This is pretty much what I'm saying, tbh.Really, education is important for deeper understanding, but basic science literacy isn't so difficult to grasp. Often it's a strong start to just teach some basic research skills and inspire enough interest to use those skills. People can always go deeper into knowledge, but we don't all need to spend years in every subject to grasp the most relevant information for our personal lives or to get a reasonable sense for differentiating accurate information.
Cool, thanks for clarifying. Please allow me to use some of your previous comments as a springboard. I think that people often over-generalise and forget that an individual might not think so critically in one area of their life, but do think critically in other regards. Critical-thinking is certainly a skill that can be practised and improved, but the way I look at it is that most people have something to tap into. For instance, instead of simply dismissing an anti-vaccinationist as stupid or illiterate, I would try to find a way to use their current motivated skepticism on other issues that might not be so guarded by strong beliefs, then work from there. The thing is, pretty much everyone has their own blindspots. Bill Nye was previously taking an anti-GMO stance, but could we say he lacked critical thinking? Perhaps in one way, but the main strategy was getting him to extend his critical thinking to some of his other beliefs and assumptions. Therefore, to me, I don't think the main issue is a lack of critical thinking, but rather an issue of helping each other be more aware and conscious of our beliefs, biases, and worldviews.
That is true. Thinking about it, you see a lot of people who have very good critical thinking in their area of knowledge but fail in areas they don't know much about. If we generalize and take that to mean that critical thinking arises from knowledge, we can't force everyone to have knowledge about everything so they can think critically about it. But a scientific mindset, and specifically the scientific method and philosophy of the science doesn't require you to have any concrete knowledge about a subject, or any subject, to be able to apply it. I feel (note the use of feel, which implies intuition and not a research backed opinion) that just knowledge about how science in general works, and of the scientific method and how it is used to learn about the world would help a lot of people have a much more open mind to new ideas, and more importantly to give importance to research, instead of dismissing it.
Yes, very good thoughts. For me, I see science as strategic thinking before I see it as a collection of knowledge. There are some very basic thinking tools that near anyone can use, even children, and further scientific concepts are additional pools to draw upon. Often, people do have an intuitive experience with natural phenomena, and that relationship is accurately perceived, but analytical scientific reasoning provides another lens through which to look. Such a lens can give deeper insights, and importantly, challenge false assumptions. For instance, nudging children into applying scientific inquiry on why they think the sky is blue is a great introduction to some important science concepts. Anyway, thanks for the chat!