A sizeable portion of what science and mathematics 'know' today will turn out - in the fullness of time - to be wrong. See, for example, Phlogiston theory and various other intellectual car wrecks from the past:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_theories_in_science

There is already enough group think in the world. What we need is people thinking out of the box and challenging the received 'wisdom'.

One result is perhaps the number of threads here that tell us how physics or mathematics has it wrong, while demonstrating a lack of knowledge of either physics or mathematics.

Critical thinking without context is dangerous. — Banno

So true. How do you convince someone who wants more knowledge that they need more knowledge?

As far as today's science and math being "phlogistons." Come on. Not everything gets superseded. Most fields are stable up to a certain level of complexity. Most changes are refinements. If there really is a paradigm shift, it is going to evolve out of existing theories, not "around" them. Systems Philosophy is far and away the leading paradigm shift candidate that I have seen.

As far as today's science and math being "phlogistons." Come on. Not everything gets superseded. — Pantagruel

You think we have it all perfect and that list of superseded theories will not grow? You are mistaken - science is a history of 2 steps forward, 1 step back, why should the future not follow the pattern of the past?

- We have huge problems with Cosmology and maths relating to the assumption that actual infinity exists.
- QM and GR are incompatible so one or the other will have to give way.
- There are no sound interpretations of QM.
- We have no real clue how the brain works.

That's a terrible argument. Phlogiston was an excellent first approximation of chemical energy. And those who developed it into our understanding of oxidation did so by careful theoretical and experimental work within their shared understanding; not by mere critique.

Criticism is over-rated.

You think we have it all perfect and that list of superseded theories will not grow? — Devans99

That's clearly not what was said. Take QM - and contemplate just how much discussion and agreement has had to take place for the disagreement you choose to focus on to even be considered...

Phlogiston was an excellent first approximation of chemical energy. — Banno

It was the wrong theory - and if it had been blindly accepted without questioning, we could still have it today.

Critical thinking is a skill to be encouraged. Group think is the biggest danger to science.

Read this thread as an extension of my maxim that it is always easier to critique a theory if you start by misunderstanding it.

The article cited in the OP struck a cord with me. I had been considering the threads created by the likes of @Bartricks and others; the not-quite-batshit-crazy stuff. They seem to be the result of applying critique before understanding.

Sure; but you are missing the point of this thread, which is about first understanding phlogiston in order to be able to criticise it.

And to understand phlogistan, in the context of the thread, you need to understand what they knew (and then didn't know at the time). To call it simply wrong is confused. But to understand that you have to know the history of science, and in addition, I would say, some knowledge of philosophy of language also. There is an implicit philosophy of language position in his judgment of phlogistan- perhaps also present in the scientists who proposed phlogistan - and it's one that is problematic.

Without critical thinking learning is simply uncritical acceptance of information. I think critical thinking is a basis for understanding fields properly, that is, not merely the repetition of what one learns but a reasonable grasp of it. I would argue it is critical thinking, not understanding of the topic, that lead to advancement in most areas.

I would argue it is critical thinking, not understanding of the topic, that lead to advancement in most areas. — NOS4A2

That's exactly wrong. It's those who have taken the time to understand the topic who are in the best position to critique it.

The myth of the maverick. The false notion that it is the half-trained outsider who innovates.

The false notion that it is the half-trained outsider who innovates — Banno

This does not agree with my personal experience. Add a new person to a subject matter group - they may not be fully unto speed - sure they will make a few errors / say some dumb stuff - but they also usually bring new ideas and a new perspective.

Cognitive load theory assumes that, for example, critical thinking is biologically primary and so unteachable. We all are able to think critically if we have sufficient knowledge stored in long-term memory in the area of interest.

A car mechanic can think critically about repairing a car. I, and I dare say most of you reading cannot. Teaching us critical thinking strategies instead of car mechanics is likely to be useless.
— John Sweller

This is very much wrong, and I'm saying this as someone who largely trusts car mechanics. A car mechanic will have certainly a vast body of knowledge about the inner workings of a car, just as a doctor will have a vast, vast body of knowledge about medicine.

So lets say I go to a doctor with a cough one day; clearly, at least in theory, it could indicate a billion different ailment. Coughing might be a sign of bubonic plague or AIDS, but a doctor who is hopefully able to critically think doesn't just thrust his entire encylopedia of conditions at me and instead is about to critically reason that it's most likely a seasonal cold and check for that first before moving onto bigger, rarer ailments.

This. You don't learn to improvise first. Seeing the relevant holes in things requires first knowing what is relevant to them. Learning what's relevant to what is learning; when you know what's relevant to what you can ask better questions, when you ask better questions you can learn better.

Criticism is over-rated. — Banno

And over-abundant. Proper critique, on the other hand, is not.

Or maybe I just like the word.

I feel like "critical thinking" is just another way of saying "don't fool yourself, you still probably don't fully know all of the answers."

So yeah it is useful to have in and of itself, but of no use if not applied to something.

That's exactly wrong. It's those who have taken the time to understand the topic who are in the best position to critique it.

My point is they would not properly understand the topic without a base of critical thinking. They would understand how to repeat information, sure, but they wouldn’t understand if what they were repeating was true or false without some ability to objectively and rationally form judgements.

You think we have it all perfect and that list of superseded theories will not grow? You are mistaken - science is a history of 2 steps forward, 1 step back, why should the future not follow the pattern of the past? — Devans99

Not what I said. I'm highly aware of the provisional nature of all scientific knowledge. I'm reading Karl Popper right now, it's his main position. Nevertheless, some components of our knowledge are more stable than others. Newtonian mechanics is no longer adequate as a cosmology, but it continues to suffice for much of our day to day needs. Euclidean geometry, calculus.

Edit: fittingly for the OP, Popper's take on scientific realism is that it is precisely criticism (critical thinking) which validates all objective knowledge. Excellent read.

I would argue it is critical thinking, not understanding of the topic, that lead to advancement in most areas.
— NOS4A2

That's exactly wrong. It's those who have taken the time to understand the topic who are in the best position to critique it. — Banno

So actually, if you don't mind my saying, you are both correct. Critical thinking is critical, and it does need to be substantive. (again, it's Popper, sorry, we do tend to see through the lens of our current focus). :)

Edit: He also says, the more different the backgrounds, the more fruitful the argument....

Nevertheless, some components of our knowledge are more stable than others. — Pantagruel

Agreed. The percentage of our knowledge that is sound/stable increases with time. But I don't quite think that percentage is currently high enough to abandon critical thinking.

I'm of the opinion that people should not be discouraged from posting articles critical of science/maths just because they are not a subject matter expert:

- There are enough folks on the forum to straighten out the odd error in OPs
- It is a learning experience
- More posts mean we are more likely to come up with some good stuff

It's those who have taken the time to understand the topic who are in the best position to critique it. — Banno

Coming from one who has come to understand that my own past critiques have sometimes been based on a misunderstanding, I would readily concur with this. It's exactly right.

Here's the thing...

I do not think that critical thinking is something that can be taught. Questioning authority is not equivalent to critical thinking. Doubt without adequate ground is not the result of critical thinking. It's the result of something else much less worthy... much less admirable.

Critical thinking without context is dangerous. — Banno

Learning context matters lots (as far as I can tell).
Incidentally one of the reasons why I think good, accessible education is important.

In terms of context, it is a matter of much debate to say what that is.
From one point of view, that is the only argument. We cannot get past the framing of a question to try and answer it.
On the other hand, there are arguments that question why any arguments are necessary.
So, the notion that the nature of arguments could satisfy a bunch of of arguments may be a hope misplaced.

In terms of context, it is a matter of much debate to say what that is. — Valentinus

Which that?

The starting place where one says this is the starting place.

Deductive reasoning, and the process of elimination involves knowing what to look for. Good mechanics and good doctors perform the same process of elimination... House aside, it's a bit fantastical, real doctors do much the same. I've recently watched it happen. Interestingly enough, she was as absolutely certain as she could be, but would not dismiss the possibility of being mistaken...

...turns out she was right.

All that said, deductive reasoning and the process of elimination involved in identifying a problem or a cause is but one aspect of critical thinking, not the only one.

Here's the thing...

I do not think that critical thinking is something that can be taught. Questioning authority is not equivalent to critical thinking. Doubt without adequate ground is not the result of critical thinking. It's the result of something else much less worthy... much less admirable. — creativesoul

Here’s the other thing...

Authority can be built on inadequate ground, and in that case critical thinking can show its great worth.