Samuel Fawcett argues for instilling a healthy degree of scepticism in our young people.
Society is made in the classroom. Teaching young people how to think critically is essential to an open, progressive society. Photo: Ilmicrofono Oggiono.
The United Kingdom is a credulous nation. Polling carried out by Ipsos Mori in 2013 showed that the general public are wrong about almost everything. From welfare, to crime, to immigration, public perceptions are a long way from the actual facts. It would seem that people are similarly susceptible to pseudoscience. YouGov polling shows that 39% of Britons believe that homeopathy is an effective treatment for illness and 20% that star signs ‘can tell you something about yourself or another person’.
So why are we so wrong about stuff? The reasons are manifold, and there is no simple remedy. Obviously the media plays a large role in shaping our perceptions about popular issues. It is no coincidence that the levels of immigration are believed to be higher than they are and the migrants themselves perceived to be morally degenerate when two out of three of the nation’s most-read papers push vehemently anti-immigrant rhetoric. However, to a certain extent these publications are simply catering to pre-existing prejudices, knowing that by doing so they will increase sales. When it comes to pseudoscience, many people are distrustful of large organisations, seeing them as removed, malicious and esoteric. Hence people are more likely to trust a friend offering them homeopathic pills than they are ‘big pharma’.
This disjunction between perception and reality is a key area in which Humanism can play a big role. At the heart of our movement is the desire for humans to live rational and harmonious lives. Obviously we do not seek to force everyone into a life of rigid, sceptical thinking – ‘we cannot live by reason alone’ as Sam Harris said. It is of no particular consequence to us if someone gets comfort from believing their deceased partner is watching over them or their horoscope will improve their sex life. But there is quite clearly an issue when lack of inquiry leads to the bigotry and spite which saw 50% of people agree with Nigel Farage’s view that immigrants suffering from AIDS should be denied NHS treatment for five years.
So what can we do about it? Obviously no one is going to shut down the Sun or the Daily Mail, and, much as it would save me a considerable number of blood vessels, it would be wrong to do so. Likewise, we cannot simply change fundamentals of human psychology. However, I believe that we can change people’s views without doing the impossible or betraying Enlightenment values of freedom of expression. To do so, we need to give people the tools to analyse, dissect and discuss from a young age.
Earlier this year I was talking with one of my French lecturers about what he thought of teaching in the UK. Instantly he replied that he hated it, and that he felt as though he were an activity leader rather than a tutor. He complained that we are not taught to think, but simply to regurgitate. A strong criticism, but one which I believe is grounded. In my own academic experience, I was never encouraged to question until university. Indeed, questioning was in effect discouraged at secondary school. Even in A-Level Law, my class was told to learn the essay answer to the question on Law and Morality ‘almost off by heart’ and repeat it in the exam in our own words. I do not think it is obtuse to ask that Law students be asked to seriously consider the moral implications of law-making rather than what the AQA exam board believe will score you the most marks.
This lack of inquiry needs to be remedied by schools and colleges internalising critical thinking skills as a key part of their teaching. Some would say that this would be too dull and complex for students to take on, but I do not believe that is true at all. The ‘naïve young idealist’ stereotype exists for a reason, being that younger people tend to be far more sceptical than their elders, and are more than happy to question authority. Why don’t we utilise their healthy scepticism?
An obvious first step is replacing Religious Education with the broader ‘Philosophy and Ethics’ specification which OCR have been trialling. This subject would still teach about the world’s religions, but would also include the basics of philosophy. It would be a perfect course to bring in the ideas of bias, argument and evidence. But we must not be content with simply adding a topic to the curriculum. All academic subjects should be taught with an eye on why we know the facts that we do or how we can analyse the ideas put forward; from looking at the power of language used by politicians and the media in English lessons, to how science must be its own fiercest critic if it is to be useful.
Correctly done, such an approach does have the potential to change how people think. Studies in France have shown that there is no correlation between people’s belief in pseudoscience and their level of scientific education. However, they did find that when people were taught the method behind science rather than just the facts, their acceptance of pseudoscientific beliefs fell sharply.
It is pivotal that our students come out of education with a critical mind that can take things at more than face value. Humanists desire a society where people treat each other respecting their worth as individuals rather than seeing them as hate groups that have been homogenised by misconceptions and unfair portrayals. Likewise, we do not wish to see people beholden to superstitious or fundamentalist ideas that can be damaging both physically and psychologically. Making our education system one that teaches scepticism rather than credence would not make this society a reality, but it would go some way to creating it.
Samuel Fawcett is the Deputy Editor of Anticipations, the magazine of the Young Fabians. He tweets at @SamFawcett92.
Any chance of a link to these “studies done in France”? I don’t want to go referencing their results without being able to back it up with details from the primary source!
Hi Alistair.
Sam here, sorry it took so long to get back to you! Frustratingly I don’t have an exact link for the studies. They were discussed in a Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast I listened to. I believe the episode was #521, July 4 2015.
There’s a relevant course starting shortly at Futurelearn:
https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/logical-and-critical-thinking?utm_source=FL_DB&utm_medium=crm&utm_campaign=08_09_2015_FL_newsletter&utm_content=text
This is an advertisement and should probably be removed. Furthermore, I have seen this sort of course and it is not very helpful. Critical thinking should ONLY be taught by philosophers and those who are serious about learning it should ONLY take courses from a philosophy department. In my experience, people from other disciplines map whatever they want to say onto the term “critical thinking.”
FutureLearn is a private company wholly owned by the Open University. Their courses are free, and open to anyone, run by universities and other academic institutions. That particular course is run by the University of Auckland.
So it’s a link to a free, open, reputable learning resource, not advertising.
I’m sure others can comment about whether critical thinking can be usefully taught by anyone other than a philosopher.
Critical thinking is taught, I have a friend who does it. And it is taught in schools, it just backslid a bit during the excesses of the National Curriculum, a project of Margaret Thatcher who definitely did not want people to think for themselves!
“…Margaret Thatcher who definitely did not want people to think for themselves!”
> That’s simply absurd. In fact, ironically, your assertion provides evidence of a lack of your own critical thinking.
. . . and I just looked up the names of the people running the course – they are philosophers.
Critical thinking just means questioning everything that does not involve demonstrable fact, it’s not some esoteric branch of philosophy at all.
The only thing I don’t quite agree with is the assertion that we can’t change ‘fundamental human psychology.’ Thought processes in both the conscious and unconscious mind do occupy the physical space of the neural pathways but this can be changed. We are only born with the primitive brain pre programmed. Everything else can be changed, often quite late in life. Even if we cannot change our default responses to things we can definitely learn to moderate our behaviour. Human psychology evolves just the same as our physical bodies do. The fact that one group in society thinks critically demonstrates that this is a phenomenological possibility for all.
your first paragraph was enough for me to stop reading this artical, dissing homeopathy tells me you need to do a bit of critical thinking yourself, 40% of uk people believe hoeopathy works because experience telle them that it does , to then just say that they are wrong is typical of scientific arrogance . blinded by science!
Experience may tell you that it works, but >200 years of scientific evidence proves it’s bunkum. Beyond doubt.
http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v210/n7/pdf/sj.bdj.2011.237.pdf
You stop reading as soon as read something that does not chime with your beliefs. You reject all the impartial evidence in favour of whatever people say they believe, for whatever reason they may have been led to believe it. You fail to see that the fact that, even then, you are ignoring the reported fact that 60% of people do NOT believe homeopathy works. And yet you call the pursuit of knowledge and understanding by rational, repeatable, refutable evidence “arrogant” and “blind”. Seems to me that the first requirement of critical thinking must be an ability to approach a topic logically, and with an open mind about what your conclusion might be. You failed.
oh dear, joyce. there are so many holes in your argumant its hard to know where to start. plus i cant be arsed, as people so rarely change their opinion in an argument as its more about ego than facts. i sugest you read the link ive posted to liams comment if you’re interested. alternativly continue in your hysterical vein and good luck to you.
joyce, after a little concideration ive decided to answer your points rather than dismis you with a cursory wave of my hand.
i stopped reading cos at the first prejudiced statment i realised id likely encounter more of the same. its like when someone lies , you can never believ anything they say afterwards.
the ‘evidence’ is far from impartial
the 40/60 says nothing of the sort
again 4th sentence. i say nowt of the sort
i am more than happy to take onboard evidence based evidence when i see it.