This thread is supposed to be about critical thinking in science classes (in spite of the inappropriate title).
Ah, ok. A mod-split thread of a derail from another thread. Well then, while this is a derail off of that earlier thread, surely this is bang on here, given that is literally what this thread's about? And in any case, since my post directly addressed your own post, I don't see how you can describe mine as a derail, not unless you accept that yours itself was a derail, from whatever original course you may have had in mind for your thread.
...Anyway, moving on. I agree, teaching critical thinking in schools seems like a great idea. But why just in science, though? Why not literature as well --- for instance, discussing controversial authorship (Shakespeare? The Bible?), and/or controversial content, and/or critical analysis and criticism of plots (as opposed to merely literary analysis)? Why not history, that is one field that would be a great subject for critical analysis and evaluation. Civics as well, obviously. And most importantly in religion, in religious schools where they actually teach religious subjects.
In fact, given that critical thinking is something so sorely needed, and in practice so sorely lacking, it would be a terrific idea to properly teach it in schools, rigorously, I'm with you there; but given that it is needed in every subject, not just science but also literature, and civics, and history, and religion (where religion is taught, in religious schools) surely a better idea would be to have a separate subject called Critical Thinking, that teaches critical thinking both standalone, and also as it relates to specific subjects taught in other classes? Why single out just science?
Other than using the vague "scientific/unscientific", you are just paraphrasing me.
Re the old "invisible dragon" chestnut, it might serve a purpose to believe (or to convince others to believe) that there is an invisible dragon in your garage but other than pointing out that it is not scientifically falsifiable, it serves no purpose to discuss it in the science class room.
It's an argumentum ad absurdum. It shows how absurd the whole idea is, of even considering wild unsupported declarations (including of the kind the Bible makes, the unfalsified and unfalsifiable bits).
Think about it. In your scheme of things, in science class about evolution, you'd need to have Creationism also discussed, as well as Maori creation myths, as well as creation stories from Hindu mythology and ...well, why stop with religion, why not out-and-out fiction like the Silmarillion as well, and interesting sci-fi .....as well as, I suppose, wild random "theories" that students might be able to come up with themselves? That won't even be a science class any more.
And again, why just science class, right? Why not literature as well, and history as well, and civics as well, and religious studies as well (in religious schools)? Well, there also, those classes would devolve to chaos, and not even look like history classes any more, or civics classes, or literature classes.
Once again, your point about emphasizing teaching of critical thinking rigorously is well taken. But it makes sense to make it a separate subject, then, rather than merge that teaching with other subjects like history and science and literature and religious studies.
