“Defending Against the War on Science” (Scientific American)

[icehorse]

A great Scientific American article (link below). The subtitle is:

‘The challenge of creating a public able to parse evidence-free “facts” rests with the press, educators and other thought leaders’

One could probably define a “swiss army knife” of critical thinking skills. A small set of skills that would help the average Joe do a lot of useful critical thinking. E.g. spotting and labeling the most common fallacy arguments made by our “leaders” and the press.

So, a first whack at a useful set of critical thinking skills:

- spotting false dilemmas
- spotting strawman arguments
- spotting false equivalences

- acknowledging biases
- spotting statistical lies
.
.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-plan-to-defend-against-the-war-on-science/

 

[George-ananda]

So, a first whack at a useful set of critical thinking skills:

- spotting false dilemmas
- spotting strawman arguments
- spotting false equivalences

- acknowledging biases
- spotting statistical lies
.

I doubt that would help. People lead with emotions and then use the logic skills to best support what their emotions want them to believe.

 

[icehorse]

I doubt that would help. People lead with emotions and then use the logic skills to best support what their emotions want them to believe.

Aha! The old "hasty generalization" fallacy!

 

[George-ananda]

Aha! The old "hasty generalization" fallacy!

Ha ha. It's just good observation and analysis in my book. And that is part of logical inquiry.

 

[Skwim]

I haven't read the article----don't have the desire right now---but if I read the gist of it correctly, it's too late to correct the situation among adults, leaving the thrust of any education to be aimed at those not yet out of college. Gotta get them young while their thinking skills are still pliable.


.

 

[bobhikes]

A great Scientific American article (link below). The subtitle is:

‘The challenge of creating a public able to parse evidence-free “facts” rests with the press, educators and other thought leaders’

One could probably define a “swiss army knife” of critical thinking skills. A small set of skills that would help the average Joe do a lot of useful critical thinking. E.g. spotting and labeling the most common fallacy arguments made by our “leaders” and the press.

So, a first whack at a useful set of critical thinking skills:

- spotting false dilemmas
- spotting strawman arguments
- spotting false equivalences

- acknowledging biases
- spotting statistical lies
.
.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-plan-to-defend-against-the-war-on-science/

Problem is science itself is partly to blame. I posted a thread by John Oliver on scientific studies but you could also google it. The rush to money is diluting the scientific message. There are theories or studies for anything they are rushed to press with the results and very few are retested. There are studies several posted on the RF based on looking at other studies with a computer to find minimally valid scientific results and again rushed to press. If a professor is not generating cash for university the professor will find himself out of a job.

 

[icehorse]

George, Skwim, bob,

It seems you're all making the perfect the enemy of the good. We don't have to teach "every" adult a few critical thinking skills. If we taught 10% of the untaught, the world would be in far better shape. Similarly with "science itself", sure, there is some corrupt "science" going on, but there's an awful lot of sound science that's being undermined.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Useful critical thinking skills :

Separating the style from the substance of a message.
Unless it's only in Australia that even reasonable journalistic articles get lumbered with ridiculously hyperbolic headlines designed to enrage?

More fully, determining the bias or messaging contained within whatever is presented.
When I was a teacher, we simply termed it 'critical reading', but the same basic skill set applies to most anything.

 

[McBell]

A great Scientific American article (link below). The subtitle is:

‘The challenge of creating a public able to parse evidence-free “facts” rests with the press, educators and other thought leaders’

One could probably define a “swiss army knife” of critical thinking skills. A small set of skills that would help the average Joe do a lot of useful critical thinking. E.g. spotting and labeling the most common fallacy arguments made by our “leaders” and the press.

So, a first whack at a useful set of critical thinking skills:

- spotting false dilemmas
- spotting strawman arguments
- spotting false equivalences

- acknowledging biases
- spotting statistical lies
.
.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-plan-to-defend-against-the-war-on-science/

Bologna Detection Kit
^^LINK^^

Doesn't do any good if people refuse to use it though

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Bologna Detection Kit
^^LINK^^

Doesn't do any good if people refuse to use it though

Item 4 on that list is interesting.
Scratch that...the whole list is interesting. But item 4 seems to move beyond 'critical thinking'. Or perhaps more accurately, starts to link creativity and critical thinking.

Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

It's an important point for that very reason. I've seen too many people think they are being 'critical' by pooh-poohing every idea or explanation. In reality, they are reinforcing current thinking.

DeBono had a different approach, far less scientific, really, but he termed a phrase for this...Po.
The concept was to not try and solve a problem, so much as to solve it as many ways as possible, and to separate the 'solving' from the 'analysis'. Solutions can be crazy, funny, silly, as well as sensible.
On the one hand, this promotes creative thought, and risk-taking without losing the hard critical edge.
On the other, it can sometimes allow 'stepping stone' ideas, whereby an initially nonsensical idea can be developed or combined to form at least the kernel of something ultimately achievable.

Whilst I don't think I've ever used the term 'Po', the broad concept is an idea I've held on to.

 

[George-ananda]

George, Skwim, bob,

It seems you're all making the perfect the enemy of the good. We don't have to teach "every" adult a few critical thinking skills. If we taught 10% of the untaught, the world would be in far better shape. Similarly with "science itself", sure, there is some corrupt "science" going on, but there's an awful lot of sound science that's being undermined.

When it comes down to specific controversial subjects both sides will always claim the better critical thinking. Who is the judge?

 

[Sunstone]

There are scientific studies that demonstrate rational thinking and intelligence are only weakly correlated -- contrary to the assumption that the smarter you are the more rational you are. But while you cannot significantly increase intelligence through education, you can significantly increase rational thinking through education.

 

[idav]

The views on science affects policy issues as well, particularly views on biomedical research and climate change.
http://www.nature.com/news/trump-vs-clinton-worlds-apart-on-science-1.20326

 

[icehorse]

The views on science affects policy issues as well, particularly views on biomedical research and climate change.
http://www.nature.com/news/trump-vs-clinton-worlds-apart-on-science-1.20326

While it's not really news to me, I still find it stunning that "believing in science" has become a political issue. Wow!

 

[Yerda]

There are scientific studies that demonstrate rational thinking and intelligence are only weakly correlated -- contrary to the assumption that the smarter you are the more rational you are. But while you cannot significantly increase intelligence through education, you can significantly increase rational thinking through education.

The smarter you are the better at rationalising, rather than being rational...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Caring about and valuing rationality, logical consistency, and factual truth seems to be a character trait that someone either has or doesn't. Although, early introduction to critical thinking and it's benefits is probably the only way to maximize expression of this trait. I've yet to encounter a superstition/fantasy-prone adult who has demonstrated any meaningful change in their fundamental perception and processes which resulted in a marked increase of their valuation of rationality or factual truth.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Hmm... I didn't know there was a war on science.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Great article, @icehorse! Thanks for posting it.