1. Sex for diploma offer caught on tape

Comment #164437 by kev_s on April 20, 2008 at 8:56 am

While I agree that one case doesn't say very much there is a propaganda war going on and the other side does not play by any rules (e.g. the Expelled story) so in my opinion things like should be exploited shamelessly for whatever advantage can be gained. As someone else pointed out, the 'dark side' are very quick to equate bad morals with atheists so having this story in your armoury during a discussion or debate it pure gold.

2. Sex for diploma offer caught on tape

Comment #164433 by kev_s on April 20, 2008 at 8:51 am

Ah but it wasn't the poor man's fault. The devil made him do it.

3. Ancient serpent shows its leg

Comment #161727 by kev_s on April 15, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Eve to snake: "So what's this sex thing then?"
Snake: "Awww. Stop pulling my leg! You don't know?"

4. Faith healing church parents charged over toddler's death

Comment #153716 by kev_s on April 1, 2008 at 11:14 pm

Re: Comment #153635 by riki on April 1, 2008 at 5:43 pm

Isn't this an example of evolution at work?

On the one hand, since the baby died of an infection, it might be argued that this is a simple case of evolution in action with 'death by natural causes'. That would have been a reasonable stance before medicines appeared that can cure this problem. In parts of the world today where the necessary medicines can not be obtained it would also be a reasonable stance ... where the parents have no practical control over the outcome.

However, when the parents only have to go to the chemist a few minutes away in order to prevent their child's death, the problem becomes one of neglect rather than the operation of natural forces. Therefore, when it is possible to get medicine this is more about the evolution of memes than genes.

As someone pointed out on another thread, (or maybe on this one ... I forget) in terms of the memes involved, the meme 'prayer instead of medicine' has unsuccessfully transferred itself because the child died before it could infect another host with that stupid idea. A parasite that kills its host before it can reproduce will not survive and evolution will favour a form that is more benign.

However, this meme is only fatal in conjunction with a life-threatening disease. So as long as the parents infected with the meme keep on having kids, and some of those kids are lucky enough to avoid catching a life-threatening disease that needs medicine, the meme 'prayer instead of medicine' will survive to kill a few every year.
Unless, of course, society takes action to wipe it out like we did with smallpox.
That is what the legal process is now trying to do, but to be effective it will have to operate everywhere.

5. Saudi Arabia Leader Calls for Interfaith Dialogue

Comment #151805 by kev_s on March 29, 2008 at 12:44 pm

Some of you may remember the inter-faith meeting that was held in Norway where a football match was proposed to generate team spirit.

Have a laugh again.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6628929.stm

6. A match made on RichardDawkins.net?

Comment #128239 by kev_s on February 16, 2008 at 3:32 pm

Congratulations! Much the best news I've read on the net this weekend!

7. Virus immunity 'created in lab'

Comment #128122 by kev_s on February 16, 2008 at 8:51 am

Maybe its 'The Clink' that is being confused with 'Queer Street'?
http://www.hiddenlondon.com/clink.htm

8. US scientists close to creating artificial life: study

Comment #116051 by kev_s on January 25, 2008 at 12:02 pm

Venter is not God ... He's a long way from creating life

This comment may be just to try to make it sound a remote possibility in order to keep the suicide bombers or the Xtian lawyers away long enough to allow him to finish the job.

9. Three Little Pigs 'too offensive'

Comment #116044 by kev_s on January 25, 2008 at 11:41 am

I seem to remember some research on the evolution of the modern pig which showed that modern pigs were brought from asia into the middle east area where they were bred with european pigs to produce a far superior farm animal. Then that pig was so successful it moved back into asia.
The details are important here and I don't remember them, but it occurred to me that all that breading must have been done by the peoples of the fertile crescent area so the ancestors of the very people that today revile pigs were probably responsible for creating the modern pig in the first place. Ironic eh?

10. Darwin Day (Feb 12th) E-Cards

Comment #116034 by kev_s on January 25, 2008 at 10:36 am

How about taking the classic Michelangelo painting of God creating Adam ... switch Darwin for God and have him passing a copy of Origin of Species to Adam?
Switch the angels/cherubs for other well known biologists etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Creation_of_Adam
Or would Darwin be mistaken for the bearded one in the sky anyway. Hmmm..back to the drawing board. Needs more picture editing skills than I have.

11. Richard Dawkins on The Late Edition with Marcus Brigstocke

Comment #111025 by kev_s on January 13, 2008 at 10:55 am

Comment #110047 by Steve Zara

I could not disagree more. You don't persuade people that they are wrong by making them feel ridiculed and stupid. That makes people angry and defensive. You persuade people they are wrong by careful persuasion in various forms.

Well, careful persuasion is certainly preferable to fighting but do we really know what works best to 'convert' the religious? IMHO there is a place for humour and ridicule in persuading people against religion. It works in two ways: firstly, humour is a very good way to attack the absurd 'respect' that is shown for religious organizations and leaders and secondly, when 'closet' atheists see others ridicule religion it helps them to become bolder and more outspoken.
The religious crave 'respect' because a religion is really only an 'argument from authority' so without that respect it might collapse like a pack of cards.
This suggests that the best approach is to direct the ridicule against the religious organizations and leaders rather than at the followers themselves. If enough people can be made to see their churches and evangelist leaders as ridiculous then their authority and power over their 'flock' will be weakened. Then I suspect that the flock will be more open to careful persuasion.

12. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #107693 by kev_s on January 5, 2008 at 2:17 am

Since we are down to recommending science fiction novels, on this subject Frank Herbert is very good... i.e. The Jesus Incident. Synopsis: very intelligent computer on space ship (god-like) puts humans down on a planet full of horribly dangerous life-forms and declares that they can't leave until they learn how to worship the ship. But it doesn't explain what it means by 'worship'.
Unfortunately, I can't explain how that relates to the subject of this discussion without giving the story away so you'll just have to read it (if you can find a copy.)

13. Can Atheists Be Parents?

Comment #107348 by kev_s on January 4, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Reminds me of when I applied for a visa to Indonesia some years back. You had to put your religion on the form. I was advised that if I didn't put any religion it meant I must be a communist and therefore the visa would be refused.
I put Church of England, because that is scarcely a religion, and therefore it did not feel like I was lying.

14. State Board of Education

Comment #107107 by kev_s on January 4, 2008 at 4:53 am

They just need a 'C' on their shirts.

15. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #107038 by kev_s on January 4, 2008 at 1:26 am

Re: Comment #106694 by sent2null

100,000,000 years is a long time to wait for another killer space rock

Don't forget that is an average interval so it says nothing about actually when the next killer space rock will arrive.
It could arrive tomorrow. (Which would be handy because I have to go back to work on Monday.)

16. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105872 by kev_s on January 2, 2008 at 3:09 am

Its certainly easy to scare yourself with this stuff. (Perhaps I am still shaking from watching Anne Coulter on You Tube over New year.)

What if all us atheists are actually mental mutants?

Right ... or if we identify gene(s) 'for' a religious disposition. Wouldn't religious parents be instructed by their priests to choose the genes to have religious children?

There are two key things. One is not to let any government or other organisation dictate genetic selection (for their own ends).
The other thing is not to let religious dogma prevent individuals from choosing for themselves.

Do you really feel so confident in the survival of our current freedoms? Knowing how the religious behave, how long do you think it would be before some religiously 'inspired' leader decreed the religious gene to be compulsory? In the US you can't be a patriot and an atheist after all! :-) Who could ever vote against ensuring that we only have patriotic children?

17. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105852 by kev_s on January 2, 2008 at 1:22 am

"And with a few exceptions (e.g. the gene for lactose tolerance), we probably haven't adapted to our environment much since the Pleistocene."

Haven't I read recently that in fact our genome has changed a lot in the last 10K years despite previous assumptions that our evolution had stopped? I do not remember reading an explanation of *why* that variation had occurred but perhaps major diseases in large urban populations are to blame. Or perhaps we just can't see what 'survival of the fittest' means in the modern world.
I do not want to stop research into curing specific illnesses/diseases problems through 'fixing' genetic defects, but each case needs to be considered carefully. We need to remember that our genome, even with its apparently obvious defects, contains the collective 'knowledge' of how to survive all the things that 'nature' has thrown at life on this planet in the last 3.8 (?) billion years. I am not saying that this makes our genome 'holy' and that consequently that it should never be changed, but the idea of creating 'optimised humans' based on our current ideas of what 'optimised' means sounds like a really bad idea.
As Sam said,

"Nature cannot "see" most of what we are doing, or hope to do, and has done nothing to prepare us for many of the challenges we now face.

Therefore what good is 'optimizing' our genome? I don't see the link between dealing with the challenges we now face and changing our genome?
Surely the memes are the biggest problem, not the genes.

18. A War On Science

Comment #105577 by kev_s on January 1, 2008 at 4:59 am

Re: Comment #105483 by righton

Does anyone know of a scientific paper that talks about how the phlagellum motor evolved?

You could start here and follow some of the references.
http://talkdesign.org/cs/flagellum_background

19. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99717 by kev_s on December 17, 2007 at 11:55 am

Not such a bad idea ... if we could just get them all together in one place ...

20. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #97344 by kev_s on December 11, 2007 at 11:27 pm

"... the creative doubt that has energised many religious thinkers"

WTF!!!

21. Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

Comment #97336 by kev_s on December 11, 2007 at 10:52 pm

When I was at university (30 years ago) there were two christian subversives on the course.

One day I suggested to them they must be 'cherry-picking' their beliefs because otherwise they would not be able to listen to all the facts about the age of the earth and the evolution of life, and then answer questions about these in the exams.

They responded that they believed the bible's account of the origin of the earth was correct and everything they were learning was wrong. However they would put down exam answers they believed to be false in order to pass the degree. They also explained that their objective was to understand geology so they could argue more strongly against it.

So much for commandment #9.

Personally I would have thrown them off the course and perhaps these days, with more awareness about what the dishonesty of these people leads to, that is more likely to happen. I don't like the idea of 'thought police' but perhaps students should have to swear an 'oath of intellectual honesty' (perhaps with their hand on a copy of Origin of Species) in order to enter a University science course. And failure to live up to the oath would be grounds for dismissal from the course.

22. Tests of faith over 'The Golden Compass'

Comment #83559 by kev_s on October 30, 2007 at 12:21 pm

It is hard to see how this film isn't going to be good for the free-thinking cause. If the money wasn't spent on this it might go to another 'Passion of Christ' type of film.

I really hope the kids buy the books too. I discovered them because the trilogy was number 3 (I think) on the UK Radio 4 'Best all time read' list. I had read all the others in the top ten but had never heard of 'His Dark Materials'. Censorship by my schools during my childhood? So I was 42 when I read them!

I also strongly recommend the 'Sally Lockhart' series by Philip Pullman. It's good for children a little younger than those that might go for Dark Materials.... say 13 or 14 years. Another strong heroine and you get to learn about a lot of important history that you never learn in school.

Not making Pullmans's books available to children should be considered child abuse!

Edit: B****r Someone beat me with the child abuse comment by 5 minutes!

23. What's the evolutionary advantage of offering your place to an old woman on a bus?

Comment #83289 by kev_s on October 29, 2007 at 2:05 pm

I once broke down on a very dark and rainy road. While waiting for the AA an old lady who was out walking stopped and asked me if I was OK. Five minutes later an old man stopped and also checked on me.
I wonder what evolutionary drive made them take the risk of approaching an almost invisible man in a dark car?

Perhaps she thought I would one day give her a seat on a bus :-) (I would of course.)
Most people are nice to each because we need to get along.

It's more interesting to inquire about the motivations of those who don't give up a seat when it is needed by someone less fortunate/able. What is "wrong" with them that makes them so selfish?

The religious think we are all naturally evil and it is the evolution of good behaviour that needs explaining. Personally I think it is the bad behaviour that is abnormal.

Top marks to Salisbury, UK for having those really nice people.

24. Don't write off religion - it can be the key to a stable family

Comment #82919 by kev_s on October 28, 2007 at 8:58 am

Edit... Ooops. Thought my msg had not been taken so removing the second post.

25. Don't write off religion - it can be the key to a stable family

Comment #82918 by kev_s on October 28, 2007 at 8:54 am

"In a report last month, Harriet Becher found scores of studies with the same findings: …"

Given that kraut in Comment #82594 by kraut on October 26, 2007 at 9:02 pm provided a series of references to articles with the opposite conclusion, the evidence would seem to be very much debatable.

The quoted report by Harriet Becher was published by a UK charity the "Family and Parenting Institute" http://www.familyandparenting.org/index.php and is not a peer-reviewed sociological study. The paper does not seem to be obtainable online so it is not easy to check the sources of the 'scores' of studies. I have emailed the charity asking to be sent a copy.

The Observer/Guardian also had this article: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1945654,00.html that quotes 7 key factors in successful parenting from the same Family and Parenting Institute. Not one of these mentions religion.

26. Face to faith

Comment #82886 by kev_s on October 28, 2007 at 6:07 am

Re: Comment #82844 by Ilovelucy on October 28, 2007 at 2:36 am

I also read the Guardian's Bad News column on religious-motivated scientists 'cooking' the figures on survival rates of babies born before 24 weeks in order to influence UK health policy. It is a very interesting piece that explores the fine line between presenting an opposing viewpoint and downright dishonesty. You can read it here:
"Some numbers in abortion debate just can't be relied on"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/27/1
Unfortunately the same issue had the very poor 'Face to Faith' article that is the subject of this chat.

27. The God Delusion and Alister E McGrath

Comment #82187 by kev_s on October 25, 2007 at 8:17 pm

"The key point for me is not just that Christianity is true, but that it is real, that it has this capacity to change people's lives."

Torture, intolerance, exploitation, indoctrination and ignorance certainly do have the capacity to change people's lives. That's religion for you.

28. The US is a Christian Nation

Comment #82177 by kev_s on October 25, 2007 at 7:43 pm

In a restaurant this evening a young American student expressed the opinion that liberalism was the same as communism.
How can someone who lives in a country with the only liberal constitution that has existed in the history of mankind say such a dumb thing?
I confess I did not stand up and start a row but now I am ashamed that I didn't. Such stupidity should not go unchallenged.
Of course he thinks this because the right-wing equate liberal attitudes with communism just as the religious equate atheism with fascism. What a sad state of affairs.

29. Was religion beneficial to the development of society? Is it now?

Comment #82171 by kev_s on October 25, 2007 at 7:29 pm

Jared Diamond in "guns, germs and steel" describes the growth of societies starting from bands (dozens of people) to tribes (hundreds of people) to chiefdoms (thousands of people) and to states (over 50,000 people). Religion was one of the methods by which the ruling elite maintained control over large groups of people when the society was too large for family and tribe-scale cooperation to function. Although it is possible, therefore, to credit religion as being one of the factors that established the modern nation states, (often through conquest in the name of religion), that is not something to be terribly proud of. There can not be many Christians, for example, that would argue that our societies are anything Jesus would have wanted. (I'm thinking about G.W Bush vetoing health care for the poorest children, for example.)
But although it can certainly be argued that religion has helped build our modern, unjust societies, it is no help in maintaining them today. Now we live in mega-states that have to tolerate (some better than others) multiple, conflicting religions. In a global society where the "group" comprises the billions of all of us, it is time to move beyond religion as a source of the glue that binds us together. Now religion is doing more dividing than binding. If we don't find a better way to live together the alternative is to face a future of terrible religious wars as each competes to be 'the one'.

30. Eddie Tabash at AAI 07

Comment #82139 by kev_s on October 25, 2007 at 6:22 pm

At any one time people try to address what they see as the problem in the best way they can. Some people may have skills that best suit them to certain approaches. Therefore to criticize someone because you think their approach failed, even if partly true, is being unkind and is really a 'benefit of hindsight' fallacy.
I would agree that the current approaches are making a big difference but I don't think anyone could say with confidence that RD, Dennett, Harris, Hitchins etc. *will* succeed where others have failed. It is going to take effort from everyone, doing everything they can in a multitude of ways if we are to stand a chance of reducing the power of religion.
Please be kinder to people on our side.

31. The US is a Christian Nation

Comment #82135 by kev_s on October 25, 2007 at 6:09 pm

It is absolutely true. The idea of church/state separation came about because one group of Christians was persecuting another. Without Christians persecuting each other there would not have been a need for separation of church and state.
Eventually some intelligent people got so fed up with this state of affairs that they decided there had to be a better way. They created the American constitution with its separation of church and state to prevent the persecution of one religious group by another and especially to prevent persecution by the state in the name of one religion.
Saying that church/state separation comes from Christianity is like saying that the bruise on my face is caused by a bully or the lock on my house is caused by a thief. Hardly a causal connection to applaud.

32. Science owes its origins to Christianity or Religion

Comment #82127 by kev_s on October 25, 2007 at 5:55 pm

It is true that there was a time when the church (i.e monasteries) offered the only sanctuary for an intellectual person; a place where they could avoid an early, brutish death and find the time and resources to study. However whenever newly discovered scientific truth contradicted doctrine the church usually pronounced that science to be wrong. Bruno, Copernicus and Galileo are obvious cases. Behaviour like that can hardly be described as supporting science.
Science developed in spite of religion, not because of it.

33. Atheists don't believe in anything

Comment #82120 by kev_s on October 25, 2007 at 5:39 pm

I believe in gravity.

34. Atheists don't believe in anything

Comment #82119 by kev_s on October 25, 2007 at 5:38 pm

Ok...so if religionists believe in god then they must believe in fairies and unicorns too. Duuurrr!

35. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79591 by kev_s on October 17, 2007 at 9:33 pm

Teratornis ... This drinking game already employs a 'driveller' !
http://www.bbc.co.uk/suffolk/going_out/pubs/2003/09/dwile_flonking/introduction.shtml

36. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79590 by kev_s on October 17, 2007 at 9:15 pm

Those seeing a resemblance between McGrath and Rowan Atkinson should like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTzXJMU1sLc

37. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79585 by kev_s on October 17, 2007 at 9:02 pm

The story of Caesar and the Rubicon (whichever Caesar it was!) can not be compared to the purported crucifixion and its subsequent Christian interpretation. Anyone can appreciate from the Caesar story that the physical act of crossing the river had a secondary 'legal' significance. However the secondary significance (that Caesar was in effect declaring war) would not have been something that reasonable people of the time would have argued about. The law would have been clear. By telling this story and then comparing it to the Jesus story, McGrath is employing a debating trick to lure the audience into thinking that a) the crucifixion is a historical fact and b) that most reasonable people can agree about the secondary significance of it. Rubbish!
Wrapping all that up in his waffle can make it sound like he had made an effective point but it is just waffle, diversion and debating tricks.

38. Stretching the Search for Signs of Life

Comment #78770 by kev_s on October 14, 2007 at 8:18 pm

Wouldn't any society sufficiently advanced to build hordes of exponentially replicating robots think twice about doing that? I mean, sounds like they could get seriously out of hand and gobble up all resources available. However I could imagine a religious society might let them loose to spread "the word" about their religion. Perhaps the fact that earth is not crawling with these robots means that no religions like this have arisen elsewhere. That's a happy thought. .... Unless they were microscopic and act like a parasite on the human brain ... leading us to create more robots that will ... (Thinking of the parasitized ant climbing the blade of grass.) Oh dear, too much speculation.

39. Stretching the Search for Signs of Life

Comment #78769 by kev_s on October 14, 2007 at 8:06 pm

It will be just our luck if the first thing they pick up is another bl**ding tele-evangelist!

40. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78767 by kev_s on October 14, 2007 at 7:58 pm

I really enjoyed the speech.
RD mentioned the possible evolutionary origin of religion as a by-product of the need for children to trust their elders. This seems a very plausible explanation for the presence of religion in all cultures. And if a creator was responsible for setting evolution in motion it was his finest sick joke to give religion an evolutionary origin.

41. 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' Religious Group Turning Heads at MSU

Comment #77234 by kev_s on October 8, 2007 at 8:10 pm

Re: Comment #76333 by prettygoodformonkeys

Brilliant but ... it is time Pastafarians ate fewer Meat Balls and instead spent more time contemplating the mystery of the Holy Trinity, "Pasta Tricolore", a concept which even an experienced pasta lover can find hard to explain.

Those of you with only a shallow understanding of the subject might think Pasta Tricolore is simply a packet of pasta with three different colours of fusilli inside, for example. But to trivialise Pasta Tricolore in this way would be a blasphemy.

Some will try to explain Pasta Tricolore by reducing it to its individual constituents. The penne cooked with tomato sauce bring the red sun from the south of Italy. The green pesto sauce, (excellent with fusilli), are the rolling hills of Liguria and the twisting waves of the green Mediterranean Sea. The yellowish creamy sauce, perhaps based on gorgonzola, and arguably best with tagliatelli, recalls the golden fields of late summer.

But such a reductionist view would fail to reveal two deeper messages; firstly that taken together the Pasta Tricolore represent the flag of Italy, proving that Italians are the spaghetti monster's chosen people. And secondly, when you can't make up your mind which delicious pasta dish to order it is such an elegant solution to lump them all together in one recipe and avoid the problem entirely. (I think you can get the recipe from the vatacan if you ask nicely.)

42. Christianity's Image Problem

Comment #77232 by kev_s on October 8, 2007 at 8:06 pm

"80% of the Christians polled picked "anti-homosexual" as a negative adjective describing Christianity today"

Wow! And I thought Christians had to believe that the homosexuals were responsible for 9/11 and floods in the UK. Them Christians aren't listening to their leaders. Clearly they are not getting their morality from their religion.

43. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #73234 by kev_s on September 24, 2007 at 2:24 pm

In Italy there was a case where a Muslim woman refused to stay in a room that had a crucifix on the wall. I think hospitals ask about your religion so they can get the room decoration correct. :-)

44. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #73232 by kev_s on September 24, 2007 at 2:21 pm

"We are not the crazy ones".
That would be good on a T-shirt under the A.

45. State Senator Ernie Chambers Sues God

Comment #71721 by kev_s on September 19, 2007 at 2:32 pm

It's funny. It will help.

46. Religious education

Comment #71718 by kev_s on September 19, 2007 at 2:26 pm

We got sex education in some of our RI classes. It was the only time anyone listened during RI.

47. Larry King Interviews Kathy Griffin

Comment #71715 by kev_s on September 19, 2007 at 2:16 pm

Humour is a very good way to attack because it is easily understood by all. Clearly the religious know that humour is the 'universal acid' that can dissolve their false beliefs; that is why they go to such extraordinary lengths to censor it. Keep laughing everyone and recruit comedians.

48. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70464 by kev_s on September 15, 2007 at 3:13 pm

It would be interesting to know the criteria for selecting these comments from the 700. So many are ad-hominem 'name-calling' attacks and you would think that a thoughtful editing would not have included them. If the idea was to 'balance' the comments between the two 'sides' ("equal time") you would have thought they could find more interesting responses to TGD than these.

49. Good News: Both our Foundations are now Officially Recognized as Charities

Comment #70404 by kev_s on September 15, 2007 at 10:49 am

Very good news.

Cregaune: while I agree with much of your post, "they" gets lots of tax breaks and have load of money to push "their" agenda.
Charity status for richarddawkins.net is a small step to level the playing field.

VanYoungman: Nice idea, but surely the contributors here do not need a money incentive to do it. Best anyone using this site can do is fill out a direct-debit/standing order with as much as you can afford so there is a constant, reliable source of income to fund whatever initiatives need funding.

50. Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science

Comment #70242 by kev_s on September 14, 2007 at 1:35 pm

On this subject, I recommend "The Unnatural Nature of Science" - "Why Science does not make (common) sense" by Lewis Wolpert (1992). It is a bit surprising this was not referenced by Bloom and Skolnick Weisberg because it deals directly with the problem. One small quote ...
"The central theme presented in this book is that many of the misunderstandings about the nature of science might be corrected once it is realised just how 'unnatural' science it."
I remember one of my first physics lessons. The teacher had asked us what would happen if we put a lump of lead into mercury. Would it float? The cube of lead was passed from hand to hand so we could feel how much it weighed (perhaps that is illegal these days?) and I said, "If that floats in there I'll eat my hat!"
This was a very strong lesson to me about the counter-intuitive nature of science. In my case the humiliation of being forced to try and eat my hat by my peers never made me forget it! We all laughed so much it was painful but I had to try a bite at least!
I think this shows that perhaps the secret is to teach in this way; directly confront the unnatural, non common-sense things and demonstrate through experiment how things really are. If we started each science lesson with something like, "Now you might think that xxx works like this, seems obvious doesn't it? Well today we're going to find out how it really works."
Maybe it wouldn't take too many of these lessons for the message to sink in and perhaps skeptiscm about 'common-sense' knowledge would emerge.
I am not a teacher so please forgive me if this is stating something that is already well understood.