Latest Announcements

Humans are no strangers to taking shortcuts. One type of these shortcuts, heuristics, helps us to make quick decisions, based on prior experience and pattern recognition, creating “rules to live by.” 

Historically, we have survived as a species by associating stimuli with action. For example, associating noise from a nearby bush with a threat and taking quick action without thought may help you avoid being eaten. “Avoid potential danger” is not usually a bad idea: Better to act without needing to, than to wait to find out. These quick thoughts free up cognitive capacity, but they also make our decisions prone to biases. Our biases are based on previous experience, values, and beliefs and are often unconscious. Biases may be helpful (like avoiding becoming dinner for a predator) or harmful (such as vaccine hesitancy), and they affect how we see the world and the decisions we make. And, everyone has them. 

By recognizing and understanding our biases, we can make better decisions. One place you can learn about biases and think about which affect you is the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine’s Catalogue of Bias. 

Sometimes we overemphasize information that comes from a specific source or that fits with an internal paradigm. One way to begin to understand the values that make you hold on to biases is by taking Clearer Thinking’s Intrinsic Values Test (note that you will need to provide an email address to receive the full report from this test).

Our values may cause us to hear only the ideas that match our preconceived ideas and are unable to hear or interpret anything that is contrary. In its extreme, this leads to anti-vax thinking, flat-Earth beliefs, racism, and a host of other dangerous campaigns.

To improve our thinking processes, we need to identify and be willing to adjust for our biases and values.

For more information about how our values and biases cause us to think illogically, see the Podcast for Inquiry episode, Science Denial: Why it Happens and What To Do About It, with Gale Sinatra.

Discussion:

What are the values and biases that you hold? Have you ever engaged in a conversation with someone where they (or you) were unable to overcome biases?

Image by DS stories via Pexels, used under the Pexels License.

These days, it seems trivially obvious that it is impossible for one person to know everything. Arguably, this was not the case in the past: Some have said that the philosopher Aristotle knew all that there was to know at the time (though in retrospect, a lot of it was incorrect). Others have identified the brilliant 17th century polymath Athanasius Kircher as the “last man to know everything.” But in any case, in this millennium, we need to acknowledge that we will all need to rely on others for expertise on at least some topics.

The challenge is knowing how to identify which experts to trust. Expertise is acquired from academic learning, hands-on experience, self-study, or a combination of all of these.

For science topics, the “gold standard” for an expert is to have academic qualifications in the field; even better if they are publicly recognized for their expertise, and/or have published papers in high-quality journals. Of course, scientific papers are usually highly technical and challenging for people outside the field. Enter the “science communicators” who help to cut through the jargon and provide explanations accessible to the general public. Many are knowledgeable and trustworthy; some are even scientists themselves, but if and when they are speaking outside their own area of expertise, some extra scrutiny is indicated.

But often, we also want to deploy our critical thinking skills in areas outside of science — practical matters like fixing cars or building furniture. In that case, the criteria for expertise are more likely to be based on practical experience (which may or may not be built on or scaffolded by formal academic education or training).

Some fields, such as medicine or engineering, depend on practical applications of scientific principles. In these areas, experts must be able to demonstrate a combination of academic education and practical experience.

Cautionary notes about “expertise”:

• Some “experts” use academic qualifications in one field to sound credible in another; for example, a computer scientist who pontificates on vaccinations.
• Some journals present themselves as scientific, but articles are not peer-reviewed, and often authors pay to publish their non-peer-reviewed (low quality) work.
• Some “experts” use their expertise for personal gain. Their information may or may not be accurate. If the expert has an ulterior motive for their claims, it is important to give their claim more scrutiny.
• Not all academic qualifications are equal. Experts should be vetted by ensuring that the institution they are citing is accredited and to ensure that they are being truthful about their affiliation with that institution. 
• There are better and poorer practitioners in every field and the esteem of peers is often a good indicator of qualifications. Peer recognition can take the form of publications (as discussed above), as well as memberships/accreditation from governing bodies, such as professional associations, and government licensing boards. (Additional scrutiny may be required to validate these credentials, especially in the case of self-governing organizations; for example, homeopaths in Ontario are legally required to be registered with The College of Homeopaths of Ontario, but that organization explicitly states that it “does not have a role in advocating for or against the efficiency of homeopathy.”)

In some cases, evaluating expertise can literally be a matter of life or death. Many people look to the internet for information regarding medical concerns. There is a wealth of information available from hospitals, medical schools, and health-related non-profit organizations. Again, the validity of the information provided by organizations depends on the credentials of the contributors and compilers. As with individuals, organizations may have ulterior motives, or they may fail to carefully vet their contributors. Recently, questions have been raised about the increasing tendency to provide information generated by artificial intelligence Large Language Models, despite the risk of insertion of information generated by the LLM’s hallucinations or confabulations.

In summary, experts (whether individuals or organizations):

• have formal qualifications, and/or a “track record” of accuracy and credibility,
• are willing to acknowledge when they are wrong,
• do not claim that their expertise in one area gives them the ability or credibility to speak on anything that is outside their field, and
• freely admit that they have their own biases, and disclose their potential conflicts of interest. 

For more on who (and how) to trust, check out the Podcast for Inquiry episode The Search for Truth, with Carolyn Biltoft.

Image by Vilkasss via Pixabay, used under the Pixabay License

Part 2 of the series.

There are many critical thinking models out there — the legacy of thousands of years of discussion and debate. To get us on the journey to critical thinking, we propose a model that mirrors the scientific method. Before anyone goes thinking, “But I’m not a scientist, I can’t do it,” rest assured that being a scientist is not a requirement. If you took grade 4, 5, or 6 science, that’s the level of complexity.

Following this simplified sequence of activities will assist with Critical Thinking: 

1. Ask a question

• Ask questions about things you observe. Be curious about everything.

2. Look for an answer(s)

• Do some background research on the subject. Don’t rely solely on your own feelings, but cautiously listen to the statements of others, especially if they are contrary to yours. Find out what the evidence may say. And more importantly, what the evidence doesn’t say.
• If there happens to be a singular, reliable answer to your question already, great! Stop here. If not, read on…

3. Create a hypothesis 

• What do you think is the truth about the topic? Why do you think this? What are your assumptions? 

4. Test the hypothesis 

• In science, an experiment is used to test the hypothesis. For critical thinking purposes, testing may simply involve engaging many people in conversation to obtain a wide variety of perspectives, conducting an internet search on the topic, or a combination of information sourcing (see our “Who to Trust” coming up next). Be sure you are not just looking for support for your hypothesis; actively seek out contrary opinions and use genuine curiosity to get a wide variety of input.

5. Draw conclusions

• Interpret the information. What is the background of your sources? How might the information be biased? 

6. Bonus step: Repeat

This framework can be used when contemplating something new, or when evaluating ideas we have held for some time. As you’ll learn throughout this week, being prepared to change your mind is all part of the process and plan. 

Discussion:

Was there a time when your critical thinking process was faulty? What was the missing step? What was the outcome?

Image by Tumisu via Pixabay, used under the Pixabay License.

Follow us for Critical Thinking Week(ish).

Forget the snake oil, the pyramid schemes, and chakra alignments, CFIC brings you the key to wealth, happiness, and health with one (not-so-simple) idea — critical thinking. 

Follow us during Critical Thinking Week(ish) for a few ideas and thoughts, such as: 

1. An introduction to critical thinking
2. A framework to guide your critical thinking processes
3. Deciding who you should trust
4. Recognizing cognitive biases and adjusting your thinking
5. How to disagree without being disagreeable
6. Understanding common errors in interpreting statistics
7. Identifying when you are being superstitious
8. Why changing your mind makes you smart and capable
9. Why Critical Thinking Week is 10 days
10. A recap to remind you of ways to think better

Critical thinking is not a simple topic. Researchers have extensively studied each of the topics we are exploring. And even with our extended week, we will only be able to scratch the surface.  However, each day provides useful information and an opportunity for you to share your best practices in critical thinking. 

We hope you will get involved. If you want to be notified of Critical Thinking Week posts, sign up here or follow along on our website (www.centreforinquiry.ca/critical-thinking-weekish-2025) and on social media.

If you’d like more information on this topic, please see our Podcast for Inquiry episode, Melanie Trecek-King defines and discusses critical thinking.

Discussion:

What do you think are the most important components of critical thinking? What are some challenges you have encountered with your own critical thinking and that of others?

Image by Saydung via Pixabay, used under the Pixabay License.

CFIC’s 2023-2024 annual report is now available. Find out what we did from Oct 1, 2023 to Sept 30, 2024.