how can critical thinking and skepticism

Newest Articles

Perception and Knowledge: An Overview
Exploring Moral Relativism: A Comprehensive Overview
The Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle
Exploring Friedrich Nietzsche: An Introduction to the Major Modern Philosopher
Metaphysics
Theory of Forms
Epistemology
Materialism
Moral relativism
Utilitarianism
Virtue ethics
Normative ethics
Applied ethics
Moral Psychology
Philosophy of art
Philosophy of language
Philosophy of beauty
Nature of Art
Philosophy of Film
Philosophy of Music
Deductive reasoning
Inductive reasoning
Justification
Perception and Knowledge
Beliefs and Truth
Modern philosophy
Romanticism
Analytic philosophy
Enlightenment philosophy
Existentialism
Enlightenment
Ancient philosophy
Classical Greek philosophy
Renaissance philosophy
Medieval philosophy
Pre-Socratic philosophy
Hellenistic philosophy
Presocratic philosophy
Rationalism
Scholasticism
Jewish philosophy
Early Islamic philosophy
Reasoning and Argumentation
Seeking Justice After a Tractor-Trailer Accident: Why You Need an Experienced Lawyer
Critical Thinking
Fallacies and logical errors
Skepticism and doubt
Creative Thinking
Lateral thinking
Thought experiments
Argumentation and Logic
Syllogisms and Deductive Reasoning
Fallacies and Rebuttals
Inductive Reasoning and Analogy
Reasoning and Problem-Solving
Critical Thinking and Decision Making
Creative Thinking and Problem Solving
Analytical Thinking and Reasoning
Philosophical Writing and Analysis
Argumentative Writing and Analysis
Interpreting Philosophical Texts
Writing Essays and Articles on Philosophy
Philosophical Research Methods
Qualitative Research Methods in Philosophy
Quantitative Research Methods in Philosophy
Research Design and Methodology
Ethics and Morality
Aesthetics and Beauty
Metaphysical terms
Ontological argument
Ethical terms
Aesthetic terms
Metaphysical theories
Kant's Categorical Imperative
Aristotle's Four Causes
Plato's Theory of Forms
Hegel's Dialectic
Ethical theories
Aesthetic theories
John Dewey's aesthetic theory
Immanuel Kant's aesthetic theory
Modern philosophical texts
Foucault's The Order of Things
Descartes' Meditations
Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil
Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Ancient philosophical texts
Kant's Critique of Pure Reason
Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit
Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics
Plato's Republic
Ancient philosophers
Modern philosophers
Modern philosophical schools
German Idealism
British Empiricism
Ancient philosophical schools
The Skeptic school
The Cynic school
The Stoic school
The Epicurean school
The Socratic school
Philosophy of Language
Semantics and Pragmatics of Language Usage
Analytic-Synthetic Distinction
Meaning of Words and Phrases
Philosophy of Science
Scientific Realism and Rationalism
Induction and the Hypothetico-Deductive Model
Theory-Ladenness and Underdetermination
Philosophy of Mind
Mind-Body Dualism and Emergentism
Materialism and Physicalism
Identity Theory and Personal Identity
Philosophy of Religion
Religious Pluralism and Exclusivism
The Problem of Evil and Suffering
Religious Experience and Faith
Metaphysical Theories
Idealism and Realism
Determinism, Fatalism, and Libertarianism
Phenomenalism and Nominalism
Epistemological Theories
Intuitionism, Skepticism, and Agnosticism
Rationalism and Empiricism
Foundationalism and Coherentism
Aesthetic Theories
Formalist Aesthetics, Emotional Aesthetics, Experiential Aesthetics
Relational Aesthetics, Sociological Aesthetics, Historical Aesthetics
Naturalistic Aesthetics, Immanent Aesthetics, Transcendental Aesthetics
Ethical Theories
Virtue Ethics, Utilitarianism, Deontology
Subjectivism, Egoism, Hedonism
Social Contract Theory, Natural Law Theory, Care Ethics
Metaphysical Terms
Cause, Necessity, Possibility, Impossibility
Identity, Persistence, Time, Space
Substance, Attribute, Essence, Accident
Logic and Argumentation Terms
Analogy, Syllogism, Deduction, Induction
Inference, Validity, Soundness, Refutation
Premise, Conclusion, Entailment, Contradiction
Epistemological Terms
Perception and Knowledge Claims
Infallibility, Verifiability, Coherence Theory of Truth
Justification, Beliefs and Truths
Ethical Terms
Modern Texts
A Vindication of the Rights of Woman by Mary Wollstonecraft
Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche
The Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant
Medieval Texts
The Guide for the Perplexed by Moses Maimonides
The Summa Theologiae by Thomas Aquinas
The Incoherence of the Incoherence by Averroes
Ancient Texts
The Art of Rhetoric by Cicero
The Republic by Plato
Exploring Skepticism and Doubt: A Philosophical and Critical Thinking Perspective
Philosophical thinking

From Socrates to the present day, skepticism and doubt have been at the forefront of philosophical thought. Skepticism has been used to challenge existing beliefs and assumptions, while doubt has been used to question and probe ideas, concepts, and beliefs. In this article, we explore the philosophical and critical thinking perspectives on skepticism and doubt. We will look at how they have been used throughout history to shape our thinking and inform our decisions.

We will also examine the implications of skepticism and doubt for our society today and how they can be used to foster greater understanding and collaboration. Skepticism and doubt have long been seen as tools of inquiry and analysis. They have been used to challenge established conventions, challenge accepted wisdom, and explore new ideas. As such, skepticism and doubt can be seen as essential elements of philosophical thinking. This article will explore the various ways in which skepticism and doubt have been employed by philosophers throughout history, as well as their implications for critical thinking. We will also examine the implications of skepticism and doubt in today's world.

We will look at how they can be used to promote greater understanding, collaboration, and progress in our society. We will also explore the potential pitfalls of relying too heavily on skepticism and doubt, such as the tendency to become too skeptical or too trusting of ideas. Finally, we will discuss how skepticism and doubt can be used in a constructive manner to promote meaningful dialogue and progress. Skepticism and doubt are two closely related concepts that have been discussed in philosophy and critical thinking for centuries. They involve questioning beliefs or assumptions, and seeking evidence in order to form one’s own conclusions.

Historically, skepticism and doubt have been used to challenge existing beliefs and accepted truths

Today, skepticism and doubt can still be used to think more critically about our beliefs and assumptions, by questioning our beliefs and assumptions, we can avoid making decisions based on false information or our own biases, when we question our beliefs and assumptions, it can help us to think more deeply about our positions and arguments, if taken too far, they can lead to a sense of cynicism or apathy, which can prevent us from forming meaningful connections with others or taking meaningful action.

By questioning our beliefs and assumptions, we can avoid making decisions based on false information or biases. We can also identify potential pitfalls in our reasoning and uncover alternative perspectives that we may not have considered before. Finally, when engaging in debates or discussions, skepticism and doubt can help us to think more deeply about our positions and arguments. However, it is important to use skepticism and doubt judiciously in order to avoid falling into a state of cynicism or apathy. For those looking to learn more about skepticism and doubt, there are a number of resources available.

What is Skepticism and Doubt?

Philosophical skepticism can be divided into several different types, including Cartesian skepticism, Pyrrhonism, Academic skepticism, and Humean skepticism. Cartesian skepticism is the view that nothing can be known with absolute certainty, while Pyrrhonism holds that nothing can be known with absolute certainty and that one should suspend judgement until further evidence is obtained. Academic skepticism maintains that no knowledge is certain and that wisdom is achieved through doubt, while Humean skepticism suggests that knowledge is based on experience and can never be certain. Scientific skepticism is a form of inquiry that uses scientific methods to investigate claims made in the absence of definitive proof. This type of skepticism is based on the premise that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence in order to be accepted as valid.

The Historical Roots of Skepticism and Doubt

Descartes argued that people should use their own reason and experience to form beliefs, rather than relying solely on the teachings of others. He was an advocate of the “method of doubt”, which instructed people to doubt all of their beliefs until they could be proven true. Descartes’ ideas were highly influential and were taken up by other philosophers such as David Hume. Hume argued that humans are limited in their knowledge, and that we should not assume our beliefs to be true unless there is sufficient evidence for them.

The Application of Skepticism and Doubt

Additionally, by applying doubt to our problem-solving abilities, we can avoid the potential pitfalls of relying too heavily on instinct or intuition. For example, if we are presented with a complicated problem, we may be tempted to rush to a solution without considering the wider implications of our decision. However, by taking a moment to consider the implications of our decision and question any underlying assumptions, we can make sure that our solution is as informed and well-considered as possible. In addition to helping us think more critically, skepticism and doubt can help us develop a healthier sense of self-awareness. By questioning our own beliefs and assumptions, we can gain a better understanding of our own thought processes and the biases which might be influencing them.

Resources for Learning More About Skepticism and Doubt

Carroll 2.The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: A Peer-Reviewed Academic Resource 3.The Skeptics Society: Promoting Science and Reason Since 1992 4.Doubtful News: Keeping You Informed on Strange and Unusual Claims Podcasts: 1.Skeptoid: Critical Analysis of Pop Phenomena 2.The Partially Examined Life: Philosophy for the Rest of Us 3.Reasonable Doubts: Exploring the Claims of Christianity 4.Think Twice: Exploring the Relationship between Science and ReligionIn conclusion, skepticism and doubt are important philosophical and critical thinking tools that can help us better understand our world, beliefs, assumptions, and perspectives. By engaging in questioning and challenging our beliefs and assumptions, we are able to think more critically and gain new insights. Furthermore, skepticism and doubt can be used to inform our decision-making processes, problem-solving abilities, and more. Finally, there are a variety of resources available for readers to learn more about skepticism and doubt and how to apply them to their everyday lives.

Skepticism , doubt , critical thinking , philosophical thinking , and decision-making are all key concepts explored in this article.

Exploring Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

Descartes: A Comprehensive Overview
Sublime: An Introduction to Aesthetic and Philosophical Terms
Exploring Plato's Republic
Understanding Existentialism: A Brief Introduction
Exploring the Life and Work of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
German Idealism: A Comprehensive Overview
Explore The Epicurean School of Ancient Philosophy
Analytic Philosophy: A Primer
Exploring Jewish Philosophy
Exploring the Philosophy of Immanuel Kant
Exploring British Empiricism
Justification: A Comprehensive Overview
Exploring the History and Impact of Empiricism

Enlightenment: A History of Philosophy

Understanding Fallacies and Rebuttals

Exploring Applied Ethics

Exploring Critical Thinking and Decision Making
Exploring Theology: A Comprehensive Overview
Exploring the Rationalism of Renaissance Philosophy
Understanding Inductive Reasoning and Analogy
Exploring Moral Psychology: A Closer Look
Exploring Identity Theory and Personal Identity
Exploring Quantitative Research Methods in Philosophy
Exploring the Analytic-Synthetic Distinction in Philosophy of Language
Exploring the Role of Research Design and Methodology
Understanding the Meaning of Words and Phrases
The Problem of Evil and Suffering: A Philosophical Exploration
Exploring the Interplay between Religious Experience and Faith
Exploring the Concepts of Cause, Necessity, Possibility, and Impossibility
Comparing Analogy, Syllogism, Deduction and Induction
Exploring Aesthetic Theories: Formalism, Emotionalism and Experientialism
Understanding Inference, Validity, Soundness, and Refutation
Exploring Relational Aesthetics, Sociological Aesthetics, and Historical Aesthetics
Exploring Naturalistic, Immanent and Transcendental Aesthetics
Exploring Rationalism and Empiricism
Understanding Determinism, Fatalism, and Libertarianism
Exploring Identity, Persistence, Time, and Space
Understanding Virtue Ethics, Utilitarianism and Deontology
Exploring Phenomenalism and Nominalism
Ethical Theories: Virtue Ethics, Utilitarianism, and Deontology
Exploring Justification, Beliefs and Truths
Foundationalism and Coherentism: An Overview
Exploring Social Contract Theory, Natural Law Theory, and Care Ethics
An Overview of Friedrich Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Exploring Subjectivism, Egoism and Hedonism
The Art of Rhetoric by Cicero: A Comprehensive Overview

New Articles

Exploring Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

Which cookies do you want to accept?

7.4 Skepticism

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Define skepticism as it is used in philosophy.
Compare and contrast global and local skepticism.
Offer and explain a skeptical hypothesis.
Outline the general structure of argument for global skepticism.

Philosophical skepticism is the view that some or all knowledge is impossible. A skeptic questions the possibility of knowledge—particularly justification—in some domain. A global skeptic rejects the possibility of knowledge in general. But one need not reject the possibility of all knowledge. A local skeptic questions the possibility of knowledge only in particular areas of study. One can be a local skeptic about moral knowledge or scientific knowledge. This section will first look at global skepticism and the arguments offered in support of it and then will briefly look at local skepticism.

Global Skepticism

Global skepticism is a view that questions the possibility of all knowledge. To make their case, global skeptics point to the lack of the possibility of certainty in our beliefs. Because we cannot know that our beliefs are true, we cannot know in general. Usually, global skepticism attempts to undermine the possibility of forming justified beliefs. Global skeptics target all beliefs, or all beliefs about the external world (which amounts to most beliefs). Most beliefs tacitly or explicitly assume the existence of an external world. When I have the experience of seeing a bird in a tree and think, “There is a bird in that tree,” I assume that there is an actually existing physical bird in an actually existing physical tree in an actually existing real world outside of me. There is means “there exists.” I believe the bird, tree, and world all exist independently of my thoughts. The global skeptic questions beliefs such as these.

The Dream Argument

How many times have you realized that you were dreaming while you were dreaming? Most people believe that whatever they are dreaming is real during the dream. Indeed, the fact that people think dreams are real while dreaming is what makes nightmares so terrible. If you knew the content of a nightmare was a dream, then it would not be nearly as scary. Zhuang Zhou (c. 369–286 BCE) was a Chinese Taoist philosopher who argued that for all we know, we could currently be dreaming while thinking we are awake. Imagine dreaming that you are a butterfly, happily flitting about on flowers. When you wake, how can you determine whether you have just woken from dreaming you are a butterfly or you are a butterfly who has just started dreaming that you are human? Zhuang Zhou explains:

While he is dreaming he does not know it is a dream, and in his dream he may even try to interpret a dream. Only after he wakes does he know it was a dream. And someday there will be a great awakening when we know that this is all a great dream. Yet the stupid believe they are awake, busily and brightly assuming they understand things, calling this man ruler, that one herdsman—how dense! Confucius and you are both dreaming! And when I say you are dreaming, I am dreaming, too. (Zhuangzi 2003, 43)

Zhaung Zhou puts forward the possibility that all of what we take to be conscious experience is actually a dream. And if we are dreaming, then all our beliefs about the external world are false because those beliefs take for granted that our current experience is real.

The Evil Demon Argument

Nearly two millennia after Zhuang Zhou, René Descartes also proposed a dream hypothesis. Descartes argued that because dreams often incorporate experiences we have in real life, it is impossible to distinguish between dreaming and waking life (Descartes 2008). But Descartes eventually concludes that even if he could be dreaming, there are still some beliefs he can know, specifically arithmetic. Even in dreams, 1 + 1 = 2, and a square will always have four sides. And so, Descartes devises an even stronger skeptical hypothesis: what if we are being tricked by an evil demon?

Descartes’s evil demon is powerful. It can make you believe things, and it can trick you by controlling your experience. The evil demon can make you believe you are currently eating a sandwich by directly feeding you the sensory experience of eating a sandwich (the sight, the smells, the taste, the feel). Under this scenario, you cannot tell the difference between actually eating a sandwich and merely believing you are eating one because the evil demon is tricking you. If we cannot reliably tell the difference between experiences caused by reality and experiences caused by an evil demon, then we cannot know anything. We can represent Descartes’s argument as follows:

If I cannot rule out the possibility that an evil demon is tricking me, then I do not have any knowledge of the external world.
I cannot rule out the possibility that an evil demon is tricking me.
Therefore, I do not have knowledge of the external world.

Why does Descartes claim we can’t have knowledge if we cannot rule out the evil demon hypothesis? If an evil demon is tricking us, then all our beliefs are wrong. And if we cannot rule out the possibility that we are wrong, then we are not justified. And if we are not justified in our beliefs, then we cannot have knowledge of them.

Putnam’s Brain in a Vat

If you don’t like evil demons, then consider a more modern version of a skeptical hypothesis: the “ brain in a vat ” conceived of by American philosopher and mathematician Hilary Putnam (1926–2016). Imagine that while you were asleep last night, a group of scientists kidnapped you and took you to their lab. There, they surgically removed your brain and placed it in a vat of nutrients. The scientists then hooked up your brain to a sophisticated new computer system. They were able to download your memories so as to create new experiences. The result is a seamless experience of consciousness between yesterday and today. When you woke this morning, your life seemed to proceed without disruption. Can you prove that you are not a brain in a vat? No, you cannot. The scenario stipulates that your experience will seem exactly the same whether you are a brain in a vat or not. Other, similar skeptical scenarios are easy to come up with. Consider the possibility that you are caught in a virtual reality world or that you are trapped in the Matrix.

General Structure of Global Skeptical Arguments

Skeptical hypotheses and the arguments that they inspire all have a similar structure:

If I cannot rule out the possibility of SH, then I cannot be justified in believing that P.
I cannot rule out the possibility of SH.
Therefore, I cannot be justified in believing that P.

SH is a skeptical hypothesis. P is any proposition about the external world. Premise 1 is the skeptic’s challenge—that you must rule out skeptical hypotheses. Premise 2 relies on limitations within your perspective. The skeptic claims that you can rule out the possibility of whatever skeptical hypothesis is at hand only if you are able to construct an argument that defeats that hypothesis using the evidence you have (and a priori knowledge). As demonstrated, this is difficult to do. The nature of the skeptical hypotheses used for global skepticism limits your evidence to the contents of your thoughts. What you take to be evidence of the external world (that you perceive things that seem to be separate from yourself) is effectively neutralized by the possibility of a skeptical hypothesis.

Responses to Global Skepticism

The philosopher who wishes to overcome philosophical skepticism must find reasonable grounds for rejecting the skeptic’s argument. The different skeptical arguments reveal a specific conception of the level of justification required for knowledge. Skeptical arguments rely on the existence of doubt. Doubt exists when we cannot rule out a possibility. If we have doubt, we are not certain. We cannot be certain that we are not, say, a brain in a vat. And if we cannot be certain, then we cannot know anything that implies we are not a brain in a vat. Certainty is a very strict measure of justification. One clear possible response is to simply deny that one needs certainty in order to be considered justified. This section looks at some of the classical responses to the skeptic’s argument that we cannot know anything.

British philosopher G. E. Moore (1873–1958) presented an argument against skepticism that relies on common sense. In his famous paper “Proof of an External World,” Moore begins by raising his right hand and claiming, “Here is one hand,” then raising his left hand and claiming, “Here is another hand” (Moore 1939). Therefore, he concludes that skepticism is false. At first glance, this argument may seem flippant. It is not. Moore means to replace the second premise in the skeptical argument with his own premise: I know I have hands . The skeptical argument starts with the premise that if you cannot rule out a skeptical hypothesis, then you do not have knowledge of some proposition pertaining to the external world. Moore uses “I have two hands” as his proposition about the external world. In effect, he accepts the skeptic’s first premise, then uses his commonsense belief in the truth of “I have two hands” to defeat the skeptical hypothesis . Here is the argument’s structure:

I am justified in believing that P.
Therefore, I can rule out the possibility of SH.

In claiming that he has two hands, Moore claims that he is justified in believing propositions about the external world. And if he is justified, then he can rule out the skeptical hypothesis. The skeptic’s argument takes the form of what is called modus ponens , meaning a valid inference where the antecedent of a conditional is affirmed. Moore’s argument takes the form of what is known as modus tollens , meaning a valid inference where the consequence of a conditional is denied.

But notice that the two arguments contradict each other. If we accept the first premise, then either Moore’s or the skeptic’s second premise must be false. So why did Moore think his second premise is better? The choice is between thinking you are justified in believing that you have two hands and thinking you are justified in believing the skeptical hypothesis might be true. Moore thinks he has better reason to believe that he has two hands than he does for believing the skeptical hypothesis is true. For Moore, it is just common sense. You have reason to believe that you have two hands—you can see them and feel them—while you have no reason to believe the skeptical hypothesis is true.

Many philosophers remain unconvinced by Moore’s argument. Any person who accepts the possibility of the skeptical hypothesis will disagree with his premise 2. The possibility of the skeptical hypothesis effectively undermines justification in the belief that you have two hands.

Contextualism

As we just saw, some theorists reject the notion that you must be certain of a belief—that is, rule out all possible defeaters—in order to have knowledge. Moore thinks he has more justification to believe he has two hands than he does that there’s an evil demon tricking him. And in determining whether I am justified in believing in the bird outside my office window, I rarely consider the possibility that I could be a brain in a vat. I’m more likely to focus on my poor vision as a defeater. In the context of bird identification, wild skeptical hypotheses seem out of place. Indeed, we often adjust how much justification we think is needed for a belief to the task at hand. Contextualism is the view that the truth of knowledge attributions depends on the context. Contextualism is a theory about knowledge and justification . When we attribute knowledge to a subject S, the truth of the knowledge claim depends on the context that S is in. The context of S determines the level of justification needed for a true belief to count as knowledge. Contextualism comes from the observation that the level of confidence needed for justification changes depending on what the belief is as well as its the purpose and its importance, among other things. We expect a high degree of justification from physicians when they diagnose disease but less justification from friends recalling the title of a movie because there’s much more at stake in medical diagnoses.

Contextualism deals with skepticism in a unique way. Rarely are we in situations where we must rule out skeptical hypotheses to consider ourselves justified. Indeed, it is generally only when a skeptical hypothesis has been explicitly raised that we think we need to rule it out to be justified. And in our daily lives, the skeptical hypothesis just does not seem relevant. Yes, the possibility that we are brains in a vat technically still exists; we just do not think of it.

Skepticism in Specific Domains

As explained above, local skepticism questions the possibility of knowledge only in particular areas of study. People can accept that knowledge of the external world is possible while also questioning whether knowledge is achievable in more specific domains. A common form of local skepticism focuses on religious belief, specifically knowledge of the existence of God. Another form of local skepticism concerns the ability to ever have moral knowledge. Skepticism in these domains does not entail that there is no God or that all moral claims are false. Rather, skepticism means that we can never be sufficiently justified in believing that there is a God or that moral claims are true. We simply can never know either way whether, for example, God exists.

Skepticism about morality arises due to the nature of its subject. Moral claims are normative, which means that they assert claims about what ought to be the case rather than what is the case. But moral claims are difficult to prove, given their normative nature. How can you prove what ought to be the case? Usually, moral claims are grounded in value claims. An ethicist may say that we ought to help a stranger because well-being is morally valuable. But the skeptic will point out that we cannot prove that something is valuable. We do not have sensors that can confirm moral value. Moral claims instead rest on arguments. The problem, as Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume (1711–1776) explained, is that no amount of description can ever help us logically derive a normative claim (Hume 1985). This leaves room for doubt, and therefore skepticism.

Skeptical positions about God also focus on the lack of sufficient evidence. A skeptic can reasonably ask, What sorts of evidence would show the existence of God? Certainly, if God unambiguously appeared right now to everyone in the world simultaneously, then we would have reliable evidence. But God has not done so. The most we have is testimony in the form of religious texts. And testimony, particularly a chain of testimony stretching back hundreds and hundreds of years, is not necessarily reliable. Why believe, for example, the Christian Bible? Blaise Pascal (1623–1662), himself a devote Catholic, argued that the very nature of God—having no limits and existing beyond time—precludes the possibility of ever comprehending the full true nature of God or God’s existence. He states, “Who then can blame the Christians for not being able to give reasons for their belief, professing as they do a religion which they cannot explain by reason. . . . It is in lacking proofs that they do not lack sense” (Pascal 1973, 93). Pascal contends that not attempting to give proof of God is the sensible thing to do. A person can simply rely on faith, which is belief based on insufficient evidence.

Think Like a Philosopher

In your view, what is the relationship between reason and faith? Some theologians say that reason can establish the existence of a supreme being. Others think that reason can only partially justify religious belief and that full belief requires faith, or belief without reason. Reason for some is antithetical to faith, which requires blind obedience. For example, in the biblical story of the sacrifice of Isaac, Abraham is willing to sacrifice his only son to God as an act of faith. How do you think we should understand the role of reason in religious belief?

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-philosophy/pages/1-introduction

Authors: Nathan Smith
Publisher/website: OpenStax
Book title: Introduction to Philosophy
Publication date: Jun 15, 2022
Location: Houston, Texas
Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-philosophy/pages/1-introduction
Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-philosophy/pages/7-4-skepticism

© Dec 19, 2023 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

My journey as a skeptic, critical thinker, and science educator was paved by countless thinkers and communicators. I’m often asked for resource recommendations, so I compiled a list of some of my favorites that I thought would be the most useful to a broad audience (e.g., my general-education Science for Life students).

Whether you’re new to skepticism or well on your way, hopefully there’s something here to interest you. And this is a living list, so be sure to check back for more!

Note: The danger in compiling a list like this is that someone is going to be left out, likely because I simply forgot, but possibly because the resource was too advanced or too niche. Therefore, please do not consider this list to be exhaustive, and if your favorite book, podcast, YouTube channel, etc is missing, leave a comment below or send me an email. Finally, if you’re an active skeptic and don’t see your work included, from the bottom of my heart, I’m sorry!

DISCLOSURE: This post contains some affiliate links, meaning I get a small commission if you make a purchase, at no additional cost to you. Please know that I would not recommend resources that I haven’t personally used and find valuable.

how can critical thinking and skepticism

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark , by Carl Sagan: Famed astronomer Carl Sagan is the father of the modern skeptic movement, and if you’re going to read one book about science and skepticism…this should be it.
The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe: How to Know What’s Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake , by Steven Novella, et al.: Excellent primer on critical thinking, science, and how to combat bad reasoning and superstitious thinking. This is the book I recommend to my students as a resource for Science for Life.
Good Thinking: Why Flawed Logic Puts Us All at Risk and How Critical Thinking Can Save the World , by David Robert Grimes: An educational book about how to protect ourselves from charlatans and bad thinking infused with compelling and entertaining stories.
Think Again: The Power of Knowing What We Don’t Know , by Adam Grant: Using powerful stories, and backed by evidence, organizational psychologist and best-selling author Adam Grant explains that thinking like a scientist—being curious, willing to test your ideas, and able to change your mind—is the real path to wisdom.
Good Thinking: What You Need to Know to be Smarter, Safer, Wealthier, and Wiser , by Guy Harrison: One of the best introductory critical thinking books.
Foolproof: Why Misinformation Infects Our Minds and How to Build Immunity , by Sander van der Linden: One of the world’s leading misinformation researchers explains explains why we fall for misinformation and what we can do to protect ourselves and others.
Why People Believe Weird Things , by Michael Shermer: In our modern, scientific age, many people still believe in things that are decidedly not scientific. Shermer not only debunks these claims, he explores the reasons people find otherworldly phenomena, conspiracy theories, and cults so appealing.
The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies—How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths , by Michael Shermer: Best-selling author Michael Shermer explains his theory about the brain as a “belief engine”: Basically, we form beliefs first and then find reasons to justify our beliefs.
How We Know What Isn’t So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life , by Thomas Gilovich: Psychologist Thomas Gilovich explains the biases and stereotypes that help us process an overload of complex information but that inevitably distort our understanding of reality.
How to Think about Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age , by Theodore Schick, Jr, and Lewis Vaughn: This text teaches the basic principles of good reasoning through an examination of widely held beliefs about the paranormal, the supernatural, and the mysterious. Excellent textbook for critical thinking courses.
Scientific Paranormal Investigation: How to Solve Unexplained Mysteries , by Benjamin Radford: Radford, a real-life scientific paranormal investigator, explains how science-based methods are used to solve mysteries.
How Minds Change: The Surprising Science of Belief, Opinion, and Persuasion , by David McRaney: With his trademark storytelling, well-known podcaster David McRaney explores why facts don’t change our minds…and what will.
The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth , by Jonathan Rauch: This groundbreaking book argues that knowledge comes from organized social systems, with checks and balances, and rules for determining what’s true and what isn’t.
On Disformation: How to Fight for Truth and Protect Democracy , by Lee McIntyre: This pocket-sized guide by philosopher Lee McIntyre helps citizens defend democracy by learning how to fight disinformation.
Mental Immunity: Infectious Ideas, Mind-Parasites, and the Search for a Better Way to Think , by Andy Norman: Dr Norman lays out the conceptual foundations of the emerging science of mental immune health.
Mistakes Were Made (but Not By Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts , by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson: How does our brain reduce the uncomfortable feelings of cognitive dissonance when we make mistakes, cling to bad ideas, or mistreat others? Social psychologists Tavris and Aronson take a look into how the brain is wired for self-justification.
Calling Bullshit: The Art of Skepticism in a Data-Driven World , by Carl Bergstrom and Jevin West: You don’t need a lot of technical expertise to call out problems with data, just the powerful tools presented in this book.
Thinking, Fast and Slow , by Daniel Kahneman: In this mega bestseller, Nobel Prize-winning economist Daniel Kahneman takes us on a groundbreaking tour of the mind and explains the two systems that drive the way we think.
Why Trust Science? , by Naomi Oreskes: Science historian Naomi Oreskes offers a bold and compelling defense of science, revealing why the social character of scientific knowledge is its greatest strength―and the greatest reason we can trust it.
The Scientific Attitude: Defending Science from Denial, Fraud, and Pseudoscience , by Lee McIntyre: Dr McIntyre makes a clear and concise argument that what distinguishes science from its pretenders is “the scientific attitude”: caring about evidence and being willing to change with new evidence.
Think Straight: An Owner’s Manual for the Mind , by Jon Guy: Backed by the best available research, and written in clear and decisive language, Mr. Guy provides readers with the guidance and tools to improve your thinking, inform your decisions, avoid fraud and deceit, and make the world a better place.
Pseudoscience and the Paranormal , by Terence Hines: Hines, a psychology professor, covers a wide range of pseudoscience and paranormal beliefs, explaining why we believe and how to evaluate the claims.
Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions , by James Randi: The one-and-only Amazing Randi’s classic book in which he explores and exposes outrageous deceptions that have been promoted widely in the media.
The Skeptics’ Guide to Sports Science: Confronting Myths of the Health and Fitness Industry by Nick Tiller: The health and fitness is largely unregulated and unsupported by evidence…and is worth an estimated $4 trillion! In this book, Dr Tiller provides a life-line to save you from the Snake Oil salesmen that prey on our hopes and irrational thinking.

You Are Not So Smart : Host David McRaney explores the ways you and everyone else tend to develop an undeserved confidence in human perception, motivation, and behavior.
Science Vs : Takes on fads, trends, and the opinionated mob to find out what’s fact, what’s not, and what’s somewhere in between.
Thinking Clearly : Explores the process of critical thinking and related topics. From KMUD, a northern California community radio station.
Hidden Brain : Explores the unconscious patterns that drive human behavior and questions that lie at the heart of our complex and changing world.
Skeptoid : Takes on all of the most popular urban legends, revealing the true science, true history, and true lessons we can learn from each.
Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe : Promotes critical thinking and science literacy through insightful content.
The Skeptic Zone : Host Richard Saunders and his team report on skeptical news and interview prominent skeptics.
The Unbiased Science Podcast : Dr. Jessica Steier and Dr. Andrea Love provide critical appraisal of available evidence on science and health-related topics.
Think with Pinker (BBC Sounds) : Steven Pinker shares his guidance on how to think bet

Note: Here are a few podcasts I’ve been on to discuss critical thinking and science education.

YouTube Channels

SciShow : Explores the unexpected and makes us even more curious!
Be Smart : Dr. Joe Hanson gives you deep answers to simple questions about science and the rest of the universe.
Crash Course : Produces high quality courses on a wide variety of subjects.
Center for Inquiry : Provides thinkers the chance to speak and audiences the chance to learn.
Derren Brown : Mentalist and illusionist Derren Brown blows your mind, no matter how smart you are.
Global Weirding with Katharine Hayhoe : Climate scientist and conservative Christian Dr. Hayhoe produces videos explaining what we know about climate change, how we know it, and why it matters.
Bozeman Science : Science educator Paul Andersen explains concepts from a wide range of scientific fields
Veritasium : Features experiments, expert interviews, cool demos, and discussions with the public about everything science.
John Cook : Skeptical Science founder and Cranky Uncle creator Dr. John Cook explains how to think critically about misinformation.
Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell : Features animated videos about a variety of science based topics.
ASAP Science : Mitchell Moffit and Gregory Brown produce weekly videos on a range of science topics. One of the largest educational channels on YouTube.
Debunk the Funk with Dr. Wilson : Molecular biologist Dr. Wilson covers bad science while making good science accessible, focusing mainly on pseudoscience surrounding the anti-vaccine movement and COVID misinformation.

Websites/Blogs/Resources

Center for Inquiry : A nonprofit that works to mitigate belief in pseudoscience and the paranormal.
The New England Skeptical Society NeuroLogica Blog : Neurologist Steven Novella blogs about neuroscience, skepticism, and critical thinking.
Science-Based Medicine : Explores issues and controversies in the relationship between science and medicine.
SkepDoc : Dr. Harriet Hall blogs about pseudoscience, alternative medicine, and science-based medicine.
Sgt Scholar : Combat veteran Daniel Walsh blogs about STEM, logic, and critical thinking.
The Logic of Science : Blogs about critical thinking and science.
Skeptical Raptor : Blogs about a wide range of issues in the healthcare industry, science, and skepticism.
The Skeptic’s Dictionary : Features definitions, arguments, and essays on hundreds of strange beliefs, amusing deceptions, and dangerous delusions.
Skeptical Science : Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism.
Edzard Ernst : Blog by the most cited alternative medicine researcher.
SciBabe : Yvette d’Entremont blogs about science and health with a focus on debunking pseudoscience.
Effectiviology : Helps you understand the world better, so you can think and act more effectively.
Cranky Uncle : Uses cartoons, humor, and critical thinking to expose the misleading techniques of science denial and build public resilience against misinformation.
Get Bad News : Confers resistance against bad online information by putting players in the position of the people who create it.
Go Viral : Infodemic game that teaches players how to spot coronavirus misinformation in 5 minutes.

Publications/Journals

Skeptical Inquirer: The Magazine for Science and Reason : A bimonthly magazine by the Center for Inquiry.
Skeptic : A quarterly science education magazine by the Skeptics Society.
The Skeptic : The UK’s longest-running publication offering skeptical analysis of pseudoscience, conspiracy theory and claims of the paranormal.

Online Courses

The Great Courses: Your Deceptive Mind: A Scientific Guide to Critical Thinking Skills with Steven Novella : Equips you with the knowledge and techniques you need to become a savvier, sharper critical thinker in your professional and personal life.
The Great Courses: Skepticism 101: How to Think Like a Scientist with Michael Shermer : Demonstrates how you can build a skeptical toolkit and apply this way of thinking to any claim or situation that arises.
Coursera: Science Literacy from the University of Alberta : Teaches you about the process of science, how to think critically, how to differentiate science from pseudoscience, how indigenous wisdom can inform science, how to understand and design a scientific study, and how to critically evaluate scientific communication in the media.
Calling Bullshit in the Age of Big Data from the University of Washington : Professors Carl Bergstrom and Jevin West’s course on detecting and defusing bullshit. (Note: This course inspired their book of the same name.)
Rationality : The one-and-only Steven Pinker general-education course explores logic, Bayesian reasoning, critical thinking, and more.
Navigating Beliefs: A Learning Course for Rational Conversations : Not only have the inspirational folks at Street Epistemology figured out how to have difficult conversations, the’ve compiled what they’ve learned into a free course.

Documentaries

Behind the Curve : Meet real Flat Earthers, a small but growing contingent of people who firmly believe in a conspiracy to suppress the truth that the Earth is flat.
Merchants of Doubt : Inspired by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway’s book of the same name, this film traces the use of public relations tactics, originally developed by the tobacco industry, to forestall governmental regulations of their products.
Principles of Curiosity : By Brian Dunning and Skeptoid Media, this wonderful show offers a simple 3-step process to separate what’s real from what’s not.

Are you a teacher or parent looking for fun and engaging educational content for kids?

SciShow Kids : The team behind SciShow conducts experiments, researches new questions, and talks with experts to learn about the science-filled world around us. Ideal for early-elementary learners, Grades 1-3, and many episodes are structured around the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) curriculum.
The Center for Inquiry has three wonderful programs: Teacher Institute for Evolutionary Science (TIES) , Generation Skeptics , and Science Saves .
Critikid : Teaches kids the basics of critical thinking with lessons and activities.
Critical Thinking Project : Former educator David Hundsness teaches aspects of critical thinking with game-like apps.
The Magic of Reality: How We Know What’s Really True , by Richard Dawkins: In clear and accessible language, acclaimed evolutionary biologist and best-selling author Dr. Dawkins explains how science helped us figure out a wide range of natural phenomena.
There’s No Such Thing as the Tooth Fairy , by Harriet Hall: Famed skeptic and retired US Air Force surgeon The SkepDoc’s illustrated story teaches young children how––not what––to think.
The Magic Detectives: Join Them in Solving Strange Mysteries , by Joe Nickell: The world’s only full time, science-based paranormal investigator presents 30 “paranormal” investigations in the form of brief mystery stories for kids to solve. Included are suggestions for assignments and further reading.
Strange but True: 10 of the world’s greatest mysteries explained , by Kathryn Hulick: Hulick explores 10 of the world’s great unsolved mysteries with the scientific method and critical thinking.
Sasquatches from Outer Space: Exploring the Weirdest Mysteries Ever , by Tim Yule: An educator explores many famous strange and funny mysteries and teaches kids, through hands-on experiments, how to get to the bottom of these tall tales.
Beyond Belief , by Dr. Ronald Crouch: A series of three books by a child psychologist that helps children learn critical thinking skills through a fun adventure story.
Steve Trash Science: Is It Magic or Science? : Steve Trash teaches kids about science and ecology with fun and magic.
Don’t Be Mean to 13 , by Douglas Harris: Harris explains the historical roots of popular superstitions, such as the fear of Friday the 13th. Harris and his daughter have written several wonderful science and critical thinking books for kids.
Bringing UFOs Down to Earth , by Philip J. Klass: The “Sherlock Holmes of UFOlogy,” is a fun book for kids, ages 9 and up. Klass emphasizes a healthy skepticism, critical thinking, and independent problem-solving as the best defense against unfounded and extraordinary claims.
Dr. Huckleberry’s TRUE or MALARKEY? SUPERHUMAN ABILITIES: Game Book for Skeptical Folk , by psychologist Dr. Stephen Hupp: This fun family game teaches kids of all ages how to think about weird things.
Think Like a Detective and Think Like a Scientist , by David Pakman: These two books teach students the basics of critical thinking and the process of science.

What do you think? Have you read/watched/listened to any of the resources, and if so, what do you think? Is one of your favorite resources not on the list? Please share in the comments!

14 thoughts on “Resources: Skepticism, critical thinking, and science education”

Food Science Babe is a good one! I also like the website Lab Muffin for beauty science stuff.

Thanks for the comment! Great suggestions. 🙂 Melanie

You may also like the blog from McGill University Office for Science and Society (Dr. Joe Schwartz) mcgill.ca/oss/

Great suggestion. Thanks!

Please keep up the great work. I was very fortunate when I was young to have a teacher who relayed to the class that he could care less about regurgitated facts. He indicated that his job was to give us a tool set for continued growth and learning to include critical thinking. We also had a required course called ‘Senior survival’ that was required to graduate high school. Back then it included topics such as taxes and balancing a check book. I believe there should be a similar required class in every high school in America modified to include the very items you are addressing. I believe so much of the madness we have seen over the past handful of years could be seriously curtailed if we all had those tools in hand.

It was so refreshing to hear your chat with Seth Andrews,

Thanks so much for the comment! I couldn’t agree with you more — these tools are empowering and we could solve almost any problem with better thinking and better conversations. It sounds like your HS gave you a solid foundation!

Thanks again for the kind words. 🙂 Melanie

“How to Make the World Add Up”by Tim Harford (“Economist and presenter of the BBC’s radio show ‘More or Less’) “ ‘What should we do when someone makes a claim that they say is based on data? This wise book, distilled from years of experience, gives us the ten commandments, from first examining our feelings, to finally having the humility to admit we may be wrong. Priceless’ Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter”

I enjoy the two podcasts “Maintenance Phase” and “If books could kill”. They debunk so many myths while being funny/entertaining.

Hi Melanie, you have some great resources for educators! I heard about your work and this site from the Science Connections podcast: https://open.spotify.com/episode/11UrvsuXJzNICzfobQaI6G

Looking forward to incorporating some of this framing around “thinking is power” in my 8th science classroom next year. Interestingly, I work in the KIPP network of public schools. KIPP stands for “Knowledge is Power Program.” I agree we need to shift our curriculum more from facts/knowledge to critical thinking. However, even with the updated NGSS science standards, students still need to know a lot of content/facts. On each assessment we have some critical thinking/application questions, but there’s just so much content in middle school science that students are expected to learn. It’s challenging to make time for anything else, but I’m going to try to facilitate some class discussions around science misinformation and the importance of evaluating sources and research. There are already activities in our curriculum in which students discuss the strength of various evidence, but I think we can deepen our conversations with these resources!

Thanks so much for the comment, and for what you do! If there’s anything I can do to help, please reach out.

Thank you for compiling and organizing these valuable, important, diverse and divergent resources!

Thank you! Melanie

For your pet-loving followers, you might consider SkeptVet- http://skeptvet.com/Blog/

Great collection! I’m adding it to the one I maintain at Recovering from Religion https://www.recoveringfromreligion.org/resources#critical-thinking-skills

Skeptic’s Toolbox

Welcome to the Skeptic’s Toolbox, a collection of resources and training events developed to equip you with the tools and techniques needed to guard against deception and evaluate the validity of claims using critical thinking, skepticism, and the scientific method.

Skeptic’s Toolbox Resources

Get the practical tools & resources you need to be a better skeptic and critical thinker! This is a “living” Toolbox and will be expanded as new resources are identified/developed. Resources include videos, training guides, and links to additional resources. If you have suggestions for resources we can add please let us know!

Upcoming Skeptic’s Toolbox Events

Skeptic’s Toolbox events feature presenters who are experts in their respective fields and will focus on practical tools to use in applying critical thinking and skepticism. Videos of past Skeptic’s Toolbox events are available below and in the Toolbox Resources . Check out our upcoming events below and sign-up for CFI’s email list to be notified of future events.

Past Events

Five Ways to Inoculate Against Viral Nonsense: Practical Lessons from the Science of Mental Immunity

Presented by andy norman, author, mental immunity: infectious ideas, mind parasites, and the search for a better way to think.

Thursday, June 17, 2021 7:00pm – 8:00pm EST Online Event – Free Registration Required

The emerging science of mental immunity points to many ways to improve our thinking. In this talk, cognitive immunologist Andy Norman will describe five powerful ways to develop mental immunity in your family and friends.

Andy Norman directs the Humanism Initiative at Carnegie Mellon University. He studies how ideologies short-circuit minds and corrupt moral understanding. Then he develops tools that help people reason together in more fruitful ways. In his book Mental Immunity, he lays out the conceptual foundations of cognitive immunology—the emerging science of mental immune health. You can learn more about Andy and his new book, Mental Immunity at his website andynorman.org/ .

Tools for Non-Confrontational Discussions

Presented by anthony magnabosco, executive director, street epistemology international.

Webinar Recorded: Tuesday, March 9, 2021

Street Epistemology is a technique based on Socratic questioning to help people reflect on the reasons and methods they use to conclude their deeply held beliefs are true. This skill is incredibly important to enable you to have productive and non-confrontational discussions with friends, family, or in online discussions. Anthony Magnabosco will explain how to use the techniques of Street Epistemology to guide those you are talking with to engage their critical thinking skills and apply them to their own beliefs about the world and help them assess whether or not their beliefs are true.

Anthony Magnabosco is a skeptic and atheist from San Antonio Texas who has been practicing and promoting Street Epistemology since 2013. Anthony has had several hundred chats (many of them on camera and uploaded to his YouTube channel ) on a variety of claims including Gods, ghosts, karma, law of attraction, and a variety of social and political topics. Anthony has been interviewed on countless podcasts. He is also a Founder and the current Executive Director of the new nonprofit organization called Street Epistemology International . Anthony has given dozens of talks and workshops on Street Epistemology at conferences and events domestically and internationally.

Effective Teaching of Critical Thinking: Reducing Epistemically Unwarranted Beliefs

Presented by ray hall, professor of physics, california state university – fresno.

Webinar Recorded: Wednesday, February 24, 2021

Can teaching critical thinking classes really help students learn the difference between science and pseudoscience? To find out Ray Hall conducted and published a study to find out if Fresno State’s GE course Natural Science 4 (NS4) delivers on its desired learning outcomes. College students (n=806) were surveyed at semester’s beginning and end. Epistemically unwarranted beliefs in pseudoscience were found to be pervasive among our student population. NS4, a course that specifically and directly addressed pseudoscience produced a large and significant reduction of those beliefs, but scientific research methods classes and unrelated general education classes used as controls did not. This talk will describe our study and our findings, and highlight a few strategies we have found effective for changing epistemically unwarranted beliefs, and the importance of teaching critical thinking.

Dr. Ray Hall is a professor of Physics at California State University – Fresno. The majority of his published research involved his work in the DØ Collaboration, a 700+ member experimental particle physics experiment at Fermilab, which discovered the “top quark,” a fundamental particle of nature. His current research centers on understanding best practices for teaching critical thinking and the methodologies of science, and how to best assess student learning outcomes in these areas. He also shares his love for science and physics through his @PhysicsFun Instagram that has nearly 2 million followers!

The Wide World of Science

Strategies to improve skeptical thinking, object(wp_term)#17179 (10) { ["term_id"]=> int(778) ["name"]=> string(10) "jamie hale" ["slug"]=> string(10) "jamie-hale" ["term_group"]=> int(0) ["term_taxonomy_id"]=> int(778) ["taxonomy"]=> string(7) "authors" ["description"]=> string(529) "jamie hale is a college instructor, and he is associated with eastern kentucky university's cognitive neuroscience lab and perception & cognition lab. he has published articles and books on a wide range of topics. jamie is the director of www.knowledgesummit.net and author of in evidence we trust: the need for science, rationality and statistics. his future articles will address models for improved scientific thinking, popular myths, and rationality in terms of cognitive science." ["parent"]=> int(0) ["count"]=> int(5) ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" } } --> jamie hale.

Mr. Hale, why are you so skeptical? Why do you have a negative view of everything? Do you believe anything ?

I hear these types of questions—from both students and my colleagues—on a regular basis. These questions seem to imply skepticism is a bad thing instead of a valuable tool and a key part of critical thinking. Skepticism isn’t new; it has existed for at least thousands of years. It dates back to Plato’s academy 2,500 years ago (Shermer 2002). Skepticism is an approach to claims, and it is inherent in the scientific attitude. In the college courses I teach, I encourage students to be skeptical about my claims as well as those made by the textbook and other authorities. It’s okay to question authority. In fact, good science values require rejection of authority when evidence doesn’t agree with authority claims. “One of the great commandments of science is, ‘Mistrust arguments from authority.’ Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else” (Sagan 1996).

People are sometimes confused about the difference between the terms skeptic and cynic . Skeptic is derived from the Greek skeptikos , which means “inquiring” or “to look around.” Skeptics determine the truth value of claims according to the level of evidence. The individual’s reputation, authority, or credentials do not make the claim correct. The evidence determines whether the claim is correct. Skepticism is a method used to question the validity of a particular claim. Concisely put, skepticism requires evidence for a claim to be accepted as fact (or tentative fact). Cynics don’t like information that contradicts their belief system. They reject ideas based on dogmatic views and exhibit adherence to doctrine over rational inquiry. Evidence is not a concern for cynics. Cynicism is drastically different than skepticism.

The following question illustrates the confusion people have when distinguishing skeptical thinking from cynical thinking. I was asked this question in an interview about my book Knowledge and Nonsense: The Science of Nutrition and Exercise : “Do you have any concerns about some people saying this book promotes a cynical approach to the fitness industry?”

My answer was “No. The only people who will make this claim are people who are not willing to look at truth and people who promote quack science. Fitness skepticism (this includes the health, nutrition, and supplement industries) is an approach to claims that investigates reason to any and all ideas. Skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a claim might be true. When I say I’m “skeptical,” I mean that I need to see valid evidence before believing a claim. Cynical on the other hand means taking a negative view and not willing to accept valid evidence for the claim. I think skepticism is healthy and should be promoted in all fields” (Hale 2020).

This type of confusion is common within the fitness and other industries. Questioning authorities or asking for evidence can be viewed by some as rude or too critical. Too often people are resistant to the ideas promoted by skeptical thinking; perhaps they fear what skepticism may reveal.

In 2009, I gave a presentation (seminar and exercise session) at the JP Fitness Summit in Kansas City. The Summit featured some of the top minds in the fitness industry. Topics included various types of information related to fitness and nutrition. My presentation addressed a topic that was new to the venue: Fitness skepticism focused on how to apply skepticism to the fitness industry. Some of the participants seemed to have a hard time with this line of thought. Skepticism is rarely if ever mentioned in discussions about fitness. Learning to question and look for evidence could save fitness enthusiasts a great deal of time, money, and embarrassment. I started my presentation by talking about what it means to be a fitness skeptic. A fitness skeptic requires evidence for claims before accepting them as true; a fitness skeptic applies reason to any and all ideas promoted by the fitness industry or ideas promoted by anyone making fitness claims.

To my disappointment, my presentation wasn’t well received. I have conducted a lot of seminars involving different types of audiences, and I have learned to read cues that indicate listeners are not enjoying the talk. The level of disinterest was evident within the audience (although a few enjoyed it). The organizer of the event cut my talk short, and there were a lot of comments such as “I didn’t see how this was related to fitness,” and “I thought this was supposed to be about exercise?” and “Skeptical thinking has nothing to do with choosing a workout.”

I told one of my colleagues who works at a fitness magazine about the negative feedback, and he wasn’t surprised. He said something along the lines of “People don’t want to hear they should be skeptical; they would rather hear what they should think and what they should do .” I suspect not wanting to think too hard is an attitude held by many. There is a plethora of evidence from the field of cognitive science showing that humans are cognitive misers; they don’t like to think hard (Stanovich et al. 2016).

Modern Skepticism

Socrates asserted that “All I know is that I know nothing.” This type of statement indicates it is important to always practice some level of skepticism but does little to help us develop our skeptical thinking skills. Having questions or being inquisitive is the root of skeptical thinking, but it is not enough if the objective is to evaluate the evidence. The tools for good skeptical thinking are not often mentioned when discussing skepticism. Modern skepticism is concerned with applications of scientific thinking. Skepticism from a systematic evidence evaluation process is embodied in scientific methods (Shermer 2002). “A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions” (Shermer 2002).

That quote offers a valuable overview of what it means to be skeptical. Skeptics should remember that quote, think about it, and recognize it as a central tenet of modern skepticism. Michael Shermer points out that unbounded, excessive, or pure skepticism should be avoided, as it may be self-defeating. If you are excessively skeptical of everything, this means you are skeptical of your own skepticism. This type of unbounded skepticism may lead to infinite questioning, resulting in indecisiveness. You need to establish a stopping point and ask at what point you decide the evidence is strong enough to form a belief or make a decision.

Improving Skeptical Thinking

To improve skeptical thinking, become familiar with the works of top-notch skeptics such as James Randi, Michael Shermer, Benjamin Radford, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and so on.

Recognize the term ideological immune system . In everyday life, as well as in science, we all resist fundamental paradigm change. Social scientist Jay Snelson calls this resistance an “ideological immune system.” According to Snelson, the more knowledge individuals have accumulated in a specific area, and the more well-founded people feel their theories have become, the greater their confidence in their beliefs. Skeptics and non-skeptics have formed ideological immune systems.

You can’t be skeptical all the time about everything; it requires too much time and excessive resources. Strive to be a practical skeptic and invest your energies into questioning claims and assumptions you deem most important.

Consider an alternative explanation for something you have always believed. Try to look at it from the other side—think of the opposite claim or argument. Gather all available data, and try to argue against your own belief.

Recognize the influence of expectancy effects and how they influence what we do and don’t see (magicians take full advantage of this expectation). Expectancy effects have been shown in a great range of areas, influencing physiological, behavioral, and cognitive outcomes.

Educate yourself on the rules of logic (deductive and inductive), the principles of research, statistics used in research, and reliability and validity concerns regarding scientific evidence. Recognize converging evidence (evidence from various methods and from various researchers converge at a point) as the top level of evidence.

Realize there are varying degrees of certainty, but no absolute certainty. Beliefs are tentative; they are subject to change, and they change according to the level of evidence supporting them.

Don’t fall prey to bias blind spot , when you recognize that others are biased but fail to recognize your own biases. There is a huge body of research indicating humans are susceptible to a range of conscious and unconscious biases (which reflect bias without awareness of the bias).

Those are just a few suggestions that may help with building skeptical thinking skills. It is important to strike a balance between skeptical thinking and thinking with an open mind. Carl Sagan said it best:

If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you. You never learn anything new. You become a crotchety old person convinced that nonsense is ruling the world. On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish useful ideas from worthless ones. If all ideas have equal validity then you are lost.” (Sagan 1987)

Hale, J. 2020. 2019. In Evidence We Trust: The Need for Science Rationality and Statistics . Winchester, KY: MaxCondition Publishing.
Sagan, C. 1987. The burden of skepticism. Skeptical Inquirer 12(1): 38–46.
———. 1996. The Demon Haunted World: Science As A Candle In The Dark. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
Shermer, M. 2002. Why People Believe Weird Things. Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time . New York, NY: Owl Books.
Stanovich et al. 2016. The Rationality Quotient: Toward A Test Of Rational Thinking . Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Jamie Hale is a college instructor, and he is associated with Eastern Kentucky University's Cognitive Neuroscience Lab and Perception & Cognition Lab. He has published articles and books on a wide range of topics. Jamie is the director of www.knowledgesummit.net and author of In Evidence We Trust: The need for science, rationality and statistics. His future articles will address models for improved scientific thinking, popular myths, and rationality in terms of cognitive science.

school Campus Bookshelves
menu_book Bookshelves
perm_media Learning Objects
login Login
how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
hub Instructor Commons
Download Page (PDF)
Download Full Book (PDF)
Periodic Table
Physics Constants
Scientific Calculator
Reference & Cite
Tools expand_more
Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

7.4: Skepticism

Last updated
Save as PDF
Page ID 162174

Nathan Smith et al.

Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Define skepticism as it is used in philosophy.
Compare and contrast global and local skepticism.
Offer and explain a skeptical hypothesis.
Outline the general structure of argument for global skepticism.

Global Skepticism

The Dream Argument

While he is dreaming he does not know it is a dream, and in his dream he may even try to interpret a dream. Only after he wakes does he know it was a dream. And someday there will be a great awakening when we know that this is all a great dream. Yet the stupid believe they are awake, busily and brightly assuming they understand things, calling this man ruler, that one herdsman—how dense! Confucius and you are both dreaming! And when I say you are dreaming, I am dreaming, too. (Zhuangzi 2003, 43)

Chinese ink drawing depicting a seated man, who appears to be asleep, with a butterfly hovering above his head.

The Evil Demon Argument

If I cannot rule out the possibility that an evil demon is tricking me, then I do not have any knowledge of the external world.
I cannot rule out the possibility that an evil demon is tricking me.
Therefore, I do not have knowledge of the external world.

Putnam’s Brain in a Vat

If you don’t like evil demons, then consider a more modern version of a skeptical hypothesis: the “brain in a vat” conceived of by American philosopher and mathematician Hilary Putnam (1926–2016). Imagine that while you were asleep last night, a group of scientists kidnapped you and took you to their lab. There, they surgically removed your brain and placed it in a vat of nutrients. The scientists then hooked up your brain to a sophisticated new computer system. They were able to download your memories so as to create new experiences. The result is a seamless experience of consciousness between yesterday and today. When you woke this morning, your life seemed to proceed without disruption. Can you prove that you are not a brain in a vat? No, you cannot. The scenario stipulates that your experience will seem exactly the same whether you are a brain in a vat or not. Other, similar skeptical scenarios are easy to come up with. Consider the possibility that you are caught in a virtual reality world or that you are trapped in the Matrix.

Sketch of a brain floating in a liquid-filled beaker, connected to a computer console by several electrodes. A thought bubble rising from the brain reads “I’m walking outside in the sun!!”

General Structure of Global Skeptical Arguments

Skeptical hypotheses and the arguments that they inspire all have a similar structure:

If I cannot rule out the possibility of SH, then I cannot be justified in believing that P.
I cannot rule out the possibility of SH.
Therefore, I cannot be justified in believing that P.

Responses to Global Skepticism

I am justified in believing that P.
Therefore, I can rule out the possibility of SH.

Contextualism

As we just saw, some theorists reject the notion that you must be certain of a belief—that is, rule out all possible defeaters—in order to have knowledge. Moore thinks he has more justification to believe he has two hands than he does that there’s an evil demon tricking him. And in determining whether I am justified in believing in the bird outside my office window, I rarely consider the possibility that I could be a brain in a vat. I’m more likely to focus on my poor vision as a defeater. In the context of bird identification, wild skeptical hypotheses seem out of place. Indeed, we often adjust how much justification we think is needed for a belief to the task at hand. Contextualism is the view that the truth of knowledge attributions depends on the context. Contextualism is a theory about knowledge and justification. When we attribute knowledge to a subject S, the truth of the knowledge claim depends on the context that S is in. The context of S determines the level of justification needed for a true belief to count as knowledge. Contextualism comes from the observation that the level of confidence needed for justification changes depending on what the belief is as well as its the purpose and its importance, among other things. We expect a high degree of justification from physicians when they diagnose disease but less justification from friends recalling the title of a movie because there’s much more at stake in medical diagnoses.

Skepticism in Specific Domains

Think Like A Philosopher

Luz Rello: "My motivation for working in the field of dyslexia is social: I want to help people with this disorder"

Interview with charles fefferman, openmind books, scientific anniversaries, maria reiche and the technology behind the nazca lines, featured author, latest book, skeptical activism and critical thinking.

In everyday life, normally we do not explicitly declare ourselves “skeptics” even though we may have some disbeliefs, and we certainly need to be sure about any information we are going to use in a formal manner. We can talk about skepticism in terms of the afterlife, or the possible reversal of climate change ; but in our daily routines, we especially try to verify the information we possess to prevent reflections that lead us to erroneous positions or solutions.

Around three decades ago, in order to properly deal with the increasing amount of information of varying quality we receive, the information literacy movement gained significant momentum; in sync with the more popular critical thinking movement . The goal was for everyone – starting in school – to think more and better (well-documented, with an open and flexible mind, aware of our prejudices, more objectively), and not to be given ideas that have already thought out for us.

The “critical thinking” construct (to which philosophers, psychologists, educators, etc. have contributed) described a cognition that was autonomous, meticulous, insightful, disciplined, self-demanding – each of us with our own unique intellect. This is how we should be educated in order to incorporate and apply knowledge more effectively, and certainly, to be less susceptible to deception, manipulation and post-truths. Without critical thinking, there is no room for personal growth or development.

The skeptical movement

At the time, 30 years ago, another movement gained momentum, one that is currently very well-known: the skeptical movement, whose activists are commitment to a specific dialectical activism. This cause is embraced above all to serve as a warning, as a sort of whistleblowing regarding the so-called pseudosciences and paranormal phenomena, all of which are generally considered deceptive. There are numerous expressions of this global trend, which is also fairly active in Spain (ARP, Círculo Escéptico and other platforms). Online we immediately come across skeptics with a variety of different attitudes, some with fervor.

This cause/trend is presented to us soundly aligned with science and the scientific method, but also – the reason for these paragraphs – with critical thinking. Yes, with this desirable way of thinking that has been understood in different ways, even outside of the critical thinking movement. For example, Círculo Escéptico even considers skepticism and critical thinking synonyms, which suggests an ad hoc interpretation of the latter.

Skeptic messages question the credibility of numerous topics (homeopathy, osteopathy, acupuncture, psychoanalysis, hypnosis, pilates, reiki, yoga, kinesiology, astrology, aliens, tarot, spiritualism, clairvoyance, telepathy, ouija, haunted houses, etc.). While considering that believers surely have their legitimate reasons to believe and will continue to do so, voices emerge that question the intentions or utility of the movement. It does not seem to address the cardinal topic of faith: religion is not one of the priorities.

BBVA-OpenMind-Jose Enebral-Activismo escéptico y pensamiento crítico

Critical thinking to educate us

It is worth asking what the critical thinking we are discussing has in common with this skeptical-scientific thinking with a set focus. It’s possible that the overlap is small. Indeed, the connection is stressed, and observers may end up merging, or confusing critical thinking with skepticism, the scientific method or reproving criticism.

In this respect, by taking a look at the critical thinking movement , and being aware of its desire to improve our cognitive education, it may be helpful to point out the following in the profile of a critical thinker:

Their predisposition is not aimed at reporting deception or errors, but at properly documenting and obtaining responses that seem convincing and sound.
They attempt to verify and confirm information before using it, but this attitude does not come from skeptical criticism, rather from the desire to get the task right.
They think for themselves. They believe what they decide to believe and respect this attitude in others. It’s not about imposing their positions, even if they support them assertively.
They are inquisitive (but not questioning) in their inquiries, and are therefore sometimes creative and innovative.
Of their intellectual virtues, humility and caution stand out, and they certainly avoid assuming they are right or possess the truth, even though they strive for both.
They are aware of their prejudices, concerns, feelings, intentions and interests, and reflect on their own thoughts. They are not impulsive or intemperate thinkers.
They try to see things from different perspectives, with sufficient empathy, aware that the reality shown to us is at times complex and relative.

The above does not at all attempt to describe the profile of a critical thinker. It simply explains what separates a critical thinker from an activist skeptical thinker (whose legitimacy and contribution we are not questioning).

In order to cite greater overlap between both profiles, we would have to make the critical thinkers’ minds more rigid, give greater dominance to their left hemisphere, attribute in them the desire to guide others’ beliefs, and place emphasis on the purpose of reflection instead of on the way of thinking. And that would take us very far from the “critical thinking” construct.

José Enebral Fernández

Related publications.

Sociocentrism and Critical Thinking
Post-Truth Politics, the Fifth Estate and the Securitization of Fake News
The Challenge of Incorporating Empathy to the Educational Model

More about Humanities

Communications, more publications about josé enebral fernández, comments on this publication.

Morbi facilisis elit non mi lacinia lacinia. Nunc eleifend aliquet ipsum, nec blandit augue tincidunt nec. Donec scelerisque feugiat lectus nec congue. Quisque tristique tortor vitae turpis euismod, vitae aliquam dolor pretium. Donec luctus posuere ex sit amet scelerisque. Etiam sed neque magna. Mauris non scelerisque lectus. Ut rutrum ex porta, tristique mi vitae, volutpat urna.

Sed in semper tellus, eu efficitur ante. Quisque felis orci, fermentum quis arcu nec, elementum malesuada magna. Nulla vitae finibus ipsum. Aenean vel sapien a magna faucibus tristique ac et ligula. Sed auctor orci metus, vitae egestas libero lacinia quis. Nulla lacus sapien, efficitur mollis nisi tempor, gravida tincidunt sapien. In massa dui, varius vitae iaculis a, dignissim non felis. Ut sagittis pulvinar nisi, at tincidunt metus venenatis a. Ut aliquam scelerisque interdum. Mauris iaculis purus in nulla consequat, sed fermentum sapien condimentum. Aliquam rutrum erat lectus, nec placerat nisl mollis id. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.

Nam nisl nisi, efficitur et sem in, molestie vulputate libero. Quisque quis mattis lorem. Nunc quis convallis diam, id tincidunt risus. Donec nisl odio, convallis vel porttitor sit amet, lobortis a ante. Cras dapibus porta nulla, at laoreet quam euismod vitae. Fusce sollicitudin massa magna, eu dignissim magna cursus id. Quisque vel nisl tempus, lobortis nisl a, ornare lacus. Donec ac interdum massa. Curabitur id diam luctus, mollis augue vel, interdum risus. Nam vitae tortor erat. Proin quis tincidunt lorem.

Cybersecurity to Guard Against Brain Hacking

Do you want to stay up to date with our new publications.

Receive the OpenMind newsletter with all the latest contents published on our website

OpenMind Books

The Search for Alternatives to Fossil Fuels
View all books

About OpenMind

Connect with us.

Keep up to date with our newsletter

The Importance of Skepticism

When it comes to critical thinking, one might assume that skepticism is kind of a no-brainer. And one would be right (in my opinion, anyway). What I think is interesting is how often skepticism is perceived to conflict with open-mindedness . First, let’s look at what skepticism means, then the importance of skepticism in relation to other critical thinking skills.

PS: I wrote skepticism so many times in this post, that its starting to look really, really weird .

What is Skepticism, Really?

Skepticism has a couple of meanings. The first, pretty straight-forward, is “doubt as to the truth of something”. So when someone tells you something, if you don’t believe it right away, you are treating it with skepticism. So thinking back to the critical thinking skills we talked about in week one , in one respect, someone who doesn’t believe anything might be confused with someone who is not open-minded.

But consider this: another meaning of skepticism is the philosophy that certain knowledge is impossible. In other words, the idea that anyone can know anything for sure is impossible. So in that respect, skepticism is like, the ultimate in open-mindedness. A true skeptic may disbelieve something not because they refuse to consider the truth, but because they believe nothing can be known for sure.

Can You Be Skeptical and Open-Minded?

I think people get confused with open-mindedness, and therefore skepticism, because they think being open-minded means believing everything. Instead, I believe that being open-minded is accepting that others believe differently than I do, and being open to considering other points of view. It doesn’t mean I have to believe the same thing. Therefore, I don’t see a conflict between open-mindedness and skepticism.

Here’s an example I came across in an article I linked last week , called “ The Problem With Being Too Open-Minded “, by Steven Novella. In it, he talks about how the sometimes-fantastical beliefs held by others are many times justified by the idea that you have to “keep an open mind”. In his example, someone who believes that humans were transplanted here by our alien forebears justifies this belief by saying, “You have to keep an open mind”.

Now, I read a lot of science fiction. A LOT. But even I have a hard time swallowing that given all the scientific evidence of evolution, humans were just dropped off here by aliens. I guess it’s possible I’m wrong. Given the facts I have access to, however, I’m comfortable holding the opinion that humans were not, in fact, deposited on earth millennia ago by aliens.

Skepticism: not automatically believing in things. Even aliens.

And Why is it Important?

Skepticism is what allows us the space to investigate before taking action or making a decision. When we treat what we hear with skepticism, that gives us the necessary pause to gather more information, process what we’re hearing, and to form a more balanced opinion.

I’m not sure that you have to be a total skeptic in order to be a critical thinker. I think you just need to apply a certain degree of skepticism to what you hear and are told by others. However, in real life, whether it’s work or home, at some point we need to make a decision and move on. If we’re stuck in the idea that we can never know the truth for sure, then we may become paralyzed by the unknown.

So when it comes to critical thinking and skepticism, I say apply a healthy dose of skepticism to what you’re learning and hearing, but be careful that you don’t get stuck. Eventually, you have to make a judgement of what is most likely, or what the right direction is, and move on from there.

Let’s Get Skeptical!

So how do you apply enough skepticism but not too much?

1. Avoid taking things at face value.

When someone tells you something, you’re influenced by your own opinions, experiences, and even your level of trust with the person or entity that is giving you information. You are more likely to believe what you hear when your opinions and experiences align with what you’re being told. If you trust the person giving you information, you may also be more likely to trust the information itself. Be mindful of this, and remember that even if what you’re hearing is what you want to hear or want to believe, you should still be a little skeptical until you learn more.

2. Ask questions.

Heather talked about this in last Friday’s post . You have to ask questions to learn more. You can also ask questions to challenge what you’re hearing, or just find out more facts. Learn about the motivations of the person telling you information. Learn the facts related to what you’re being told, and do your best to separate fact from opinion. Do your research. Ask yourself questions – interrogate your own reality. Don’t just ask questions, ask probing questions. Get to the bottom of the issue, or the root of the problem.

3. Suspend judgement.

My husband teases me sometimes because when we watch a movie, I sometimes have a hard time getting into it. I sometimes laugh or make fun of it because it seems so ridiculous. At times like those, he reminds me that I need to practice suspending my disbelief. When it comes to skepticism and critical thinking, though, I firmly believe you need to suspend judgement (including automatic belief or disbelief in something). Really try not to form a firm judgement until you have more information.

4. Be willing to form an opinion (eventually).

Call it a “working theory” if that makes you feel most comfortable. The point is, collect facts before forming an opinion or making a decision, but eventually, make one . Suspending judgement is all very well, but not indefinitely. Get comfortable with the idea that you’ll never know everything. Collect the information you have, and know when enough is enough to go on with.

5. Be willing to revise.

Just because you settle on an opinion and make a decision, it doesn’t mean it will always be the right one. New information may come along. You may need to change direction. Be willing to continue investigating and finding new information, and practice being flexible enough to change your opinions if new, compelling evidence is presented.

It’s Not Personal

Applying skepticism doesn't mean passing judgement on someone as a person.

The last point I’d like to make as I wrap up is that being skeptical is not necessarily a judgement on a person. If someone treats something you tell them skeptically, it’s not always because they don’t trust you or what you’re telling them. Likewise when you are skeptical about what someone else is telling you. You will be influenced by your level of trust in the person telling you things. However, you’re not doing them or you any favors by automatically believing what they tell you. If you investigate and still arrive at the same opinion, great. If you challenge what you’re hearing and form a different opinion, that’s okay too.

Ideas take root because people are willing to believe them, and believe in them. This can be good or bad. Just because something is widely held or believed to be true doesn’t automatically make it true. It doesn’t make it untrue, either. Be willing to investigate, interrogate, then arrive at your opinion in your own time, according to your own values and beliefs.

What’s your thoughts? Something I missed? Do you have an alternative viewpoint? Share in comments!

Dianne Whitford

I believe I was put here for a purpose: to write, create, and inspire people! Therefore, most of the time, you can find me doing (or trying to do) one of those things. When I'm not vegging out to video games or stuffing my face full of cheesy poofs.

22 comments

Social Media Obsession and Detox During Crisis

Social media is a fantastic tool. With it, we are able to reach across miles to family and friends at basically any time, sharing our lives and our thoughts. We share pictures, art, and ideas in real time. In my...

Faith and the Critical Thinker

We’ve been talking a lot lately about critical thinking and healthy skepticism, but what about faith? According to George Michael, you gotta have it, but why? If we’re supposed to be questioning everything...

Critical thinking skills can be developed just like any other set of skills

How to Develop Critical Thinking

Critical thinking, like any other set of skills, can be learned and developed. As you know from our series on growth mindset, one’s skill set and intelligence is not fixed. Whether you believe you have some innate...

Growth Mindset 18
Journaling 12
Critical Thinking 10
Self-Compassion 15
Emotional Intelligence 22
Perspective 10
Resilience 17
Resources 6

Subscribe Today!

Get fresh updates in your inbox. I'll never spam you or share your email with anyone else.

Sign Me Up!

At Coffee, Grit, and Inspiration, we want to learn. We want to help and inspire you on your journey to becoming a better human. Let's grow together!

Critical Thinking
Emotional Intelligence
Growth Mindset
Self-Compassion
Stuff I Use
Feast Your Eyeballs
Read Along With Me
Podcasting Gear

The Skeptics Society & Skeptic magazine

Skepticism 101
What is Skepticism 101?
book recommendations
in-class exercises
powerpoint & keynote presentations
student projects & papers
chemistry & physics
freshman foundation & general education
neuroscience
parapsychology
religious studies & theology
sociology & anthropology
College & University

You Are Browsing Resources on: critical thinking and skepticism

The moral arc: how thinking like a scientist makes the world more moral.

Resource added on: Friday, July 3, 2020 at 12:00 am
Produced by: Michael Shermer

In this, the final lecture of his Chapman University Skepticism 101 course , Dr. Michael Shermer pulls back to take a bigger picture look at what science and reason have done for humanity in the realm of moral progress. That is, applying the methods of science and principles of reason since the Scientific Revolution in the 17 th century has solved not only problems in the physical and biological/medical fields, but in social and moral realms as well. How should we structure societies so that more people flourish in more places more of the time? Science can answer that question, and it has for centuries. Learning how to think like a scientist can make the world a better place, as Dr. Shermer explains in this lecture based on his 2015 book, The Moral Arc .

Shermer’s Chapman University course, Skepticism 101: How to Think Like a Scientist , covers a wide range of topics, from critical thinking, reasoning, rationality, free speech , cognitive biases and how thinking goes wrong , and the scientific methods, to actual claims and whether or not there is any truth to them, e.g., ESP, ETIs, UFOs , astrology, channelling, the Bermuda Triangle , psychics, evolution , creationism , Holocaust denial , and especially conspiracy theories and how to think about them.

MISSED A PREVIOUS LECTURE?

Watch the entire 15-lecture chapman university skepticism 101 series for free.

Learn how to think like a scientist! Click the button below to browse through the entire course lecture series 1 through 15, and watch all lectures that interest you, for free!

Watch all 15 lectures for free

What is Truth, Anyway?

Resource added on: Friday, June 26, 2020 at 12:00 am

In this lecture Dr. Michael Shermer addresses one of the deepest questions of all: what is truth? How do we know what is true, untrue, or uncertain? Given that none of us are omniscient, all claims to knowledge carry a certain level of uncertainty. Given that fact, how can we determine what is true? Included: subjective/internal vs. objective/external truths, Hume’s theory of causality, correlation and causation, the principle of proportionality (or why extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence), how to think about miracles and the resurrection, mysterian mysteries, post-truth, rational irrationalities, the man who saved the world, Bayesian reasoning, and why love depends on evidence.

Skepticism 101: How to Think Like a Scientist covers a wide range of topics, from critical thinking, reasoning, rationality, cognitive biases and how thinking goes wrong, and the scientific methods, to actual claims and whether or not there is any truth to them, e.g., ESP, ETIs, UFOs, astrology, channelling, psychics, creationism, Holocaust denial, and especially conspiracy theories and how to think about them.

If you missed Dr. Shermer’s previous Skepticism 101 lectures watch them now .

What are Science & Skepticism?

Resource added on: Friday, June 12, 2020 at 12:00 am

This lecture, traditionally the first in the series for the Skepticism 101 course, is based on the first couple of chapters from Dr. Michael Shermer’s first book, Why People Believe Weird Things , presenting a description of skepticism and science and how they work, along with a discussion of the difference between science and pseudoscience, and some very practical applications of how to test claims and evaluate evidence. The image for this lecture is the original oil painting for the first cover of Why People Believe Weird Things , commissioned by the publisher and painted by the artist Lawrence Berzon.

The audio is out of sync with the video in “What is a Skeptic?” Here’s the link to view it . If you missed Dr. Shermer’s previous Skepticism 101 lectures watch them now .

Evolution & Creationism, Part 2: Who says evolution never happened, why do they say it, and what do they claim?

Resource added on: Friday, June 5, 2020 at 12:00 am

Dr. Michael Shermer continues the discussion of evolution and creationism, focusing on the history of the creationism movement and the four stages it has gone through: (1) Banning the teaching of evolution, (2) Demanding equal time for Genesis and Darwin, (3) Demanding equal time for creation-science and evolution-science, and (4) Intelligent Design theory. Shermer provides the legal, cultural, and political context for how and why creationism evolved over the 150 years since Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, thereby providing a naturalistic account of life, ultimately displacing the creationist supernatural account. Finally, Shermer reviews the best arguments made by creationists and why they’re wrong.

Evolution & Creationism, Part 1

Resource added on: Friday, May 29, 2020 at 12:00 am

Dr. Michael Shermer takes viewers to the Galápagos Islands to retrace Darwin’s footsteps (literally — in 2006 Shermer and historian of science Frank Sulloway hiked and camped all over the first island Darwin visited) and show that, in fact, Darwin did not discover natural selection when he was there in September of 1835. He worked out his theory when he returned home, and Shermer shows exactly how Darwin did that, along with the story of the theory’s co-discoverer, Alfred Russel Wallace. Then Shermer outlines what, exactly, the theory of evolution explains, how it displaced the creationist model as the explanation for design in nature (wings, eyes, etc. as functional adaptations), and why so many people today still misunderstand the theory and how that sustained the creationist model.

About the photograph above

Charles Darwin described of what he called the “craterized district” on San Cristóbal, Galápagos Islands thusly:

The entire surface of this part of the island seems to have been permeated, like a sieve, by the subterranean vapours: here and there the lava, whilst soft, has been blown into great bubbles; and in other parts, the tops of caverns similarly have fallen in, leaving circular pits with steep sides. From the regular form of the many craters, they gave to the country an artificial appearance, which vividly reminded me of those parts of Staffordshire, where the great iron-foundries are most numerous.

The photograph was taken on 21 June 2004 by Dr. Frank Sulloway. Darwin hiked this area in September, 1835.

Mentioned in this lecture

In Darwin’s Shadow
Why Darwin Matters

Holocaust Denial

Resource added on: Friday, May 22, 2020 at 12:00 am

In this lecture on Holocaust Denial , Dr. Michael Shermer employs the methods of science to history, showing how we can determine truth about the past. Many scholars in the humanities and social sciences do not consider history to be a science. Instead, they treat it as a field of competing narrative stories, no one of which has a superior claim to truth values than any others. But as Dr. Shermer replies to this assertion, are we to understand that those who assert that the Holocaust never happened have equal standing to those who assert that it did? Of course not! It is here where most cultural relativists get off the relativity train, acknowledging that, in fact, we can establish certain facts about the past, no less than we can about the present.

Denying History (audio CD)
Skeptic Magazine Vol. 2 No. 4 on Pseudohistory, Afrocentrism, and Holocaust Revisionism
Skeptic Magazine Vol. 14 No. 3 on The New Revisionism

Pathways to Evil, Part 2

Resource added on: Friday, May 15, 2020 at 12:00 am

In Pathways to Evil, Part 2 , Dr. Michael Shermer fleshes out the themes of Part 1 by exploring how the dials controlling our inner demons and better angels can be dialed up or down depending on circumstances and conditions. Are we all good apples but occasionally bad barrels turn good apples rotten, or do we all harbor the capacity to turn bad?

How to Think About the Bermuda Triangle

Resource added on: Friday, May 1, 2020 at 12:00 am

Dr. Michael Shermer examines the claims about the Bermuda Triangle using the tools of skepticism, science, and rationality to reveal that there is no mystery to explain. Selective reporting, false reporting, quote mining, anecdote chasing, and mystery mongering all conjoin to create what appears to be an unsolved mystery about the disappearance of planes and ships in this triangular shape region of the ocean. But when you examine each particular case, as did the U.S. Navy, Coast Guard, and especially insurance companies who have to pay out for such losses, it becomes clear that almost all have natural explanations, and the remaining unsolved ones are lying on the bottom of the ocean beyond our knowledge.

Deities for Atheists, Skygods for Skeptics: UFOs & ETIs

Resource added on: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 12:00 am

Dr. Michael Shermer distinguishes between two questions: (1) Are extraterrestrial intelligences (ETIs) out there somewhere in the cosmos? and (2) Have aliens come here? Evidence for both questions is considered in the larger context of why the issue so compels us to answer it almost religiously.

Skeptic 9.3 — A.I. and Theology of UFOs
Skeptic 10.1 — Roswell Requiem
Skeptic 11.1 — Medieval UFOs?
Skeptic 16.4 — The Man Who Invented Flying Saucers
Skeptic 18.4 — Ancient Aliens

Cults, Myths, and Religion

Resource added on: Friday, April 3, 2020 at 12:00 am

Dr. Michael Shermer considers the characteristics of cults, how they differ from sects, religions, and myths, the role that myths and religions play in culture and people’s lives, and what Scientologists really believe.

Cognitive Biases & How Thinking Goes Wrong

Resource added on: Friday, March 27, 2020 at 12:00 am

Dr. Michael Shermer reviews the many ways that our attempts to understand the truth about the world are derailed by cognitive biases, including the anchoring bias, the representative bias, the availability bias, the confirmation bias, the hindsight bias, the self-serving bias, and even the bias bias.

This lecture is part of a course that Dr. Shermer teaches at Chapman University called Skepticism 101: How to Think Like a Scientist which covers a wide range of topics, from critical thinking, reasoning, rationality, cognitive biases and how thinking goes wrong, and the scientific methods, to actual claims and whether or not there is any truth to them, e.g., ESP, ETIs, UFOs, astrology, channelling, psychics, creationism, Holocaust denial, and especially conspiracy theories and how to think about them.

Resources mentioned in this lecture

Why People Believe Weird Things
The Believing Brain
Skeptic 24.3 — Steven Pinker on Post-truth & Reason

Conspiracies & Conspiracy Theories

Resource added on: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 at 12:00 am

Dr. Michael Shermer explains the difference between conspiracies and conspiracy theories, who is more likely to believe which conspiracy theories, the social, political, cultural, and psychological conditions in which conspiracy theories flourish, real conspiracies, and who really killed JFK.

View Conspiracies Lecture

Skeptic 19.2 — Boston Bombing Conspiracy Theories
Skeptic 18.3 — 50 Years of JFK Conspiracy Theories
Skeptic 15.1 — Christian Origins Conspiracy Theory
Skeptic 12.4 — 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Michael Shermer’s Audible Original Course on Conspiracies & Conspiracy Theories

Note: There was a technical glitch at the end of the lecture, cutting out most of the points of the final slides of my Conspiracy Detection Kit. Here are those slide as expanded text:

Conspiracy Detection Kit

Parallel to my Baloney Detection Kit , I have put together a 10-point list for a Conspiracy Detection Kit . The more that a conspiracy theory manifests the following characteristics, the less likely it is to be a real conspiracy.

Patternicity . Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of “connecting the dots” between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy, or when the evidence fits equally well to other patterns—or to randomness—the conspiracy theory is likely false.
Agenticity . The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off. Most of the time in most circumstances, people, agencies, and corporations are not nearly so powerful as we think they are. If the conspiracy theory involves super powerful agents it is likely false.
Complexity . The conspiracy theory is complex and its successful completion demands a large number of elements coming together at just the right moment and in the proper sequence. The more elements involved and the more delicate the timing of the sequence in which they must come together, the less likely the conspiracy theory is to be true.
People . The more people involved in the conspiracy theory the less likely it is to be true. Conspiracies involving large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets typically fail. People are incompetent and emotional. They screw up, chicken out, change their minds, have moral scruples. Conspiracy theories treat people like programmed robots carrying out their commands. That is unrealistic.
Grandiosity . If the conspiracy theory encompasses some grandiose ambition for control over a nation, economy, or political system, and especially if it aims for world domination, it is almost certainly false. The bigger the conspiracy the more likely it is to fail for the reasons of complexity and people that I’ve just given.
Scale . When the conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger events that have much lower probabilities of being true, it is very likely false. Most real conspiracies involve very specific events and targets, such as insider trading on Wall Street, price fixing in an industry, tax evasion by a corporation, and, yes, the assassination of a political leader, but always for a narrow goal of making money, grabbing power, or ending tyranny.
Significance . If the conspiracy theory assigns portentous and sinister meanings and interpretations to apparently innocuous or insignificant events, it is most likely false. Again, most conspiracies are narrowly focused and significant only to those who will benefit or be hurt. Most real conspiracies do not change the world.
Accuracy . If the conspiracy theory commingles facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two, it is likely to be false. Conspiracists are notorious for sprinkling in a handful of verifiable facts amidst a vast array of conjectures and suppositions, which blur reality and confuse listeners into thinking there is more to the theory than there actually is.
Paranoia . If a conspiracy theorist is extremely and indiscriminately suspicious of any and all government agencies or private corporations, this suggests a lack of nuance in understanding how the world works. Yes, sometimes “they” really are out to get you, but usually not.
Falsifiability . Conspiracy theorists typically refuse to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence for the theory, and blatantly seeking only confirming evidence to support what has a priori been determined as the truth. To return to Karl Popper, if a conspiracy theory cannot be falsified, it is probably false.

The Baloney Detection Kit Sandwich (Infographic)

Resource added on: Thursday, April 6, 2017 at 2:49 pm
Produced by: Deanna & Skylar (High Tech High Media Arts, San Diego, CA)
Submitted by: Daniel Peluso (student teacher)

For a class project, a pair of 11th grade physics students created the infographic shown below, inspired by Michael Shermer’s Baloney Detection Kit : a 16-page booklet designed to hone your critical thinking skills. It includes suggestions on what questions to ask, what traps to avoid, specific examples of how the scientific method is used to test pseudoscience and paranormal claims, and a how-to guide for developing a class in critical thinking.

Click to enlarge and scroll

Baloney Detection Kit infographic (detail)

Science Based Medicine

Resource added on: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 10:42 am
Produced by: The James Randi Educational Foundation

The James Randi Educational Foundation has produced a superb 10-part video lecture series in which Harriet Hall, M.D., contrasts science-based medicine with so-called “complementary and alternative” methods. The topics include: What is CAM?; acupuncture; chiropractic; energy medicine; homeopathy; miscellaneous “alternatives”; naturopathy and herbal medicines; pitfalls in research; science based medicine vs. evidence-based medicine; science-based medicine in the media and politics. The lectures range from 32 to 45 minutes. A companion course guide is also available. Listen to the audio advertisement for the course. Listen to the audio advertisement for the course.

Watch the 10-part video series

DOWNLOAD COURSE GUIDE (492 KB PDF)

Skeptic Presents: What is a Skeptic?

Resource added on: Thursday, September 19, 2013 at 11:41 am

In this video — the fourth in our series of videos that promote science and critical thinking through the use of humor, wit, and satire — we present a fun and informative look at the principles of Skepticism.

Help Us Make More Videos

If you would like to show your support for these videos, please make a tax-deductible donation to the Skeptics Society. With your support, we hope to produce these instructional, educational, and entertaining videos regularly throughout the year for free viewing and use by everyone everywhere to spread the message of the power of science and skepticism to make the world a saner, safer place.

CREDITS : Special thanks to David Cowan, Daniel Mendez, and Jim Robinson for their support in launching this new series of Skeptic videos.

Written and Produced by : Brian Keith Dalton, Michael Shermer, Pat Linse. Directed, lensed, and edited by : Brian Keith Dalton. Executive Producers : David Cowan, Daniel Mendez, Jim Robinson. Starring : Amy Rohren, Lily Catherine, Michael Shermer, Brian Keith Dalton. Music by : Videoblocks.com and Final Cut Pro. Additional Video from : Videoblocks.com. Shot on : a Canon C100 and an iPhone 5

Public Health & Skepticism

Resource added on: Wednesday, August 7, 2013 at 2:45 pm
Submitted by: William London

This course was taught at California State University, Los Angeles during the spring 2013 semester.

Excerpt from Syllabus

The course will emphasize principles of skeptical inquiry, scientific reasoning, and scientific evidence to prepare students to critically analyze promotional claims made in the health marketplace for products, services, and practices. The course is designed to help students distinguish health-related fact from fiction and to spot health-related schemes, scams, superstitions, sensationalism, fads, fallacies, frauds, bunk, and bunco. Students will engage in critical thinking as they discuss how consumers can get good value for their health-related financial expenditures.

Learning Outcomes

Students should be able to:

Explain why consumer vigilance is important in the health marketplace and summarize the various problems consumers face in the health marketplace.
Describe the scope of deception in the health marketplace, its significance as a population health problem, why people are vulnerable to it, and how consumers can avoid it.
Describe relevant consumer protection laws and agencies and their limitations and how consumers can utilize consumer protection resources.
Apply strategies for consumers to distinguish fact from fiction regarding health products, services, and practices.
Identify trustworthy and untrustworthy sources of consumer health information.
Describe the strengths and limitations of government regulation and industry self-regulation of advertising for health products and services.
Explain considerations for consumer decision-making regarding selection, utilization, and avoidance of health-related products, services, and practitioners.
Distinguish responsible from irresponsible practices, products, and services related to mental health, dental health, major chronic diseases, nutrition, weight control, physical fitness, skin care, aging, care of the dying, care of the bereaved, personal image enhancement, and human sexuality.
Analyze the “complementary and alternative medicine” movement in terms of its common themes, scientific examination of its theories, its impact on the health marketplace, and its impact on the health of the public.
Identify priorities and pitfalls for economical medical self-care and caring for one’s family.

DOWNLOAD THIS RESOURCE (188 kb PDF)

Skeptic Presents: You Can’t Handle the Truther

Resource added on: Wednesday, August 7, 2013 at 11:10 am

We are pleased to present the third in our series of videos that promote science and critical thinking through the use of humor, wit, and satire. In this video, You Can’t Handle the Truther , CIA Agents plot the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon. If you missed our first two videos, check them out: The Con Academy and B.Y.T.H Busters: The Secret Law of Attraction .

If you would like to show your support, please make a tax-deductible donation to the Skeptics Society by clicking the button below. With your support, we hope to produce these instructional, educational, and entertaining videos regularly throughout the year for free viewing and use by everyone everywhere to spread the message of the power of science and skepticism to make the world a saner, safer place.

CREDITS : Special thanks to David Cowan, Daniel Mendez, and Jim Robinson for their support in launching this series of Skeptic videos.

Written and Produced by : Brian Keith Dalton, Michael Shermer, Pat Linse. Directed, lensed, and edited by : Brian Keith Dalton. Executive Producers : David Cowan, Daniel Mendez, Jim Robinson. Starring : Sean Douglas, Amy Rohren, Michael Shermer, Brian Keith Dalton. Production Assistants : Matthew David, Gediminas Schuppenhauer, Pat Linse. Music by : Videoblocks.com and Brian Keith Dalton. Additional Video from : Videoblocks.com. Shot on : a Canon C100

Skeptics Presents: B.Y.T.H. Busters (The Secret Law of Attraction)

Resource added on: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 at 11:20 am

We are pleased to present the second in a series of videos that promote science and critical thinking through the use of humor, wit, and satire. In this video, B.Y.T.H. Busters: The Secret Law of Attraction , Adam Average and Jamie Imtheman put the “Law of Attraction” to the test. If you missed our first video, The Con Academy, watch it now !

Written and Produced by : Brian Keith Dalton, Michael Shermer, Pat Linse. Directed, lensed, and edited by : Brian Keith Dalton. Executive Producers : David Cowan, Daniel Mendez, Jim Robinson. Featuring : Brian Keith Dalton, Michael Shermer, Gingi Yee, Beyla Burke, Tom Vilot. Production Assistants : Eduard Pastor, Gediminas Schuppenhauer. Music by : Videoblocks.com and Final Cut Pro Production music. Additional Video by : Videoblocks.com. Shot on : Panasonic AF100, Gh2, and Gh3 cameras.

The Perks of Paranoia

Resource added on: Monday, May 6, 2013 at 1:36 pm
Submitted by: Christopher Griffin

Myths. Conspiracy Theories. Illusory Correlation. Do these things have an evolutionary basis in common? What type of thinking enables conspiracy theorists to correlate ideas that in truth have nothing to do with each other? In his book, The Believing Brain , Michael Shermer refers to these types of thinking as patternicity — finding meaningful patterns in meaningless noise.

In this video project by Christopher Griffin, a senior Graphic Design student at the California College of the Arts (San Francisco), these pattern-seeking ideas are visually illustrated, as if diving head-first into the mind of a true believer.

This project was designed in Adobe After Effects and Maxon Cinema 4D, with assets built in Adobe Illustrator.

Skeptic Presents: The Con Academy

Resource added on: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 at 11:39 am
Submitted by: Michael Shermer & Brian Dalton

Volume 1: Advertising the Con Academy

This is the first video in a series featuring Michael Shermer and Brian Dalton (aka: Mr. Deity). The mission of these videos is to promote critical thinking through the use of humor, wit, and satire.

In this faux commercial for The Con Academy you’ll see how psychics count on the confirmation bias to convince people that their powers are real when, in fact, they are just remembering the hits and forgetting the misses. We also demonstrate how psychic “organizations” con people by taking their money for services that are not real. —Michael Shermer

Help Us Make More Videos Like This

If you would like to support The Con Academy Videos, please make a tax-deductible donation to the Skeptics Society . With your support, we hope to produce these instructional, educational, and entertaining videos regularly throughout the year for free viewing and use by everyone everywhere to spread the message of the power of science and skepticism to make the world a saner, safer place.

Written and Produced by : Brian Keith Dalton, Pat Linse, Michael Shermer. Featuring : Michael Shermer, Brian Keith Dalton, John Rael, Jen Brown, Matt David, Eduard Pastor, Emery Emery, and Wendy Hughes. Production assistance : Eduard Pastor, Matt David, and John Rael. Shot, Edited, and Directed by : Brian Keith Dalton. Special thanks to : Russell Friedman and everyone at the Grief Recovery Institute in Sherman Oaks, CA. Music by : Videoblocks.com and Final Cut Production music. Shot on Panasonic AF100, Gh2, and Gh3 cameras. The Con Academy is not, in any way, affiliated with The Khan Academy .

SKEPTIC App

Whether at home or on the go, the SKEPTIC App is the easiest way to read your favorite articles. Within the app, users can purchase the current issue and back issues. Download the app today and get a 30-day free trial subscription.

About the Society
Current Issue
Subscribe (Print)
Subscribe (Digital)
Buy Print Issues
Buy Digital Issues
Submit an article
About the Podcast
Watch/Listen
Apple Podcasts
Amazon Music
Google Podcasts

Expeditions

About Our Expeditions
Greenland to Nova Scotia (2024)
Ireland to Iceland (2024)
Meet the Researchers
Become Involved
1-805-576-9396
General Inquiries
Website Inquiries
Orders Support
Subscriptions Support
Change Address
Shop Online
Subscriptions
Back Issues

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
PMC10672018

Critical Thinking, Intelligence, and Unsubstantiated Beliefs: An Integrative Review

Associated data.

This research did not involve collection of original data, and hence there are no new data to make available.

A review of the research shows that critical thinking is a more inclusive construct than intelligence, going beyond what general cognitive ability can account for. For instance, critical thinking can more completely account for many everyday outcomes, such as how thinkers reject false conspiracy theories, paranormal and pseudoscientific claims, psychological misconceptions, and other unsubstantiated claims. Deficiencies in the components of critical thinking (in specific reasoning skills, dispositions, and relevant knowledge) contribute to unsubstantiated belief endorsement in ways that go beyond what standardized intelligence tests test. Specifically, people who endorse unsubstantiated claims less tend to show better critical thinking skills, possess more relevant knowledge, and are more disposed to think critically. They tend to be more scientifically skeptical and possess a more rational–analytic cognitive style, while those who accept unsubstantiated claims more tend to be more cynical and adopt a more intuitive–experiential cognitive style. These findings suggest that for a fuller understanding of unsubstantiated beliefs, researchers and instructors should also assess specific reasoning skills, relevant knowledge, and dispositions which go beyond what intelligence tests test.

1. Introduction

Why do some people believe implausible claims, such as the QAnon conspiracy theory, that a cabal of liberals is kidnapping and trafficking many thousands of children each year, despite the lack of any credible supporting evidence? Are believers less intelligent than non-believers? Do they lack knowledge of such matters? Are they more gullible or less skeptical than non-believers? Or, more generally, are they failing to think critically?

Understanding the factors contributing to acceptance of unsubstantiated claims is important, not only to the development of theories of intelligence and critical thinking but also because many unsubstantiated beliefs are false, and some are even dangerous. Endorsing them can have a negative impact on an individual and society at large. For example, false beliefs about the COVID-19 pandemic, such as believing that 5G cell towers induced the spread of the COVID-19 virus, led some British citizens to set fire to 5G towers ( Jolley and Paterson 2020 ). Other believers in COVID-19 conspiracy theories endangered their own and their children’s lives when they refused to socially distance and be vaccinated with highly effective vaccines, despite the admonitions of scientific experts ( Bierwiaczonek et al. 2020 ). Further endangering the population at large, those who believe the false conspiracy theory that human-caused global warming is a hoax likely fail to respond adaptively to this serious global threat ( van der Linden 2015 ). Parents, who uncritically accept pseudoscientific claims, such as the false belief that facilitated communication is an effective treatment for childhood autism, may forego more effective treatments ( Lilienfeld 2007 ). Moreover, people in various parts of the world still persecute other people whom they believe are witches possessing supernatural powers. Likewise, many people still believe in demonic possession, which has been associated with mental disorders ( Nie and Olson 2016 ). Compounding the problems created by these various unsubstantiated beliefs, numerous studies now show that when someone accepts one of these types of unfounded claims, they tend to accept others as well; see Bensley et al. ( 2022 ) for a review.

Studying the factors that contribute to unfounded beliefs is important not only because of their real-world consequences but also because this can facilitate a better understanding of unfounded beliefs and how they are related to critical thinking and intelligence. This article focuses on important ways in which critical thinking and intelligence differ, especially in terms of how a comprehensive model of CT differs from the view of intelligence as general cognitive ability. I argue that this model of CT more fully accounts for how people can accurately decide if a claim is unsubstantiated than can views of intelligence, emphasizing general cognitive ability. In addition to general cognitive ability, thinking critically about unsubstantiated claims involves deployment of specific reasoning skills, dispositions related to CT, and specific knowledge, which go beyond the contribution of general cognitive ability.

Accordingly, this article begins with an examination of the constructs of critical thinking and intelligence. Then, it discusses theories proposing that to understand thinking in the real world requires going beyond general cognitive ability. Specifically, the focus is on factors related to critical thinking, such as specific reasoning skills, dispositions, metacognition, and relevant knowledge. I review research showing that that this alternative multidimensional view of CT can better account for individual differences in the tendency to endorse multiple types of unsubstantiated claims than can general cognitive ability alone.

2. Defining Critical Thinking and Intelligence

Critical thinking is an almost universally valued educational objective in the US and in many other countries which seek to improve it. In contrast, intelligence, although much valued, has often been viewed as a more stable characteristic and less amenable to improvement through specific short-term interventions, such as traditional instruction or more recently through practice on computer-implemented training programs. According to Wechsler’s influential definition, intelligence is a person’s “aggregate or global capacity to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment” ( Wechsler 1944, p. 3 ).

Consistent with this definition, intelligence has long been associated with general cognitive or intellectual ability and the potential to learn and reason well. Intelligence (IQ) tests measure general cognitive abilities, such as knowledge of words, memory skills, analogical reasoning, speed of processing, and the ability to solve verbal and spatial problems. General intelligence or “g” is a composite of these abilities statistically derived from various cognitive subtests on IQ tests which are positively intercorrelated. There is considerable overlap between g and the concept of fluid intelligence (Gf) in the prominent Cattell–Horn–Carroll model ( McGrew 2009 ), which refers to “the ability to solve novel problems, the solution of which does not depend on previously acquired skills and knowledge,” and crystalized intelligence (Gc), which refers to experience, existing skills, and general knowledge ( Conway and Kovacs 2018, pp. 50–51 ). Although g or general intelligence is based on a higher order factor, inclusive of fluid and crystallized intelligence, it is technically not the same as general cognitive ability, a commonly used, related term. However, in this article, I use “general cognitive ability” and “cognitive ability” because they are the imprecise terms frequently used in the research reviewed.

Although IQ scores have been found to predict performance in basic real-world domains, such as academic performance and job success ( Gottfredson 2004 ), an enduring question for intelligence researchers has been whether g and intelligence tests predict the ability to adapt well in other real-world situations, which concerns the second part of Wechsler’s definition. So, in addition to the search for the underlying structure of intelligence, researchers have been perennially concerned with how general abilities associated with intelligence can be applied to help a person adapt to real-world situations. The issue is largely a question of how cognitive ability and intelligence can help people solve real-world problems and cope adaptively and succeed in dealing with various environmental demands ( Sternberg 2019 ).

Based on broad conceptual definitions of intelligence and critical thinking, both intelligence and CT should aid adaptive functioning in the real world, presumably because they both involve rational approaches. Their common association with rationality gives each term a positive connotation. However, complicating the definition of each of these is the fact that rationality also continues to have a variety of meanings. In this article, in agreement with Stanovich et al. ( 2018 ), rationality is defined in the normative sense, used in cognitive science, as the distance between a person’s response and some normative standard of optimal behavior. As such, degree of rationality falls on a continuous scale, not a categorical one.

Despite disagreements surrounding the conceptual definitions of intelligence, critical thinking, and rationality, a commonality in these terms is they are value-laden and normative. In the case of intelligence, people are judged based on norms from standardized intelligence tests, especially in academic settings. Although scores on CT tests seldom are, nor could be, used to judge individuals in this way, the normative and value-laden basis of CT is apparent in people’s informal judgements. They often judge others who have made poor decisions to be irrational or to have failed to think critically.

This value-laden aspect of CT is also apparent in formal definitions of CT. Halpern and Dunn ( 2021 ) defined critical thinking as “the use of those cognitive skills or strategies that increase the probability of a desirable outcome. It is used to describe thinking that is purposeful, reasoned, and goal-directed.” The positive conception of CT as helping a person adapt well to one’s environment is clearly implied in “desirable outcome”.

Robert Ennis ( 1987 ) has offered a simpler, yet useful definition of critical thinking that also has normative implications. According to Ennis, “critical thinking is reasonable, reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do” ( Ennis 1987, p. 102 ). This definition implies that CT helps people know what to believe (a goal of epistemic rationality) and how to act (a goal of instrumental rationality). This is conveyed by associating “critical thinking” with the positive terms, “reasonable” and “reflective”. Dictionaries commonly define “reasonable” as “rational”, “logical”, “intelligent”, and “good”, all terms with positive connotations.

For critical thinkers, being reasonable involves using logical rules, standards of evidence, and other criteria that must be met for a product of thinking to be considered good. Critical thinkers use these to evaluate how strongly reasons or evidence supports one claim versus another, drawing conclusions which are supported by the highest quality evidence ( Bensley 2018 ). If no high-quality evidence is available for consideration, it would be unreasonable to draw a strong conclusion. Unfortunately, people’s beliefs are too often based on acceptance of unsubstantiated claims. This is a failure of CT, but is it also a failure of intelligence?

3. Does Critical Thinking “Go Beyond” What Is Meant by Intelligence?

Despite the conceptual overlap in intelligence and CT at a general level, one way that CT can be distinguished from the common view of intelligence as general cognitive ability is in terms of what each can account for. Although intelligence tests, especially measures of general cognitive ability, have reliably predicted academic and job performance, they may not be sufficient to predict other everyday outcomes for which CT measures have made successful predictions and have added to the variance accounted for in performance. For instance, replicating a study by Butler ( 2012 ), Butler et al. ( 2017 ) obtained a negative correlation ( r = −0.33) between scores on the Halpern Critical Thinking Appraisal (HCTA) and a measure of 134 negative, real-world outcomes, not expected to befall critical thinkers, such as engaging in unprotected sex or posting a message on social media which the person regretted. They found that higher HCTA scores not only predicted better life decisions, but also predicted better performance beyond a measure of general cognitive ability. These results suggest that CT can account for real-world outcomes and goes beyond general cognitive ability to account for additional variance.

Some theorists maintain that standardized intelligence tests do not capture the variety of abilities that people need to adapt well in the real world. For example, Gardner ( 1999 ), has proposed that additional forms of intelligence are needed, such as spatial, musical, and interpersonal intelligences in addition to linguistic and logical–mathematical intelligences, more typically associated with general cognitive ability and academic success. In other theorizing, Sternberg ( 1988 ) has proposed three additional types of intelligence: analytical, practical, and creative intelligence, to more fully capture the variety of intelligent abilities on which people differ. Critical thinking is considered part of analytical skills which involve evaluating the quality and applicability of ideas, products, and options ( Sternberg 2022 ). Regarding adaptive intelligence, Sternberg ( 2019 ) has emphasized how adaptive aspects of intelligence are needed to solve real-world problems both at the individual and species levels. According to Sternberg, core components of intelligence have evolved in humans, but intelligence takes different forms in different cultures, with each culture valuing its own skills for adaptation. Thus, the construct of intelligence must go beyond core cognitive ability to encompass the specific abilities needed for adaptive behavior in specific cultures and settings.

Two other theories propose that other components be added to intelligent and rational thinking. Ackerman ( 2022 ) has emphasized the importance of acquiring domain-specific knowledge for engaging in intelligent functioning in the wide variety of tasks found in everyday life. Ackerman has argued that declarative, procedural, and tacit knowledge, as well as non-ability variables, are needed to better predict job performance and performance of other everyday activities. Taking another approach, Halpern and Dunn ( 2021 ) have proposed that critical thinking is essentially the adaptive application of intelligence for solving real-world problems. Elsewhere, Butler and Halpern ( 2019 ) have argued that dispositions such as open-mindedness are another aspect of CT and that domain-specific knowledge and specific CT skills are needed to solve real-world problems.

Examples are readily available for how CT goes beyond what IQ tests test to include specific rules for reasoning and relevant knowledge needed to execute real-world tasks. Take the example of scientific reasoning, which can be viewed as a specialized form of CT. Drawing a well-reasoned inductive conclusion about a theory or analyzing the quality of a research study both require that a thinker possess relevant specialized knowledge related to the question and specific reasoning skills for reasoning about scientific methodology. In contrast, IQ tests are deliberately designed to be nonspecialized in assessing Gc, broadly sampling vocabulary and general knowledge in order to be fair and unbiased ( Stanovich 2009 ). Specialized knowledge and reasoning skills are also needed in non-academic domains. Jurors must possess specialized knowledge to understand expert, forensic testimony and specific reasoning skills to interpret the law and make well-reasoned judgments about a defendant’s guilt or innocence.

Besides lacking specific reasoning skills and domain-relevant knowledge, people may fail to think critically because they are not disposed to use their reasoning skills to examine such claims and want to preserve their favored beliefs. Critical thinking dispositions are attitudes or traits that make it more likely that a person will think critically. Theorists have proposed numerous CT dispositions (e.g., Bensley 2018 ; Butler and Halpern 2019 ; Dwyer 2017 ; Ennis 1987 ). Some commonly identified CT dispositions especially relevant to this discussion are open-mindedness, skepticism, intellectual engagement, and the tendency to take a reflective, rational–analytic approach. Critical thinking dispositions are clearly value-laden and prescriptive. A good thinker should be open-minded, skeptical, reflective, intellectually engaged, and value a rational–analytic approach to inquiry. Conversely, corresponding negative dispositions, such as “close-mindedness” and “gullibility”, could obstruct CT.

Without the appropriate disposition, individuals will not use their reasoning skills to think critically about questions. For example, the brilliant mystery writer, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who was trained as a physician and created the hyper-reasonable detective Sherlock Holmes, was not disposed to think critically about some unsubstantiated claims. Conan Doyle was no doubt highly intelligent in cognitive ability terms, but he was not sufficiently skeptical (disposed to think critically) about spiritualism. He believed that he was talking to his dearly departed son though a medium, despite the warnings of his magician friend, Harry Houdini, who told him that mediums used trickery in their seances. Perhaps influenced by his Irish father’s belief in the “wee folk”, Conan Doyle also believed that fairies inhabited the English countryside, based on children’s photos, despite the advice of experts who said the photos could be faked. Nevertheless, he was skeptical of a new theory of tuberculosis proposed by Koch when he reported on it, despite his wife suffering from the disease. So, in professional capacities, Conan Doyle used his CT skills, but in certain other domains for which he was motivated to accept unsubstantiated claims, he failed to think critically, insufficiently disposed to skeptically challenge certain implausible claims.

This example makes two important points. Conan Doyle’s superior intelligence was not enough for him to reject implausible claims about the world. In general, motivated reasoning can lead people, even those considered highly intelligent, to accept claims with no good evidentiary support. The second important point is that we would not be able to adequately explain cases like this one, considering only the person’s intelligence or even their reasoning skills, without also considering the person’s disposition. General cognitive ability alone is not sufficient, and CT dispositions should also be considered.

Supporting this conclusion, Stanovich and West ( 1997 ) examined the influence of dispositions beyond the contribution of cognitive ability on a CT task. They gave college students an argument evaluation test in which participants first rated their agreement with several claims about real social and political issues made by a fictitious person. Then, they gave them evidence against each claim and finally asked them to rate the quality of a counterargument made by the same fictitious person. Participants’ ratings of the counterarguments were compared to the median ratings of expert judges on the quality of the rebuttals. Stanovich and West also administered a new measure of rational disposition called the Actively Open-minded Thinking (AOT) scale and the SAT as a proxy for cognitive ability. The AOT was a composite of items from several other scales that would be expected to measure CT disposition. They found that both SAT and AOT scores were significant predictors of higher argument analysis scores. Even after partialing out cognitive ability, actively open-minded thinking was significant. These results suggest that general cognitive ability alone was not sufficient to account for thinking critically about real-world issues and that CT disposition was needed to go beyond it.

Further examining the roles of CT dispositions and cognitive ability on reasoning, Stanovich and West ( 2008 ) studied myside bias, a bias in reasoning closely related to one-sided thinking and confirmation bias. A critical thinker would be expected to not show myside bias and instead fairly evaluate evidence on all sides of a question. Stanovich and West ( 2007 ) found that college students often showed myside bias when asked their opinions about real-world policy issues, such as those concerning the health risks of smoking and drinking alcohol. For example, compared to non-smokers, smokers judged the health risks of smoking to be lower. When they divided participants into higher versus lower cognitive ability groups based on SAT scores, the two groups showed little difference on myside bias. Moreover, on the hazards of drinking issue, participants who drank less had higher scores on the CT disposition measure.

Other research supports the need for both reasoning ability and CT disposition in predicting outcomes in the real world. Ren et al. ( 2020 ) found that CT disposition, as measured by a Chinese critical thinking disposition inventory, and a CT skill measure together contributed a significant amount of the variance in predicting academic performance beyond the contribution of cognitive ability alone, as measured by a test of fluid intelligence. Further supporting the claim that CT requires both cognitive ability and CT disposition, Ku and Ho ( 2010 ) found that a CT disposition measure significantly predicted scores on a CT test beyond the significant contribution of verbal intelligence in high school and college students from Hong Kong.

The contribution of dispositions to thinking is related to another way that CT goes beyond the application of general cognitive ability, i.e., by way of the motivation for reasoning. Assuming that all reasoning is motivated ( Kunda 1990 ), then CT is motivated, too, which is implicit within the Halpern and Dunn ( 2021 ) and Ennis ( 1987 ) definitions. Critical thinking is motivated in the sense of being purposeful and directed towards the goal of arriving at an accurate conclusion. For instance, corresponding to pursuit of the goal of accurate reasoning, the CT disposition of “truth-seeking” guides a person towards reaching the CT goal of arriving at an accurate conclusion.

Also, according to Kunda ( 1990 ), a second type of motivated reasoning can lead to faulty conclusions, often by directing a person towards the goal of maintaining favored beliefs and preconceptions, as in illusory correlation, belief perseverance, and confirmation bias. Corresponding to this second type, negative dispositions, such as close-mindedness and self-serving motives, can incline thinkers towards faulty conclusions. This is especially relevant in the present discussion because poorer reasoning, thinking errors, and the inappropriate use of heuristics are related to the endorsement of unsubstantiated claims, all of which are CT failures. The term “thinking errors” is a generic term referring to logical fallacies, informal reasoning fallacies, argumentation errors, and inappropriate uses of cognitive heuristics ( Bensley 2018 ). Heuristics are cognitive shortcuts, commonly used to simplify judgment tasks and reduce mental effort. Yet, when used inappropriately, heuristics often result in biased judgments.

Stanovich ( 2009 ) has argued that IQ tests do not test people’s use of heuristics, but heuristics have been found to be negatively correlated with CT performance ( West et al. 2008 ). In this same study, they found that college students’ cognitive ability, as measured by performance on the SAT, was not correlated with thinking biases associated with use of heuristics. Although Stanovich and West ( 2008 ) found that susceptibility to biases, such as the conjunction fallacy, framing effect, base-rate neglect, affect bias, and myside bias were all uncorrelated with cognitive ability (using SAT as a proxy), other types of thinking errors were correlated with SAT.

Likewise, two types of knowledge are related to the two forms of motivated reasoning. For instance, inaccurate knowledge, such as misconceptions, can derail reasoning from moving towards a correct conclusion, as in when a person reasons from false premises. In contrast, reasoning from accurate knowledge is more likely to produce an accurate conclusion. Taking into account inaccurate knowledge and thinking errors is important to understanding the endorsement of unsubstantiated claims because these are also related to negative dispositions, such as close-mindedness and cynicism, none of which are measured by intelligence tests.

Critical thinking questions are often situated in real-world examples or in simulations of them which are designed to detect thinking errors and bias. As described in Halpern and Butler ( 2018 ), an item like one on the “Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment” (HCTA) provides respondents with a mock newspaper story about research showing that first-graders who attended preschool were better able to learn how to read. Then the question asks if preschool should be made mandatory. A correct response to this item requires recognizing that correlation does not imply causation, that is, avoiding a common reasoning error people make in thinking about research implications in everyday life. Another CT skills test, “Analyzing Psychological Statements” (APS) assesses the ability to recognize thinking errors and apply argumentation skills and psychology to evaluate psychology-related examples and simulations of real-life situations ( Bensley 2021 ). For instance, besides identifying thinking errors in brief samples of thinking, questions ask respondents to distinguish arguments from non-arguments, find assumptions in arguments, evaluate kinds of evidence, and draw a conclusion from a brief psychological argument. An important implication of the studies just reviewed is that efforts to understand CT can be further informed by assessing thinking errors and biases, which, as the next discussion shows, are related to individual differences in thinking dispositions and cognitive style.

4. Dual-Process Theory Measures and Unsubstantiated Beliefs

Dual-process theory (DPT) and measures associated with it have been widely used in the study of the endorsement of unsubstantiated beliefs, especially as they relate to cognitive style. According to a cognitive style version of DPT, people have two modes of processing, a fast intuitive–experiential (I-E) style of processing and a slower, reflective, rational–analytic (R-A) style of processing. The intuitive cognitive style is associated with reliance on hunches, feelings, personal experience, and cognitive heuristics which simplify processing, while the R-A cognitive style is a reflective, rational–analytic style associated with more elaborate and effortful processing ( Bensley et al. 2022 ; Epstein 2008 ). As such, the rational–analytic cognitive style is consistent with CT dispositions, such as those promoting the effortful analysis of evidence, objective truth, and logical consistency. In fact, CT is sometimes referred to as “critical-analytic” thinking ( Byrnes and Dunbar 2014 ) and has been associated with analytical intelligence Sternberg ( 1988 ) and with rational thinking, as discussed before.

People use both modes of processing, but they show individual differences in which mode they tend to rely upon, although the intuitive–experiential mode is the default ( Bensley et al. 2022 ; Morgan 2016 ; Pacini and Epstein 1999 ), and they accept unsubstantiated claims differentially based on their predominate cognitive style ( Bensley et al. 2022 ; Epstein 2008 ). Specifically, individuals who rely more on an I-E cognitive style tend to endorse unsubstantiated claims more strongly, while individuals who rely more on a R-A cognitive style tend to endorse those claims less. Note, however, that other theorists view the two processes and cognitive styles somewhat differently, (e.g., Kahneman 2011 ; Stanovich et al. 2018 ).

Researchers have often assessed the contribution of these two cognitive styles to endorsement of unsubstantiated claims, using variants of three measures: the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) of Frederick ( 2005 ), the Rational–Experiential Inventory of Epstein and his colleagues ( Pacini and Epstein 1999 ), and the related Need for Cognition scale of Cacioppo and Petty ( 1982 ). The CRT is a performance-based test which asks participants to solve problems that appear to require simple mathematical calculations, but which actually require more reflection. People typically do poorly on the CRT, which is thought to indicate reliance on an intuitive cognitive style, while better performance is thought to indicate reliance on the slower, more deliberate, and reflective cognitive style. The positive correlation of the CRT with numeracy scores suggests it also has a cognitive skill component ( Patel et al. 2019 ). The Rational–Experiential Inventory (REI) of Pacini and Epstein ( 1999 ) contains one scale designed to measure an intuitive–experiential cognitive style and a second scale intended to measure a rational–analytic (R-A) style. The R-A scale was adapted from the Need for Cognition (NFC) scale of Cacioppo and Petty ( 1982 ), another scale associated with rational–analytic thinking and expected to be negatively correlated with unsubstantiated beliefs. The NFC was found to be related to open-mindedness and intellectual engagement, two CT dispositions ( Cacioppo et al. 1996 ).

The cognitive styles associated with DPT also relate to CT dispositions. Thinking critically requires that individuals be disposed to use their reasoning skills to reject unsubstantiated claims ( Bensley 2018 ) and that they be inclined to take a rational–analytic approach rather than relying on their intuitions and feelings. For instance, Bensley et al. ( 2014 ) found that students who endorsed more psychological misconceptions adopted a more intuitive cognitive style, were less disposed to take a rational–scientific approach to psychology, and scored lower on a psychological critical thinking skills test. Further supporting this connection, West et al. ( 2008 ) found that participants who tended to use cognitive heuristics more, thought to be related to intuitive processing and bias, scored lower on a critical thinking measure. As the Bensley et al. ( 2014 ) results suggest, in addition to assessing reasoning skills and dispositions, comprehensive CT assessment research should assess knowledge and unsubstantiated beliefs because these are related to failures of critical thinking.

5. Assessing Critical Thinking and Unsubstantiated Beliefs

Assessing endorsement of unsubstantiated claims provides another way to assess CT outcomes related to everyday thinking, which goes beyond what intelligence tests test ( Bensley and Lilienfeld 2020 ). From the perspective of the multi-dimensional model of CT, endorsement of unsubstantiated claims could result from deficiencies in a person’s CT reasoning skills, a lack of relevant knowledge, and in the engagement of inappropriate dispositions. Suppose an individual endorses an unsubstantiated claim, such as believing the conspiracy theory that human-caused global warming is a hoax. The person may lack the specific reasoning skills needed to critically evaluate the conspiracy. Lantian et al. ( 2020 ) found that scores on a CT skills test were negatively correlated with conspiracy theory beliefs. The person also must possess relevant scientific knowledge, such as knowing the facts that each year humans pump about 40 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas which traps heat in the atmosphere. Or, the person may not be scientifically skeptical or too cynical or mistrustful of scientists or governmental officials.

Although endorsing unsubstantiated beliefs is clearly a failure of CT, problems arise in deciding which ones are unsubstantiated, especially when considering conspiracy theories. Typically, the claims which critical thinkers should reject as unsubstantiated are those which are not supported by objective evidence. But of the many conspiracies proposed, few are vigorously examined. Moreover, some conspiracy theories which authorities might initially deny turn out to be real, such as the MK-Ultra theory that the CIA was secretly conducting mind-control research on American citizens.

A way out of this quagmire is to define unsubstantiated beliefs on a continuum which depends on the quality of evidence. This has led to the definition of unsubstantiated claims as assertions which have not been supported by high-quality evidence ( Bensley 2023 ). Those which are supported have the kind of evidentiary support that critical thinkers are expected to value in drawing reasonable conclusions. Instead of insisting that a claim must be demonstrably false to be rejected, we adopt a more tentative acceptance or rejection of claims, based on how much good evidence supports them. Many claims are unsubstantiated because they have not yet been carefully examined and so totally lack support or they may be supported only by low quality evidence such as personal experience, anecdotes, or non-scientific authority. Other claims are more clearly unsubstantiated because they contradict the findings of high-quality research. A critical thinker should be highly skeptical of these.

Psychological misconceptions are one type of claim that can be more clearly unsubstantiated. Psychological misconceptions are commonsense psychological claims (folk theories) about the mind, brain, and behavior that are contradicted by the bulk of high-quality scientific research. Author developed the Test of Psychological Knowledge and Misconceptions (TOPKAM), a 40-item, forced-choice measure with each item posing a statement of a psychological misconception and the other response option stating the evidence-based alternative ( Bensley et al. 2014 ). They found that higher scores on the APS, the argument analysis test applying psychological concepts to analyze real-world examples, were associated with more correct answers on the TOPKAM. Other studies have found positive correlations between CT skills tests and other measures of psychological misconceptions ( McCutcheon et al. 1992 ; Kowalski and Taylor 2004 ). Bensley et al. ( 2014 ) also found that higher correct TOPKAM scores were positively correlated with scores on the Inventory of Thinking Dispositions in Psychology (ITDP) of Bensley ( 2021 ), a measure of the disposition to take a rational and scientific approach to psychology but were negatively correlated with an intuitive cognitive style.

Bensley et al. ( 2021 ) conducted a multidimensional study, assessing beginner psychology students starting a CT course on their endorsement of psychological misconceptions, recognition of thinking errors, CT dispositions, and metacognition, before and after CT instruction. Two classes received explicit instruction involving considerable practice in argument analysis and scientific reasoning skills, with one class receiving CT instruction focused more on recognizing psychological misconceptions and a second class focused more on recognizing various thinking errors. Bensley et al. assessed both classes before and after instruction on the TOPKAM and on the Test of Thinking Errors, a test of the ability to recognize in real-world examples 17 different types of thinking errors, such as confirmation bias, inappropriate use of the availability and representativeness heuristics, reasoning from ignorance/possibility, gambler’s fallacy, and hasty generalization ( Bensley et al. 2021 ). Correct TOPKAM and TOTE scores were positively correlated, and after CT instruction both were positively correlated with the APS, the CT test of argument analysis skills.

Bensley et al. found that after explicit instruction of CT skills, students improved significantly on both the TOPKAM and TOTE, but those focusing on recognizing misconceptions improved the most. Also, those students who improved the most on the TOTE scored higher on the REI rational–analytic scale and on the ITDP, while those improving the most on the TOTE scored higher on the ITDP. The students receiving explicit CT skill instruction in recognizing misconceptions also significantly improved the accuracy of their metacognitive monitoring in estimating their TOPKAM scores after instruction.

Given that before instruction neither class differed in GPA nor on the SAT, a proxy for general cognitive ability, CT instruction provided a good accounting for the improvement in recognition of thinking errors and misconceptions without recourse to intelligence. However, SAT scores were positively correlated with both TOTE scores and APS scores, suggesting that cognitive ability contributed to CT skill performance. These results replicated the earlier findings of Bensley and Spero ( 2014 ) showing that explicit CT instruction improved performance on both CT skills tests and metacognitive monitoring accuracy while controlling for SAT, which was positively correlated with the CT skills test performance.

Taken together, these findings suggest that cognitive ability contributes to performance on CT tasks but that CT instruction goes beyond it to further improve performance. As the results of Bensley et al. ( 2021 ) show, and as discussed next, thinking errors and bias from heuristics are CT failures that should also be assessed because they are related to endorsement of unsubstantiated beliefs and cognitive style.

6. Dual-Processing Theory and Research on Unsubstantiated Beliefs

Consistent with DPT, numerous other studies have obtained significant positive correlations between intuitive cognitive style and paranormal belief, often using the REI intuitive–experiential scale and the Revised Paranormal Belief Scale (RPBS) of Tobacyk ( 2004 ) (e.g., Genovese 2005 ; Irwin and Young 2002 ; Lindeman and Aarnio 2006 ; Pennycook et al. 2015 ; Rogers et al. 2018 ; Saher and Lindeman 2005 ). Studies have also found positive correlations between superstitious belief and intuitive cognitive style (e.g., Lindeman and Aarnio 2006 ; Maqsood et al. 2018 ). REI intuitive–experiential thinking style was also positively correlated with belief in complementary and alternative medicine ( Lindeman 2011 ), conspiracy theory belief ( Alper et al. 2020 ), and with endorsement of psychological misconceptions ( Bensley et al. 2014 ; Bensley et al. 2022 ).

Additional evidence for DPT has been found when REI R-A and NFC scores were negatively correlated with scores on measures of unsubstantiated beliefs, but studies correlating them with measures of paranormal belief and conspiracy theory belief have shown mixed results. Supporting a relationship, REI rational–analytic and NFC scores significantly and negatively predicted paranormal belief ( Lobato et al. 2014 ; Pennycook et al. 2012 ). Other studies have also obtained a negative correlation between NFC and paranormal belief ( Lindeman and Aarnio 2006 ; Rogers et al. 2018 ; Stahl and van Prooijen 2018 ), but both Genovese ( 2005 ) and Pennycook et al. ( 2015 ) found that NFC was not significantly correlated with paranormal belief. Swami et al. ( 2014 ) found that although REI R-A scores were negatively correlated with conspiracy theory belief, NFC scores were not.

Researchers often refer to people who are doubtful of paranormal and other unfounded claims as “skeptics” and so have tested whether measures related to skepticism are associated with less endorsement of unsubstantiated claims. They typically view skepticism as a stance towards unsubstantiated claims taken by rational people who reject them, (e.g., Lindeman and Aarnio 2006 ; Stahl and van Prooijen 2018 ), rather than as a disposition inclining a person to think critically about unsubstantiated beliefs ( Bensley 2018 ).

Fasce and Pico ( 2019 ) conducted one of the few studies using a measure related to skeptical disposition, the Critical Thinking Disposition Scale (CTDS) of Sosu ( 2013 ), in relation to endorsement of unsubstantiated claims. They found that scores on the CTDS were negatively correlated with scores on the RPBS but not significantly correlated with either a measure of pseudoscience or of conspiracy theory belief. However, the CRT was negatively correlated with both RPBS and the pseudoscience measure. Because Fasce and Pico ( 2019 ) did not examine correlations with the Reflective Skepticism subscale of the CTDS, its contribution apart from full-scale CTDS was not found.

To more directly test skepticism as a disposition, we recently assessed college students on how well three new measures predicted endorsement of psychological misconceptions, paranormal claims, and conspiracy theories ( Bensley et al. 2022 ). The dispositional measures included a measure of general skeptical attitude; a second measure, the Scientific Skepticism Scale (SSS), which focused more on waiting to accept claims until high-quality scientific evidence supported them; and a third measure, the Cynicism Scale (CS), which focused on doubting the sincerity of the motives of scientists and people in general. We found that although the general skepticism scale did not predict any of the unsubstantiated belief measures, SSS scores were a significant negative predictor of both paranormal belief and conspiracy theory belief. REI R-A scores were a less consistent negative predictor, while REI I-E scores were more consistent positive predictors, and surprisingly CS scores were the most consistent positive predictors of the unsubstantiated beliefs.

Researchers commonly assume that people who accept implausible, unsubstantiated claims are gullible or not sufficiently skeptical. For instance, van Prooijen ( 2019 ) has argued that conspiracy theory believers are more gullible (less skeptical) than non-believers and tend to accept unsubstantiated claims more than less gullible people. van Prooijen ( 2019 ) reviewed several studies supporting the claim that people who are more gullible tend to endorse conspiracy theories more. However, he did not report any studies in which a gullible disposition was directly measured.

Recently, we directly tested the gullibility hypothesis in relation to scientific skepticism ( Bensley et al. 2023 ) using the Gullibility Scale of Teunisse et al. ( 2019 ) on which people skeptical of the paranormal had been shown to have lower scores. We found that Gullibility Scale and the Cynicism Scale scores were positively correlated, and both were significant positive predictors of unsubstantiated beliefs, in general, consistent with an intuitive–experiential cognitive style. In contrast, we found that scores on the Cognitive Reflection Test, the Scientific Skepticism Scale, and the REI rational–analytic scale were all positively intercorrelated and significant negative predictors of unsubstantiated beliefs, in general, consistent with a rational–analytic/reflective cognitive style. Scientific skepticism scores negatively predicted general endorsement of unsubstantiated claims beyond the REI R-A scale, but neither the CTDS nor the CTDS Reflective Skepticism subscale were significant. These results replicated findings from the Bensley et al. ( 2023 ) study and supported an elaborated dual-process model of unsubstantiated belief. The SSS was not only a substantial negative predictor, it was also negatively correlated with the Gullibility Scale, as expected.

These results suggest that both CT-related dispositions and CT skills are related to endorsement of unsubstantiated beliefs. However, a measure of general cognitive ability or intelligence must be examined along with measures of CT and unsubstantiated beliefs to determine if CT goes beyond intelligence to predict unsubstantiated beliefs. In one of the few studies that also included a measure of cognitive ability, Stahl and van Prooijen ( 2018 ) found that dispositional characteristics helped account for acceptance of conspiracies and paranormal belief beyond cognitive ability. Using the Importance of Rationality Scale (IRS), a rational–analytic scale designed to measure skepticism towards unsubstantiated beliefs, Stahl and van Prooijen ( 2018 ) found that the IRS was negatively correlated with paranormal belief and belief in conspiracy theories. In separate hierarchical regressions, cognitive ability was the strongest negative predictor of both paranormal belief and of conspiracy belief, but IRS scores in combination with cognitive ability negatively predicted endorsement of paranormal belief but did not significantly predict conspiracy theory belief. These results provided partial support that that a measure of rational–analytic cognitive style related to skeptical disposition added to the variance accounted for beyond cognitive ability in negatively predicting unsubstantiated belief.

In another study that included a measure of cognitive ability, Cavojova et al. ( 2019 ) examined how CT-related dispositions and the Scientific Reasoning Scale (SRS) were related to a measure of paranormal, pseudoscientific, and conspiracy theory beliefs. The SRS of Drummond and Fischhoff ( 2017 ) likely measures CT skill in that it measures the ability to evaluate scientific research and evidence. As expected, the unsubstantiated belief measure was negatively correlated with the SRS and a cognitive ability measure, similar to Raven’s Progressive Matrices. Unsubstantiated beliefs were positively correlated with dogmatism (the opposite of open-mindedness) but not with REI rational–analytic cognitive style. The SRS was a significant negative predictor of both unsubstantiated belief and susceptibility to bias beyond the contribution of cognitive ability, but neither dogmatism nor analytic thinking were significant predictors. Nevertheless, this study provides some support that a measure related to CT reasoning skill accounts for variance in unsubstantiated belief beyond cognitive ability.

The failure of this study to show a correlation between rational–analytic cognitive style and unsubstantiated beliefs, when some other studies have found significant correlations with it and related measures, has implications for the multidimensional assessment of unsubstantiated beliefs. One implication is that the REI rational–analytic scale may not be a strong predictor of unsubstantiated beliefs. In fact, we have recently found that the Scientific Skepticism Scale was a stronger negative predictor ( Bensley et al. 2022 ; Bensley et al. 2023 ), which also suggests that other measures related to rational–analytic thinking styles should be examined. This could help triangulate the contribution of self-report cognitive style measures to endorsement of unsubstantiated claims, recognizing that the use of self-report measures has a checkered history in psychological research. A second implication is that once again, measures of critical thinking skill and cognitive ability were negative predictors of unsubstantiated belief and so they, too, should be included in future assessments of unsubstantiated beliefs.

7. Discussion

This review provided different lines of evidence supporting the claim that CT goes beyond cognitive ability in accounting for certain real-world outcomes. Participants who think critically reported fewer problems in everyday functioning, not expected to befall critical thinkers. People who endorsed unsubstantiated claims less showed better CT skills, more accurate domain-specific knowledge, less susceptibility to thinking errors and bias, and were more disposed to think critically. More specifically, they tended to be more scientifically skeptical and adopt a more rational–analytic cognitive style. In contrast, those who endorsed them more tended to be more cynical and adopt an intuitive–experiential cognitive style. These characteristics go beyond what standardized intelligence tests test. In some studies, the CT measures accounted for additional variance beyond the variance contributed by general cognitive ability.

That is not to say that measures of general cognitive ability are not useful. As noted by Gottfredson ( 2004 ), “g” is a highly successful predictor of academic and job performance. More is known about g and Gf than about many other psychological constructs. On average, g is closely related to Gf, which is highly correlated with working memory ( r = 0.70) and can be as high as r = 0.77 ( r 2 = 0.60) based on a correlated two-factor model ( Gignac 2014 ). Because modern working memory theory is, itself, a powerful theory ( Chai et al. 2018 ), this lends construct validity to the fluid intelligence construct. Although cognitive scientists have clearly made progress in understanding the executive processes underlying intelligence, they have not yet identified the specific cognitive components of intelligence ( Sternberg 2022 ). Moreover, theorists have acknowledged that intelligence must also include components beyond g, including domain-specific knowledge ( Ackerman 2022 ; Conway and Kovacs 2018 ) which are not yet clearly understood,

This review also pointed to limitations in the research that should be addressed. So far, not only have few studies of unsubstantiated beliefs included measures of intelligence, but they have also often used proxies for intelligence test scores, such as SAT scores. Future studies, besides using more and better measures of intelligence, could benefit from inclusion of more specifically focused measures, such as measures of Gf and Gc. Also, more research should be carried out to develop additional high-quality measures of CT, including ones that assess specific reasoning skills and knowledge relevant to thinking about a subject, which could help resolve perennial questions about the domain-general versus domain-specific nature of intelligence and CT. Overall, the results of this review encourage taking a multidimensional approach to investigating the complex constructs of intelligence, CT, and unsubstantiated belief. Supporting these recommendations were results of studies in which the improvement accrued from explicit CT skill instruction could be more fully understood when CT skills, relevant knowledge, CT dispositions, metacognitive monitoring accuracy, and a proxy for intelligence were used.

8. Conclusions

Critical thinking, broadly conceived, offers ways to understand real-world outcomes of thinking beyond what general cognitive ability can provide and intelligence tests test. A multi-dimensional view of CT which includes specific reasoning and metacognitive skills, CT dispositions, and relevant knowledge can add to our understanding of why some people endorse unsubstantiated claims more than others do, going beyond what intelligence tests test. Although general cognitive ability and domain-general knowledge often contribute to performance on CT tasks, thinking critically about real-world questions also involves applying rules, criteria, and knowledge which are specific to the question under consideration, as well as the appropriate dispositions and cognitive styles for deploying these.

Despite the advantages of taking this multidimensional approach to CT in helping us to more fully understand everyday thinking and irrationality, it presents challenges for researchers and instructors. It implies the need to assess and instruct multidimensionally, including not only measures of reasoning skills but also addressing thinking errors and biases, dispositions, the knowledge relevant to a task, and the accuracy of metacognitive judgments. As noted by Dwyer ( 2023 ), adopting a more complex conceptualization of CT beyond just skills is needed, but it presents challenges for those seeking to improve students’ CT. Nevertheless, the research reviewed suggests that taking this multidimensional approach to CT can enhance our understanding of the endorsement of unsubstantiated claims beyond what standardized intelligence tests contribute. More research is needed to resolve remaining controversies and to develop evidence-based applications of the findings.

Funding Statement

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This research involved no new testing of participants and hence did not require Institutional Review Board approval.

Informed Consent Statement

This research involved no new testing of participants and hence did not require an Informed Consent Statement.

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of interest.

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Ackerman Phillip L. Intelligence … Moving beyond the lowest common denominator. American Psychologist. 2022; 78 :283–97. doi: 10.1037/amp0001057. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Alper Sinan, Bayrak Faith, Yilmaz Onurcan. Psychological correlates of COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs and preventive measures: Evidence from Turkey. Current Psychology. 2020; 40 :5708–17. doi: 10.1007/s12144-020-00903-0. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bensley D. Alan. Critical Thinking in Psychology and Everyday Life: A Guide to Effective Thinking. Worth Publishers; New York: 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
Bensley D. Alan. The Critical Thinking in Psychology Assessment Battery (CTPAB) and Test Guide. 2021. Unpublished manuscript. Frostburg State University, Frostburg, MD, USA.
Bensley D. Alan. “I can’t believe you believe that”: Identifying unsubstantiated claims. Skeptical Inquirer. 2023; 47 :53–56. [ Google Scholar ]
Bensley D. Alan, Spero Rachel A. Improving critical thinking skills and metacognitive monitoring through direct infusion. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2014; 12 :55–68. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2014.02.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bensley D. Alan, Lilienfeld Scott O. Assessment of Unsubstantiated Beliefs. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology. 2020; 6 :198–211. doi: 10.1037/stl0000218. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bensley D. Alan, Masciocchi Christopher M., Rowan Krystal A. A comprehensive assessment of explicit critical thinking instruction on recognition of thinking errors and psychological misconceptions. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology. 2021; 7 :107. doi: 10.1037/stl0000188. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bensley D. Alan, Watkins Cody, Lilienfeld Scott O., Masciocchi Christopher, Murtagh Michael, Rowan Krystal. Skepticism, cynicism, and cognitive style predictors of the generality of unsubstantiated belief. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2022; 36 :83–99. doi: 10.1002/acp.3900. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bensley D. Alan, Rodrigo Maria, Bravo Maria, Jocoy Kathleen. Dual-Process Theory and Cognitive Style Predictors of the General Endorsement of Unsubstantiated Claims. 2023. Unpublished manuscript. Frostburg State University, Frostburg, MD, USA.
Bensley D. Alan, Lilienfeld Scott O., Powell Lauren. A new measure of psychological. misconceptions: Relations with academic background, critical thinking, and acceptance of paranormal and pseudoscientific claims. Learning and Individual Differences. 2014; 36 :9–18. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2014.07.009. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bierwiaczonek Kinga, Kunst Jonas R., Pich Olivia. Belief in COVID-19 conspiracy theories reduces social distancing over time. Applied Psychology Health and Well-Being. 2020; 12 :1270–85. doi: 10.1111/aphw.12223. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Butler Heather A. Halpern critical thinking assessment predicts real-world outcomes of critical thinking. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2012; 26 :721–29. doi: 10.1002/acp.2851. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Butler Heather A., Halpern Diane F. Is critical thinking a better model of intelligence? In: Sternberg Robert J., editor. The Nature of Intelligence. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2019. pp. 183–96. [ Google Scholar ]
Butler Heather A., Pentoney Christopher, Bong Maebelle P. Predicting real-world outcomes: Critical thinking ability is a better predictor of life decisions than intelligence. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2017; 25 :38–46. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2017.06.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Byrnes James P., Dunbar Kevin N. The nature and development of critical-analytic thinking. Educational Research Review. 2014; 26 :477–93. doi: 10.1007/s10648-014-9284-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cacioppo John T., Petty Richard E. The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1982; 42 :116–31. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cacioppo John T., Petty Richard E., Feinstein Jeffrey A., Jarvis W. Blair G. Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin. 1996; 119 :197. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cavojova Vladimira, Srol Jakub, Jurkovic Marek. Why we should think like scientists? Scientific reasoning and susceptibility to epistemically suspect beliefs and cognitive biases. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2019; 34 :85–95. doi: 10.1002/acp.3595. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Chai Wen Jia, Hamid Abd, Ismafairus Aini, Abdullah Jafri Malin. Working memory from the psychological and neuroscience perspective. Frontiers in Psychology. 2018; 9 :401. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00401. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Conway Andrew R., Kovacs Kristof. The nature of the general factor of intelligence. In: Sternberg Robert J., editor. The Nature of Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2018. pp. 49–63. [ Google Scholar ]
Drummond Caitlin, Fischhoff Baruch. Development and validation of the Scientific Reasoning Scale. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2017; 30 :26–38. doi: 10.1002/bdm.1906. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Dwyer Christopher P. Conceptual Perspectives and Practical Guidelines. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
Dwyer Christopher P. An evaluative review of barriers to critical thinking in educational and real-world settings. Journal of Intelligence. 2023; 11 :105. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence11060105. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ennis Robert H. A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In: Baron Joan, Sternberg Robert., editors. Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice. W. H. Freeman; New York: 1987. [ Google Scholar ]
Epstein Seymour. Intuition from the perspective of cognitive-experiential self-theory. In: Plessner Henning, Betsch Tilmann., editors. Intuition in Judgment and Decision Making. Erlbaum; Washington, DC: 2008. pp. 23–37. [ Google Scholar ]
Fasce Angelo, Pico Alfonso. Science as a vaccine: The relation between scientific literacy and unwarranted beliefs. Science & Education. 2019; 28 :109–25. doi: 10.1007/s11191-018-00022-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Frederick Shane. Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2005; 19 :25–42. doi: 10.1257/089533005775196732. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gardner Howard. Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligence for the 21st Century. Basic Books; New York: 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
Genovese Jeremy E. C. Paranormal beliefs, schizotypy, and thinking styles among teachers and future teachers. Personality and Individual Differences. 2005; 39 :93–102. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2004.12.008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gignac Gilles E. Fluid intelligence shares closer to 60% of its variance with working memory capacity and is a better indicator of general intelligence. Intelligence. 2014; 47 :122–33. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2014.09.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gottfredson Linda S. Life, death, and intelligence. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology. 2004; 4 :23–46. doi: 10.1891/194589504787382839. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Halpern Diane F., Dunn Dana. Critical thinking: A model of intelligence for solving real-world problems. Journal of Intelligence. 2021; 9 :22. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence9020022. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Halpern Diane F., Butler Heather A. Is critical thinking a better model of intelligence? In: Sternberg Robert J., editor. The Nature of Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2018. pp. 183–196. [ Google Scholar ]
Irwin Harvey J., Young J. M. Intuitive versus reflective processes in the formation of paranormal beliefs. European Journal of Parapsychology. 2002; 17 :45–55. [ Google Scholar ]
Jolley Daniel, Paterson Jenny L. Pylons ablaze: Examining the role of 5G COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs and support for violence. British Journal of Social Psychology. 2020; 59 :628–40. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12394. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kahneman Daniel. Thinking Fast and Slow. Farrar, Strauss and Giroux; New York: 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
Kowalski Patricia, Taylor Annette J. Ability and critical thinking as predictors of change in students’ psychological misconceptions. Journal of Instructional Psychology. 2004; 31 :297–303. [ Google Scholar ]
Ku Kelly Y. L., Ho Irene T. Dispositional Factors predicting Chinese students’ critical thinking performance. Personality and Individual Differences. 2010; 48 :54–58. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.08.015. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kunda Ziva. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin. 1990; 98 :480–98. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lantian Anthony, Bagneux Virginie, Delouvee Sylvain, Gauvrit Nicolas. Maybe a free thinker but not a critical one: High conspiracy belief is associated with low critical thinking ability. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2020; 35 :674–84. doi: 10.1002/acp.3790. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lilienfeld Scott O. Psychological treatments that cause harm. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2007; 2 :53–70. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00029.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lindeman Marjaana. Biases in intuitive reasoning and belief in complementary and alternative medicine. Psychology and Health. 2011; 26 :371–82. doi: 10.1080/08870440903440707. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lindeman Marjaana, Aarnio Kia. Paranormal beliefs: Their dimensionality and correlates. European Journal of Personality. 2006; 20 :585–602. [ Google Scholar ]
Lobato Emilio J., Mendoza Jorge, Sims Valerie, Chin Matthew. Explaining the relationship between conspiracy theories, paranormal beliefs, and pseudoscience acceptance among a university population. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2014; 28 :617–25. doi: 10.1002/acp.3042. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Maqsood Alisha, Jamil Farhat, Khalid Ruhi. Thinking styles and belief in superstitions: Moderating role of gender in young adults. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research. 2018; 33 :335–348. [ Google Scholar ]
McCutcheon Lynn E., Apperson Jenneifer M., Hanson Esher, Wynn Vincent. Relationships among critical thinking skills, academic achievement, and misconceptions about psychology. Psychological Reports. 1992; 71 :635–39. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1992.71.2.635. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
McGrew Kevin S. CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: Standing on the shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research. Intelligence. 2009; 37 :1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2008.08.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Morgan Jonathan. Religion and dual-process cognition: A continuum of styles or distinct types. Religion, Brain, & Behavior. 2016; 6 :112–29. doi: 10.1080/2153599X.2014.966315. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Nie Fanhao, Olson Daniel V. A. Demonic influence: The negative mental health effects of belief in demons. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 2016; 55 :498–515. doi: 10.1111/jssr.12287. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Pacini Rosemary, Epstein Seymour. The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1999; 76 :972–87. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.972. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Patel Niraj, Baker S. Glenn, Scherer Laura D. Evaluating the cognitive reflection test as a measure of intuition/reflection, numeracy, and insight problem solving, and the implications for understanding real-world judgments and beliefs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2019; 148 :2129–53. doi: 10.1037/xge0000592. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Pennycook Gordon, Cheyne James Allen, Barr Nathaniel, Koehler Derek J., Fugelsang Jonathan A. On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgment and Decision Making. 2015; 10 :549–63. doi: 10.1017/S1930297500006999. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Pennycook Gordon, Cheyne James Allen, Seti Paul, Koehler Derek J., Fugelsang Jonathan A. Analytic cognitive style predicts religious and paranormal belief. Cognition. 2012; 123 :335–46. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.03.003. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ren Xuezhu, Tong Yan, Peng Peng, Wang Tengfei. Critical thinking predicts academic performance beyond cognitive ability: Evidence from adults and children. Intelligence. 2020; 82 :10187. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2020.101487. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rogers Paul, Fisk John E., Lowrie Emma. Paranormal belief, thinking style preference and susceptibility to confirmatory conjunction errors. Consciousness and Cognition. 2018; 65 :182–95. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2018.07.013. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Saher Marieke, Lindeman Marjaana. Alternative medicine: A psychological perspective. Personality and Individual Differences. 2005; 39 :1169–78. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.04.008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sosu Edward M. The development and psychometric validation of a Critical Thinking Disposition Scale. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2013; 9 :107–19. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2012.09.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Stahl Tomas, van Prooijen Jan-Wilem. Epistemic irrationality: Skepticism toward unfounded beliefs requires sufficient cognitive ability and motivation to be rational. Personality and Individual Differences. 2018; 122 :155–63. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.026. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Stanovich Keith E. What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational Thought. Yale University Press; New Haven: 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
Stanovich Keith E., West Richard F. Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual differences in actively open-minded thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1997; 89 :345–57. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.89.2.342. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Stanovich Keith E., West Richard F. Natural myside bias is independent of cognitive ability. Thinking & Reasoning. 2007; 13 :225–47. [ Google Scholar ]
Stanovich Keith E., West Richard F. On the failure of cognitive ability to predict myside and one-sided thinking bias. Thinking and Reasoning. 2008; 14 :129–67. doi: 10.1080/13546780701679764. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Stanovich Keith E., West Richard F., Toplak Maggie E. The Rationality Quotient: Toward a Test of Rational Thinking. The MIT Press; Cambridge, MA: 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
Sternberg Robert J. The Triarchic Mind: A New Theory of Intelligence. Penguin Press; London: 1988. [ Google Scholar ]
Sternberg Robert J. A theory of adaptive intelligence and its relation to general intelligence. Journal of Intelligence. 2019; 7 :23. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence7040023. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sternberg Robert J. The search for the elusive basic processes underlying human intelligence: Historical and contemporary perspectives. Journal of Intelligence. 2022; 10 :28. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence10020028. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Swami Viren, Voracek Martin, Stieger Stefan, Tran Ulrich S., Furnham Adrian. Analytic thinking reduces belief in conspiracy theories. Cognition. 2014; 133 :572–85. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.006. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Teunisse Alessandra K., Case Trevor I., Fitness Julie, Sweller Naomi. I should have known better: Development of a self-report measure of gullibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2019; 46 :408–23. doi: 10.1177/0146167219858641. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Tobacyk Jerome J. A revised paranormal belief scale. The International Journal of Transpersonal Studies. 2004; 23 :94–98. doi: 10.24972/ijts.2004.23.1.94. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
van der Linden Sander. The conspiracy-effect: Exposure to conspiracy theories (about global warming) leads to decreases pro-social behavior and science acceptance. Personality and Individual Differences. 2015; 87 :173–75. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.045. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
van Prooijen Jan-Willem. Belief in conspiracy theories: Gullibility or rational skepticism? In: Forgas Joseph P., Baumeister Roy F., editors. The Social Psychology of Gullibility: Fake News, Conspiracy Theories, and Irrational Beliefs. Routledge; London: 2019. pp. 319–32. [ Google Scholar ]
Wechsler David. The Measurement of Intelligence. 3rd ed. Williams & Witkins; Baltimore: 1944. [ Google Scholar ]
West Richard F., Toplak Maggie E., Stanovich Keith E. Heuristics and biases as measures of critical thinking: Associations with cognitive ability and thinking dispositions. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2008; 100 :930–41. doi: 10.1037/a0012842. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

The Art of Positive Skepticism

Five ways to think like galileo and steve jobs..

Posted June 5, 2012

In the late 1500’s, everyone believed Aristotle’s claim that heavy objects fell faster than light ones. That is, everyone except Galileo. To test Aristotle’s claim, Galileo dropped two balls of differing weights from the Leaning Tower of Pisa. And guess what? They both hit the ground at the same time! For challenging Aristotle’s authority, Galileo was fired from his job. But for his place in history, he showed us that testing human claims should be the mediator of all truth.

Fast forward to modern times. Challenging commonly held assumptions about computers and human behavior, Steve Jobs lost his job with Apple in 1985. Returning 12 years later, he changed the way people use technology by testing the truth of other people’s claims. As a result, history considers Jobs one of the most innovative minds of the 21st century.

Galileo and Jobs were skeptics. They had developed habits of thinking that challenged what appeared to be reliable facts. They understood that testing assumptions over human authority led to greater understanding, innovation, and creativity .

It’s easy to confuse being a skeptic with being a cynic . So let’s define the terms.

A cynic distrusts most information they see or hear, particularly when it challenges their own belief system. Most often, cynics hold views that cannot be changed by contrary evidence. Thus, they often become intolerant of other people’s ideas. It’s not difficult to find cynics everywhere in our society, from the halls of Congress to our own family dinner tables. People who are driven by inflexible beliefs rarely think like Galileo or Jobs.

Skepticism, on the other hand, is a key part of critical thinking – a goal of education . The term skeptic is derived from the Greek skeptikos , meaning “to inquire” or “look around.” Skeptics requires additional evidence before accepting someone’s claims as true. They are willing to challenge the status quo with open-minded, deep questioning of authority.

In today’s complex world, skeptics and cynics are often hard to differentiate. While the ability to challenge human authority has led to important innovation and reform, it has also made it possible, for a price, to prove our “rightness.” Oftentimes, what appear to be legitimate studies are manipulated to support a particular idea or outcome that a company, individual, or government believes is the truth.

And herein lays the dilemma of our modern day quest for certainty. When we can no longer be objective “inquirers” because we have already decided the truth, then we create a culture of cynicism instead of skepticism. Is this the kind of world we want for ourselves and our children?

If we model skepticism instead of cynicism, our children would inherit a world that would be less dependent on power and authority and more dependent on critical thinking and good judgment. Adolescents and young adults would be capable of questioning the reliability of what they think or hear. They would learn to believe in their natural abilities to facilitate positive change through intellectual inquiry. They would become discerning consumers of ideas rather than passive accepters of other people’s visions of certainty.

How we adults model the art of positive skepticism not only helps us make better informed decisions but also shows our children how to think for themselves. And, if kids learn to think for themselves, they learn to believe in themselves!

Five Ways to Model Positive Skepticism

Be a Deception-Detector

People constantly make claims that affect our daily lives. From those selling products and services to candidates running for political offices, we are barraged with decisions that require us to act. Thomas Kida, in his book Don’t Believe Everything You Think , shows how easily we can be fooled and why we should learn to think like a scientist.

Challenge claims by asking for evidence. Ask questions like, “What makes you think this way?” “What assumptions have you based your claim upon?” “What facts or research support your ideas?” “Are there facts or studies that dispute your claim?”

Constant streams of commercial messages, TV news, and campaign ads try to tell us how to think. When we allow others to think for us, we become vulnerable to indoctrination, propaganda, and powerful emotional appeals. In her book, Descartes’s Method of Doubt , Janet Broughton examined the important role that doubt plays in our quest for truth.

Recognize the limits to anyone’s claims of truth! Look below the surface rather than accepting ideas at face value. Ask yourself questions like, “What is the logic of this argument?” Listen to yourself when something doesn’t feel right!

Play Devil’s Advocate

Part of being a good skeptic is learning to play a devil’s advocate role. Take a position you don’t necessarily agree with, just for the sake of argument. This doesn’t have to be combative. You can simply say “In order to understand this idea better; let me play the devil’s advocate.” Putting your mind to work poking holes in what you think might be a good idea can lead to greater understanding of a problem. Playing devil’s advocate is a great way to teach children how to see another person’s perspective.

Use Logic and Intuition

We are persuaded to doubt or believe other people’s claims through logic and intuition , and most of us tend to rely heavily on one type of thinking or the other. Whether you are a logical or intuitive thinker, it’s helpful to alternate between these two qualities of mind. In his book, Embracing Contraries , Peter Elbow says, “Doubting and believing are among the most powerful root acts we can perform with our minds.” We become better thinkers when we deploy doubting and believing more consciously through the use of logic and intuition rather than by chance.

Be a Bias-Detector

One of the most important tasks of a true skeptic is to determine whether sources of information and analysis are impartial. This is a trait that serves us well when we turn on the television. If we only listen to one channel, or our favorite news commentator, we’ll likely be persuaded by biased or emotional appeals. Ask yourself, “What’s the other side of this story?” “Is this one person’s story or does it apply to thousands of people?" “Is there an underlying belief or assumption being made that reflects this reporter’s ideology?”

R.M. Dawes’ points out in his book, Everyday Irrationality: How Pseudo-Scientists, Lunatics, and the Rest of Us Systematically Fail to Think Rationally , that emotional appeals and story-based thinking often lead to faulty reasoning. The point in detecting bias is to be able to identify messages that are intended to persuade rather than inform us.

Positive skepticism leads to better problem-solving, innovation, and creativity! It also helps develop our abilities to think critically about the world around us! Do you agree? Feel free to poke some holes in my thinking!

Marilyn Price-Mitchell, PhD, is a developmental psychologist working at the intersection of youth development, leadership , education, and civic engagement.

Subscribe to Updates at Roots of Action to receive email notices of Marilyn’s articles.

Follow Marilyn at Roots of Action , Twitter , or Facebook .

Photo Credit: Thoilmas Lieser ; David Goehring

Marilyn Price-Mitchell, Ph.D., is an Institute for Social Innovation Fellow at Fielding Graduate University and author of Tomorrow’s Change Makers.

Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Teletherapy
United States
Brooklyn, NY
Chicago, IL
Houston, TX
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Asperger's
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Eating Disorders
Passive Aggression
Personality
Goal Setting
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Child Development
Therapy Center NEW
Diagnosis Dictionary
Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

Coronavirus Disease 2019
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

The school of Athens, where many philosophical concepts took shape.

The Philosophical Approach to Skepticism

Most people are familiar with the word skeptic: a person who doubts commonly accepted opinions. But where does the notion of skepticism fit in philosophy ? Philosophy poses many big questions about the self, the nature of reality, the pursuit of knowledge, and generally attempts to understand the world around us. A philosophical skeptic is someone who denies the possibility of knowledge. This idea dates back to early philosophical ideas. Here, we will explore what philosophical skepticism is and why it is an integral component of philosophy.

What is Philosophical Skepticism?

When hearing the word skepticism, one may define it as an attitude of doubt and uncertainty. This idea is indeed at the heart of skepticism; however, philosophical skepticism is slightly different. Philosophical skepticism questions the possibility of knowledge and argues that there are varying degrees of skepticism. A skeptic questions the possibility of knowledge in a specific area; a global skeptic rejects the possibility of knowledge at all. A local skeptic is a small-scale skeptic who examines the possibility of knowledge in a specific subject. For example, one could be a local skeptic about moral knowledge. These ideas are not new and have been around since ancient times .

Ancient Skepticism

Greece Socrates reflects on the meaning of life.

Western skepticism is an attitude that dates back to around the 5th century BCE in ancient Greece . There was disagreement amongst philosophers about the nature of reality. Xenophanes, a Greek poet and philosopher, doubted anyone's ability to distinguish truth from fiction. He is the founder of Eleatic philosophy, which is the view that there is a static, eternal 'One' reality.

Later, Socrates developed a more concrete form of skepticism. Socrates always questioned the claims of knowledge that others made. In his dialogue, Apology, with Plato, Socrates sets out to see if anyone is smarter than he is. Socrates does not believe he is wise and admits in the dialogue that all he really knows is that he knows nothing - a quote that may be familiar to some readers.

In another dialogue, Phaedo and The Republic, Socrates extends his skepticism to everyday claims. He points out how perception can change the truth from person to person. For example, a chocolate bar that is small to someone might be big to someone else. This was the foundation for the idea of Western skepticism.

The Two Varieties

There are two different kinds of skepticism in Western philosophy. The first is Academic Skepticism, also known as Cartesian Skepticism. This is a weaker form of skepticism since it focuses on suspending belief in certain areas but does not question higher-order claims. While there are specific claims questioned, higher-order claims are safe to believe.

The other type of skepticism is Pyrrhonian Skepticism. This is a stronger form of skepticism because it questions higher-order claims about skepticism itself. This type of skepticism is even skeptical about skepticism. It questions claims skepticism makes, such as 'We should suspend belief in perceptual claims.'

The Dream Argument

Monument to the ancient Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu.

There are various popular arguments for skepticism and its different branches. One of the most famous is the dream argument. Zhuang Zhou invented the dream argument in 369-286 BCE. He was a Chinese Taoist philosopher who argued that any individual could be currently dreaming even though we believe we are awake. For example, imagine you dream you are a butterfly flying amongst flowers. When you wake up, how do you determine you are waking up from a dream of being a butterfly and not a butterfly dreaming that you are human? Zhou concludes that all conscious experience is actually just a dream. He applies philosophical skepticism to his ideas by questioning the whole world around him. He places doubt on whether or not one can trust their own experiences. His philosophy stresses the importance of not taking our reality for granted.

The Evil Demon Argument

Famous Enlightenment philosopher, Rene Descartes.

Another philosopher who explored a dream argument was Rene Descartes . Descartes argued that dreams are similar to real life and are often based on real-life experiences. This makes it difficult to decipher if a dream is real or not. However, whether you are dreaming or not, Descartes realized that mathematical ideas are consistent throughout both experiences. For example, whether you are dreaming or awake, 2 + 2 always equals 4.

Descartes also proposes that maybe humans are being tricked by an evil demon. This demon can trick you into believing anything it wants. If this is true, we cannot trust anything. Since we cannot deny that any evil demon is tricking us, we don't really have accurate knowledge of the external world. In this hypothesis, Descartes is a true skeptic. He claims that since we can't rule out the evil demon hypothesis, we cannot rule out the possibility that we are wrong and are not justified in our beliefs.

Skepticism Versus Critical Thinking

After learning about skepticism, one might notice it is similar to critical thinking . Critical thinking is the process of analyzing an argument and evaluating it logically. Critical thinking focuses on logically understanding an argument to make the best decision. However, while skepticism has a place and is necessary for the thinking process, it is not the same as critical thinking.

Skepticism is an attitude of doubt and questioning knowledge and beliefs. This is different than analyzing and evaluating information. While critical thinking and skepticism are different, they both have an essential role in making well-informed decisions.

Why is Skepticism Important?

Doubting that an idea is trustworthy is essential to the critical thinking process. Being skeptical allows us to question our behaviors, what we believe, and who we believe, which is helpful for humans to make informed decisions. Instead of following along with what everyone else is doing or believing what someone tells us without question, skepticism asks us to stop and ask questions. This can stop us from getting into situations where people are manipulating us. It also allows us to take more control over our lives and be more open-minded, which is a practice that can benefit everyone.

More in Society

This could be you...If you know where to look!

Countries With Zero Income Tax For Digital Nomads

Two beds, a table, a washstand and a toilet are behind bars. A cell in one of the worst prisons in Russia.

The World's 10 Most Overcrowded Prison Systems

The Manichaean Hall located in Longxing Temple, Zhengding, Hebei, China. By David Chen, CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2707984

Manichaeism: The Religion that Went Extinct

A man sitting alone with the vast mountains in front of him.

How Philsophy Can Help With Your Life

An ancient calendar adorned with constellations and intricate astronomical instruments. This symbolizes various concepts, including science, astronomy, astrology, mystery, education, mysticism, numerology, occultism, divination, and philosophy.

3 Interesting Philosophical Questions About Time

Paper cut outs of a family held in the palm of hands. Concept of what is a family?

What Is The Antinatalism Movement?

Postage stamp showing Hannah Arendt by A. Marino via Shutterstock.com

The Controversial Philosophy Of Hannah Arendt

infographic and map showing serial killers by country

Countries That Have Produced The Most Serial Killers

Opinion: Mistakes and misconduct in science are not synonymous; there are remedies for both

Show more sharing options
Copy Link URL Copied!

Brenner is a physician-scientist and president and chief executive officer of Sanford Burnham Prebys and lives in La Jolla.

From climate change to vaccines, science seems under attack everywhere on every topic, though often for reasons having little to do with actual research and evidence.

Science should always be questioned. That’s part of the process. But when people fundamentally and without consideration do not trust scientists, when they believe there are ulterior motives, we’re in trouble.

Feeding those suspicions are regular headlines reporting scientific fraud and misconduct. For as long as there has been science, there have been such cases, and we rightfully wring our hands when they come to light. But is this a time of crisis in science ethics? The answer, like science itself, is more complicated than blaring headlines.

In 2005, The New York Times described scientific fraud a “global trend.” A review of biomedical and life science research articles published between 1973 and 2012 noted more than 2,000 papers had been retracted, but less than one-quarter for technical errors. The majority were primarily pulled for fraud or suspected fraud, duplicate publication, or plagiarism.

Scientific journals, universities and research institutions have long struggled to effectively combat fraud, with mixed results. Many of the revelations leading to retractions of published work are the result of independent sleuths or enterprises. PubPeer is a website self-described as an “online journal club” where mostly anonymous investigators cull published data for scientific errors or dubious conclusions, from too-small sample sizes and bias to doctored or misleading images.

Sometimes the detected offense is fraud, which should be dealt with accordingly. At other times, researchers are taken to task for unintentional errors or findings that were, when published, the best thinking.

Should scientists be responsible for all research they’ve conducted or published under their name? It sounds reasonable, but it’s counterproductive. I have published or authored more than 300 scientific papers, articles, reviews and chapters in books. Do I “own” those findings forever? Am I obliged to correct and update them whenever possible?

Doing so might mean spending more time looking backward than forward. That’s not how science works. Like all researchers, my work is open to review, replication, correction and advancement (or dismissal) by others. New discoveries and technologies routinely upend older assumptions. That’s progress.

We should always be willing to correct mistakes in publications whenever they are detected, even if the papers and articles are many years old, and no longer represent current thinking.

To expect an older published manuscript to hold up to a state-of-the-art analysis sets an unfair standard. Researchers today have tools, technologies and knowledge that didn’t exist even a few years ago. Independent investigators need to exercise wisdom and context when considering the circumstances of older work — and still vigilantly maintain scientific integrity.

What are non-scientists supposed to make of these controversies and contretemps? It’s easy to simply ignore or dismiss them — and their relevance and benefits to society. Public trust in scientists and the belief that science has a positive effect on society has steadily declined in recent years, exacerbated by the politicized pandemic.

But that reflects a lack of critical thinking, which is, well, critical to our social well-being. More than ever, Americans need to be able to identify fact from fiction, to choose experts wisely and to draw valid conclusions from the same data, even when they do not conform to pre-existing biases.

Science isn’t about beliefs, intuition or gut feelings. It’s about empirical, verifiable facts. Sometimes those facts will later be proved incorrect with new data. That’s when minds must change along with the science.

Researchers make mistakes. Some even commit fraud. There are remedies which should be broadly and dispassionately pursued — and improved.

Research institutions can do better in monitoring and correcting science. We should provide our scientists with the analytical resources needed to interrogate their manuscripts prior to submission to a peer-reviewed journal, such as online databases of citations, text mining and artificial intelligence-driven technologies.

We should take all credible accusations of scientific error seriously and be willing to conduct independent investigations in response to concerns expressed by the scientific community.

It is a rare and hard-earned privilege to conduct research and we must hold ourselves to the highest standards. If non-scientists believe we are doing so, they can believe again in science.

Get Weekend Opinion on Sundays and Reader Opinion on Mondays

Editorials, commentary and more delivered Sunday morning, and Reader Reaction on Mondays.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the San Diego Union-Tribune.

More from this Author

Community voices project

Opinion: Rare diseases affect 30 million Americans. These are the challenges to find their cure.

Feb. 7, 2024

Opinion: Matthew Perry was open about addiction. Like him, we can’t stop trying to overcome it.

Nov. 28, 2023

More in this section

Opinion: We need everyone to support the LGBTQ+ community, now more than ever. Here’s why.

Everyone can contribute some of their time, talent, or treasures toward building a more inclusive community.

April 10, 2024

San Diego, CA - March 07: On Thursday, March 7, 2024, in San Diego, the morning continued with scattered showers, with enough sunshine between showers for a pair of stand-up paddlers to enjoy the late morning along the Esplanade Canal near Liberty Station in Point Loma. (Nelvin C. Cepeda / The San Diego Union-Tribune)

Opinion: Writing San Diego’s sunshine and noir, City Works Press celebrates 20 years

What makes us stand out from other publishers is that San Diego City Works Press is an entirely nonprofit collective.

Opinion: We gathered to confront an uncomfortable truth. But there is resolve in San Diego in the face of terrorism.

For 47 minutes, we watched in horror as unedited footage depicted the massacre carried out by Hamas

April 2, 2024

Opinion: Homelessness can easily lead to substance abuse. But there is one way to stop the cycle.

Continued trauma, marginalization and survival spirals into a terrible cycle that degrades mental health

Opinion: This Easter Sunday I’ll be seeking something different

It was during a Catholic service that I attended last year when I gained great clarity about one purpose for the Holy Spirit

March 29, 2024

A member of WILDCOAST's partner, United Women of El Dátil, holds a mangrove seedling in a mangrove forest in Laguna San Ignacio, Baja California Sur, Mexico.

Opinion: Blue carbon ecosystems have the power to protect fragile coastlines, but time is running out

Nature based solutions to climate change are the most cost effective ways to protect local neighborhoods, businesses and flood-vulnerable infrastructure from floodwaters associated with rising sea levels

March 21, 2024

More From Forbes

3 critical thinking skills you need in 2024.

Share to Facebook
Share to Twitter
Share to Linkedin

Critical thinking skills help you improve diversity and inclusion within your team

In 2018, a Hart survey revealed that out of over 500 business executives interviewed, 78% agreed that critical thinking is the most essential skill they desire to see demonstrated in their employees. However, astonishingly, a mere 34% of college graduates were equipped with this in-demand skill.

Today, critical thinking remains one of the most essential skill sets you need to succeed in today's workforce and experience a thriving career. The World Economic Forum's Future of Jobs 2023 report confirmed just how essential critical thinking and analytical reasoning skills are in 2024, placing this skill set at the top of its list.

In an earlier report from the Forum, it most notably pointed out:

“Skills gaps continue to be high as in-demand skills across jobs change in the next five years. The top skills and skill groups which employers see as rising in prominence in the lead up to 2025, include groups such as critical thinking and analysis as well as problem-solving."

This is hardly surprising, given the fact that we continue to be bombarded with the spread of misinformation everyday, from social media, to conspiracy groups, to the prevalent usage of AI which can generate misleading and potentially harmful information if not developed and used ethically. This makes it of the utmost important that we take deliberate effort to develop the habit of critically analysis, everything instead of taking at face value and accepting things for what they are.

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024.

Through developing critical thinking skills, you can prevent the advancement of misinformation, become a trusted an reliable source within your network and industry, and gain access to exciting career opportunities including promotions.

But how can you develop critical thinking and analysis skills?

First, let's unpack what critical thinking actually is.

What Is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking, in simple terms, is the process of objectively analyzing data, and using your reflections and observations from multiple sources to arrive at conclusions, decisions, or judgements.

What Are Some Critical Thinking Skills?

To develop critical thinking for your career success, consider building the following skills:

1. Curiosity

Innovation comes through being curious enough to keep probing and digging for information. Challenge your own assumptions, and those of others. As you do this, you will notice that it will help pave the way for the removal of unconscious bias within the workplace. When never you do receive information, regardless of the source or format, seek clarification before accepting it as fact.

2. Evaluation

To evaluate others' conclusions and supporting arguments, research their background, credentials, reputation, possible influencing factors, and experience. This will help you assess just how reliable, relevant, and credible they are.

3. Diversity

Last but not least, it's essential to keep an open mind to a wide variety of sources. The greater the variety, the higher the quality of your conclusion. For example, as a leader or manager, you should seek to foster inclusivity and diversity within your team by creating processes whereby all team members can feel involved in your decision-making or policy creation process.

This helps to ensure that the final solution is reflective of those it is intended to serve and is well adapted to everyone's needs and preferences.

Through developing critical thinking skills, you can help stay the spread of misinformation and be ... [+] recognized as a credible industry expert

Practice these three essential critical thinking skills every time you read a new item of information online, when browsing through social media, watching the news, in a meeting, or when studying for your professional development. The more you practice, the more you'll refine and strengthen your critical thinking skills over time.

Editorial Standards
Reprints & Permissions

Critical Financial

17 Signs Someone Has a High IQ

Posted: March 23, 2024 | Last updated: April 17, 2024

<p>Let’s face it, most of us like to think of ourselves as pretty smart individuals. But beyond taking an official IQ test, how can you determine if you or someone you know is likely to be highly intelligent? Well, we’re here to put that question to rest. Here are 17 common signs someone has a high IQ.</p>

Let’s face it, most of us like to think of ourselves as pretty smart individuals. But beyond taking an official IQ test, how can you determine if you or someone you know is likely to be highly intelligent? Well, we’re here to put that question to rest. Here are 17 common signs someone has a high IQ.

<p>Being visual creatures, humans are particularly good at spotting visual patterns and other recognizable features that are not immediately apparent. A good example is a strong ability to see faces hidden in artistic works and even in everyday scenes like buildings or clouds.</p>

Exceptional Memory and Recall

According to Cognition Today , people with a high IQ usually have an exceptional memory and ability to recall information. If you notice yourself easily remembering facts, conversation details, or other bits of information, it’s likely you’re one of the lucky few with a high IQ.

<p>High-IQ individuals typically have a thirst for knowledge and intellectual stimulation. Because of this, they will often appear curious and eager to learn new things. Those of us who find ourselves intrigued by new topics and stimulating hobbies are likely to be highly intelligent.</p>

Curiosity and a Love for Learning

High-IQ individuals typically have a thirst for knowledge and intellectual stimulation. Because of this, they will often appear curious and eager to learn new things. Those of us who find ourselves intrigued by new topics and stimulating hobbies are likely to be highly intelligent.

Adaptability and Problem-Solving Skills

Intelligence is a huge asset in adaptability and problem-solving skills. As such, people with a high IQ commonly have a natural ability to excel in new situations and challenges, especially those involving complex problems that require innovative solutions.

<p>“The LORD makes firm the steps of the one who delights in him; though he may stumble, he will not fall, for the LORD upholds him with his hand.” Offers reassurance that even in moments of weakness, God’s support prevents total failure. Encourages a joyful pursuit of a relationship with God because it is not all formal rituals and being serious.</p>

High Level of Focus and Concentration

We all struggle with focus sometimes, but those of us with a higher IQ are typically better at concentrating on the task at hand when we really need to. In fact, these individuals will sometimes become so engrossed in intellectual pursuits that they can focus for hours without it feeling like a chore.

<p>Those who were able to read at an earlier age usually have higher cognitive abilities, making them smarter than the average person. This is because reading at a young age boosts verbal and non-verbal skills. It helps the brain to learn things quicker and expand its comprehension skills.</p>

Advanced Reading and Comprehension Skills

According to VeryWell Family , one common trait among gifted children is their ability to read and understand books beyond their age range. People with a high IQ also often exhibit a love for reading a wide variety of subjects and genres, eager to learn from new and challenging material.

<p>While creativity may not be the first thing that comes to mind when you think of a high-IQ individual, it’s actually a very common trait in this community. Highly intelligent people often have a strong ability to innovate and come up with creative solutions and approaches to difficult situations.</p>

Creative Thinking and Innovation

While creativity may not be the first thing that comes to mind when you think of a high-IQ individual, it’s actually a very common trait in this community. Highly intelligent people often have a strong ability to innovate and come up with creative solutions and approaches to difficult situations.

<p>According to <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/empathy">Psychology Today</a>, empathy is the ability to recognize, understand, and share the thoughts and feelings of another person. Empathy is a common trait of a mentally strong person, as they have the emotional strength to share the feelings of others and sympathize with them.</p>

Emotional Intelligence

While it’s possible to be highly emotionally intelligent without having a high IQ, there is a correlation between the two. People with a high IQ are commonly able to understand their own emotions and the emotions of those around them more than most people.

<p>Lindauer, the recently resigned Shores commissioner, argues Form 6 is driving away good officials from public service and is less effective than Form 1, the previous disclosure. Form 1 required city officials to show the public sources of income, which allowed possible conflicts of interest to be exposed.</p>

Excellent Communication Skills

High-IQ individuals often exhibit incredible communication skills , making them great public speakers. Their excellent memories and reading proficiency usually provide them with a rich vocabulary and a knack for expressing themselves verbally.

<p>Naturally, people with a high IQ typically have strong analytical skills and a logical mindset that serve them well in many aspects of life. They are also able to recognize patterns and underlying principles more effectively than the average person.</p>

Analytical and Logical Thinking

Naturally, people with a high IQ typically have strong analytical skills and a logical mindset that serve them well in many aspects of life. They are also able to recognize patterns and underlying principles more effectively than the average person.

<p>“On fleek” (yes, you heard correctly) is another millennial phrase that has drastically declined in popularity since it was coined by a millennial on June 21st, 2014. <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/on%20fleek#:~:text=Word%20History&text=Note%3A%20The%20phrase%20on%20fleek,when%20the%20video%20was%20shot.">Merriam-Webster</a> says that she had made up the word fleek on the spot while shooting a video on Vine.</p>

Openness to New Experiences

According to Science Direct , highly intelligent people often exhibit an insatiable enthusiasm for exploring new ideas and experiences. These situations allow them to use their natural problem-solving and innovative capabilities to their full potential.

<p>In today’s changing job market, there are well-paying job opportunities available in various industries. These positions not only offer high salaries but also come with additional perks, and employers are actively looking for individuals to fill these roles. Here are 15 occupations that fit into the category of high-paying jobs.</p>

Self-Motivation and Discipline

People with a high IQ are more likely to set ambitious goals that they follow through on. Challenging tasks make great pursuits for highly intelligent people to test themselves and improve their problem-solving and organizational abilities.

<p>There are many aspects of life that millennials are known to prosper in; however, there are still some elements where they could be stronger, such as prioritizing healthy food options, being better with their finances, and even practicing mindfulness. While no one is perfect, changing some habits can cause them to lead a much more enriching life.</p>

Intuitive Insight

Sometimes, those of us with a high IQ seem to understand the solution or answer to something without fully working it through in our heads first. This is often because people with a high IQ excel at making connections between seemingly disconnected ideas and using past learnings to help them in future problems.

Skepticism and Critical Thinking

High-IQ individuals often exhibit a greater degree of skepticism and critical thinking than others. This is largely because they have a tendency to question people’s assumptions and commonly accepted ideas. They are also better at evaluating arguments and ideas critically.

<p>According to the<a href="https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/health-fitness/web-stories/13-surprising-traits-seen-in-individuals-withextremely-high-iq/photostory/104189043.cms"> Times of India</a>, people with a high IQ commonly display strong attention to detail, allowing them to pick up on subtle mistakes and inconsistencies that others overlook. They can also be very precise in their ideas and actions, allowing them to maintain a high standard of work.</p>

Attention to Detail

According to the Times of India , people with a high IQ commonly display strong attention to detail, allowing them to pick up on subtle mistakes and inconsistencies that others overlook. They can also be very precise in their ideas and actions, allowing them to maintain a high standard of work.

<p><span>Do you prefer to work at night rather than during the day? Well, don’t let the dark outside stop you. In this article, you will see 19 jobs that you can do from home that are perfect for night owls. </span></p>

Efficiency in Learning and Application

Highly intelligent people often find innovative ways to increase their pace of learning and working. Their flexible, creative minds also allow them to quickly digest and comprehend new concepts and principles more easily than others.

<p>The reduced workloads of retirement are often the first time adult men have had sufficient free time to explore creative pursuits like woodworking, painting, music, and writing. Such activities often require solitude and concentration, making time alone an essential requirement for their new-found artistic expression.</p>

Versatility and Multidisciplinary Interests

As we mentioned previously, people with a high IQ often have a strong sense of curiosity and a thirst for learning new things. Because of this, these individuals will often pursue a wide range of different hobbies and interests, allowing them to exercise many different avenues of their cognitive skills.

<p>Restrictive and predictable careers often limit international opportunities and work-related travel opportunities. Remote work, in particular, allows individuals to collaborate with teams and clients globally, exposing them to career-enriching experiences with new people, industries, and ways of working.</p>

Independence in Thought and Judgment

Because high-IQ individuals are better at critically examining arguments and ideas, they are also usually better at coming to their own conclusions without immediately following the most popular opinion. This also makes them better at resisting peer pressure.

<p>As society evolves, so does our approach to spirituality. This article looks at the subtle yet profound shift from traditional religious adherence to a more personal, evidence-based belief system.</p><p><a href="https://www.lovedbycurls.com/lifestyle/why-people-arent-religious-anymore-15-simple-reasons/"><strong>Why People Aren’t Religious Anymore: 15 Simple Reasons</strong></a></p>

More for You

A Russian tank was seen charging into battle with a giant, makeshift metal roof on top of it as Ukraine leans into drone attacks

This Is How Long You Can Leave Butter On the Counter, According to Land O'Lakes

McDonald's menu adds new takes on a fan-favorite sandwich

‘We waited for hours’: Law enforcement testify that Trump outright rejected sending help on Jan. 6

Smallville Made One of the Wildest Changes to Superman's Powers

Open thread: What do you think of the sneak peek of the Lions’ new uniforms?

1973: Chevrolet Monte Carlo – Elegant Revamp With Muscle

The Coolest Car From the Year You Were Born (1945-1995)

Frozen hamburger patties in stack on wooden board

Is It Safe To Grill Frozen Hamburger Patties Straight From The Freezer?

Carnival Cruise Line confirms ban on a popular cabin hack

Mayim Bialik Claims Abuse Detailed in ‘Quiet on Set' Wasn't Just at Nickelodeon

Mayim Bialik Says ‘Quiet On Set' Claims Of Abuse Wasn't Only At Nickelodeon | THR News Video

Biden administration finalizes breakthrough rule with profound impact on US energy industry: 'We are taking long-overdue steps'

I moved from California to Tennessee for my husband's job. We can finally save money, but it's been a major culture shock.

51 Mind-Blowingly Cool Things From Other Countries That The US Needs To Adopt STAT

Spicy Pizza ready to eat on wooden background stock photo at June 08, 2021 England

People Are Realising The Best Way To Reheat Pizza, And It's Not In The Oven

This file photo from the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks shows whitetail buck racked with Chronic Wasting Disease at a research facility in the Sunflower State.

Study: Hunters Die After Consuming CWD-Infected Venison

10 Naruto Characters Who Didn't Deserve To Die

FILE - O.J. Simpson sits at his arraignment in Superior Court in Los Angeles on July 22, 1994. O.J. Simpson's attorney Malcolm LaVergne is now handling the deceased former football star, actor and famous murder defendant's financial estate. (AP Photo/Pool/Lois Bernstein, Pool)

OJ Simpson has been cremated, estate attorney in Las Vegas says. No public memorial is planned

Stop thinking your expensive watch is an investment, says Rolex boss

Florida Sees Thousands of People Quit Their Jobs

From Left: President Joe Biden and Caitlin Clark

President Joe Biden Comments on Caitlin Clark's WNBA Salary, Says 'Women Are Not Paid Their Fair Share'

A photograph of a miniature model with two beds separated by a door.

The Modern Love Issue

Can a Sexless Marriage Be a Happy One?

Experts and couples are challenging the conventional wisdom that sex is essential to relationships.

Credit... Tonje Thilesen for The New York Times

Supported by

Share full article

By Amanda Montei

April 17, 2024

Will and Rose met online 10 years ago. His screen name was professorparsley, and he looked the part — tall and thin, with glasses, features that Rose found attractive. On their first date, Rose learned that Will was a college student living with his mother, and his handle came from a nickname given to him by a child at an art camp where he worked. They laugh about it now, as they do with most things. Will thought Rose was exciting and direct. He grew up in suburban Ontario, and she was from Southern California, which was like another world to him. Right away, what they loved about each other were their differences.

Listen to this article, read by Julia Whelan

Rose was drawn to how stable Will seemed — so unlike the other men she had dated, who dreaded commitment. Their relationship survived multiple moves, about a year of long-distance dating and the challenges of finding time to be together while living with parents and roommates. Now, seven years into their marriage, they have their own place: a one-bedroom apartment in Los Angeles, where Rose sees Pilates clients. Will is gone during the day, teaching, and at night they cuddle in bed and watch television. “It’s my favorite part of the day,” Rose says. (Rose and Will are middle names. All subjects asked to be referred to by their first names, middle names or a nickname, out of concerns for their privacy.)

As much as Will grounds her, Rose feels that the familiar calm of their relationship also shuts her down sexually. They go months without sex, but they don’t lack intimacy. They have a policy of never refusing a hug, something they instituted to resolve the minor disagreements that inevitably crop up in any relationship. They have also talked candidly about how, for her, the safe predictability of their marriage — the quality she loves about their lives together — dulls her sex drive. She knows that can be confusing, even frustrating, for Will, but she doesn’t like the idea of forcing herself to have sex. Rose’s mother, now divorced, felt obligated to have sex with Rose’s father once a week. That’s not the kind of relationship Rose wants.

To get into a sexual mood, Rose relies on a set of rituals to help build anticipation — doing her hair and makeup, shaving her legs, having a glass of wine over dinner or, when their schedules allow, going on vacation to break out of their routines. Will doesn’t need to do anything to feel ready for sex, and Rose sees this as another way in which they’re different. Over the years, they have accepted that this is what their sex life looks like, and will look like, if they want to be together, which they do.

During the pandemic, the couple went more than a year without having sex, but they savored their extra time together. Rose used to spend hours driving in traffic to different workout studios, coming home late, not seeing her husband much. Stuck at home, they took walks around their neighborhood. They talked constantly. They started taking online yoga classes together, a hobby that stuck. Will appreciates these smaller opportunities to connect. Rose thinks she’s not the nurturing type, but Will disagrees. “She’s not stingy in spirit or time,” he says.

Sometimes they shower together and hold each other naked, without any expectation of sex. Though Will remains hopeful that these moments will lead to something else, he doesn’t push it.

Cultural attitudes about the role sex plays in a marriage have evolved significantly over time. Where once marital sex was primarily a means for bearing children, in recent decades, the conventional wisdom was that frequent sex was integral to a happy union. During the 1990s, a new wave of sex positivity coincided with the ascendancy of different forms of therapy, including couples counseling. Experts coached couples on how to strengthen their marriages, often relying on the belief that healthy relationships included consistent sex with partners. By the 2010s, appointment sex had become one popular method for maintaining intimacy and, somewhat implicitly, safeguarding against separation.

In more recent years, however, both relationship experts and couples themselves have been gradually dismantling some of these commonly held views, working to destigmatize the unconventional approaches that some take to stay together. Online groups have sprung up for couples who challenge basic assumptions that spouses should share a bedroom or even a home. Sharon Hyman, who runs a Facebook group called Apartners for couples who have chosen to live separately, told me that many of the members in her community find their sex lives improve when they don’t spend every minute together. “My goal is to show that there are healthy options for relationships,” Hyman says. “No one size fits all.”

One effect of the ever-changing sexual climate is that many couples today are simply less willing to tolerate what the psychotherapist Esther Perel calls “boredom” in the bedroom. Perel has made a career of articulating how domestic overexposure saps eroticism, which requires some intrigue, mystery and unfamiliarity. That’s not to suggest that long-term love and desire are impossible, but according to Perel, keeping sexual interest alive requires getting creative. In her podcast, “Where Should We Begin?” Perel helps couples explore and articulate their fantasies, honor each other as individuals and experiment with new approaches to fulfilling their desires together.

For Perel, as for many other relationship experts, that sometimes means re-examining investment in another foundational premise of marriage: monogamy. The advice columnist Dan Savage, too, has argued that monogamy isn’t entirely plausible, or pleasurable, for everyone, and is critical of Americans’ obsession with moralizing infidelity. He encourages married people to be honest with each other about how hard it is to carry the responsibility of fulfilling their partner’s sexual and emotional needs for decades on end.

A photograph of a miniature model of two beds separated by a window.

While some are questioning the standard of monogamous sex in marriage by exploring polyamorous and open relationships, others are pushing back against the pressure to have sex at all. In fact, Americans on the whole are having less sex than they used to — across race, gender, region, educational level and work status. One study found that American adults born in the 1990s are having less sex than older generations; they are in fewer steady partnerships, and those who are partnered are also having less sex. The 2021 General Social Survey found that about 50 percent of all adults polled had sex once a month or less , with half of those people reporting they hadn’t had sex for a year. Researchers have speculated about the reasons for this 30-year sexual low, from isolation caused by technology to cultural conversations about consent.

Many younger women, for instance, shaped in part by the #MeToo movement, are engaging in intentional abstinence. There are trends on TikTok about going “boysober,” a word coined by the comedian Hope Woodard, who says that taking a break from sex can be empowering for women who previously altered their desires to accommodate men. The digital feminist 4B movement, which originated in South Korea but has spread globally through social media, advocates a rejection of childbearing, as well as heterosexual dating, marriage and sex. “Platonic life partners,” meanwhile — friends who commit to owning a home and even raising children together — insist that sex and romance are not necessary to lifelong unions.

The sex educator and researcher Emily Nagoski is resistant to the idea that frequent sex should be a chief component of every committed relationship. Nagoski — who has been open about her own hiatus from marital sex — doesn’t endorse obligatory sex, nor does she encourage aiming for any sexual base line in terms of regularity or behavior. Drawing on the work of the Canadian sexologist Peggy Kleinplatz, Nagoski believes that low desire can sometimes be evidence of good judgment. “It’s not dysfunctional not to want sex you don’t like,” Nagoski says.

In her new book, “Come Together,” Nagoski urges couples who want to explore their sexualities and deepen their sexual bond to begin by figuring out what each person wants when they want sex. For many, sex represents freedom from the ordinary, but what it takes to get there will look different for every couple and is likely to change over time. After all, desires don’t always align, or they evolve in unexpected ways.

Michelle and John met in 2005 at a party, and in the early years of their relationship, they couldn’t keep their hands off each other. Four years ago, however, after experiencing what she calls a “traumatic” childbirth, Michelle began to worry that intercourse would cause her pain.

She and John did not have sex for a year after they became parents. Now they can go months without it. Friends of theirs, too, seem to be experiencing new chapters in their own sex lives and opening up their marriages, which has sparked conversations between Michelle and John about the possibilities for reinvigorating their sex life. But they don’t always agree on what they want, or what they’re comfortable with.

John knows, however, that having sex outside the marriage is a red line for Michelle. She witnessed infidelity tear apart her parents’ relationship. “I think there’s a big fear about ‘I have an urge that may be resolved in a minute or two,’ but the sense of what could be broken is not worth the risk,” John says.

Love, for both, is about much more than fulfilling those momentary desires. After almost two decades together, they consider themselves best friends and “soul mates.” When they first began dating, Michelle was reeling from the loss of her brother, who died in a car accident. She talked with John about the experience on an early date, and they were inseparable after that. John thought she was beautiful and wanted to spend as much time with her as he could. Michelle thought he was a welcome distraction, someone who could lift her out of her grief. They went to concerts. He made her mixtapes. But there were also times when she broke down crying, and he was there for her.

John used to try to comfort Michelle by saying he understood how she felt, but when he lost his own brother in 2012, he realized how wrong he had been. As he mourned, Michelle “just knew what to do in the unspoken moments — whether it was knowing when to give me space, or knowing when I needed a hug, or I just needed her to be next to me,” John says. Today, Michelle remains the “central piece” of his happiness.

Michelle and John share a one-bedroom with their daughter, and while they get some privacy during the day, they’re busy working from home. Now, most days, Michelle masturbates in the morning, while John takes their daughter to preschool. He masturbates at night in the bathroom, while watching porn on his phone. For John, it’s merely a physical release, but for Michelle, pleasuring herself serves a different purpose: She is trying to figure out what makes her feel good. Exploring her changed body alone eliminates the guilt she has when she can’t climax with her husband. She doesn’t want him to think it has anything to do with him. “I want to get there, but it’s not getting there,” she says.

Of the more than 30 married people I interviewed, many, like Michelle, told me that becoming parents irrevocably changed their sex lives. Camille, who lives in California, felt her marriage was the most solid and caring relationship she had ever experienced, but becoming a mother distanced her from her desire. “It feels like something I can’t quite touch, like in another room, or another part of me that I don’t know how to access,” she says.

Other mothers started to see sex as one more chore, another line item on their list of responsibilities. Keti, a mother of a neurodivergent child who craved being held, found that sex with her husband had become “robotic” as she began to see it as “one more demand.” Her husband was doing everything he could to support her, but she felt an obligation to get back to their old sex life, even though she wanted “desperately to go into a forest and just lie down and not hear anyone or anything.”

Lilien, who has two kids, says becoming a mother was a turning point for her. She had to leave her previous career and didn’t know who she was or what she wanted. “My identity was totally eviscerated,” she says. “I was really confused about what my worth was.” Her history of sexual assault also resurfaced in profound ways. She thought she needed to be “permeable” to nurture her children. She didn’t have the capacity to extend that physical openness to her husband. She couldn’t stand soft caresses from him, which felt like the tickling of her child’s hands.

Lilien’s husband, Philip, never pressured her to be intimate, for which she is grateful. “The most important thing for me was to maintain a place where the sex you have is very positive, very consensual, very understood and mutually enjoyed,” he says. Five years later, Philip knows she is still coming to terms with everything motherhood has brought into her life. Recently they started having more sex, about once every other month. Lilien loves her husband’s firm back rubs, which he’s happy to give.

Other couples, much like Rose and Will, confessed to feeling sexually misaligned with their partners as their desires shifted in different directions. Jean, a 38-year-old mother living in Virginia, told me that her husband’s interest in sex has dropped off gradually over the course of their 13-year marriage. She, on the other hand, experienced what she called “a secondary puberty” as her kids grew older and became less dependent on her. She felt “so sexually charged” that she visited her gynecologist to confirm she wasn’t having a hormonal issue. She’s now trying to figure out how to navigate her husband’s low desire. “I feel like I’m living in the upside-down a lot of the time,” she says. “My friends complain about their husbands grabbing their butt while they wash dishes, and I think, Wow, I would love to feel wanted like that.”

Another mother, Emily, says that sex gradually became less important over the course of her 34-year marriage. When her kids were little, intimacy with her husband stalled briefly, but as their children grew older, they had a “revival of a good sex life,” Emily says. Now she is 59 and has had several operations resulting from a battle with cancer, including a hysterectomy and mastectomy. As a result, her desire lessened, and sex began to feel like “vacuuming the house” — something she did to make her husband happy. And he noticed. “If you are used to somebody responding to you in a certain way, you can tell when they are acting,” she says. “I wasn’t the same person.”

One night in bed, about 10 years after she went on a hormone treatment for her cancer that put her into early menopause, they had a frank conversation about their sex life. “We discussed my lack of desire, and he said that if I’m not turned on, then he’s not either,” Emily says. He admitted that his sex drive had dipped, too. So they decided not to force it. She feels there’s some cultural pressure for older people to keep up their sex lives into their 80s. She’s read, with skepticism, articles claiming that maintaining sex later in life is healthy. “Is it?” she said. “I don’t know.”

Emily feels their marriage has progressed naturally: They experienced decades of passion, and while they remain affectionate outside of the bedroom, their relationship now transcends sex in many ways. It’s about the life they’ve built together. “We’ve been in a sexless relationship for years now,” Emily says. “We get along great, but we’re more like best buds than lovers.”

Despite their insistence that sex isn’t essential in their marriages, most of the couples I spoke with still keep track of how often they have sex. They also appear haunted by how far they deviate from perceived norms. John, for instance, hopes he and his wife can work back up to having sex two or three times a week, but admits he has no idea where that figure came from.

Numbers, Nagoski believes, can be a counterproductive metric. It’s impossible to hear such statistics and not judge one’s relationship against them. Numbers also don’t account for whether participants are enjoying the sex they are having. “You’re comparing yourself — you’re judging yourself as OK or inadequate — compared to a whole bunch of people you’re not having sex with, who are not having sex with you,” Nagoski says.

For couples measuring themselves against what Nagoski calls the “fictions” of sex, or for those worried that their relationship is on the line whenever they enter the bedroom or don’t meet some monthly number, there may be too much pressure for sex to be enjoyable. It’s more important that couples establish what kind of sex is worth having.

‘There are people who tell you all the sex they’re having. I feel like it’s a lot more common that a lot of people are not.’

Rose admits to feeling the weight of societal expectations. Recently she decided that since she and Will were rarely having sex, she would have her birth-control implant removed from her arm. During the procedure, the nurse intimated there was something wrong with Rose’s marriage. Rose felt shamed and angry. The idea that she should be living in a constant state of arousal with her husband after a decade together is, to her, ridiculous, but also part of a facade she thinks many married couples maintain.

“There are people who tell you all the sex they’re having,” she says. “I feel like it’s a lot more common that a lot of people are not.” With the help of her therapist, Rose is exploring whether her A.D.H.D. may play a role in her need to seek new stimuli — not because she sees it as a problem but because she is interested in understanding her desire more fully. “Apparently the partner fatigue I experience is not so uncommon because our ‘special’ brains are always seeking out what’s new,” she says.

Will sometimes turns to Buddhist writings on restraint to explore his sexuality. He jokes there may be some confirmation bias at work, but he thinks his wife’s self-awareness — and her unwillingness to force herself into sex that she doesn’t want to have — has matured him. For Will, intimacy is less about completion and more about connection. “I’ve learned, even just about the act of sex itself, the ending is not always the best part,” Will says. “There’s pleasure throughout the spectrum.”

In March, for Rose’s 40th birthday, they took a trip to Hawaii. She switched off her phone for hours as they sprawled out by the ocean. Will remembers turning toward his wife and staring at her, watching her relaxing, her body loose. In that moment, he wasn’t thinking about sex or how beautiful Rose looked under the sun. He was thinking about how similar they actually are. More than anything, they want to enjoy themselves in their own way, to savor the small moments when they can let the rest of the world fade away.

Amanda Montei is the author of “Touched Out: Motherhood, Misogyny, Consent and Control.” She is based in California.

Read by Julia Whelan

Narration produced by Anna Diamond and Tanya Pérez

Engineered by Joel Thibodeau

Side Hustles
Power Players
Young Success
Save and Invest
Become Debt-Free
Land the Job
Closing the Gap
Science of Success
Pop Culture and Media
Psychology and Relationships
Health and Wellness
Real Estate
Most Popular

I have 5 income streams and make $142,000/mo from Amazon alone: Top 3 side hustle mistakes I always tell others to avoid

In 2018, I was a full-time graduate student and working part-time as a course designer at my university. Inspired by a class project and my own personal struggles , I decided to launch a side hustle selling card games on Amazon to help people build "human skills" like emotional intelligence and critical thinking.

This side hustle saw me through the next five years while I completed my Ph.D. When I started, I didn't know much about running a business, but today, I have five income streams.

I speak at schools and businesses, teach an online course about EQ, lecture at University of California Irvine, do freelance business consulting, and sell Mind Brain Emotion card games through my site and on Amazon. I bring in $142,000 a month from the Amazon business alone.

When I talk with aspiring entrepreneurs about how to create side hustles that best fit their schedules and lifestyles , I always tell them to avoid these three mistakes:

DON'T MISS: The ultimate guide to earning passive income online

1. Don't overcomplicate your product

When I started my side hustle, I had major imposter syndrome . To compensate for that nagging doubt, I spent a lot of time researching and developing flashy product features that I thought would wow people, like including augmented reality components to the cards. But ultimately, this just confused my users, created more work for me and muddled my existing offerings.

Now that I've launched a dozen products and have heard plenty of pitches from aspiring entrepreneurs, my best advice is to resist the urge to complicate things. This will not only slow you down, but it will also inflate your costs.

I've learned that the key to success isn't in piling on features — it's about understanding the core value of your brand.

So before you begin any side hustle, ask yourself two key questions:

What is the fundamental need that my product or service fulfills?
What's the smallest number of steps I can take to get there?

Once you launch, use real-world feedback as your guide. You can iterate and evolved based on actual customer needs, instead of your assumptions and second guesses. A straightforward solution can be a breath of fresh air in a world cluttered with choices.

2. Don't settle for subpar service—even if you're on a budget

If you are a side hustler, a great way to save money and grow your business is to work with fellow side hustlers who share your sensibility. However, it's important to remember that if you have a collaborator who is also constantly growing and changing, you can run the risk of unpredictable service.

Last year, I ended up parting ways with a social media manager and SEO vendor who were both solo entrepreneurs who wanted to turn their side gigs into agencies. In their efforts to expand, they both handed my business to newer hires who had very little experience with my industry.

While I always believe in giving people the chance to learn and improve, ultimately, I wasn't being given the attention and priority I was promised.

The key to success isn't in piling on features — it's about understanding the core value of your brand.

On the SEO side of things, I stayed with that vendor for far too long, even though I was unhappy with the service and it actually cost me money, affecting my earnings for the year. November, typically my top time of year, was down by 55% compared to my best month in 2023.

As much as collaboration can be beneficial, it's crucial to be diligent about who you hire — and if you feel like something is no longer serving you, don't be afraid to make a change.

3. Don't just rely on networking to move your idea forward

As a solo entrepreneur, I longed for clear roadmaps, blueprints, and decisions, so I applied and was accepted to incubators at Harvard , UC Irvine and USC .

I had access to top executives and advisers and I took advantage of them, but these meetings often left me feeling confused and overwhelmed. Even though they were well-intentioned, many of these advisers ended up projecting their own ambitions and mistakes onto me.

My best advice is to pay close attention to skepticism and feedback in meetings like this, but try to not be swayed by the ideas thrown at you. I've found that relying too much on external validation diluted my vision and slowed my progress.

Ultimately, a veteran perspective can be helpful, but the responsibility to act, and the wisdom to sift through their advice, rests solely with you. It's important to trust your own judgment and remember that this journey is your own.

Dr. Jenny Woo is a Harvard-trained educator, EQ researcher, and founder and CEO of Mind Brain Emotion. She created a series of educational card games and mental health tools to help kids and adults develop human skills in the age of AI. Her award-winning card games, the 52 Essential Relationship Skills , 52 Essential Coping Skills , and 52 Essential Interview Skills are used in 50+ countries. Follow her on Instagram , LinkedIn , and YouTube .

Want to make extra money outside of your day job? Sign up for CNBC's new online course How to Earn Passive Income Online to learn about common passive income streams, tips to get started and real-life success stories. Register today and save 50% with discount code EARLYBIRD.

Plus, sign up for CNBC Make It's newsletter to get tips and tricks for success at work, with money and in life.

I quit my $35K job to grow my side hustle — now it brings in $141 million a year

Asking the better questions that unlock new answers to the working world's most complex issues.

Case studies

Energy and resources

How data analytics can strengthen supply chain performance

13-Jul-2023 Ben Williams

How Takeda harnessed the power of the metaverse for positive human impact

26-Jun-2023 Edwina Fitzmaurice

Banking and Capital Markets

How cutting back infused higher quality in transaction monitoring

11-Jul-2023 Ron V. Giammarco

At EY, our purpose is building a better working world. The insights and services we provide help to create long-term value for clients, people and society, and to build trust in the capital markets.

EY is now carbon negative

19-Sep-2022 Carmine Di Sibio

Our commitment to audit quality

13-Nov-2023 Julie A. Boland

No results have been found

Recent Searches

BEPS 2.0: as policies evolve, engagement is key

It remains to be seen whether the US will align its tax law with the OECD/G20’s global BEPS 2.0 rules. MNEs will feel the impact in 2024. Learn more.

How GenAI strategy can transform innovation

Companies considering or investing in a transformative GenAI strategy should tie generative artificial intelligence use cases to revenue, cost and expense. Learn more

Top five private equity trends for 2024

Read about the five key trends private equity firms will emphasize in 2024 as they create value

Select your location

close expand_more

How insurers and new entrants can take advantage of embedded insurance

EY Global Insurance Technology Leader

Managing Director, Digital Strategy, Ernst & Young LLP

Why embedded insurance, why now

Ubiquitous cloud-based digitization, rapidly decreasing cost of sensors and increasingly intelligent automation are driving down the barriers, primarily cost and complexity, to serving insurance customers efficiently and effectively, especially when it comes to simpler risks. By deploying enabling technology more holistically across the enterprise, rather than just via point solutions in specific functions and processes, insurers can become more agile and responsive in dealing with market shifts and evolving customer needs. This level of digitization, when augmented by advanced analytics platforms and design thinking, can give insurers clearer predictive visibility into the solutions that customers will adopt tomorrow.

Of course, other companies outside of insurance can access these capabilities too, which makes it more feasible for nontraditional “insurgent” players to jump into the insurance marketplace. That’s why embedded insurance must be viewed by insurers as both a massive growth opportunity and potentially a severe competitive threat. It naturally follows that insurance leaders must rethink how non-insurers will fit into the market landscape and the impact of embedding insurance on future business and operating models.

Looking at market dynamics, insurers looking for growth are obviously attracted to the upside of new business models, including embedded offerings, partnership-driven ecosystems and usage-based products. Many insurance executives recognize that new offerings and business models are critical to meeting new customer needs and rising expectations for value. In this regard, open digital platform-based curated ecosystems hold potential for insurance carriers to not only launch superior insurance offerings but also as a means for collaborative partnerships with potential insurgents. These potential insurgents, such as large firms in other sectors, are also looking to strengthen their customer relationships with more value-adding services and richer personalized experiences. They view embedded insurance as one such service, linking value propositions seamlessly as well as offering them at point of purchase or interaction, driving higher conversion.

These overlapping interests lay the groundwork for productive partnerships. However, many insurance brands are challenged by low levels of customer trust. Opaque pricing, the emphasis on profitable underwriting over delivering value to customers and the perception that insurers will use shared data against customers contribute to consumer skepticism toward the industry. According to Edelman’s 2022 Trust Barometer, of 16 industries, financial institutions rank near the bottom, above only social media. This, however, is not an insurmountable problem, with consumers across generations indicating and demonstrating in practice a willingness to share data in exchange for value. In 2022, a study by Global Data and Marketing Alliance (GDMA) showed that almost half (48%) of US consumers are data pragmatists — people who are happy to exchange data with businesses so long as there is clear benefit to doing so.

What embedded models can — and should — replace

For decades, insurers have sold their products via joint ventures or other partnerships with manufacturers and other companies. These distribution arrangements have been suboptimal in many ways, due to undifferentiated features, high costs and fragmented customer experiences. Asset owners are increasingly aware of the risk to their brand from the disconnect between business value of their customers and the underwriting risk they represented to an insurer. Because partners’ incentives weren’t necessarily aligned, customers frequently saw limited value; consequently, adoption rates remained low.

Increased digitization has exposed these shortcomings and motivated more non-insurers to explore embedded insurance. Typically, these brands enjoy higher levels of trust, have larger and more loyal customer bases, and face fewer legacy issues than insurers do. These are huge advantages for any company looking to expand its portfolios of offerings.

Ultimately, rather than acting as minor distribution channels for insurers, non-insurers want to take control of the product and overall experience. They have the capacity to build stronger value propositions and orchestrate the necessary ecosystems to deliver higher standards for customer centricity, reduced cost of insurance and increased pricing accuracy. To be clear: These are not InsurTechs; rather, they are well-established and well-capitalized brands accustomed to leading their markets. They will be aggressive in engaging InsurTechs and other partners to access the capabilities they need to succeed.

For insurers to compete with embedded offerings, on their own or with new partners, they will need to address various interconnected concerns and challenges, including:

Undifferentiated products that aren’t based on the latest data or most useful insights, lack key features, or are delivered via subpar experiences
Higher costs, both in core operations and across the value chain, with multiple intermediaries adding 30%–40% to costs
Too little automation and too much manual processing
Limited adoption rather than systemic use of artificial intelligence, machine learning and other enabling technologies
Legacy system limitations in integrating the velocity, variety and volume of new data flows necessary to innovate in the embedded space

There’s no underestimating the last point: Replacing legacy systems is not an option for most insurers, given the high costs, and meeting the pace of market changes on legacy systems simply will not work. Thus, insurers need to develop entirely new ways of engaging in solution design and development, based on modern platforms that provide pre-built capabilities, make it easy to integrate with partners and support fast, secure data exchange.

Other impediments to agility and responsiveness must be addressed. For instance, most property and casualty (P&C) insurers have yet to refine their offerings or underwriting models to account for the dramatic changes in mobility, including the rise of electric and self-driving vehicles. Similarly, relatively few commercial insurers have developed protection solutions that reflect the huge proportion of balance sheet value that is now linked to intangible assets (e.g., brands, patents, intellectual property, networks). Nor have they embraced data streams from sensors to transform their offerings to include sophisticated risk prevention services. The bottom line is that insurers have a great deal of work to do in prepping their tech, teams and operations, regardless of their embedded strategy.

Industries ready to go all in on embedded

The list of sectors and companies that see the appeal of embedded insurance is not short. It includes:

Original equipment manufacturers (OEMs): automotive, agricultural equipment, appliances
Health care and pharmaceuticals: life sciences firms, medical device manufacturers
Real estate: property owners, investors, management firms
Financial services: banks, credit card companies
Travel and hospitality: airlines, cruise lines
Retail: consumer electronics, restaurants

Instead of viewing these firms solely as just another channel, insurers should explore new partnership and collaboration options. Co-opetition is another prerogative to consider. After all, each of these sectors brings unique strengths, including extensive customer relationships and rich data stores, and they are motivated to innovate based on compelling use cases well suited to their customer needs. In automotive, for instance, manufacturers are looking at embedded insurance as just one element of a network of services, including payments, maintenance offerings and mobility subscriptions, rather than traditional ownership models.

Leaders in these sectors are already actively exploring their options and, in some cases, preparing minimally viable offerings. Future articles will take a closer look at each of these sectors to frame the specific opportunities and challenges.

Imperatives for winning in the era of embedded insurance

Insurers have stayed relatively safe from disruptions due to InsurTechs and other new market entrants through regulatory protection, aggressive pricing in startup markets and the acquisition of potential disrupters. The entry of larger firms, including Fortune 500 players with bigger balance sheets, stronger brands and higher degrees of customer trust, is a competitive challenge of much greater magnitude. Indeed, it will force insurers to upgrade their product portfolios with more dynamic offerings, more precise pricing and richer, analytics-enabled experiences. The static, traditional policies that have held sway for the better part of the century are facing the end of their shelf life.

And it’s not just what customers buy that is changing but also the underlying principles for designing insurance products. Insurers will use different data, largely based on actual usage patterns and real-time risk insights, to price products and dynamically adjust premium levels. How customers buy and consume products is also changing. All of these factors explain why the industry has reached a historical crossroads.

So what can insurers do to defend themselves from the heightening disruption, and how can they take advantage of the huge growth opportunity that’s right before them? A few key actions include:

Use advanced analytics to actionably understand drivers of new product adoption and satisfaction and apply such insights into product and experience design on an ongoing basis
Define the offerings and explore new business models based on multiple collaboration options, including B2B2B and B2B2C, and test the concept of OEMs as customers
Own the platform and diversify into asset and service value enablement beyond underwriting
Embrace design thinking to promote high-impact outcomes via new and higher standards for customer experiences
Relentlessly drive out process and administrative costs via automation across the value chain and establish lean operations, with a relentless focus on a handful of core metrics, including pricing accuracy
Honestly assess the culture in terms of readiness to innovate and self-disrupt, then define the necessary capabilities to innovate boldly and at scale — creative ideation, rapid prototyping, rigorous testing, data-driven product management — and make such innovation a repeatable process within ongoing operations
Evaluate potential partners for joint success potential and devise strategies for post-brand futures

Taking these actions will enable insurers to future-proof their business models as they enter the era of ecosystems and embedded insurance.

Taking action now will enable insurers to future-proof their business models as we enter the era of ecosystems and embedded insurance.

About this article

How increased trust and transparency can unlock growth

Explore the EY Global Insurance Industry Outlook. Learn more.

Hero image development engineers are testing driverless autopilot system

How auto insurers can grow as a decade of disruption approaches

The rise of EVs, AVs, telematics and changing customer needs will shrink the market and invite new competition. See how carriers can adapt.

Nine customer types defining the next wave of insurance

Shifting consumer needs are an invitation for insurers to innovate in pursuit of growth and to stay ahead of new competitive threats. Read more.

Connect with us
Our locations
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Legal and privacy
Accessibility
Open Facebook profile
Open X profile
Open LinkedIn profile
Open Youtube profile

EY refers to the global organization, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients.

IMAGES

Skepticism
Skepticism Why critical thinking makes you smarter
Critical Thinking Definition, Skills, and Examples
Critical Thinking Skills
6 Main Types of Critical Thinking Skills (With Examples)
How Skepticism Can Protect You From Being Fooled

VIDEO

SCT 3.1c
Better Skepticism: 1. Epistemic Humility
Critical Thinking Skills to Get Us Through a Pandemic with Author Jonathan Haber (5-13-20)
YOUR DAILY UPDATE 2024-03-02
Critical Thinking (Part-3)
Science Communication to the Normals (and Cats)

COMMENTS

Exploring Skepticism and Doubt: A Philosophical and Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is another important concept related to skepticism and doubt. Critical thinking involves an analysis of the facts, an evaluation of the evidence, and an assessment of the potential risks and rewards associated with a given proposition or situation. By employing these techniques, individuals can use skepticism and doubt to ...
Open-Mindedness and Skepticism in Critical Thinking
It's about being open to constructive criticism and new ideas. People who are sceptical do all of this as well—they challenge ideas and they withhold judgment until sufficient evidence is ...
Open-Mindedness and Skepticism in Critical Thinking
But with that, there's more to open-mindedness than that. Open-mindedness is about being open to changing your mind in light of new evidence. It's about detaching from your beliefs and ...
Skepticism: Why critical thinking makes you smarter
The French philosopher Rene Descartes once wrote, "In order to seek truth, it is necessary once in the course of our life to doubt, as far as possible, all things.". Sometimes you need to ...
Critical Thinking in Modern Society
A scientific concept is one derived from converging evidence; critical thinking demonstrates that type of convergence (evidence from various theoretical underpinnings and research). Critical thinking is a concept-complex (it involves various concepts, connections, and interactions). To reiterate, critical thinking is synonymous with rationality ...
PDF Skepticism: a Guide
Skepticism and critical thinking can be applied in everyday life where an invalid claim might have serious effects on you or people around you - such as in consideration of a medical treatment, a financial investment, a consumer product, or life choices.
Critical Thinking and the Culture of Skepticism
As critical thinking defuses, disenchants, and distances, it neuters the claims that romance our souls and arouse our impulse to believe. And in so doing, it educates us to expect and be satisfied with very little. A culture of critique tells us that having little, believing little, is a kind of salvation.
Open-Mindedness and Skepticism in Critical Thinking
Open-mindedness is about being open to changing your mind in light of new evidence. It's about detaching from your beliefs and focusing on unbiased thinking void of self-interest. It's about ...
7.4 Skepticism
Offer and explain a skeptical hypothesis. Outline the general structure of argument for global skepticism. Philosophical skepticism is the view that some or all knowledge is impossible. A skeptic questions the possibility of knowledge—particularly justification—in some domain. A global skeptic rejects the possibility of knowledge in general.
Resources: Skepticism, critical thinking, and science education
Online Courses. The Great Courses: Your Deceptive Mind: A Scientific Guide to Critical Thinking Skills with Steven Novella: Equips you with the knowledge and techniques you need to become a savvier, sharper critical thinker in your professional and personal life.; The Great Courses: Skepticism 101: How to Think Like a Scientist with Michael Shermer: Demonstrates how you can build a skeptical ...
Skeptic's Toolbox
Get the practical tools & resources you need to be a better skeptic and critical thinker! This is a "living" Toolbox and will be expanded as new resources are identified/developed. Resources include videos, training guides, and links to additional resources. If you have suggestions for resources we can add please let us know!
PDF Skeptical Thinking in the Classroom and its Impact on the Transference
Skepticism and the tools of skepticism can be one of the most effective ways of accomplishing that task. Students' critical thinking skills were assessed across multiple topics to ascertain their use and development of critical thinking skills. Preliminary results show that critical thinking skills do not transfer well from topic to topic, growth
Strategies to Improve Skeptical Thinking
These questions seem to imply skepticism is a bad thing instead of a valuable tool and a key part of critical thinking. Skepticism isn't new; it has existed for at least thousands of years. It dates back to Plato's academy 2,500 years ago (Shermer 2002). Skepticism is an approach to claims, and it is inherent in the scientific attitude.
7.4: Skepticism
The choice is between thinking you are justified in believing that you have two hands and thinking you are justified in believing the skeptical hypothesis might be true. ... Rather, skepticism means that we can never be sufficiently justified in believing that there is a God or that moral claims are true. We simply can never know either way ...
Skeptical activism and critical thinking
Skeptical activism and critical thinking. In everyday life, normally we do not explicitly declare ourselves "skeptics" even though we may have some disbeliefs, and we certainly need to be sure about any information we are going to use in a formal manner. We can talk about skepticism in terms of the afterlife, or the possible reversal of ...
Importance of Skepticism in Critical Thinking
Skepticism has a couple of meanings. The first, pretty straight-forward, is "doubt as to the truth of something". So when someone tells you something, if you don't believe it right away, you are treating it with skepticism. So thinking back to the critical thinking skills we talked about in week one, in one respect, someone who doesn't ...
Skeptic » Skepticism 101 » critical thinking and skepticism Archives
Produced by: Michael Shermer. In this, the final lecture of his Chapman University Skepticism 101 course, Dr. Michael Shermer pulls back to take a bigger picture look at what science and reason have done for humanity in the realm of moral progress. That is, applying the methods of science and principles of reason since the Scientific Revolution ...
Constructive Skepticism, Critical Thinking and The Ethics of Belief
7 young people be introduced to critical thinking at the earliest possible opportunity and be encouraged to adopt a disposition of a healthy, mitigated, methodological skepticism as a defense against outrageous claims. Hence, the Bertrand Russell "Will to Doubt" ought to override the William James "Will to Believe.".
Critical Thinking, Intelligence, and Unsubstantiated Beliefs: An
Critical thinking is considered part of analytical skills which involve evaluating the quality and applicability of ideas, products, and options ( ). Regarding adaptive intelligence, () has emphasized how adaptive aspects of intelligence are needed to solve real-world problems both at the individual and species levels.
The Art of Positive Skepticism
People who are driven by inflexible beliefs rarely think like Galileo or Jobs. Skepticism, on the other hand, is a key part of critical thinking - a goal of education. The term skeptic is ...
The Philosophical Approach to Skepticism
Critical thinking focuses on logically understanding an argument to make the best decision. However, while skepticism has a place and is necessary for the thinking process, it is not the same as critical thinking. Skepticism is an attitude of doubt and questioning knowledge and beliefs. This is different than analyzing and evaluating information.
How Skepticism Can Boost Your Reasoning Skills
Skepticism is not just a negative attitude or a habit of doubting everything. It is a critical thinking skill that can help you improve your reasoning and avoid errors in logic, evidence, and ...
Mistakes and misconduct in science are not synonymous; there are
Skepticism is important to science, but critical thinking even more so. Many Americans don't believe in science. Scientists need to change minds.
3 Critical Thinking Skills You Need In 2024
To develop critical thinking for your career success, consider building the following skills: 1. Curiosity. Innovation comes through being curious enough to keep probing and digging for ...
Empiricism vs Skepticism: When And How Can You Use Each One?
Skepticism is an important tool for critical thinking. The journalist approached the story with skepticism. Skepticism is necessary when evaluating claims that seem too good to be true. The scientist expressed skepticism about the results of the study. Skepticism can help us avoid falling for scams and hoaxes.
17 Signs Someone Has a High IQ
Skepticism and Critical Thinking High-IQ individuals often exhibit a greater degree of skepticism and critical thinking than others. This is largely because they have a tendency to question people ...
Can a Sexless Marriage Be a Happy One?
He was thinking about how similar they actually are. More than anything, they want to enjoy themselves in their own way, to savor the small moments when they can let the rest of the world fade away.
Amazon-seller who makes $142K a month: avoid these mistakes
When I talk with aspiring entrepreneurs about how to create side hustles that best fit their schedules and lifestyles, I always tell them to avoid these three mistakes: DON'T MISS: The ultimate ...
How insurers and new entrants can take advantage of embedded insurance
T here's no doubt that the time is now for embedded insurance as insurers and other companies try to unlock value from seamlessly weaving insurance into purchase, use and upkeep of assets and services. A confluence of societal trends and market forces - from technology advancements and pervasive connectivity to shifting consumer needs and evolving growth strategies in a wide range of ...

Newest Articles

Historically, skepticism and doubt have been used to challenge existing beliefs and accepted truths

What is Skepticism and Doubt?

The Historical Roots of Skepticism and Doubt

The Application of Skepticism and Doubt

Resources for Learning More About Skepticism and Doubt

Top Articles

Exploring Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

Enlightenment: A History of Philosophy

Exploring Applied Ethics

New Articles

7.4 Skepticism

Global Skepticism

The Dream Argument

The Evil Demon Argument

Putnam’s Brain in a Vat

General Structure of Global Skeptical Arguments

Responses to Global Skepticism

Contextualism

Skepticism in Specific Domains

Think Like a Philosopher

YouTube Channels

Websites/Blogs/Resources

Publications/Journals

Online Courses

Documentaries

14 thoughts on “Resources: Skepticism, critical thinking, and science education”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Skeptic’s Toolbox

Skeptic’s Toolbox Resources

Upcoming Skeptic’s Toolbox Events

Past Events

Five Ways to Inoculate Against Viral Nonsense: Practical Lessons from the Science of Mental Immunity

Tools for Non-Confrontational Discussions

Effective Teaching of Critical Thinking: Reducing Epistemically Unwarranted Beliefs

The Wide World of Science

Modern Skepticism

Improving Skeptical Thinking

7.4: Skepticism

Learning Objectives

Global Skepticism

The Dream Argument

The Evil Demon Argument

Putnam’s Brain in a Vat

General Structure of Global Skeptical Arguments

Responses to Global Skepticism

Contextualism

Skepticism in Specific Domains

Think Like A Philosopher

Luz Rello: "My motivation for working in the field of dyslexia is social: I want to help people with this disorder"

The skeptical movement

Critical thinking to educate us

José Enebral Fernández

More about Humanities

Cybersecurity to Guard Against Brain Hacking

OpenMind Books

About OpenMind

The Importance of Skepticism

What is Skepticism, Really?

Can You Be Skeptical and Open-Minded?

And Why is it Important?

Let’s Get Skeptical!

1. Avoid taking things at face value.

2. Ask questions.

3. Suspend judgement.

4. Be willing to form an opinion (eventually).

5. Be willing to revise.

It’s Not Personal

Share this:

Dianne Whitford

22 comments

Social Media Obsession and Detox During Crisis

Faith and the Critical Thinker

How to Develop Critical Thinking

Subscribe Today!

The Skeptics Society & Skeptic magazine

You Are Browsing Resources on: critical thinking and skepticism

MISSED A PREVIOUS LECTURE?

What is Truth, Anyway?

What are Science & Skepticism?