I have read a bunch of scientific papers, good and bad, written critical reviews of papers, engaged in many discussions about science, politics, conspiracy theories, and so on. Still, I don't think having these things explained in new ways, from different people, and from a different perspective is ever a waste of time.
The second part of the book promises to use these tools to consider (and implicitly rebuff) a handful of things such as homeopathy, conspiracy theories, flying saucers and the like. This is done through a collection of mini-essays written about the individual topics, considering the so-called evidence for it, explaining the logical disconnects, the bad science and just generally explaining why the things in question, from a sceptic's point of view, don't make sense. I consider myself a bit of a sceptic already, and I therefore hoped that these essays would go beyond just preaching to the choir. Unfortunately most of them didn't. And, more importantly, I don't think they are written in a way which would be well received by people who aren't members of the choir. I'd have liked the essays to be more systematic, and more... well, scientific in their approach to rebuffing bad science. As it is the essays would probably seem patronising, and rightfully so, to people who don't agree with the author. When you have spent half the book outlining the principles of science, why not be a little more obvious in the application of them later? It feels like a bit of a missed opportunity. This could have been the perfect book to give as a gift to people who keep going on about alternative medicine or conspiracy theories. It comes so close to ensnaring them in the net of science which, if nothing else, would have given them something to think about. Instead the second part of the book becomes preachy, and will probably just serve to make people angry. In sum this becomes an interesting book that will probably be disliked and mistrusted by the people to whom it would have been the most use. What we are left with is a book that plays primarily to its safe audience, allowing sceptics, and people like myself, to pat themselves on the back and revel in how much more sensible they are than everyone else. That being said, I quite enjoyed the book. If you are a sceptic, or just generally consider yourself a science-oriented person, you will probably like this book. If you're not and you don't, you might not like the book, but I'd implore you to read it anyway.
The second part of the book promises to use these tools to consider (and implicitly rebuff) a handful of things such as homeopathy, conspiracy theories, flying saucers and the like. This is done through a collection of mini-essays written about the individual topics, considering the so-called evidence for it, explaining the logical disconnects, the bad science and just generally explaining why the things in question, from a sceptic's point of view, don't make sense. I consider myself a bit of a sceptic already, and I therefore hoped that these essays would go beyond just preaching to the choir. Unfortunately most of them didn't. And, more importantly, I don't think they are written in a way which would be well received by people who aren't members of the choir. I'd have liked the essays to be more systematic, and more... well, scientific in their approach to rebuffing bad science. As it is the essays would probably seem patronising, and rightfully so, to people who don't agree with the author. When you have spent half the book outlining the principles of science, why not be a little more obvious in the application of them later? It feels like a bit of a missed opportunity. This could have been the perfect book to give as a gift to people who keep going on about alternative medicine or conspiracy theories. It comes so close to ensnaring them in the net of science which, if nothing else, would have given them something to think about. Instead the second part of the book becomes preachy, and will probably just serve to make people angry. In sum this becomes an interesting book that will probably be disliked and mistrusted by the people to whom it would have been the most use. What we are left with is a book that plays primarily to its safe audience, allowing sceptics, and people like myself, to pat themselves on the back and revel in how much more sensible they are than everyone else. That being said, I quite enjoyed the book. If you are a sceptic, or just generally consider yourself a science-oriented person, you will probably like this book. If you're not and you don't, you might not like the book, but I'd implore you to read it anyway.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews