Teaching skepticism via the CRITIC acronym and the skeptical inquirer

The CRITIC acronym provides neophyte skeptical students with an easy-to-remember, step-by-step format for applied critical thinking. Practice applying this simple method of critical analysis can include writing CRITIC reports on the feature articles found in the SKEPTICAL INQUIRER.

Most college students slouch into the first day of class assuming they already know a great deal about the world around them. As a result they may have to unlearn an accumulated wealth of misinformation in addition to absorbing the priceless new pearls of wisdom teachers toss their way. An improvement in critical thinking skills should facilitate that sometimes painful process.

When it comes to widely accepted extraordinary claims, the sources bombarding today's students are rich, the speculations boundless, and critical analysis is generally lacking. Dubious claims familiar to readers of the SKEPTICAL INQUIRER abound: Exposure to "crystal energy" improves health and mental functioning; gifted "psychics" can describe your innermost desires, divine the future, or speak with the dead; basic "personality traits" can be revealed by studying the features of an individual's face. Students routinely assume such claims to be true, or else they would not be prominently featured on radio and TV, in books, newspapers, and magazines. Rarely is the slightest critical thought demonstrated in credulous media portrayals of paranormal events (recent television network examples include NBC'S The Others and Mysterious Ways). The challenge for an educator is to motivate students to critically evaluate interesting claims without having the benefit of background courses in research methodology and statis tics (which most students never take).

Introductory psychology classes have always stressed a scientific approach to the study of behavior, with skeptical modes of thought being emphasized long before "critical thinking" became a buzzword in education. Some years ago a panel of psychologists assembled by the American Psychological Association concluded that the primary objective of an undergraduate psychology degree is graduates who could be described as "amiable skeptics about much of what they encounter." We in the skeptical community might hope this outcome would occur no matter what college major a young person selects, but widespread acceptance of fanciful notions by college-educated adults suggests this is a vain hope. During three decades of teaching college psychology courses and encouraging the development of "amiable skeptics," I devised a practical system of applied critical thought based upon the easy-to-remember acronym CRITIC. It could be used in a variety of courses, is readily understood by most college students, and would probably be effective even with high school and junior high school students. It is basically a simplified application of the scientific method without the complex terminology:

C Claim?

R Role of the claimant?

I Information backing the claim?

T Test?

I Independent testing?

C Cause proposed?

C--Claim: The first task is to describe exactly what is being proposed. Spell it our, define it, make it specific enough to be observable and measurable. For example, how might a claim of crystal-inspired "improved mental functioning" actually be demonstrated? What measurable mental performance would be expected and how would we determine whether or not it actually occurred? With some claims it immediately becomes apparent that we cannot pin down exactly what is being proposed, making it impossible to seriously test the claim. For example, I could assert that invisible "N-rays" emanating from Earth disturb mental functioning, but this newly discovered force cannot yet be measured. Not only that, but the effects are sporadic and influence different people in different ways, so they cannot be readily documented. The essential requirement of falsifiability can be introduced and most students will understand why a claim that cannot be falsified is worthless.

R--Role of the claimant: Who is making the claim and is there something in it for them, e.g., money, fame, power, influence, publicity? If the public accepts the claim, will the claimant profit? Does the claimant appear to be an unbiased observer or a "true believer" with something to sell? Might he or she be motivated to slant things in a specific direction for personal benefit? Some years ago Roger Smith, then president of General Motors, claimed on the Donahue show that GM manufactured the "highest quality vehicles produced in the world." Might viewers have reason to hesitate in taking his word for it? If there is some benefit for the claimant, that does not necessarily demonstrate the claim to be false, but it certainly suggests using vigilance and caution in accepting that individual as a reliable fount of knowledge.

I--Information backing the claim: What evidence is offered in support of the claim? Is it public information that can readily be verified? Or is it anecdotal or testimonial? GM's Roger Smith supported his Donahue show claim about world-beating quality by pulling a letter from his pocket and reading it aloud. The letter was purportedly received from a happy Buick owner who described driving his car more than 300,000 trouble-free miles. The common uncritical use of testimonials and anecdotal evidence in the media and in advertising can be discussed here, along with why such use should always raise a red flag. We can also question whether th.e information cited is genuine, who actually provided it, arid for what purpose? For example, how could Donahue's viewers know for certain whether or not the Buick owner's letter was genuine? Finally, are we being provided with information that was obtained under scientific, controlled conditions and published in recognized peer-reviewed scientific journals, and why is that important?