Science Intro: Critical Thinking (PDF)

The Science of Critical Thinking Understanding Pseudoscience and Logical Fallacies Learning Objectives By the end of this session, students will be able to:  Trace the historical development of the scientific method  Distinguish between science and pseudoscience using specifi...

The Science of Critical Thinking Understanding Pseudoscience and Logical Fallacies Learning Objectives By the end of this session, students will be able to:  Trace the historical development of the scientific method  Distinguish between science and pseudoscience using specific criteria  Identify and analyze common logical fallacies in scientific contexts  Apply critical thinking tools to evaluate scientific claims  Table of contents The Evolution of Understanding Scientific Thinking: Pseudoscience: 1 Critical Thinking & 2 Distinguishing Science Scientific Method from Non-Science Logical Fallacies in Scientific Context: Conclusion and 3 Understanding and 4 Key Takeaways Identifying Flaws  1 The Evolution of Scientific Thinking Critical Thinking & Scientific Method What is critical thinking? Why is critical thinking necessary for advancing scientific knowledge? Critical thinking is the ability to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information objectively to form a reasoned judgment. It requires skepticism, open-mindedness, and a focus on evidence. Importance:  Ensures that personal biases, emotions, and preconceived ideas don’t influence scientific conclusions.  Encourages continuous questioning of theories, ensuring progress.  Example: Revisiting Newton’s classical mechanics when Einstein’s theory of relativity emerged. Questioning the validity of a Core Characteristics of a Critical Thinker: study before accepting its  Curiosity: Asking meaningful questions. conclusions.  Skepticism: Challenging claims and seeking evidence.  Humility: Accepting when one’s knowledge or Critical thinking is the ability to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information objectively to form a reasoned judgment. It requires skepticism, open-mindedness, and a focus on evidence. Importance:  Ensures that personal biases, emotions, and preconceived ideas don’t influence scientific conclusions.  Encourages continuous questioning of theories, ensuring progress.  Example: Revisiting Newton’s classical mechanics when Einstein’s theory of relativity emerged. Questioning the validity of a Core Characteristics of a Critical Thinker: study before accepting its  Curiosity: Asking meaningful questions. conclusions.  Skepticism: Challenging claims and seeking evidence.  Humility: Accepting when one’s knowledge or The Scientific Method we use today didn't appear suddenly—it emerged through centuries of intellectual development, debate, and refinement. This journey reflects humanity's evolving understanding of how to investigate and comprehend the natural world. I. Ancient Greek Foundations The story of scientific thinking begins with the Greek Philosophers, who first proposed that the universe operates according to natural laws rather than divine whims. These early thinkers made several groundbreaking contributions. 1. The Pre-Socratic Revolution  Thales of Miletus (c. 624-546 BCE) proposed that all matter derived from water, marking the first attempt to explain natural phenomena through natural causes rather than mythological explanations.  Democritus (c. 460-370 BCE) developed the atomic theory, suggesting that all matter consists of invisible particles—an remarkably prescient idea for its time. 2. Aristotelian Method Aristotle (384-322 BCE) established what many consider the first systematic method of investigation: 1. Observation: Direct examination of natural phenomena 2. Classification: Organizing observations into categories 3. Deductive Reasoning: Drawing conclusions from general principles 4. Teleological Explanation: Understanding things in terms of their purpose Limitations of Aristotelian Method: Over-reliance on logical reasoning without experimental verification Acceptance of common beliefs without testing Teleological assumptions about nature's "purpose" II. The Medieval Islamic Golden Age During the 8th-14th centuries, Islamic scholars made crucial contributions to scientific methodology: 1. Alhazen's Contribution (Abu Ali al-Hasan ibn al-Haytham, an Islamic mathematician and scientist who lived from 965–1040): o Introduced systematic experimentation o Emphasized the importance of empirical evidence o Developed early versions of controlled variables o Introduced mathematical modeling in physics 2. Al-Razi's Medical Investigations (Abū Bakr al-Rāzī, c. 864 or 865–925 or 935 CE, was a Persian physician, philosopher and alchemist who lived during the Islamic Golden Age): o Pioneered clinical trials o Introduced placebo controls o Emphasized systematic observation in medicine III. The Modern Scientific Revolution The Scientific Revolution (16th-17th centuries) marked a fundamental shift in how we understand and investigate nature. 1. Francis Bacon's Empiricism Bacon (1561-1626) established the foundations of modern scientific method: Inductive Reasoning: Drawing general conclusions from specific observations Systematic Observation: Carefully planned and documented experiments Elimination of Idols: Identifying and removing sources of bias: o Idols of the Tribe (human nature biases) o Idols of the Cave (individual biases) o Idols of the Marketplace (language limitations) o Idols of the Theater (dogmatic beliefs) 2. Galileo's Mathematical Approach Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) revolutionized scientific investigation by:  Combining mathematics with experimental observation  Developing the concept of idealized experiments  Introducing quantitative measurement in physics  Emphasizing repeatability in experiments 3. Newton's Synthesis Isaac Newton (1643-1727) combined mathematical analysis with experimental verification:  Developed the hypothetico-deductive method  Established universal laws of motion and gravitation  Created mathematical tools for scientific analysis 1. Ancient Greek Foundations of Scientific Method Time Period: Around 600 BCE to 300 BCE. Key Figures: Thales, Aristotle, Democritus. Main Ideas: Observation and Reasoning: Ancient Greeks like Aristotle emphasized observing the natural world and using logical reasoning to understand it. Early Theories: They proposed early theories about the nature of matter and the universe, often based on observation and philosophical thinking. Limitations: They didn't always test their ideas with experiments, and sometimes relied on common beliefs or myths. 2. The Medieval Islamic Golden Age Time Period: Around 800 CE to 1400 CE. Key Figures: Alhazen (Ibn al-Haytham), Al-Razi (Rhazes). Main Ideas: Systematic Experimentation: Scientists like Alhazen introduced systematic experimentation and emphasized empirical evidence (observations and data). Medical Advances: Al-Razi conducted clinical trials and used placebos to test treatments, improving medical practices. Mathematical and Scientific Progress: They made significant advances in mathematics, astronomy, and medicine, building on and preserving Greek knowledge. 3. The Modern Scientific Revolution Time Period: Around 1500 CE to 1700 CE. Key Figures: Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon. Main Ideas: Mathematics and Experiments: Galileo combined mathematics with experiments to understand natural phenomena, making science more precise. Scientific Method: Francis Bacon developed the scientific method, emphasizing systematic observation, experiments, and eliminating biases. Universal Laws: Isaac Newton formulated the laws of motion and universal gravitation, providing a comprehensive framework for understanding the physical world.  2 Logical Fallacies in Scientific Context Understanding and Identifying Flaws in Scientific Reasoning Logical fallacies can undermine scientific thinking even when other aspects of the scientific method are followed correctly. Understanding these fallacies is crucial for developing critical thinking skills in science. 1. Definition of Logical Fallacies  Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that undermine the validity of an argument.  They can appear persuasive but lack evidence or logical coherence. 2. Why Logical Fallacies Matter in Science  Science relies on sound reasoning and evidence to reach reliable conclusions.  Fallacies can lead to misinformation, pseudoscience, or flawed scientific practices. 3. Examples of Logical Fallacies in Real-World Science  Example: Claims against climate change based on short-term weather patterns (hasty generalization).  Example: Anti-vaccine arguments based on anecdotal evidence (appeal to emotion). II. Common Logical Fallacies in Scientific Contexts 1. Strawman Fallacy  Definition: Misrepresenting an argument to make it easier to attack.  Example in Science:  Claim: "Scientists think humans evolved from monkeys, but I’ve never seen a monkey turn into a human."  Flaw: This misrepresents evolutionary theory, which explains that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor, not that one evolved directly into the other.  Response: Explain the actual principles of evolutionary biology, emphasizing gradual change over millions of years. II. Common Logical Fallacies in Scientific Contexts 2. Appeal to Authority  Definition: Assuming something is true because an authority figure says so.  Example in Science:  Claim: "A celebrity says that detox teas cure diseases, so it must work."  Flaw: Being a public figure does not equate to expertise in health or science.  Response: Focus on evidence from peer- reviewed studies rather than personal endorsements. II. Common Logical Fallacies in Scientific Contexts 3. Correlation vs. Causation  Definition: Mistaking correlation for causation.  Example in Science:  Claim: "Every time I bring my umbrella, it rains. Therefore, my umbrella causes rain."  Flaw: Correlation does not mean the umbrella causes the rain. Both are related to weather conditions.  Real-World Example:  "Autism diagnoses increased after vaccines became widespread, so vaccines cause autism."  Flaw: Autism diagnoses increased due to better awareness and diagnostic tools, not because of vaccines.  Response: Highlight the importance of controlled studies to establish causation. II. Common Logical Fallacies in Scientific Contexts 4. Confirmation Bias  Definition: Favoring evidence that supports pre- existing beliefs while ignoring contradictory evidence.  Example in Science:  Claim: "I know this alternative medicine works because I’ve heard stories of people who were cured."  Flaw: Anecdotes are not evidence. People might ignore studies showing the treatment is ineffective.  Response: Emphasize the importance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses over anecdotal evidence. II. Common Logical Fallacies in Scientific Contexts 5. Ad Hominem  Definition: Attacking the person rather than their argument.  Example in Science:  Claim: "You can’t trust this climate scientist’s data because they work for a university funded by oil companies."  Flaw: The source of funding might be worth questioning, but it doesn’t automatically invalidate the data.  Response: Evaluate the methods and results of the research, not the person or their affiliations. II. Common Logical Fallacies in Scientific Contexts 6. Hasty Generalization  Definition: Drawing a conclusion based on limited or insufficient evidence.  Example in Science:  Claim: "This one study found that coffee causes cancer, so drinking coffee is dangerous."  Flaw: A single study cannot establish a scientific consensus; other studies might contradict this finding.  Response: Explain the role of replication and large-scale studies in confirming scientific claims. II. Common Logical Fallacies in Scientific Contexts 7. Appeal to Emotion  Definition: Manipulating emotions rather than presenting evidence.  Example in Science:  Claim: "Think of the children! We must ban GMOs because they’re unnatural."  Flaw: Emotional appeals don’t provide scientific evidence of harm caused by GMOs.  Response: Explain the rigorous testing GMOs undergo before being deemed safe. II. Common Logical Fallacies in Scientific Contexts 8. Cherry-Picking  Definition: Selecting only the evidence that supports a claim while ignoring contradictory data.  Example in Science:  Claim: "Global temperatures dropped in one year; therefore, global warming is a hoax."  Flaw: Ignoring long-term trends in favor of short-term variability.  Response: Use data showing overall trends rather than isolated anomalies. II. Common Logical Fallacies in Scientific Contexts 9. Argument from Ignorance  Definition: occur when someone claims something must be true because it hasn't been proven false, or must be false because it hasn't been proven true.  Example in Science:  Claim: "Nobody has proven ghosts don't exist, therefore they must exist".  Flaw: Shifting the “Burden of Proof”.  Response: The person making a claim has the responsibility to provide evidence for it.  4 Conclusion and Key Takeaways Course Summary Critical thinking is the process of analyzing, evaluating, and reasoning logically to make informed decisions or judgments. It involves questioning assumptions, examining evidence, identifying biases, and using structured reasoning to assess the validity of claims. Key Principles of Critical Thinking 1. Skepticism: o Question claims and demand evidence before accepting them. o Example: Don't believe a health claim without scientific studies to support it. 2. Objectivity: o Avoid personal biases and focus on facts. o Example: Evaluating data fairly, even if it contradicts personal beliefs. 3. Empirical Evidence: Base conclusions on observable, measurable, and reproducible data. Example: Trusting a peer-reviewed study over anecdotal evidence. 4. Falsifiability: Claims must be testable and disprovable. Example: "All swans are white" is falsifiable because a single black swan disproves it. 5. Logical Reasoning: Use deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning to draw valid conclusions. Example: If all humans are mortal and Socrates is human, Socrates must be mortal. Essential Takeaways 1. The Evolution of Scientific Thinking  Scientific method emerged through centuries of intellectual development  Key transitions moved us from pure philosophy to empirical investigation  Modern scientific method combines mathematical analysis, empirical observation, and systematic experimentation  Understanding this history helps us appreciate why we do science the way we do today 2.. Logical Reasoning in Science  Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that weaken arguments.  Recognizing and avoiding them is essential for clear and effective thinking.  Critical thinking tools apply across all scientific disciplines Essential Takeaways 3. Science vs. Pseudoscience  Science is characterized by: o Falsifiability o Empirical testing o Peer review o Self-correction  Pseudoscience typically shows: o Resistance to testing o Lack of self-correction o Appeal to authority rather than evidence o Use of unfalsifiable claims Remember: Critical thinking in science is not about knowing all the answers, but about knowing how to ask the right questions and evaluate the evidence systematically. Additional Resources:  "A Short History of Scientific Thought" by John Henry  "Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning" by Richard Paul  "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn  "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre  "Calling Bullshit: The Art of Skepticism in a Data-Driven World" by Carl Bergstrom  "The Demon-Haunted World" by Carl Sagan REFERENCES Ariola, M. M., (2019), Science, Technology and Society. Unlimited Books Library Services and Publishing, Inc. Contreras, A. P., et al., (2018). Science, Technology and Society: A Critical Approach. Mindshapers Co., Inc. Mc Namara, D. J., et al., (2018). Science, Technology and Society. C & E Publishing. Prieto, N. G., et al., (2019). Science, Technology and Society. Lorimar Publishing, Inc. Quinto, E. M., (2019). Science, Technology and Society. C and E Publishing, Inc. Dawkins, R. (2021). Flights of Fancy: Defying Gravity by Design and Evolution. Trafalgar Square. Fisher, M. R. et al., (2018). Environmental Biology. Open Oregon Educational Resources. Pittinsky, T. L. (2019). Science, Technology, and Society: New Perspectives and Directions. Cambridge University Press.