Thinking and Writing about Physics & Society

Seven Critical Thinking Skills

Development of Critical Thinking Skills: One of the four principles of the Miami Plan is related to the development of critical thinking skills and helping to improve these skills is a major goal of this course.  We will focus on seven basic traits of good critical thinking and writing throughout the semester.  These include:  1.  Identifying the problem, 2. Defining your own perspective, 3. Defining and considering other relevant perspectives, 4. Identifying the key assumptions, 5. Assessing the quality of the data/evidence, 6. Considering the influence of context on the issue, and 7. Drawing and supporting conclusions, implications, and consequences.

1.      Identifying and summarizing the problem/question at issue (and/or the source’s position).

        Good critical thinking of this type “identifies the main problem and subsidiary, embedded, or implicit aspects of the problem, clearly, addressing their relationships to each other. Remember to identify not only the basics of the issue, but recognize nuances of the issue." [1] 

          For instance, if the issue is whether scientific research that uses human stem cells is ethical, you will need to consider the fact that there are multiple sources of stem cells and different ways of using them.  Does the ethical issue depend on what the source of the cells is?  Would you consider that using stem cells for research is ethical in some research areas, but not others?

2.   Identifying and presenting the student’s own perspective and position as it is important to the analysis of the issue.

         This is more than just stating your own opinion. This is telling what you think and why – what in your reading and your experience has lead you to where you are. Sometimes having your own perspective on a topic can add a great deal to a conversation or a paper. If all you do is a good job with #1 in this list, identifying the problem/question at hand, you may still leave the class thinking “so what?” Thinking about the basis of your own perspectives can improve your writing.  For instance, if you have had some personal connection with an issue, it is important to think about how that may have shaped your views. 

         One might consider if it is economically feasible to re-build the New Orleans levees to higher storm-fighting standards (level 5 for instance).  You might have relatives who were evacuated due to Hurricane Katrina.  If you have no such personal experience, you might need to read more on the issue to determine what your opinion is and what influences it.

3.   Identifies and considers OTHER salient perspectives and positions that are important to the analysis of the issue.

         It is also important here to recognize that there are other perspectives that may also be valid; the people who hold them have had different experiences than you have and may find different things important.  If you have debated, you may have had the experience of preparing debates on both sides of the issue. It should be possible for you to construct coherent, logical, evidence-based arguments that you do not agree with, as well as arguments you do agree with.  However, unlike a debate in which there are usually two sides to an issue thought of as pro and con, in this class there may often be multiple perspectives on an issue.

         You may have heard about the use of carbon nanotubes as drug delivery systems for fighting cancer.   If you have a family member who suffered from cancer, you might have one viewpoint on the issue.  However, you might know that other researchers are looking into the side-effects of introducing any nanomaterial in the body for medical reasons, or the effects of manufacturing nanomaterials on the workers’ health.  How do the chemists, physicists and doctors who are developing these nano-therapies look at the situation?  What about the lawyers and politicians?

4.   Identifies and assesses the key assumptions.

         Identifying assumptions is always important, and it is particularly important when discussing ethics of nuclear power. Assumptions like “it is important that people around the world have a reliable energy source”.  Or you might believe that “some countries are too unstable politically to have any nuclear capabilities.”  Some people think that "the environment should be protected no matter what the cost," while others think “our number 1 priority is to our shareholders.”  These are examples of assumptions which are often unstated and unquestioned.  Examining the assumptions behind ethical arguments can be difficult, but it is vital to discussion.

5.   Identifies and assesses the quality of supporting data/evidence and provides additional data/evidence related to the issue.

         In this class it is important to be able to identify evidence that supports or refutes a particular perspective.  You cannot just state that something is true because you believe it to be.  You must provide data to support your argument.  It is important to neither quickly accept, nor to quickly dismiss, data or evidence. Think about where the information came from, who said it, why did they say that, and how did they learn that. By now you probably know that not everything on the Internet is true (not even everything on “.edu” websites), and you may also know that not everything published in journals and books is true. You need to be able to “examine both the evidence and source of evidence; questions its accuracy, precision, relevance, completeness” and “to distinguish between fact, opinion, and value judgments.”[1]

         A thesis statement might be:  we can build a structure to withstand earthquakes which register 7.5 on the Richter scale; however, it is not necessary to use the same building codes and standards in all parts of the US.  What must one consider when choosing to support or negate this statement? 

         You might ask:  What part of the country are you considering?  What percent chance of building failure is acceptable?  What does the data or evidence from previous events say about this?  What building needs do earthquakes have?  Tornados? Hurricanes?  Etc.  How often do such events occur in XYZ state?

6.   Identifies and considers the influence of the context on the issue.

         Some possible contexts are cultural, political, ethical, environmental, and religious.  Would you think differently about this issue if you were a lawyer for a major corporation or a small-town pastor?  Would you come to a different conclusion if you looked for a solution that was politically or economically feasible rather than just ethical in an abstract sense. You may want to (at least mentally) role-play to see how people coming from different contexts will have different assumptions and perspectives.

         If it were possible to measure air contaminants like flyash from coal-burning electrical plants (size in the micron range) to 1 mg/m³ and the Clean Air Act requires the maximum 24 hour concentration to be no more than 150 mg/m³, then should we lower the standard to a smaller value?  What might effect your conclusions?  What if a plant were located in the US, and you lived right across the border in Canada?  What if you were a doctor and knew how this affected the health of the population?  What are the political ramifications?  How might this affect your ability as a corporate CEO to gain funding for building a new plant?

7.   Identifies and assesses conclusions, implications, and consequences.

         To do this well, it helps to have also done the first six steps well. This is where you can really address the “so what” of your issue. Now that you  really understand what the problem is, you know what you and other people think about it, you have identified the relevant assumptions data/evidence, and contexts, how is life going to be different? What should you and your classmates think? What should you do? How should you vote? What would the results be if your recommendations are acted on?  What other information do scientists need to gather in order to have better basis for decision making on this issue?

         The US needs to attract and train scientists if it is to maintain its “top dog” status in the scientific community.  Does it matter if the students are US citizens?  Should we naturalize people who are employed doing science/technology related jobs?  Do we already have a preferred status for scientists entering the country?  How would the US economy fair in the short run if more money were poured into scientific training and research?  How would it fair in the long run?  Do companies need more basic research labs?  How does this effect our standing in world science and development?  Why are Japanese companies so effective?  What are the pros and cons of other countries’ approaches?

References: