Education and critical thinking

[Graham Lappin]

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?

[Admin]

There's a pretty nifty guide to critical thinking here: http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.ph..._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.

[Graham Lappin]

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.ph..._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.

[Graham Lappin]

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

[Graham Lappin]

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 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?

[Graham Lappin]

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

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

[Mulder]

OK, let me play devil's advocate 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).

[Graham Lappin]

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.

[Graham Lappin]

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?

[Graham Lappin]

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.