This is a blog about my teaching, research and service with some occasional personal comments thrown in. These are my notes on a variety of topics. If you want to follow my blog posts on a specific topic, then see the Table of Contents in the right-hand column. While I try to work in the realm of facts, logic and moral absolutes, if there are any opinions expressed here, they are my own. -WilliamHartPhD
In the previous post I discussed the Critical Thinker's Creed.
Which one of the traits given in the creed is most important? Open-mindedness? Creativity? Curiosity? Being knowledgeable?
After some careful thought, I'd have to say the key trait in the creed is curiosity. Without curiosity, the rest don't matter. If we are not curious about how things work, then what place is there for the others?
So, let's explore curiosity a little more by way of magic. Ever watched a magic trick and became curious? "How'd they do that?" When you ask yourself this question you are seeking a theory to explain the trick.
Let's define a theory as an explanation of how something works. How does that trick work? Why do people do what they do (what's the process)? Why, if you drop a book, it falls to the floor (how exactly does that work)? Got theory?
Back to the magic show: To practice your curiosity muscle, check out this Lance Burton magic trick. Ask yourself, how'd he do that?
Seriously, stop and think about how he did what he did? What's your theory/explanation? Figure out some detail. Write down your explanation. Draw a diagram.
Did you think it through very carefully? Go back, if not, and theorize. And, only once you've carefully thought about a possible explanation, then check out the next video. This is a video that I put together to explain the trick. Or maybe it was real magic? That's a theory, too.
One way of defining a critical thinker is to identify some of the traits of a critical thinker, a critical thinker's creed, if you will.
The Critical Thinker’s Creed
We are Open-minded.
We seek to understand other viewpoints.
We are Knowledgeable.
We offer opinions/claims backed with logic and evidence.
We are Mentally Active.
We use our intelligence to confront problems.
We are Creative.
We break out of established patterns of thinking and approach situations from innovative directions.
We are Independent Thinkers.
We are not afraid to disagree with the group opinion.
We are Curious.
We go beyond superficial explanations. We seek deeper understanding.
O-K-M-C-I-C [What's this?]
So, a critical thinker is a person who follows the creed above (or some similar creed)? Do you follow this creed? Note: The creed above is based on a section of Chaffee's The Thinker's Way
===
We could define a scientist as a person who does science, but that begs the question what is science. Below are some possible definitions of science based a presentation by Dr. William McComas (Skeptic Society).
“Science is what scientists do.”
So, science is what scientist do. Scientist are those who do science. This one isn't so helpful.
“Science is a method of testing claims and it is not an immutablecompendium of absolute truths.”
This definition works. Highlights how science is a process, something we do.
“Science is the quest for knowledge, not the knowledge itself.”
Again, science is a process, in this case, a quest.
So with these last two definitions of science, then how do we define a scientist?
I started this blog post with some questions: How should we define these three terms and how are they related? Are they three different labels for the same thing? Related, but a little different? How are they different?
Got some answers? If so, next...
Now, after thinking about how these three terms relate to one another, ask yourself, how do they relate to you? Are you a scientist? A critical thinker? A skeptic (i.e., practice skepticism as defined previously)?
And, what does this discussion have to do with related terms like theory and research?
Science communication is "public communication ... [that presents] science-related topics to non-experts. This often involves professional scientists (called "outreach" or "popularization"), but has also evolved into a professional field in its own right. It includes science exhibitions, journalism, policy or media production" (Wikipedia).Below Tyson speaks of science and scientific literacy. What is scientific literacy? Is it important? My Tyson Mashup 1. Stephen Colbert Interview of Tyson (start at 6:15 and get to at least, 25:30, if you can) 2. Tyson at a science festival 3. Audio clip of Tyson speaking at the Science Pub in Portland, Oregon, 2009 (play clip from about 4:00-11:20).
A formal definition of scientific literacy: "scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity" (National Academy of Sciences report). What does Neil DeGrasse Tyson add to the definition? You may not plan to be a scientist, but should you be science literate? How do you become scientifically literate?
Have some claims that you doubt? Why do you doubt them?
How does critical thinking fit into this? Is Amazing Randi a critical thinker? What is it that he does that makes him a critical thinker? What are his relevant skills and attitudes?
To get answers to those questions check out the Amazing Randi video below.
James Randi is another one of my personal critical thinking heroes.
How does critical thinking relate to science?
Consider this Albert Einstein quote: “All of science is nothing more than refinement of everyday [critical] thinking.” - From "Physics and Reality", 1936
Yes, I inserted "critical," but I don't think Einstein would have objected.
Or as I like to put it: "Science is critical thinking on steroids" or "Science is extra careful critical thinking."
How does skepticism relate to critical thinking?
What is Skepticism?
Michael Shermer in Skeptic magazine writes:
"Some people believe that skepticism is rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse "skeptic" with "cynic" and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas--no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position."
Shermer adds:
"Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, that involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are not valid. Other claims, such as hypnosis, the origins of language, and black holes, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion."
When I was little I wanted to be an astronomer. My family lived out in the country so the sky was clear and beautiful and filled with stars. I was fascinated and full of questions.
As a grew up and got into college and grad school, my research interests changed, but I still have a fondness for the night sky and astronomers.
Carl Sagan is an astronomer-hero of mine. More recently Neil deGrasse Tyson fills Sagan's shoes. What these astronomers have to say goes beyond the stars. As scientists, what they teach is a way of thinking. They teach critical thinking.
The Thinker's Way by John Chaffee is a good place to start a journey into critical thinking. Some of what follows is inspired by this book.
Try this little exercise:
Think of a topic that you know something about.
Write down five things that you know about that topic.
Don't write down definitions. Write down claims. Two options: (1) Write that one thing has an effect on another or (2) one group is different from another. For example, video games cause violence in players or Americans are more individualistic than Chinese.
Now, questions to ponder:
What does it mean to say “I know something”? What can we know? How well? How do we know it?
How would you go about testing these claims?
One of my favorite television programs is MythBusters. The key reason that I like the program is because it uses critical thinking and tests claims. Check out the video below.
Busting Myths: Asking Questions and Finding Answers
What claims are the MythBusters testing? How? Are there any issues?