Even though this article reflects the thinking of a lot of people who want to believe that “they really know what’s going on” because they used “critical thinking and evidence,” it is ultimately totally bogus.

Why? Mainly because no general public laypeople are qualified to draw any conclusions about these issues be they global warming, GMOs, or any other “controversial” science topics. As just one simple example, look at the French study that found a connection between cancer and “roundup ready” GMOs. Would the average, or even above average, person know anything about the weaknesses of the experimental design in regards to statistical power? Would these average people know anything about the possible impact of the natural rate of cancers in the specific strain of mice used? Of course not. And this is only one study out of hundreds that come out every year on GMO’s, not to mention the decades of previous research the newer studies are built on. Is the average person supposed to keep up with all these studies and more importantly have an expert understanding of them from which to draw conclusions? And this is only ONE topic. Are average people supposed to keep up with the hundreds of studies that come out yearly on global warming too and every other hot button science issue that might impact our lives? Even actual scientists who might understand one area (GMO’s) wouldn’t have the time or background to understand other topics adequately (GW).

So this brings us to another point, trust. Most people wouldn’t have been able to raise those concerns about the French GMO study. So instead many TRUSTED the other scientists who came out against it. Since the public has no real knowledge about whether those strains of mice are more prone to cancer or what statistical power is, they are basically left with nothing more than to be forced to trust one group or another (usually whoever agrees with the position they already hold). Ultimately, the best and only thing to hope for is a public that can assess the credibility of the authority they are going to choose listen to. People shouldn’t waste their time trying to interpret scientific studies that they aren’t qualified to read. They should be deeply exploring the experts/organizations that are putting out these various opinions and weighing their potential credibility and expertise. How to do this is another topic altogether though.

The greatest fallacy of the critical thinking movement is the failure to realize that you can’t “critically think” about stuff you don’t adequately understand in the first place. AKA junk in -> junk out