CRITICAL THINKING Flashcards
What is critical thinking and why do we need it?
> Critical thinking is a tool. We use it to minimise biases
People misconstrue critical thinking as being extremely vigilant, but it’s not, it means that you allow all hypothesis and test them or put them into a critical thinking funnel.
You don’t dismiss things immediately you, accept all possibilities and look for support or evidence to substantiate the theory.
Critical thinking is a skill you need to develop, rather than something you read about which you can then apply
The differences between science and pseudoscience
PSEUDOSCIENCE
- Outward appearance of science >it used words which sound like sciences
- . Absence of sceptical peer review
- Reliance on personal experience
- Evasion of risky tests >Pseudo science does not do rigorous tests, if the do tests they might hold tests that they know will support their hypothesis.
- Reliance on the supernatural >
- The principle of holism
- Acceptance of inconsistencies
- Unrealistic promises
- . Lack of dynamic developments – if you’re researching a particular area, you need to research that area and see what you can do to add to the research >We only add if we can add value and we also suggest future research directions
Assessing Knowledge > How does Science do it?
FILCHERS
1. Falsifiability – things need to be falsifiable
Falsifiability, ordefeasibility, is an important concept in thephilosophy of science. It is the principle that inhypothesis testingapropositionortheorycannot be considered scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown to be false. Falsifiabledoes not meanfalse. For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must - at least in principle - be possible to make anobservationthat would show the proposition to be false, even if that observation has not actually been made. For example, the proposition “All crows are black” would be falsified by observing one white crow
2.Logic – there has to be rationale, very important to science.
3.Comprehensiveness – science works comprehensive, psychology is particularly challenged by this
4.Honesty – very easy to falsify in science. In principle no one is going to verify this or test your hypothesis.
5.Replicability – research and findings need to replicable. 6.Sufficiency – about the evidence in support of a claim. The more extraordinary the claim. The more sup[port you need for it. the burden of proof is on the one making the claim
MISLEADING TACTICS
1.Language – look out for language as it can mislead you
2.False dichotomies – we assume things because we have dichotomies in our brains, if you have this, then you are this….. examples below»_space; our false dichotomies are incorrect and we need of be aware of them.
Being a vegetarian does not necessarily imply being compassionate toward animals
3.Authority
We tend to accept arguments that are forwarded by authority figures more readily and with less scrutiny than we do from lay people
4.Plausibility >On receiving information we should ask ourselves just how plausible it is.
5.Association and Correlation
>The association is the story we tell ourselves about an observed correlation.
>Correlation is simply the mathematical idea of the + and - correlations
>Correlation doesn’t mean causation.+ correlation, mean that the values of all variables grow together. They can be – or + but if they go in the same direction, the correlation is +.
>A – correlation means that the variables are going in opposite directions.
>We are often misled to believe that an association between variables exists based on limited analysis and salience of subjective impression.
Three conditions need to be satisfied in order to establish a causal relationship between two variables. Causation rules»_space;»
- The two variables MUST be correlated.
- The cause MUST precede its effect in time.
- All other factors that may cause the effect should be negated
- Biased perception
Vividness of specific descriptions that are reported in mass media makes them more salient in our minds and often leads us to erroneous conclusions.
Whilst we can not infer causality from correlation, we can form plausible arguments when/if:
- The pattern of correlation is consistent.
- There is a strong association between the variables.
- Changes in the level of one variable are associated with related changes in the other.
- A plausible explanation of the observed association can be forwarded.
- The explanation fits with the body of knowledge in a coherent manner.
QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF?
There are a number of questions that we could ask ourselves:
- How reputable is the source of the information?
- Is the information based on scientific investigation?
- Is there an ulterior motive? – politics is full of this
- What might be the editor’s interest?
- How frequent are the reported sensations in reality?
CONFIRMATION BIAS AND OVERCONFIDENCE
Confirmation bias and overconfidence –
>Hindsight bias – predictions after the fact are a bias
>Confirmation bias - our tendency to look for evidence that supports our claims and avoid evidence that does not support it
>Illusory correlation – when we make a mistake about the meaning about the relationship between things which are correlated in our minds
SUGGESTIONS FOR CRITICAL THINKING
> Employing critical thinking to our decision making process allows us to be more responsible, better informed and reach sound conclusions
Apply multiple views on the issue and do not be swayed by weasel words, such as pro-life and pro-choice.
Beware of wishful thinking
Question authority
Put things to risky tests rather than to weak confirmations
Recognise the limited validity of testimonials, of personal experiences
Be realistic
Avoid inferring causality from correlation
Beware of the media influence on your reasoning
Employ multiple working hypotheses (things you are predicting but you are willing to change as you learn and acquire more knowledge)
Make sure that claims are based on Replicable evidence
Request Sufficient evidence prior to accepting a claim
