Need Inspiration - Writing a speech Skepticism and Critical Thinking

[Yahweh]

I have currently began writing a speech on Skepticism and Critical Thinking, it is being written for a 4th period Forensics class. To clear up the immediate question that has formed in your head, "Forensics" has nothing to do with dead bodies, instead it is "competitive speech writing and interpretive acting/drama/poetry", speeches fall under catergories such as:
[ExcrutiatingDetail]
Entertainment - Which in a nutshell means "be funny", its not necessary to adhere much to reality, in fact, absurdity is a plus! Any kinds of visual/audio aids are acceptable.
Informative - Its self-explanatory, just pick a topic and teach people about it. These speeches must include sources. Visual Aids are allowed.
Oratory - An Oratory speech means you pick a problem, describe why it is bad, then solve the problem. Oratory speeches must include sources. No visual or auditory aids, just a speech to recite.

(Forensics includes dozens more events outside of speeches including

Humorous/Dramatic Interpretation of literature, Improv Comedy, etc. etc. etc.)

Extra Info: Last Saturday, my School's Forensic's team won 3rd in the state (I think it was a state competition). A nice gal from my class made it to finals with a speech on exposing Psychics, it was a fun speech to watch, the best line from the Psychics speech was "I'm not saying psychics are evil and should be squished, I'm just saying they should use their 'powers' for good, instead of evil".
[/ExcrutiatingDetail]

To answer the second question: Yes, I do have psychic powers, and you're thinking of the Seven of Hearts.

The inspiration I am looking for is specifically to answer the question "Should we correct fallacious beliefs if they dont hurt anyone". Sure, it doesnt hurt anyone at all to believe the sun revolves around the earth, or that they will be rewarded with a blissful afterlife for feeding the hungry. No, I cannot attack religion or call people names like "creduloids", that's a no-no in Forensics.

I have not figured out if I will commit myself to writing the speech, I'm saving that decision until tomorrow.

I have a fairly unique writing style and I' always willing to make use of humor in my speeches. I am limited by time constraints, my speech cannot be anymore than 10 minutes in length.

My speech will probably be named "Thinking Critically So As Not To Go Completely Nanners" (as opposed to speeches I will be competing against named "Dangers of Truancy", "Judging

People By Their Appearence", or "Not Wasting Time"... I'll freely admit, Oratory Speeches are one of the most boring to listen to... I have this crazy idea that if I can deliver a speech that is fun to listen to and does not make the judge want to die in boredom, I'll have a chance at winning). The aim of my speech to encourage people to think critically, I'm not trying to debunk anything, I have no intentions of telling another "your beliefs are wrong and you are ignorant for having them".

I've never seen one of Mr. Randi's lectures, I dont expose myself to the skeptic scene as much as I'd like (I have too much dedication to never leaving this forum anytime I'm connected to the internet). If anyone has any information to provide that might be helpful, I would appreciate it (I'm not asking anyone to do research for me, I've already got that pretty well taken care of). If anyone has any links to provide, I'm sure my Favorites List, even if already plastered with years of accumulated links and essays, would easily accomodate them.

I'm currently pouring through all my Favorites, all the links JREF finds useful, CFLarsen's SkepticReport.com, Australian Skeptics, Bad Astronomy, and everything else I can get my hands on.

If there is any inspiration that I would have that I would have to write a speech like this, it wouldnt be because I'm required to participate in this uncoming tournament to so I dont fail the class, it would be because Mr. Randi is an outstanding person and rolemodel. And skepchicks love him. I would like very much to see myself as a future James Randi.

If I can deliver a speech of any amount of worth, I'll consider the information presented on Scholarships:

Scholarships

The Foundation recognizes excellence in student work. We offer several scholarships for students. The newsletter Swift from time to time publishes scholarly papers and essays from students. We invite student readers to send contributions, and we encourage instructors to bring student work to our attention.

Email Scholarship submissions to randi@randi.org.

I wrote this post rather quickly, and I'll have to complete a rough draft of the speech by tonight, any inspiration appreciated.

 

[thaiboxerken]

No, I cannot attack religion or call people names like "creduloids", that's a no-no in Forensics.

Why?

 

[Yahweh]

No, I cannot attack religion or call people names like "creduloids", that's a no-no in Forensics.

Why?

It is potentially offensive, its controversial. And yes, a lot of judges' scores will be influenced by their bias, if present a speech titled "Christianity: Personification of Ignorance on Acid", no judge (regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof) will rate me higher than last place. If I develop a reputation as someone who is anti-religion (which is not equivelant to pro-Critical Thinking), I would only hurt my team (yes, "reputation" has significant influence between 1rst place and 4th place).

Someone had already tried an Oratory on "Creationism should be taught alongside Evolution" speech (it was based on the "well, their both theories" illogic), I dont think the speech would have ever made it passed everything described here.

 

[Brown]

Shoot, when I practiced forensics in intercollegiate competition, "Entertainment" was called "After dinner speaking." Such presentations had to be light and had to have a discernable theme. The judges mysteriously preferred strings of bad puns to clever one-liners or Jay Leno-type monologs. People say they hate puns, but punsters always made it to the finals.

"Informative" speaking was known back then as "informative" speaking. Duh. (I won a state award in Informative speaking for describing the physics behind making a hydrogen bomb go boom.)

"Oratory" was called "Persuasive" speaking, if I recall.

We also had extemporaneous and impromtu events, some of which were rather fun. And we had dramatic readings, too.

Anyway... the subject of whether we should correct fallacious beliefs if they don't hurt anyone seems to fall into the "persuasive" or "oratory" category. Therefore, take a two-pronged attack:

1. Seize the factual high ground. Have some facts demonstrating that what seem like "harmless" beliefs often aren't harmless at all. You can cite Randi, Shermer and Sagan as sources.
2. Seize the moral high ground. Intentionally holding on to a false view of reality is immoral. There are plenty of great thinkers who have argued that there is intrinsic evil in false beliefs. Regardless of whether such beliefs result in comfort or a sense of well-being, it is far more important and ethical for a person to have an understanding of reality.

It is not beyond the realm of possibility to turn this topic into a humorous one with a powerful message... but that would take a lot of work. Better to stick to straight oratory.
Edited: Darn typos.

 

[T'ai Chi]

No, I cannot attack religion or call people names like "creduloids", that's a no-no in Forensics.

Why?

In forensics you have to give an intelligent presentation, not a tantrum.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Hi Yah,

Good luck with the presentation. My suggestions are:

-that it is probably more important to give a fair presentation of each side (if you present this vs. that type of speech) than anything else. For example, there clearly are harmful beliefs. However, there clearly are beliefs that are not harmful at all. Harm also can mean a lot of different things and has a huge range from 'nothing' to 'death'.

-use visuals and hands-on demonstrations that involve someone from your audience

-don't name drop Randi, Sagan, Shermer, etc., just for the sake of name dropping. Be original, and do something people have never seen and knock their socks off.

-Relax when speaking and moving, and be sure to breathe

 

[Brown]

Re: Re: Need Inspiration - Writing a speech Skepticism and Critical Thinking

Good luck with the presentation. My suggestions are:

-that it is probably more important to give a fair presentation of each side (if you present this vs. that type of speech) than anything else.

I couldn't disagree more. The point of a persuasive speech is to persuade, not to engage in a one-man debate. Presenting both sides of an issue is seen as wishy-washy and very poor speaking style.

That doesn't mean that you mischaracterize or otherwise treat other points of view unfairly. It means that you craft your presentation to compel the listeners toward your point of view.

 

[Vitnir]

www.csicop.org was not listed among your sources. I read an article Why bad beliefs don't die there, pretty informative. Inspiration?

 

[Jeff Corey]

The notion that the sun revolves around the earth could have dire consequences for an astronaut.
Think Apollo 13.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Brown

Seize the moral high ground. Intentionally holding on to a false view of reality is immoral

Hmmmm....frankly, I think this is a persuasive weak point and it would be difficult (not to mention a sure loser with judges) to go ahead to argue (or even imply) that all religion is immoral.

Maybe it would be useful to distinguish between the dangers of following a false belief--and holding one which we don't -know- is true or false?

Humor-wise, have you looked at the writing some of the professional curmudgeons/critics/humorists? I'm thinking of Andy Rooney, because he does well with irony in his time constraint. But I'm sure there are others.

Good luck! I'm sure you'll do well! (And, personally, I -hate- puns in speeches. ).

 

[CFLarsen]

It is potentially offensive, its controversial. And yes, a lot of judges' scores will be influenced by their bias, if present a speech titled "Christianity: Personification of Ignorance on Acid", no judge (regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof) will rate me higher than last place. If I develop a reputation as someone who is anti-religion (which is not equivelant to pro-Critical Thinking), I would only hurt my team (yes, "reputation" has significant influence between 1rst place and 4th place).

Then perhaps you should choose another subject. If you are afraid of pissing people off, and you are concerned with being even potentially offensive and/or controversial, then talk about something else.

Some people have no ability to see why their beliefs can be funny, or even dangerous.

In forensics you have to give an intelligent presentation, not a tantrum.

False dichotomy. It is quite possible to give a spirited speech, where you tell it like it is. Would you give a speech about Jim Jones and refer to him as being "quite possibly a little off on the mental side"? No, you'd call him a nutcase. Crazy. Mad.

You should most certainly hear Randi and Shermer speak. Very intelligent, very funny and spot on. They don't mince words, and still make their points beautifully.

Maybe it would be useful to distinguish between the dangers of following a false belief--and holding one which we don't -know- is true or false?

Which beliefs do we know are true? Once they reach a stage of certainty (as far as we can be certain, of course), they become facts. E.g. belief in evolution is wrong - we know that evolution is true.

Choosing a subject that also has a serious side to it will most likely have a positive effect on the judges: Hey, this guy can address some serious issues, and make sense at the same time!

Humor-wise, have you looked at the writing some of the professional curmudgeons/critics/humorists? I'm thinking of Andy Rooney, because he does well with irony in his time constraint. But I'm sure there are others.

Never, ever copy the comedy of others. Somebody will surely have heard the original material before, and that somebody will be - according to Murphy - at least one of the judges. Using irony is very risky business, especially in an audience that you are not 100% sure will accept it being used.

(Clancie, shouldn't you change your sig to "You're now back on my "Ignore" list (of one) - until the next time I find an opportunity to slam you"? I mean...it reflects reality much better...)

 

[T'ai Chi]

False dichotomy. It is quite possible to give a spirited speech, where you tell it like it is. Would you give a speech about Jim Jones and refer to him as being "quite possibly a little off on the mental side"? No, you'd call him a nutcase. Crazy. Mad.

There is no false dichotomy. This has to do with sounding academic and professional rather than amateurish and childlike in a presentation/debate.

I'd refer to Jones probably as a cult leader, etc., and give a 'mental disease' term from psychology instead of saying "nutcase" or "crazy".

You should most certainly hear Randi and Shermer speak. Very intelligent, very funny and spot on. They don't mince words, and still make their points beautifully.

I have seen Randi speak and heard Shermer speak, and I agree, they don't mince words, and they do make points. However, I think any time one resorts to clear name calling, especially in a public presentation, it detracts from professionalism.

 

[Cynical]

Claus, for Heaven's sake, go have that beer. Or several. And I'm still waiting for you to tell me, what have you got against American beer? Is it because we drink it cold, and it kills the taste?

You need some serious chilling out. You're not only obsessed with sgrenard, you have issues with Clancie as well. In fact, you appear to have a problem with anyone who doesn't agree with you. We have talked about live and let live before. Why can't you? But that's a topic Crowunit should explore.

Of course there is no evidence to prove that JE is talking to the dead, but there is no evidence to disprove it, either. So why don't you just hang it up? You'll never prove your case either. Are you willing to live the rest of your life stewing over a stalemate?

Go get drunk, Claus. And come back over to the JE board, we have more fun over there. Issues are not taken so damn seriously, and that's what you need now. You are headed towards real emotional damage, Cantata.

 

[Thanz]

I have currently began writing a speech on Skepticism and Critical Thinking, it is being written for a 4th period Forensics class.

[snip]

I wrote this post rather quickly, and I'll have to complete a rough draft of the speech by tonight, any inspiration appreciated.

I had some great ideas for a speech of this type, but then I realized that they were great for a 3rd period Forensics class, but completely inappropriate for a 4th period Forensics class.

Sorry 'bout that.

 

[CFLarsen]

There is no false dichotomy. This has to do with sounding academic and professional rather than amateurish and childlike in a presentation/debate.

The way you presented it was either-or. Ergo, false dichotomy.

I'd refer to Jones probably as a cult leader, etc., and give a 'mental disease' term from psychology instead of saying "nutcase" or "crazy".

Unless you were qualified to diagnose Jones with the proper psychological term, you would be posing as someone with a knowledge you did not possess.

Better call him crazy.

I have seen Randi speak and heard Shermer speak, and I agree, they don't mince words, and they do make points. However, I think any time one resorts to clear name calling, especially in a public presentation, it detracts from professionalism.

Does that include JREF?

 

[Yahweh]

Then perhaps you should choose another subject. If you are afraid of pissing people off, and you are concerned with being even potentially offensive and/or controversial, then talk about something else.

I spent most of my night writing a rough draft. Maybe its just all this JREF, but I kept editing out the parts where I was debunking pseudoscience (for instance, I have no idea if a judge might have a particular interest in Feng Shui).

I'll maintain that I can write a good fun speech on promoting Critical Thinking without going off on tangents on the idiosyncrasies of crazy beliefs. However, if I change my topic from promotion of Critical Thinking to something to do with Scam Artists and Quackery, I could get away with it (lots of good information on Quackwatch.org)...

 

[Yahweh]

CFLarsen, T'ai Chi,

Yall dont need to debate about what is False Dichotomy and what is not, it really does not matter that much.

 

[Brown]

Hmmmm....frankly, I think this [asserting that intentionally holding on to a false view of reality is immoral] is a persuasive weak point and it would be difficult (not to mention a sure loser with judges) to go ahead to argue (or even imply) that all religion is immoral.

Once again, I respectfully disagree.

Let's leave aside the question of religion for a moment. There are many other beliefs that are widely held yet that are known to be false. If a person persists in clinging to a false view of reality, knowing or having good reason to know of its falsity, then that person is lying to himself. There is no shortage of authority that lying to oneself is morally repugant. Shakespeare may have summed it up best with his pithy "to thine own self be true," but he was neither the first nor the last to express the sentiment. This is hardly a weak or losing point.

Turning back to the question of religion now, it is not true as a general matter that all religions are known to be false (although some are). As a general matter, assering the moral superiority of being true to oneself does not necessarily degrade religion. Moreover, many religions (including some flavors of Christianity) agree that it is extremely important to be honest to oneself. Even if one has a great deal "invested" in a belief, one should not persist in the false belief merely to "protect the investment."

 

[Thanz]

Once again, I respectfully disagree.

Let's leave aside the question of religion for a moment. There are many other beliefs that are widely held yet that are known to be false. If a person persists in clinging to a false view of reality, knowing or having good reason to know of its falsity, then that person is lying to himself.

Could you please list some examples? I am having a hard time thinking of any widely held beliefs that fit your criteria here.

 

[TLN]

Could you please list some examples? I am having a hard time thinking of any widely held beliefs that fit your criteria here.

Dowsing.

Astrology.

Flat-Earth folks.

Just for starters...