A good, if trivial, example why pseudo-scientific thinking MUST be challenged.

[BertrandRussell]

This is a bit of a thread about a thread, but I hope it's allowed to stay- it illustrates perfectly why pseudo science can be dangerous and needs to be challenged, and why critical thinking is vital. Someone asked whether it was OK to have a child's bed positioned under a window. People reassured them that it was fine, so long as the window was properly secure and there were no blind cords to be a danger. There were still posters saying things like "I wouldn't- I don't know why, but I just wouldn't".

They have unconsciously absorbed the need to make sure the window is properly safe- but haven't absorbed that once you have done that it is safe. That there is something else going on that makes it dangerous. So an Old Husband's Tale continues.

I heard once of a family where they always cut the end off a joint of meat before roasting it "because that's what you have to do". When it was investigated, it turned out that 50 years ago, there had been a joint too big for the oven, so the end was cut off to make it smaller. 2 generations later, that had become just something you did when you roasted meat. Nobody questioned it.

If you feel uncomfortable putting your child's bed under a window, or like doing anything else superstitious, like greeting magpies or thinking that white feathers are sending you messages or chatting to robins because they make you think of your dead mother maybe that's just me that's fine. But do it in the clear knowledge that you are being irrational, and that it isn't real. Because once you stop thinking rationally about these things you are easy prey for charlatans and woo merchants.

[NewChristian]

Bertrand - so you would be happy for someone to question your parenting? Because it's an area where people differ greatly...

Why do you feel it's your job to tell a parent they are wrong? It's not your business.

Over the years I have become so tired of seeing this sort of thing on MN - people continually trying to derail people's discussions on the Religion and philosophy board dressed up as 'concern' for their welfare. It's beyond arrogant and completely disingenuous. What people believe is entirely their business and nobody should be made to feel that they have to keep on justifying themselves on a board where I would prefer to be able to discuss things without people trying to derail my thread every time. Yes, you can say it's an open forum which it is, but it has happened on every single thread I have ever started on this board and it has become irritating and old.

The motivation behind it can only be that the person is either insecure that other people have different ideas or they are deliberately argumentative.

I don't like camping for many reasons but I don't go over to that board and say 'why don't you stay in a hotel instead'. Nor do I attack parents who send their child to a certain school, or drive a specific car. Because I don't feel threatened by other people who are not like me. I have more important things to worry about.

[BertrandRussell]

"Bertrand - so you would be happy for someone to question your parenting? Because it's an area where people differ greatly..."

It would depend on the context. Why is that relevant?

[Devilishpyjamas]

My point is that automatic rejection of something because the evidence is currently anecdotal is not actually a sensible (or scientific) way to think.

The scientific approach would be to recognise you're trying something without a current clinical guide, decide how you're going to measure success (I do this with drugs actually as well as half of them don't give predictable reactions - especially things like antipsychotics) collect data & then decide whether or not to carry on.

which is what we did with ds1 & diet while being told we were being woo

I would say our approach was more scientific than blanket disbelief.

[MilkTwoSugarsThanks]

OP - I know it wasn't my challenge, but I think the relevance to NewC's challenge is that many parenting decisions are not based on science, are possibly technically irrational and probably based on what your own parents did (or didn't do).

A bit like not placing a bed under a window.

[BertrandRussell]

My point is that automatic rejection of something because the evidence is currently anecdotal is not actually a sensible (or scientific)"

I agree.

[Devilishpyjamas]

I find it odd that anyone would be upset by someone else not placing a bed under a window - whatever their reasons. I can't see how it affects anyone else.

I wouldn't have glass block skylights in my roof because a friend had them & one failed without warning & shattered all over the kitchen table. I know the chances of that happening are very low & unlikely to happen but I wouldn't enjoy standing beneath them because of the association in my mind. The point of a home is to feel safe & secure so if you don't feel your child is safe under a window whether that's the case (ds1) or not (ds2 & ds3) then I'd say don't put the bed there. It doesn't actually matter whether the belief is correct or not.

[BertrandRussell]

"I find it odd that anyone would be upset by someone else not placing a bed under a window - whatever their reasons. I can't see how it affects anyone else."

I'm not upset. Did you notice that I was using it as an example?

[Ardha]

A wall with a window is an external wall, possibly cooler than an internal wall.
A child might climb out of the window more easily with a bed next to it.
And here the radiators in the bedrooms are beneath the windows so the bed would absorb the heat instead of it circulating.
It is fine to question things, shame more people don't.

[bodenbiscuit]

The thing I find hilarious about so called sceptics is that some of them feel it's perfectly OK to lie to their kids about the existence of Santa but having genuine faith always needs to be challenged

[BertrandRussell]

"The thing I find hilarious about so called sceptics is that some of them feel it's perfectly OK to lie to their kids about the existence of Santa but having genuine faith always needs to be challenged hmm"

Eh?

[Devilishpyjamas]

Pacino said a mother feeling anxious about a bed beneath a window upsets her Bertrand.

I do find that odd. If someone is happy with a bed beneath a window fine. If they're anxious about it I'd tell them to move it or do whatever they must to make it feel safe. I don't see it's up to me to judge whether their anxiety is justified or not.

Anyway we have a boarded up glass door in our kitchen because we were rather worried ds1 would kill himself on it. I'm not prepared to really wait for it to be put to the test.

[BertrandRussell]

"Pacino said a mother feeling anxious about a bed beneath a window upsets her Bertrand"

Well, I am upset when people are made unhappy or anxious about things that there is no need to be unhappy or anxious about. Aren't you? And I would do anything I can to allay that anxiety. Wouldn't you?

[bodenbiscuit]

So you have started a thread to point out that you are upset because you think people have no need to take comfort in signs or feathers or whatever?

It's really not your concern is it?

[bodenbiscuit]

What I meant was that so many atheists believe in Santa and press it with their children...with you, specifically I don't know if that is the case. But I have noticed it in some people who then go on to say that religion is damaging.

[bodenbiscuit]

Believe in using the myth of Santa*

[BertrandRussell]

"So you have started a thread to point out that you are upset because you think people have no need to take comfort in signs or feathers or whatever?

It's really not your concern is it?"

I think that people might at least have the courtesy to read my initial post before they comment! But hey ho!

[BertrandRussell]

"What I meant was that so many atheists believe in Santa and press it with their children...with you, specifically I don't know if that is the case. But I have noticed it in some people who then go on to say that religion is damaging."

Sorry, can't speak for them. Can't even speak for atheists. What with us not being a cohesive group or anything.............

[bodenbiscuit]

But I did read it. My understanding of what you said is that people who believe in signs or feathers are being irrational and are opening themselves up to the possibility that they will be deceived by charlatans. If I'm wrong - sorry, please clarify.

[bodenbiscuit]

The point I was making was that an atheist may believe that religion is not rational. But often the same people (in my experience) don't think the same thing about promoting the tooth fairy or Santa to their children. I was not saying you specifically, or all atheists specifically.

[Devilishpyjamas]

I don't remotely see it as my business to be in charge of other people's anxieties, or pass judgment on whether they're 'worthy' anxieties or not. If someone was anxious about a bed beneath a window (& I can think of a lot of reasons not to put a bed next to a window) then I would suggest alternative bed positioning. Not tell them to get a grip or judge them as being unreasonably anxious.

[Devilishpyjamas]

And if someone got comfort from a feather I'd be pleased they had found comfort.

Heck, I'm an atheist but draw comfort from churches & church services. So what?

[BertrandRussell]

"Not tell them to get a grip or judge them as being unreasonably anxious."

And can you tell me where I said I would do either of those things? If we're going to have a conversations you really do have to stop making things up!

[MilkTwoSugarsThanks]

So Bertram, in your OP you state that irrational thoughts MUST be challenged and that critical thinking is vital, but at 13:39 you state that you would do anything to allay someone's anxieties.

Do you not realise that challenging (or even just questioning) someone's anxieties could make them worse?

So MUST their thoughts be challenged, or do you take each situation, weigh up the pros and cons and take whichever is the best course of action for that individual person in that individual situation?

Must all pseudoscience, at a personal level, be challenged? Always? Do you really think that? From your OP, I think you do but your 13:39 post back tracks a bit.

[Bolognese]

Irrational pseudo-scientific thinking should be challenged at every opportunity. Yes it is difficult for the older generation who's superstitions have become ingrained in their psyche.

One irrational belief allows another, conflicts with another persons, hurts another, kills another, starts a war.

In France a dozen people are shot dead for drawing cartoons of someone else's irrational belief. In America christian children die because parents legally find comfort in irrational praying rather than rational science. In England last year 5000 girls had their genitals mutilated due to irrational beliefs. In Africa millions are dying of AIDS every year, made worse because of the irrational beliefs that millions of catholics take comfort in.

The only way to stop irrational beliefs is to challenge pseudo-scientific thinking. What some people find comfort in , others find painful. Just look at what is happening within Islam as a result of barbaric irrational beliefs that give lots of people comfort.

[MilkTwoSugarsThanks]

Bolognese - How does someone's irrational belief that a white feather is a dearly loved person from beyond the grave harmful to anyone else?

Some pseudoscientific irrational beliefs should be challenged, but the OP was talking about even the trivial little stuff which, on a personal level, harms no-one.