Or evidence based thinking, eg the sciences.

Notice how the post-modernist idiots who got us into this mess in the first place such as Cummings, Vladislav Surkov, Boris – they all had humanities degrees yes?

Can you think of many scientists who have been swayed by or engaged in fake news and stupidity over the past few years?

What evidence based thinking doesn’t give you is the ability to determine the value of sources and assess nuance, which is what you need with all the bullshit we have to wade through.

And sciences are core subjects, so everyone learns a bit of that, just not how to separate evidence from lies, which is what something like history will give you.

I suppose it depends how history is taught, if it’s just remembering names of monarchy and dates of wars etc.

I remember my history lessons involving a lot of critical thinking, comparing different accounts of events etc. Rather than just learning that the battle of Hastings was in 1066.

I remember my history lessons involving a lot of critical thinking, comparing different accounts of events etc.

This was what my GCSE history was like too, along with looking at bias and the reliability of the source.

Also if you teach it in History people will only apply it to historical situations.

Really? One of the key things driven into us by our teachers was that “now” will be history in 20 years time, so the skills of assessing sources are as relevant for reading a newspaper over breakfast as they are in the History lesson.

So the polls continue to narrow as predicted.. I just hope Trump explodes the Tory campaign with his usual stupidity when he comes over on his visit and my guess is the emphasis on the NHS has hurt Johnson as has his reluctance to be interviewed

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-latest-poll-boris-johnson-jeremy-corbyn-bmg-hung-parliament-a9227476.html?fbclid=IwAR2wg7Cv7vI5GS2l4g-0eunBGRO3UvVdYdCvXuMX9d_3M8iM26Ux45o2Au4

Evidence based thinking is about the balance of evidence given qualitative and quantitative review.

So source assessment, bias and balance then? Congratulations, you’ve just described critical thinking. Unfortunately GCSE/A-Level science doesn’t involve peer reviewing journals as part of the curriculum.

Polls? There will be another one along shortly which draws a different conclusion.

Critical thinking is not a part of science. Its part of humanities and its applications are far wider as are the sources

Yes it is, evidence based thinking – peer review, reviews and meta-analyses are all based on combining critical thinking with the best available quantitative evidence.

You are right that we probably just need more courses in critical thinking, but critical thinking alone – without an appreciation for quantitative research doesn’t seem to insulate people from biases. Although having a sound quantitative attitude doesn’t totally either, however I stand by my assertion that it’s humanities students who are mostly the peddlers of post truth bullshit.

Surely critical thinking is the basis of all science

As someone who spends a lot of time trying to make sense of results, it’s absolutely essential

Back to GE I see Johnson has wormed his way out of a Neil inyerview

And that proves my point. You can never be wrong even when you are.

The skills you need are not science.

LOL.

Here’s a nice introductory text for you TJ.

Critical thinking, that is the mind’s ability to analyze claims about the world, is the intellectual basis of the scientific method. The scientific method can be viewed as an extensive, structured mode of critical thinking that involves hypothesis, experimentation and conclusion.

https://www.theclassroom.com/relationship-between-scientific-method-critical-thinking-19049.html

Still digging Rayban? So according to you critical thinking and analysis is only applicable in science? It may be the basis of scientific method but equally its a basis of philosophy, of social sciences, even of English literature!

Of course its a major part of scientific method but it is not in its self science, it does not have to be only taught as in science classes

as above – I was taught it as part of a nursing degree as a stand alone module. It also could be part of philosophy, social sciences.

Because something is a foundation of one discipline it does not mean it can only be used in that discipline and only taught as a part of that discipline especially when its equally important in others.

Critical thinking would be best taught as a part of a wider education then it would be taught to those you despise.

Narrow rigid thinking like you clearly have is the opposite of crital thinking

But of course – you could never admit you are wrong

tjagain

But of course – you could never admit you are wrong

Irony meter has exploded.

Still digging Rayban? So according to you critical thinking and analysis is only applicable in science? It may be the basis of scientific method but equally its a basis of philosophy, of social sciences, even of English literature!

Of course its a major part of scientific method but it is not in its self science, it does not have to be only taught as in science classes

I’m not saying it is – I’m just saying that science students come out with a lot stronger appreciation for evidence than humanities students do, it’s humanities students who kicked off the “science wars” and are thus partly responsible for the mess we are in now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars

“They implicate a broad range of fields in this trend, including cultural studies, cultural anthropology, feminist studies, comparative literature, media studies, and science and technology studies.”

But of course – you could never admit you are wrong

Says the guy who just straight up, stated that critical thinking was not part of the scientific method.

Of course its a major part of scientific method but it is not in its self science

Yes, it really is TJ – it’s critical thinking taken to it’s logical extreme. Critical thinking is a major element and the historical underpinning of the scientific method, and science without the scientific method is not science.

You need to teach economics, because the average person on the street has no idea what a trade deficit is, or why a strong pound might not always be good etc etc – or even why a country needs trade deals and tariffs.

I’m not one of those people who treats economics as a humanities topic, it should be treated like the hard sciences.

why was communism a nice idea but turned out not to be a good thing when it was tried, and so on.

Psychology and quantitative economic methods can answer that better than philosophy.

sobriety

Member

So source assessment, bias and balance then? Congratulations, you’ve just described critical thinking. Unfortunately GCSE/A-Level science doesn’t involve peer reviewing journals as part of the curriculum.

Peer reviewing isn’t the only way to think critically about a source.

Ironically given the conversation of the last page, one place where you definitely are encouraged to consider the source is history- because literally everything is open to question, so you learn about this almost immediately.

In sciences at the lower levels everything you’re getting taught is uncontroversial, you don’t really need to apply critical thinking to ohm’s law or how to calculate molarity changes or whatever (though you can confirm it with observation, and that’s usually part of how you learn the subject- but you’re not doing that to challenge the idea, you’re doing it to demonstrate it)

It’s not the job of sciences to teach critical thinking, at this level. Even if it were, it’s not something that could or should only be taught within the sciences, because everyone needs the skills not just people who’re interested in science.

And that’s all fine tbh. The trouble is where things that aren’t so clearcut, get taught as if they were. Lookin at you here, Economics, the art that pretends it’s a science. And politics, which these days is basically the art of pretending that something that’s controversial or open to debate or absolutely known to be true, isn’t. (politicians need to understand critical thinking in order to deal with it as a problem)

(you could say journalism there too… Except that at the point where journalism stops being about reporting fact or doubt and starts being about making the message, it’s politics too)

It’s also about their motives for doing so, which derive from the people who write the articles and who own the paper, and what their interests are. I can verify that a scientific education (which I have) does not teach you any of these skills!

Mine did, we had a couple of semesters worth of lessons dedicated to source appraisal, cognitive biases and statistical rigour in reviews.

Lookin at you here, Economics, the art that pretends it’s a science

The answer to a lack of scientific rigour in economics is not to give up and label it a humanities subject for the rest of eternity.

y. If a newspaper tell you something, it might not actually be true but more importantly, it might be true ish. It’s not what they are saying, it’s the way they are saying it; the extra messages they are adding by rhetoric and choice of language.

It wasn’t English or History that turned me off journalistic rhetoric – it was reading scientific journals and getting used to that language. Now if I find a claim, I go to a reputable journal and search until I find a review that covers that specific topic – whether it’s health, immigration, economics or war. I go looking for quantitative research to evidence the claims being made.

Understanding the language of rhetoric but not the scientific method and hierarchy of evidence just allows people to deceive both themselves and others.

So Rayban – is nursing a science? ‘cos i was taught critical thinking as a part of my degree.

Or is critical thinking the one of the building blocks of any learning?

So Rayban – is nursing a science? ‘cos i was taught critical thinking as a part of my degree.

Or is critical thinking the one of the building blocks of any learning?

Non sequitur.

Just because critical thinking is one of the major components of the scientific method, doesn’t make nursing a science. As I stated, the scientific method involves the marriage of critical thinking with quantitative evidence.

Or is critical thinking the one of the building blocks of any learning?

It is – but the implicit objection to evidence based thinking or the scientific method on the part of Sobriety, was that it didn’t involved critical thinking. This is something that you were keen to defend.

Understanding the language of rhetoric but not the scientific method and hierarchy of evidence just allows people to deceive both themselves and others.

The scientific method applies to science. Politics is not science. And as said, we already have science on the curriculum.

The scientific method applies to science. Politics is not science.

Policy can and should be rooted in science and evidence where it is available.

raybanwomble

Member

Complexity science is improving all the time, we should be trying to approach economics with the same degree of rigor as other complex systems such as meteorology.

The thing about meteorology, is that tomorrow’s weather doesn’t depend on human decision making. And it doesn’t have a whole wing dedicated to telling you that the weather ought to be sunny next sunday because you’re going on a bike ride.