"We all have knowledge and we mentally assign a level of confidence in each piece of knowledge we think we have. ...

For the critical thinker it is important to avoid unjustified confidence, and to understand what factors may lead us to a high degree of confidence when we are in fact wrong. For example, we often assign a high degree of confidence to memories that are vivid and accessible, but the evidence shows that these factors do not predict accuracy. A memory may feel completely real, but be completely wrong.

Skeptics often encounter the “confidence” defense -- we are asked to believe anecdotal accounts based upon the reporter’s confidence in their accuracy. I have been told many times by believers that they were absolutely certain about specific facts of a case that turned out to be demonstrably wrong. In these cases it seemed to me that confidence derived from a desire to believe, and therefore have a clean story in support of the belief. But confidence is an effective form of persuasion -- we tend to trust other people’s confidence, even when we shouldn’t.

Science has largely quantified confidence -- that is, after all, was science is largely about: having a high degree of confidence in our explanations about the natural world."

"So for today’s A.I., you’re teaching a continuing ed. course in critical thinking at the local learning annex:

How do you conduct the class? Is there an exercise you would have the students do that demonstrates critical thinking? What is your first lesson?"

"Critical Thinking has been added to the AS level Curriculum in the UK and is the fastest growing subject. More students opt to take it every year as it’s seen, rightly, as being a vitally important addition not only to your UCAS form but also CV. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6950084.stm

There’s even a website to help get you through the course http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk/

... I’ve taught courses in “Science and Maths for Arts Students” and “Intro to Scientific Thinking” and I generally found R. Carroll’s book Becoming a Critical Thinker (the recomended text) to be invaluble as a teaching aid. ...

I found the biggest problems to be students' inability to think for themselves (at the start 90% just wanted to be told what to think and what to write on the exam, a legacy of the sh*t High School system which is an exam factory) and their jaw-dropping lack of Maths (more than half had the pleasure of my company for what was essentially “Remedial Maths”)."

"Anyone who even gives ear to people such as Dawkins (Richard Dawkins) and Kitchens (Posters to Myers' blog are assuming that "Kitchens" is Christopher Hitchens) is no less than a fool. There is nothing wrong with being a fool, but teaching others to be one is unacceptable and irresponsible, at the very least." ("People who live in glass houses" department.)

"There is a vast gulf between the science of complex natural systems and the level of understanding of that science among those involved in public discourse and important policy making. This gulf is one of the most significant problems we face in modern society. When an entire political party in the US devotes much of its energy to stand between scientific knowledge and policy making (see: The Republican War on Science), and our population becomes increasingly distant from understanding even basic science (see: Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future), we are in trouble.

Two very important defenses against the collapse of civilization owing to ignorance (see: Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed) are the science geek and the skeptic. Often but not always they are the same person. These are the people who will vote correctly and encourage others to do so. These are the people who will not let utterly stupid sh*t pass by in conversations at family gatherings, parties, in classrooms, at bus stops, and on the Internet, without a critical comment. These are the people who may be scientists themselves but more often are not, who push their skepticism out in front of them as the move with alacrity across their social landscapes, mowing down Teh Dumb as they encounter it."

"From evolution to global warming to vaccines, science is under assault from denialists -- those who dismiss well-tested scientific knowledge as merely one of many competing ideologies. Science denial goes beyond skeptical questioning to attack the legitimacy of science itself. ...

Despite such misleading hyperbole, science is meritocratic. Once you achieve a minimum level of education and competence, you can participate, ask a challenging question of even the most respected scientist, or submit papers to scientific journals, where research is judged by the data and methodology. Esteemed scientists face relentless criticism. This is how science works.'

Someone insists that some unproven claim in computer science is true -

"Why does he have the right to do this? Because there are no scientific standards in computer science. There are no peers yelling, 'Hey! That hasn't been peer reviewed, who the hell are you to teach that?' Nobody is standing up demanding that the latest language feature be tested and peer reviewed before it is forced on paying customers (students). Nope, they just go, 'Oh, it's new and he has a Ph.D., it must be correct then.' What is missing are the concepts of scientific method, empirical validation, experimentation, and peer review."