How to Develop Students’ Scientific Skepticism in the Classroom
Taking what we know from ELA instruction and applying it to critical thinking
Carl Sagan in his book The Demon-Haunted World warned us to be intellectually vigilant against false, pseudoscientific claims. He foresaw a time when people would feel disenfranchised and reach for solutions to their problems that defied logic and reason.
“I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges near, pseudoscience and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive. Where have we heard it before? Whenever our ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us — then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls. The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir.” p. 26–27
“Habits of thought familiar from ages past” refers, of course, to facile thinking that ignores difficult critical questions and instead seeks solace in easy, confirmatory biases.
I think by now we’ve seen plenty of evidence of confirmation bias in the public arena, especially in politics, where both sides accuse the other of selling out America. The hatred is palpable. Yet, it is not surprising.
Up until now, the sort of critical thinking taught in our public schools has served too narrow of a purpose. Much of what’s taught is driven by learning standards, which primarily exist as a means for testing students, judging teachers, narrowing content, and ultimately justifying funding.
What is needed now more than ever is scientific skepticism, a term coined by Sagan to describe a default attitude of holding out for conclusive, empirical evidence of a phenomenon before embracing the claim as fact.
In a sense, critical thinking is no different than eating an orange. One must peel away what cannot be sensibly digested in order to get to the edible nutrients at the core.
School children as young as seven or eight can be taught to think as Sagan describes. And it does not require radically changing anything teachers are already doing in primary and elementary school. We teach students to make text-to-text, text-to-self, and text-to-world connections. We need only tweak this approach.
I suggest the lessons begin the following way. (Subsequent posts in this series will delve deeper into teaching scientific skepticism to students.)
Making Critical-of-Text Connections
This is the easiest and most familiar place to start for children. We already teach reading comprehension skills to students, which primarily focus on main idea, supporting details, cause and effect, character, plot, setting, theme, etc. The difference here is that we teach students to question the source of non-fiction text material and the author/publisher of it.
Questions could include Who is the author and what authority do they have to write on this topic? What claim is being made in the text? Is the author arguing for a certain position and do I find the argument reasonable and persuasive? If not, what additional facts or evidence do I need?
These questions can lead to a deep dive into the text and analysis of the author’s intent for writing the piece. More importantly, it teaches the students that learning is active questioning and not just recitation of preconceived notions.
Critical-of-World Connections
This is a big one. No text exists in a vacuum. This connection demands students think of the cause for the thesis to be written in the first place, and the effect it may have later. You may be questioning just a portion or all of the text, depending on the type of text it is. Just be sure to pick a text that will pique student’s interests. A book on race cars may interest one or two students, whereas environmental concerns impact all of us.
A book on glaciers might mention the rate at which glaciers are melting all over the world. It’s quite possible, depending on the purpose of the text, that the author will describe this as a “problem” or a “need” that humans “must address immediately.”
Whether the author steers us to that conclusion or not, questions to stop and ask here include:
- What led to this current situation?
- How or why was this allowed to happen?
- Is it really a problem, and for whom? How do we know?
- Do other reliable sources confirm this claim?
Deeper, more speculative questions may include:
- What are the benefits to the world if we fix this problem?
- What if we ignore the problem?
- Can we expect it to get better on its own or worse? How do we know?
- Are there potential economic or social side-effects to addressing this problem head-on?
- Who would suffer/benefit from these side-effects?
- At what cost to society are we willing to pay to address this problem?
Critical-of-Self Connections
It’s at this point where we get to the root of what it means to be a scientifically skeptical thinker. And I’ll sum it up in one word:
Humility.
All of us struggle with this from time to time. The Dunning-Kruger Effect, or the belief that we already possess enough knowledge to understand something despite evidence to the contrary, is a major stumbling block to critical thinking. No one likes to believe they are ignorant, much less stupid. Too many of us fight for our beliefs rather than keep an open mind and admit we’ve been wrong about something all along.
We all-too-frequently identify with our beliefs. Attacking them becomes a personal attack on ourselves and who we are. Or think we are.
This is why it is crucial that children learn early on about their own fallibility, and that expertise comes only with many years of study and acquired knowledge. And even experts can be wrong. Scientists are always looking for errors in theirs and others’ work, in a constant effort to get closer to the truth. Perhaps I should have used an onion as my metaphor above. The truth is usually buried beneath many, many layers of misunderstanding.
Questions to ask at this point include:
- How much do I already know about this topic?
- What do I know and what do I think I know?
- How can I tell the difference?
- Who do I trust as a source of reliable information in my life?
- What makes this source reliable?
- How do I find out more about their experiences and knowledge?
- How did they arrive at their expertise?
Conclusion
It is not my intent to suggest that our nation’s teachers are at fault for the scientific illiteracy we frequently bear witness to today. Just the opposite: if it weren’t for the daily efforts of our already over-taxed educators, we would be neck-deep in ignorance with no hope for survival. But teachers face an uphill battle, thanks in no small part to a national obsession with standards and the reams of testing data they create.
What I am arguing for is a more thoughtful and refined approach to the thinking practices of all students in our K-12 classrooms. We already have the groundwork in place. But something more needs to be done.
Or else our demons will get the better of us.
This is the first in a series of articles discussing ways to promote scientific skepticism and critical thinking in our public schools.
