Critical bloody thinking!!

[BeingATwatItsABingThing]

I am so sick of this phrase being thrown about whenever posters are discussing rules not applying to them. That’s all it translates as: I don’t want to follow that rule and I am far superior to all you sheep blindly following the rules!

Every time I see it, I get irrationally cross. I know IABU to get so annoyed about it.

Anyone else get annoyed at this or another constantly used MN phrase?

@btwwhichonespink Do you honestly believe that someone who completed only GCSE Biology is able to make an assessment of the situation equal to someone with accredited publications, decades of clinical experience and 4 years academic study in the field? It would save students a whole lot of money if they could just watch a video or read something on FB, if that's the case...

@AnotherOneFightsTheRust

God I hate this. I find it invalidates the credibility of actual research, because they don't mean write a fully referenced, accredited research paper, they mean read an article about how COVID swabs cause cancer to affirm their own biases. It took me 6 months of lab work, data analysis and statistical modelling to do my uni diss, and that's small fry in the pharmaceutical world.

People who say 'I'm following the science, thank you' haven't written a fully referenced, accredited research paper either though.
They'e just listened to the government and BBC news.

No, but the people they are accepting the judgement of have and that's what's important. They've not the egotism to assume they can do a bit of mooching on PubMed and use their "critical thinking" to come to an equally informed opinion.

@AnotherOneFightsTheRust

No, but the people they are accepting the judgement of have and that's what's important. They've not the egotism to assume they can do a bit of mooching on PubMed and use their "critical thinking" to come to an equally informed opinion.

I think that's a bit of an assumption. Many are also accepting the judgement of those who have written scientific papers, but because their views are not mainstream they don't get on the telly.

Like whom? Andrew Wakefield wrote papers, but was ostracised from the mainstream community, so it tends to follow that where most scientists agree is the most valid and reliable source of information. Fringe views usually aren't accepted due to bias or fallibility in the proof process.

@AnotherOneFightsTheRust

*or don't get on the telly as much, anyway. I have seen Carl Heneghan on more than once.

My colleagues and I genuinely laughed reading his Danish mask study, it was demonstrable bollocks, very plain to see by anyone with experience in trials.

I say I follow the science (and I really do mean science and not the buffoon in charge) because they know so much more than me. I’m not a moron but I’m not a scientist with specialities in viruses and vaccinations. I got an A in physics and Bs in Biology and Chemistry back when I was 16. I’m trained to teach primary science.

If the scientists say the vaccinations are safe for me (I’m not CV or CEV nor have I ever had an adverse reactions to vaccination but I understand others have different circumstances), then I believe them because they know what they’re talking about.

Yes. I'm very against the smug use of the phrase critical thinking. And also the firmly-held belief that a lot of people who don't use if simply lift entire chains of meaning from the internet. Even to be tempted by a theory about, say masks, or lockdown or Brexit, you would have to have developed your own meanings to find something in the conspiracy theory, or whatever, which resonates with what you've deduced already. It is quite difficult not to do creative thinking as you think things through. The brain is always seeking new connections.

I'm pleased that examination boards are now asking high-tariff questions on the GCSE English Language Paper which are more about narrative perspectives than critically evaluating the effectiveness of an extract which the kids have only seen five minutes before, and for a task for which they will be utilising relatively limited life experience. Don't the exam boards realise that play critics know the back catalogue of play-wright's work; football pundits watch every game that team plays. You can only think critically when you have points of reference, so a bit hard for sixteen year olds to do it.

[quote babbaloushka]@btwwhichonespink Do you honestly believe that someone who completed only GCSE Biology is able to make an assessment of the situation equal to someone with accredited publications, decades of clinical experience and 4 years academic study in the field? It would save students a whole lot of money if they could just watch a video or read something on FB, if that's the case...[/quote]
This is a side point, but I’d argue that anyone who had completed GCSE Biology ^should^ have the skills to be able to make these kinds of decisions (about vaccinations etc.) - surely that is the aim of compulsory education, to give the recipients a sufficient level of understanding in key subjects, and thinking skills, to be able to deal with common life situations? Whether the GCSE syllabus as currently delivered does that, I don’t know.

(and I say this as someone with an MChem and a PhD is biological chemistry)

@CaptainWentworth I quite agree, I wish there was more focus and rigour in the science curriculum to ensure our students come out with base knowledge sufficient to make informed decisions. One of my DD's teachers (geography) didn't know the difference between a bacteria and a virus. I considered that a monumental failing of the system, as it has genuinely critical application to health and wellbeing.

@AnotherOneFightsTheRust

My colleagues and I genuinely laughed reading his Danish mask study, it was demonstrable bollocks, very plain to see by anyone with experience in trials.

I don't think it was his study, was it?

Besides, you're proving my point - he's the head of evidence based medicine at Oxford Uni, very well qualified, author of multiple research studies - but you're not listening to him.

How then can you mock others for not listening to professors (even though lots of the 'do your own research' people ARE listening to professors and scientists).

No, because I'm fortunate enough to be educated enough in this area to recognise a poor effort when I see it. The mainstream scientific community, of people far more educated than me, also rejected his claims. This is not a bad thing, it's how progress happens, but it's misleading to suggest that Joe Bloggs has the capacity to properly discriminate between credible science and fringe views communicated by somebody with a particular view.

@AnotherOneFightsTheRust

If the scientists say the vaccinations are safe for me (I’m not CV or CEV nor have I ever had an adverse reactions to vaccination but I understand others have different circumstances), then I believe them because they know what they’re talking about.

Why aren't you believing Prof Cahill then?

To quote @babbaloushka:

The mainstream scientific community, of people far more educated than me, also rejected his claims.

@AnotherOneFightsTheRust

But it's misleading to suggest that Joe Bloggs has the capacity to properly discriminate between credible science and fringe views communicated by somebody with a particular view.

Ah, but as you yourself have shown, telling Joe Bloggs they need to trust whatever the scientists they are presented with say isn't the answer either, is it?

But he wasn't the mainstream, credible view they were presented. I won't pretend it's infallible, but it's better than condoning the bizarre opinion equality bollocks where an hour on Facebook gives equal weighting to the opinion of an accredited expert. There's no shame in conceding that there are people far more knowledgeable and experienced to whom you can defer your trust. I do it, am just fortunate the current situation favours my education and experience.

YANBU.

You don't want to follow the rules, then just say that. Don't try and argue why you don't think they apply to you.

Critical thinking is really important (and should be taught more in schools). I don't find the phrase itself at all annoying or smug. However, lots of people don't really seem to know what it means when they use it. Also, critical thinking does not excuse people from obeying the law.

Geesh, you lassies need to do your own research and employ a little more critical thinking wink

Shrivels into a pile of gah!!!!!

Also, critical thinking does not excuse people from obeying the law.

Exactly. My critical thinking tells me a mass murderer needs to be stopped by any means necessary. That doesn’t mean I can kill them.