![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
acroyearFrom Does the Discovery Institute Promote Critical Thinking?
In other words, there are different ways of thinking, and the kind of thinking that one applies for analyses of history, literature, the arts, religious apologetics, or even some forms of sociology like politics, is not the same kind of thinking that science employs. To try to introduce such "critical thinking" can permanently distort the students' impresssions of science and how scientists support their theories and assertions.
All it serves to do is increase the impression that science isn't as reliable or accurate as it really is, or give the students the wrong impressions of their own potential aptitude in it.
The Discovery Institute proposes teaching alternatives in addition to biological evolution in science classes. It maintains that learning alternatives promotes "critical thinking". What the Discovery Institute ignores is what "critical thinking" is and how it's appropriate for science. Raymond S. Nickerson lists a set of critical thinking skills, but which of these are essential to science? In fact Piaget's formal reasoning skills better describe what scientists use. Piagetan skills central to science include handling abstractions, probabilistic thinking, controlling variables, designing experiments and testing hypotheses. Without basic scientific knowledge and some Piagetan skills, "critical thinking" can be propositional logic or merely rationalizing. Propositional logic is a Piagetan skill, but it's easily contaminated by dubious premises and is more central to rhetoric than to science.
Without basic scientific knowledge and Piagetan skills, students hear "two stories" and learn to rationalize them and to choose one by combining propositional logic with personal prejudices. Such "critical thinking" is poor practice and better described as sophomoric reasoning. Many students already equate rationalizing with critical thinking. To maintain high science standards it's crucial to develop formal reasoning skills and minimize rationalizing. Adults who ignore the logical fallacy of equating a scientific explanation with a nonscientific explanation (in a science class) set a low intellectual standard.
In other words, there are different ways of thinking, and the kind of thinking that one applies for analyses of history, literature, the arts, religious apologetics, or even some forms of sociology like politics, is not the same kind of thinking that science employs. To try to introduce such "critical thinking" can permanently distort the students' impresssions of science and how scientists support their theories and assertions.
All it serves to do is increase the impression that science isn't as reliable or accurate as it really is, or give the students the wrong impressions of their own potential aptitude in it.
