The “here be dragons” video is nonsence. Sorry.
He commits fallacies of his own in his explanation of fallacies.
He straw mans the entire vaccine debate and the fact that 9/11 was an inside job. Furthermore he casts doubt on “conspiracy theories” with a generalisation (that they are all theories) like a true evangelist.
There are many conspiracies that are historical fact; the Reichstag fire, the gulf of Tonkin, even Caesar’s murder.
I know mentioning the law is an appeal to authority, but, even the law knows of conspiracies. They have conspiracies to pervert the course of justice, conspiracies to commit crimes. And these arnt just coincidental terms.
“Here be dragons” fails, badly. Mainly, by assuming that Critical Thinking is on some sort of political side with science, or at least, the whole of science. Instead of being, in entirety, about analysing evidence.
In summary.
This article seems to re-affirm: You develop a theory and test it by making further observations and following scientific method. (which you should all have memorised)
However one criticism i have is of the statistics gained at the beginning. Surly the challenge is to develop an optimum theory to predict the right card most often. Surly this objective is the same no matter who is being tested, or how many people are being tested. The question would then become; what theory did you use to get your high score? And most answers would be; card counting.