Thinking it through thanks to a recent issue of Skeptical Inquirer.

Melanie Trecer-King is the creator of Thinking is Power and the associate professor of biology at the Massasoit Community College, where she teaches a science course designed to equip her students with essential critical thinking, information literacy, and science literacy skills.

The article was published in the November/December, 2024 issue of the magazine. I believe it is free to share.

ooOOoo

Most people agree that critical thinking is an important skill that should be taught in schools. And most educators think they teach critical thinking. I know I did. After all, I was a science educator, and science is critical thinking. Isn’t it?

For years, I taught general-education biology, a course commonly taken by undergraduates who aren’t science majors. And while I love biology, I grew more and more frustrated with the content. I asked myself: If I had one semester to teach the average student what they need to know about the process of science and critical thinking, what would it look like?

Thankfully, my college allowed me to replace my traditional introductory biology course with a course titled Science for Life, designed to teach critical thinking, information literacy, and science literacy skills (Trecek-King 2022). Since my conversion, I’ve been sharing my new path with anyone who will listen about the value of teaching critical thinking.

Yet conversations with Bertha Vazquez, director of education for the Center for Inquiry, gave me pause. In a recent podcast conversation with the two of us and Daniel Reed (of the West Virginia Skeptics Society), Vazquez was adamant. Educators do teach critical thinking: the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) require students to ask questions, plan and carry out investigations, analyze and interpret data, construct explanations, and engage in arguments from evidence.

As a science communicator, I constantly fight misconceptions around certain terms. Theory and skepticism are prime examples. So imagine my surprise (and embarrassment) when I realized that, as a critical thinking educator, I had overlooked an important first step in critical thinking: defining terms. The irony.

What Is Critical Thinking?

While we can all agree that it’s important to teach critical thinking, there’s not always agreement on what we mean by the term.

In his book Critical Thinking, Jonathan Haber (2020) explains how the concept emerged and some of the ways it’s currently defined. John Dewey, in his 1910 work How We Think, proposed one of the first modern definitions of reflective thinking, describing it as an “active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief” (Dewey 1910, 6).

In his 1941 dissertation, Edward Glaser identified three components of critical thinking: “(1) an attitude of being disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range of one’s experiences, (2) knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning, and (3) some skill in applying those methods” (Glaser 1941, 5–6). That same year, Glaser and Goodwin Watson published the Watson-Glaser Tests of Critical Thinking (now the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal), a widely used standardized test for assessing critical thinking skills.

Critical thinking’s “big bang” moment, according to Haber, came in the early 1980s when the state of California (Harmon 1980, 3) mandated that all students in its university system complete a course that teaches “an understanding of the relationship of language to logic, leading to the ability to analyze, criticize and advocate ideas, reason inductively and deductively, and reach factual or judgmental conclusions based on sound inferences drawn from unambiguous statements of knowledge or belief.”

And the Delphi Report (Facione 1990, 2), in which Peter Facione worked with critical thinking experts to create a consensus definition, concludes that critical thinking is a “purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based.”

From these (and many other) definitions, Haber identifies three interconnected parts of critical thinking: knowledge of critical thinking components, such as logic and argumentation; the skills to put the knowledge to use in real-world situations; and the dispositions needed to prioritize critical thinking honestly and ethically.

This problem-solving view of critical thinking forms the basis of many of the current educational standards, including the NGSS and Common Core, which ask students to think deeply within a specific domain. And it is one scientists themselves use when trying to understand issues.

These are worthy educational goals to be sure. However, in my experience teaching general-education biology, I’ve come to realize that this approach is incomplete.

If critical thinking requires deep knowledge, then our ability to analyze topics is limited to areas in which we possess sufficient expertise. Pedagogy that encourages “independent” thinking outside these areas can have the unintended consequence of teaching students to overestimate their abilities. The best minds know they can’t know everything. Even experts rely on other experts and sources.

Additionally, in the classroom, students are provided with reliable content from which to critically analyze. In the “real world,” these guardrails are nonexistent. Not only is misinformation ubiquitous, disinformation purveyors exploit our biases and emotions to manipulate our reasoning.

And finally, we can’t address science misinformation, from evolution to vaccines to climate change, by giving students more content knowledge. We don’t fall for science denial and pseudoscience because we don’t have the facts but because of our emotions, desires, identities, and biases.

I now have a better understanding of what my colleague and friend Andy Norman means when he says that critical thinking suffers from a branding problem.

Yes, And …?

Using the above definition(s), I was teaching my biology students how to think critically. For example, I didn’t just ask them to memorize the stages of mitosis but to explore the mutations that could disrupt the cell cycle and lead to cancer. But to what end? If (or when) my former students are touched by cancer, will they remember how proto-oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes can lead to unregulated cell growth? Is that even what they need to know? I argue that, especially for students who aren’t going to be scientists, it’s far more important to teach students how and why the process of science results in reliable knowledge … and how to find it.

My Science for Life course and my Thinking Is Power resource are both based on the same premise. Knowledge may be power, but there’s too much to know. Even more, knowledge is a process; it’s not just what we know but how we know. It’s not just a noun but a verb. When we need reliable knowledge, can we find it and use it to make wiser decisions? And how do we know what information to ignore?

As a science educator, I want my students to understand how the process of science produces knowledge and why it’s reliable. Why aren’t comments such as “it worked for me” or “I know what I saw” sufficient evidence? I’ve come to realize that an essential—and often overlooked—ingredient is why we need science in the first place.

Richard Feynman famously said, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” Science is how we correct for this tendency toward self-deception. That’s why I spend the first third of the semester exploring how we come to our beliefs, the limits of our perception and memory, the importance of skepticism, the cognitive biases that can lead our thinking astray, and the logical fallacies we use to convince ourselves (and others) that our conclusions are justified.

Influential voices in the skeptical community played a crucial role in shaping the ingredients of critical thinking I use in Science for Life and Thinking Is Power, which include the following:

• Being aware of our limitations: Understanding that our perception and memory are flawed, and the biases and heuristics our brains rely on to make fast and easy decisions can lead us astray.
• Arguing with evidence and logic: Using arguments that are well-structured and supported by evidence. This includes understanding how the different types of arguments work (i.e., deductive, inductive, and abductive) and avoiding logical fallacies.
• Thinking about our thinking (metacognition): Actively examining and questioning our own thought processes—including the source of our knowledge, assumptions, intuitions, motivations, emotions, and biases—and how they might influence our judgments.
• Embracing nuance and uncertainty: Avoiding the black-or-white thinking that can lead to oversimplified conclusions and accepting that our knowledge is never perfect or complete.
• Seeking objectivity: Actively working to counter the limitations that prevent us from accurately understanding the world. This includes seeking diverse perspectives, separating our identity from our beliefs, and prioritizing accuracy over ego.
• Having curiosity and open-mindedness: Possessing a desire to learn and understand by asking questions and seeking out information, even if it contradicts what we want to believe.
• Maintaining healthy skepticism: Balancing gullibility and doubt and proportioning our beliefs to the available evidence. And remembering that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
• Exhibiting intellectual humility: Recognizing the limitations of our knowledge, being open to the expertise of others, and being willing to change our minds with evidence.

In my experience, giving students this foundation is essential for helping them become better consumers of information and science. Without an awareness that our emotions and existing beliefs can drive our reasoning, search engines and low-quality sources become tools to confirm our biases. And without an understanding of how our identities and worldviews can alter our standards of evidence, pseudoscience and science denial provide cover for what we want or don’t want to believe.

The logic of science’s practices, from carefully controlling experimental variables to making the findings available to other experts for scrutiny and replication, falls into place once students understand the problems it’s addressing. Simply put, science is our shield against self-deception.

Now instead of asking students to think critically about the biology of cancer, I teach them how to evaluate sources to find reliable information, how to recognize pseudoscientific “treatments,” and how their need for hope and answers makes them vulnerable to misinformation.

The Take-Home Message

I have no doubt that most educators teach critical thinking. But for pedagogical and communication purposes, it would be beneficial to clarify what we mean—and just as importantly to ask ourselves what we want our students to learn.

The dominant view of critical thinking in education is problem-solving in specific domains, which is absolutely a valuable skill. However, many skeptics view critical thinking as good thinking in a broader sense. My own teaching shifted toward this latter framework after I realized that problem-solving skills are insufficient without a foundation in better thinking. We may be born with the ability to think, but we must be taught to think well, and our primate brains aren’t adapted to today’s tidal wave of misinformation.

I’m grateful to the skeptical community for challenging my assumptions about critical thinking and my friend Bertha Vazquez for encouraging me to think more deeply about the good work science educators do in their classrooms every day. This article is the result of my attempt to reconcile what critical thinking means to educators and what it means to skeptics, and my hope is that it opens a conversation about how we can better serve our students. Maybe it will even start a critical thinking revolution, especially in science education.

Let the critical thinking revolution begin!

Acknowledgments

My thanks go to those on this brief list of skeptical thinkers/authors who’ve influenced my understanding of critical thinking: James Alcock, Timothy Caulfield, John Cook, Brian Dunning, Julia Galef, Adam Grant, David Robert Grimes, Jon Guy, Harriet Hall, Guy Harrison, Daniel Kahneman, David McRaney, Steven Novella, Carl Sagan, Michael Shermer, and Carol Tavris.

Special thanks to Bertha Vazquez, Daniel Pimentel, Andy Norman, Daniel Reed, and Jon Guy for their helpful feedback on this article.

References

Dewey, John. 1910. How We Think. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.

Facione, Peter A. 1990. Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction—The Delphi Report. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.

Glaser, Edward M. 1941. An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Haber, Jonathan. 2020. Critical Thinking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Harmon, Harry. 1980. Executive Order No. 338: General Education-Breadth Requirements. The California State University and Colleges.

Trecek-King, Melanie. 2022. Teach skills, not facts. Skeptical Inquirer 46(1): 39–42.

ooOOoo

I hope others have read this fascinating article and repeat the statement: ‘While we can all agree that it’s important to teach critical thinking, there’s not always agreement on what we mean by the term.’

Whatever, the article was superb.