Critical Thinking: Science and Citizenship

1. Critical Thinking: Science and Citizenship • Selective Use of Evidence • Even a false theory is likely to have some support • Critically evaluate the evidence for and against • Without dissenters, critical evaluation may not occur • B. Appeals to Authority • In science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts • Experts sometimes get the idea that they are authorities • Lots of instances like the Challenger Space shuttle incident involving “O Rings” • Test where possible; be open to other explanations where testing is impossible • Attempt to detect where scientific conclusions are based holey or in-part on opinion

2. Critical Thinking: Science and Citizenship • C. Ad Hominem Attacks or Arguments • A person with the wrong motive may have the right • answer • Do not attack the messenger; attack the argument • Use of labels are often unfair and beside the point • Yet, it is not unfair to point out that a person has a • “bias”and is guilty of believing what he wants to believe • Remember, an argument depends on the evidence • Scientists may be biased toward a theory that makes • their field or science appear more important or • provide a way to get more funding e.g. “It’s a pretty • poor scientist that can’t scare a few bucks out of a • politician.”

3. Critical Thinking: Science and Citizenship • D. Straw Man Arguments • Distorting someone’s position in order to make it • easier to attack their argument. • Focus on the argument and its merits. Listen to • what the other person is saying rather than trying • to come up with a rebuttal while they are speaking.

4. Critical Thinking: Science and Citizenship • E. Begging the Question • An argument is said to “beg the question” if it assumes • an answer to the very point of dispute. Do you know • your worldview sufficiently well to understand why you have • a particular position? Are you able to defend what you • believe scientifically? • The answers assumes the point of dispute; for instance, • “only a prejudiced person would be skeptical about ….” • Questions begging arguments usually assume the science • is on the arguers side; then the person tries to • put you in the position of arguing against science or • reason. • Do you know the science well enough to refute this?

5. F. Lack of Testability • Distinguish between theories that put themselves “at risk” (invite testing by observation and experiment) and theories that cannot be shown to be either true or false • For example, Carl Sagan’s “many worlds” hypothesis in quantum physics. Suggesting that there are many other universes other than our own, and every possible physical event has occurred somewhere in the universe. Testable? • Another example: Carl Sagan in his Cosmos Television Series stated, “The Cosmos is all there is, or ever was, or ever will be.” What experiments can we do to prove this theory, hypothesis, or statement? Is this wordview dependent? • Most theories can be stated or formulated in safe orrisky forms. Always try to get a “risky” formulation and ask if the theory or assertion has been tested. If tested, is it repeatable?

6. G. Vague Terms and Shifting Definitions… • For example, the words “evolution”, “love” or “sex” can mean many different things. • -Define the words you use carefully. • -Stick to the definitions. • -Beware of “bait and switch” tactics in an opponent's argument. • H. Be Careful of Believing What You Want to Believe… • You are the easiest and first to be fooled by you. • Scientists are no different. They honestly “believe that • they are right.” Yet, every scientist is fooled sometime. • That is why science places so much emphasis on • repeatable experiments.

7. Critical Thinking: Science and Citizenship • Seek out trustworthy experts. Critically evaluate them and their information using the above. • Are you a critical thinker? How can you become one? • Given the information explosion, how much can one • know? The critical question is, whom or what can you • trust?