4.4 Science and Critical Thinking
A critical thinker will be good at reconstructing arguments, filling in assumptions, identifying the patterns of reasoning to which the argument appeal, and paying attention to factors that are being left out (Dayton & Rodier, Preface, para. 7)
A health professional needs to be a critical thinker and, as a result, open-minded to perspectives but also skeptical. Using a method for problem-solving, such as the scientific method, to apply critical reasoning.
Science and Common Sense
Some people wonder whether the scientific approach is necessary. Can we not reach the same conclusions based on common sense or intuition? Certainly, we all have intuitive beliefs about people’s behaviour, thoughts, and feelings—and these beliefs are collectively referred to as folk psychology. Although much of our folk psychology is probably reasonably accurate, it is clear that much of it is not. For example, most people believe anger can be relieved by “letting it out”—perhaps by punching something or screaming loudly. Scientific research, however, has shown that this approach tends to leave people feeling more angry, not less (Bushman, 2002).
Forming detailed and accurate beliefs requires powers of observation, memory, and analysis to an extent we do not naturally possess. It would be nearly impossible to count the number of words spoken by the women and men we encounter, estimate the number of words they spoke per day, average these numbers for both groups and compare them—all in our heads. This is why we tend to rely on mental shortcuts (what psychologists refer to as heuristics) to form and maintain our beliefs. For example, if a belief is widely shared—especially if it is endorsed by “experts”—and it makes intuitive sense, we tend to assume it is true. This is compounded by the fact that we then tend to focus on cases that confirm our intuitive beliefs and not on cases that disconfirm them. This is called confirmation bias. For example, once we believe that women are more talkative than men, we tend to notice and remember talkative women and silent men but ignore or forget silent women and talkative men. We also hold incorrect beliefs in part because it would be nice if they were true. Have you ever purchased an item online based on a couple of reviews you read, and when you got it, it was not close to the quality you thought it was? This is an example of confirmation bias.
Scientists understand that they are just as susceptible as anyone else to intuitive but incorrect beliefs. This is why they cultivate an attitude of skepticism. Being skeptical does not mean being cynical or distrustful nor questioning every belief or claim. Instead, it means pausing to consider alternatives and to search for evidence—especially systematically collected empirical evidence—when there is enough at stake to justify doing so. For example, imagine that you read a magazine article that claims that giving children a weekly allowance is a good way to help them develop financial responsibility. This is an interesting and potentially important claim (especially if you have children). Taking an attitude of skepticism, however, would mean pausing to ask whether it might be instead that receiving an allowance merely teaches children to spend money—perhaps even to be more materialistic. Taking an attitude of skepticism would also mean asking what evidence supports the original claim. Is the author a scientific researcher? Is any scientific evidence cited? If the issue was important enough, it might also mean turning to the research literature to see if anyone else had studied it.
Because there is often not enough evidence to fully evaluate a belief or claim, scientists also cultivate a tolerance for uncertainty. They accept that there are many things that they simply do not know. For example, it turns out that there is no scientific evidence that receiving an allowance causes children to be more financially responsible, nor is there any scientific evidence that it causes them to be materialistic. Although this kind of uncertainty can be problematic from a practical perspective—for example, making it difficult to decide what to do when our children ask for an allowance—it is exciting from a scientific perspective. If we do not know the answer to an interesting and empirically testable question, science, and perhaps even you, as a researcher, may be able to provide the answer. What we know from the scientific method is that creating a hypothesis and testing that hypothesis may lead us to results or a newly formed hypothesis. The key is not taking everything that is read for the truth, questioning the source, and being open to asking new questions and discussion.
“Science and Common Sense” from Research Methods in Psychology – 2nd Canadian Edition © 2015 by Paul C. Price, Rajiv Jhangiani, & I-Chant A. Chiang is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.—Modifications: Edited; Removed Learning Objectives, Some Great Myths, Key Takeaways, & Exercises.
