Education and critical thinking

[Bunny]

I am a visiting lecturer at a UK University and I am also the supervisor for one MSc and one PhD student. My field is biochemistry and I have been having a debate recently about the system under which science students are educated.

Let me state up front that the quality of the science and teaching is, I feel excellent and I have no particular issues here. However, take my PhD student for example, along with her research and thesis, she has to obtain a number of points based on extra-curricular activities. For example, she went on a "know yourself" course. The course all sounded a bit vague and woolly to me but I can't say it was pseudoscientific. Nevertheless, she has to attend these types of courses. On the other hand there is absolutely no requirement, encouragement or even facilities for her to take courses on either the history of science or critical thinking and I find this astonishing.

Both my MSC and PhD students are good scientists, they are very bright and put me to shame sometimes. But they can still fall into the basic logical traps. Logic and critical thinking are skills like any other and I don't know anywhere where they are formally taught as part of a science course. An understanding of mathematics and statistics is essential for any scientist and these are indeed taught as part of any science course, at least from graduate level. I would argue that critical thinking is equally as important - but is this just me going off on a rant? I try to inject elements of critical thinking into what I teach but there are limits in terms of time and curriculum.

We should not perhaps be too surprised when the general public fall into logical fallacies if even our science education fails in this respect.

[brettdbass]

Despite having spent much time here, at JREF, reading Swift and copious books by Feynman, Dawkins, Sagan and the like, I notice that my own critical thinking skills are still woefully underdeveloped.

Is there anything you would specifically recommend as a good source of education in this area?
How exactly can/do you teach critical thinking?

[John Jackson]

There's a pretty nifty guide to critical thinking here: http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=Critical_thinking_a_practical_guide_for_st udents_and_academics.php

As we're about to redevelop the main site, we'll soon have more plus some introductory stuff too. One problem with formal critical thinking is that it begins at 'A' level. I think there's a need for an easier introductory level.

It's surprising just how little, if any, critical thinking is taught as a part of science degrees. Even psychology, which encourages critical thinking (probably due to the more subjective nature of much of its evidence), doesn't have any formal module on how to think critically. Not that I'm aware of anyway.

It seems like a glaringly obvious omission from science courses yet even the 'A' level is optional.

[Bunny]

Despite having spent much time here, at JREF, reading Swift and copious books by Feynman, Dawkins, Sagan and the like, I notice that my own critical thinking skills are still woefully underdeveloped.

Is there anything you would specifically recommend as a good source of education in this area?
How exactly can/do you teach critical thinking?

It's a good question, but I do think you can teach critical thinking as a subject. The UK-Skeptics website contains a petty good guide in terms of what it is and the the nomenclature:
http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=Critical_thinking_a_practical_guide_for_st udents_and_academics.php

To take an everyday example, a few years ago my cousin won several million pounds on the National Lottery. “Personally”, I explained to a friend of mine, “I don’t play the Lottery”. “I am not surprised” my friend replied “what are the chances of two people in the same family winning the jackpot?” The assumption in this statement is that one person’s win on the lottery can have an affect on another. The reality is that every draw of the Lottery numbers, in fact the draw of each individual number, is independent of all the others. I would argue that critical thinking skills would enable a better differentiation of cause and effect.

Someone has since pointed out to me that it is better to buy your lottery ticket as close to the draw as possible. If, for example, you bought a ticket on Monday for the following Saturday, there is more chance you will die in that week than having the winning numbers.

There is also the example of the shop that had queues of people to buy their lottery tickets because this shop had sold more winning tickets than any other. A confusion between random and homogeneous.

I think it could be quite good fun to play the spot the logical fallacy game on an educational level, rather like they do sometimes on the Skeptical Guide to the Universe podcast.

[Bunny]

John, I see our posts and links to the UK-sceptics guide crossed in the wires.

An idea has occurred to me. I have in the past been involved in Science Week. It is run by the British Association and is around March(ish) each year. I organised some talks and events at local schools and it was enormously rewarding. What about trying to organise some "critical thinking" talks at some schools in the UK? This idea is entirely off the top of my head and I need to think it through but I do believe it is do-able. If put together in the right way, it would also be very entertaining. Thoughts (critical or otherwise)?

[Mulder]

I wouldn't claim to have particularly well developed critical thinking skills but those I do have were aquired in formal science education many years ago. It wasn't taught as a specific subject, it just naturally permeated most aspects of science courses then. I guess it doesn't any more.

Though you can teach critical thinking as a special module, it would surely be better if the ideas were absorbed over the whole science curriculum making it second nature. I'm guessing that to make science seem more 'relevant' or even 'sexy' to the current generation such counter-intuitive ideas are left out now because they're too 'hard' or 'boring'.

[filippo lippi]

Someone has since pointed out to me that it is better to buy your lottery ticket as close to the draw as possible. If, for example, you bought a ticket on Monday for the following Saturday, there is more chance you will die in that week than having the winning numbers.



I've been looking for the Far Side "Lucky Stiff" cartoon, but the internet doesn't have it :sad:

[Bunny]

I wouldn't claim to have particularly well developed critical thinking skills but those I do have were aquired in formal science education many years ago. It wasn't taught as a specific subject, it just naturally permeated most aspects of science courses then. I guess it doesn't any more.

Though you can teach critical thinking as a special module, it would surely be better if the ideas were absorbed over the whole science curriculum making it second nature. I'm guessing that to make science seem more 'relevant' or even 'sexy' to the current generation such counter-intuitive ideas are left out now because they're too 'hard' or 'boring'.


OK, let me play devil's advocate >:D Biochemists use statistics (more than you might think). Should biochemists just let a knowledge of statistics permeate or should they be formally taught? I would say the latter. Biochemists have to apply logic and the scientific method to their work. Should the ability to spot, for example, a non-sequitur be learned by permeation or should it be formally taught? I think the latter.

For biochemists read scientist and perhaps, for scientist read everyone?

[Bunny]

I've been looking for the Far Side "Lucky Stiff" cartoon, but the internet doesn't have it :sad:

It's common knowledge the internet has everything, surely?

[Mulder]

OK, let me play devil's advocate >:D Biochemists use statistics (more than you might think). Should biochemists just let a knowledge of statistics permeate or should they be formally taught?

Statistics is by no means the same as critical thinking. Statistics involves both a body of accumulated knowledge and methods to apply them. Critical thinking, by comparison, is a logical way of organising knowledge that is applicable to statistics, biochemistry and all other sciences. If critical thinking is demonstrated wherever applicable throughout every science course, students will soon realise they it is universally applicable (if they don't, they'll probably never get anywhere with science anyway).

[Bunny]

Statistics is by no means the same as critical thinking. Statistics involves both a body of accumulated knowledge and methods to apply them. Critical thinking, by comparison, is a logical way of organising knowledge that is applicable to statistics, biochemistry and all other sciences. If critical thinking is demonstrated wherever applicable throughout every science course, students will soon realise they it is universally applicable (if they don't, they'll probably never get anywhere with science anyway).

I beg to differ. I used statistics as an example, it could have been any skill in logic, applied to the scientific method. I don't however think critical thinking is a way of logical organisation. It is more than that - it is a way of examining the mechanism, joining the dots in the right order. It is a scientific tool, just like statistics. It's application is different but it is a tool nevertheless. In my experience (which is limited and not presented as empirical evidence) scientists are not necessarily equipped with this logical tool. They are often better placed to grasp the concept but it nevertheless has to be learned.

[Mulder]

I beg to differ. I used statistics as an example, it could have been any skill in logic, applied to the scientific method. I don't however think critical thinking is a way of logical organisation...

Since my generation of students picked up critical thinking succesfully without it being taught as a separate topic, it is demonstrably possible. If it needs to be studied separately now it suggests a significant difference, maybe a weakness, in current teaching methods.

[Pebble]

I don't however think critical thinking is a way of logical organisation. It is more than that - it is a way of examining the mechanism, joining the dots in the right order. It is a scientific tool, just like statistics. It's application is different but it is a tool nevertheless.

Interesting thread. I wonder if the problem you are observing is, peoples inability to think critically or their lack of 'common sense'. The former one can probably teach, the latter one cannot. Common sense can lead one astray when it comes to deducing the statistically most likely event in a given scenario, but at least usually tells you if the answer obtained by applying a particular technique is likely to be correct or not, and causes you to double check if the answer seems improbable. The problem with the purely learned approach is that it is hard work to always have to use the right tools to analyze every situation. I suspect that those who think critically have an abundance of common sense, as well as a knowledge of the tools to apply when the given answer seems improbable.

[Bunny]

Since my generation of students picked up critical thinking succesfully without it being taught as a separate topic, it is demonstrably possible. If it needs to be studied separately now it suggests a significant difference, maybe a weakness, in current teaching methods.

I dare say you picked it up but are you sure your generation did? What has highlighted the need for me is indeed a change in teaching methods in recent years. The introduction of self awareness courses to gain points for a PhD is relatively recent. I am not sure how far back your generation goes but I certainty didn't have to do this. It seems to me that science education has lost its way in this respect. In my original post I also included history of science as I think science students should know how we got to where we are.

I admit this is a personal rant.

By the way, since we were discussing statistics:

it suggests a significant difference,

I assume no pun intended? >:D

[Bunny]

Interesting thread. I wonder if the problem you are observing is, peoples inability to think critically or their lack of 'common sense'.

I think you have a good point here. Logic sometimes shows our instincts are not correct. What can seem to be a common sense conclusion may be deceiving as somewhat ironically, the logical answer can be counter intuitive.

Forgive my indulgence but I stole an idea from the TV series Numbers. I had a student who was randomising data by simply choosing items from a list. To explain the error, I asked him to lay out some pencils on the table randomly. What he did, was what most people would do, he arranged them evenly. Throw the pencils down onto the table and some would be next to each other, others far apart and others laying on top of one another. It is a natural human bias to lay them out evenly but to be random is not the same thing as being even. What he needed to do was to take out the human bias from his choice of data points. He did not, for example have any two data points next to each other. A truly random selection would have almost certainly (statistically anyway) have had some consecutive data points.

I want to avoid getting into what is truly random but just point out the issue of human bias. This was a post graduate student who confused even with random - easily done and the difference is not perhaps common sense.

[filippo lippi]

It's common knowledge the internet has everything, surely?

I guess Mr Larson has lawyers who protect his copyright

[Electric Angel]

I received a C grade in my Critical Thinking AS-level, yet I am still a absolute bitch to argue with. I think the content of the subject was fantastic, I certainly enjoyed it more than anyone else, and frequently put the logical fallacies and "tips" for creating a well-reasoned argument to practice; however the way these were tested in the exam were so formulaic and precise, as well as many questions being vaguely asked, meant that nobody in that group came out with a grade above a C, despite having done significantly better in the class/home-work.

[Bunny]

I received a C grade in my Critical Thinking AS-level, yet I am still a absolute bitch to argue with. I think the content of the subject was fantastic, I certainly enjoyed it more than anyone else, and frequently put the logical fallacies and "tips" for creating a well-reasoned argument to practice; however the way these were tested in the exam were so formulaic and precise, as well as many questions being vaguely asked, meant that nobody in that group came out with a grade above a C, despite having done significantly better in the class/home-work.

I was talking to my 17 year old son about his AS level critical thinking exam. Looking at the paper however, I realised that the critical thinking I was referring to is not the same as that in the AS level. An example question from the exam paper was:

"Every time the Turner Prize comes around, there is a debate about whether conceptual art is real art. But was is conceptual art - and what isn't proper about it?"

What I was referring to is different, but I can see how "critical thinking" can apply to either case. Perhaps instead of critical thinking I should have said "logical thinking" or "rationality". Identifying logical fallacies and disconnections in the reasoning. If there was an exam in the sort of critical thinking I was referring to, perhaps it would be:

Many people use homeopathic medicine because they say that conventional drugs have side effects - discuss.

[Mongrel]

Many people use homeopathic medicine because they say that conventional drugs have side effects - discuss.

Turn it around.

Evidence based drugs are a bunch of side effects some of which are useful as they have a desirable response in the body. If a potion claims no side effects then it's pretty much saying it has no effects.

[Bunny]

Turn it around.

Evidence based drugs are a bunch of side effects some of which are useful as they have a desirable response in the body. If a potion claims no side effects then it's pretty much saying it has no effects.

I'm just playing around here but just to have some fun with this:

Does this then mean that if a drug has no (or limited) side effects that it is less efficacious that those that do?

Do homeopathic remedies have no efficacy because they have no side effects?

Do homeopathic remedies work because other drugs have side effects?

[Mongrel]

I'm just playing around here but just to have some fun with this:
Okies :)
Does this then mean that if a drug has no (or limited) side effects that it is less efficacious that those that do?
No side effects (at stated doses*) is pretty much the same as no effect at all.
Side effects are being reduced in modern medicine as we better understand how the human body works on a much smaller level.

* Remembering Paracelsus - "All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous."

Do homeopathic remedies have no efficacy because they have no side effects?
No, it's merely another nail in it's coffin. It's first priniciple "Like cures Like" is the worst sort of Sympathetic magic that has no basis in the way that we know our bodies work. The second core principle of dilution was shown to be nonsense by Avogrado soon after it's inception, since then they've weaved drunkenly from one explanation to another in the hope of justifying their belief.

[Do homeopathic remedies work because other drugs have side effects?
Why would that be the case?
The first thing that has to be proved is that homeopathic remedies work... They've had 200 years and are still hand waving and special pleading, running loose and poorly controlled trials and trumpeting an opinion poll as evidence...
Homeopathy is outright placebo masquerading as medicine.

[Bunny]

Mongrel - the point I'm making is how logical fallacies turn up so frequently. There was a Radio-4 programme yesterday (You and Yours) with an interview with Simon Singh. The e-mails received during the broadcast (most supporting homeopathy) made exactly these types of logical fallacies. One message actually said (words to the effect of) "I use homeopathy because drugs have side effects". It's true that very many people just don't see how such things do not link up (non sequitur).

I chose some pretty simplistic examples and you seem to know something of toxicology and so perhaps they didn't illustrate my point as well as I would have liked. Getting back to the start of this thread, that's why I think that some formal teaching in, what I called critical thinking (but might be better named rational thinking) would be a positive thing.

By the way, don't forget Paracelsus spent most of his life trying to turn lead into gold.

[Pebble]

I want to avoid getting into what is truly random but just point out the issue of human bias. This was a post graduate student who confused even with random - easily done and the difference is not perhaps common sense.

But common sense would tell you that in a random sequence even spread does not normally occur. Anyone who has tossed a coin more than occasionally or who has shuffled a deck of cards knows that. I would argue that this particular student, if in possession of common sense left it outside the classroom

[Bunny]

I would argue that this particular student, if in possession of common sense left it outside the classroom

I don't agree. I have tried this several times and the tendency if for people to arrange things evenly, thinking it is random. I don't disagree with your analysis with the coin but I would maintain it is a very common mistake.

[Mongrel]

Mongrel - the point I'm making is how logical fallacies turn up so frequently. There was a Radio-4 programme yesterday (You and Yours) with an interview with Simon Singh. The e-mails received during the broadcast (most supporting homeopathy) made exactly these types of logical fallacies. One message actually said (words to the effect of) "I use homeopathy because drugs have side effects". It's true that very many people just don't see how such things do not link up (non sequitur).
I've come across that argument many times, mostly in Alt-med and Creationist 'debates', disproving the current theory in no way validates their theory.

I chose some pretty simplistic examples and you seem to know something of toxicology and so perhaps they didn't illustrate my point as well as I would have liked.
Hehe - sorry about that, I'll try to do better worse next time ;) I don't have anything formal toxicology wise but my GF is a pharmacist and I work with 3 others as well to create products for dispensaries, I have access to lots of textbooks
Getting back to the start of this thread, that's why I think that some formal teaching in, what I called critical thinking (but might be better named rational thinking) would be a positive thing.
I'd have loved to have been taught that at school, I sometimes struggle with "Is that a valid argument\point?" or why an argument is fallicious.
By the way, don't forget Paracelsus spent most of his life trying to turn lead into gold.

And Newton was an alchemist, just because they had wacky ideas about other subjects it doesn't invalidate the rest of their work....
(or was this another test?)

[Electric Angel]

I was talking to my 17 year old son about his AS level critical thinking exam. Looking at the paper however, I realised that the critical thinking I was referring to is not the same as that in the AS level. An example question from the exam paper was:

"Every time the Turner Prize comes around, there is a debate about whether conceptual art is real art. But was is conceptual art - and what isn't proper about it?"

What I was referring to is different, but I can see how "critical thinking" can apply to either case. Perhaps instead of critical thinking I should have said "logical thinking" or "rationality". Identifying logical fallacies and disconnections in the reasoning. If there was an exam in the sort of critical thinking I was referring to, perhaps it would be:

Many people use homeopathic medicine because they say that conventional drugs have side effects - discuss.


I think your son and I stud/ied very different courses of Critical Thinking, mine was all about logic, fallacies, rationality, providing weighted evidence etc. A typical question for us was:

Everyone wants to live longer, demonstrated by the popularity of all manner of lotions and potions designed to stop us ageing. However, the solution may be much simpler. A French woman who lived to be 122 years old put her longevity down to the benefit of a vegetarian diet – and regular
glasses of red wine! Clearly, one example cannot prove a causal connection. However, compared to the vast majority who are meat eaters, it has also been found that life long vegetarians are 22% less likely to visit hospital and, when they are in hospital, have shorter stays. It is clear that a meat free diet is the best way to live longer.

Which of the following is the best statement of the flaw in the above argument?
A A vegetarian diet is a relatively new approach to healthy eating so it is too soon to make a
judgement about the benefit of meat-free diets.
B Evidence of few visits to hospital does not prove that vegetarians are not eating unhealthy,
fatty foods, that are known to lead to life threatening illnesses.
C Human life expectancy increased over the last century despite the low percentage of people
who are vegetarians.
D Evidence of fewer visits to hospital does not prove that vegetarians live longer.

[Bunny]

And Newton was an alchemist, just because they had wacky ideas about other subjects it doesn't invalidate the rest of their work....
(or was this another test?)

Very good point and a logical fallacy on my behalf. I think I was guilty of an ad hominem.

Like you I struggle with "Is that a valid argument\point?" or why an argument is fallicious. This is perhaps because I have only come across what I might call the formal process of logical argument very recently (such as recognising the above ad hominem). Maybe because it is new to me gives me a thirst to want to learn more (and this type of forum is a great place to learn and practice). Nevertheless, as a trained and professional scientist I am surprised and also disturbed by the fact that that I have not come across organized skepticism before. I thought I was alone apart from a few notable authors (Dawkins and the like) until I stumbled on the skeptics' guide to the Universe and then the UK-skeptics. Having some input into science education I would like to try to play my small part in remedying the situation.

[Bunny]

I think your son and I stud/ied very different courses of Critical Thinking, mine was all about logic, fallacies, rationality, providing weighted evidence etc.

This is very encouraging as I was a bit disheartened when I saw my son's paper. The exam board was AQA, can you remember which board your exam was with and if there is a web-link to any example papers? I would be very interested to have a look.

[Electric Angel]

The exam board for my AS in Critical Thinking was AQA, there are some past papers and useful documents here (http://www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications/as_alevelgce/critical_thinking/documents.html).

[John Jackson]

An idea has occurred to me. I have in the past been involved in Science Week. It is run by the British Association and is around March(ish) each year. I organised some talks and events at local schools and it was enormously rewarding. What about trying to organise some "critical thinking" talks at some schools in the UK?

I think we're going to have to have a chat sometime. O0

I'll contact you via PM later.