En el 2007 la Academia Nacional de Ciencias, Ingeniería y Medicina de los Estados Unidos publicó un librito hermoso de 89 páginas llamado "Science, Evolution and Creationism". The authors explain the difference between a "theory" according to common understanding, and a "theory" in the scientific field.
Trying to paraphrase the authors, a theory in the common sense does not have the same category as a scientific theory. And it has nothing to do with whether the person proposing that theory has scientific training or not, but with the meaning of the word in the scientific context.
A theory (in scientific context) such as Hubble's Theory of Cosmic Expansion, or General Relativity Theory or the Theory of Evolution, are theories that have already been tested, extensively reviewed and finally accepted in general and in particular by the global scientific community, and the probability that new information will be found that contradicts these theories is very small. These theories are not hypotheses, they are things that we know.
Now, on the other hand there are the other theories, which are the things that occur to us people. For example, some have the theory that the COVID vaccine makes your body magnetic. The idea is that if you get vaccinated and you approach certain metal objects like utensils, those objects are going to stick to your body as if you were a magnet.
There are also those who have the theory that an interplanetary alien race has come to Earth and infiltrated our spheres of power and through their strategies they control us.
Or the theory that the Earth is not round as has been scientifically established.
Now, these "theories" that I have given as examples can be ill-intentioned, but not all of them are, for example I can have the theory that X person is in love with me, or I can have the theory that my chemistry teacher wants to fail me because I rub him the wrong way, or I can have the theory that tarot or zodiac signs or Nordic runes will be able to help me understand the future, or I can have the theory that a politician is corrupt.
These less ill-intentioned theories can be innocent, but sometimes innocence, even starting from good faith can cause harm.
These theories of control and conspiracy can be interesting ideas, but they do not have the same category as a scientifically accepted theory, because there is no evidence that conclusively tells us they are true.
What there are are stories, testimonies, people giving their opinions, but it is extremely important to discern the difference between one and the other, which is the same difference between coincidence and causality. A couple of inverted letters can shed so much light and at the same time misunderstood can cause so much damage.
Coincidence and Causality
Coincidence says: it happened to me, therefore it could be true. By coincidence I can find a bill lying in the street under the tire of my car.
Causality on the other hand says: for these reasons (measurable, observable, quantifiable) it seems to be true.
By causality I know that every time I drop an object in the air, as long as it is on planet Earth and conditions are normal, the object will fall to the ground.
It's not that sometimes I drop an object and sometimes it coincidentally falls and sometimes coincidentally doesn't fall.
No, by causality I know that the object (being in normal conditions) will always fall.
Similarly, it's not that every time I'm going to leave my house I'm going to find a bill under the tire of my car, or that every Thursday the same thing happens, or that because in the morning I brushed my teeth with my left hand instead of my right hand it's going to repeat. There is no causal relationship between one thing and another.
The thing is that there are those who by default think that there is a certain permanent causality, when logical thinking tells us that a causality cannot be established until there is replicable evidence of it.
Put another way, the fact that it sometimes happens doesn't mean it will always happen, if a causal relationship is not established.
That is why today I want to share with you 6 keys to critical thinking that if you understand and remember every time you are preparing a public presentation, it will make it easier for you to organize your ideas and therefore lead better.
Learn (or rather remember, because we all saw this in school) what Research Methodology is.
An idea that arises as a conclusion from an investigation with methodology, is an idea where at different levels a causal relationship with another idea has been established.
Research methodology means that a person or a company or a university or whatever, has arranged a context (which can be a clinical or social context) to analyze certain causes of certain effects in a given situation.
It's not that when there is research methodology, we can always say that it is a universal truth, but at least we can say that under certain conditions, repetitively it has been true, therefore there are very high chances that if the conditions are recreated it will be true again.
Of course, research methodology is limited to studying what is observable or measurable. Unfortunately this means that we cannot conduct a methodical investigation of something we cannot measure. We don't necessarily have to perceive it with our senses, but we do have to be able to measure it in some way.
Remember the meaning of the Scientific Method
Of course the scientific method has many limitations, and of course science is (and will be for a long time) insufficient to explain many natural phenomena.
Much less does the scientific method have the potential to solve many of the challenges we face as individuals and as a society.
For example, the scientific method will very hardly help us permanently eliminate diseases in the short term.
Very hardly will the scientific method help us extend human life beyond 1,000 years.
Very hardly will the scientific method help us in the short term to end the grievances, errors, negligences and inequities of our society.
It is very clear that the scientific method is not a panacea or the philosopher's stone, but what the scientific method is, is our most powerful and at the same time most precise tool to move towards these objectives, that although today they seem distant and impossible, with sufficient time through the generations could be overcome.
The scientific method on one hand is a war tank. Powerful, resistant and effective. On the other hand it is a high-tech scalpel. Precise, punctual, fair and faithful.
The scientific method is on one hand fallible and on the other infallible. Fallible by the limitations of scientific observation itself. There are things that simply and plainly are not yet observable by us.
The Scientific Method has many limitations, but what many do not seem to understand is that the limits of the scientific method are not really limits of the method, but limits of our capacity for observation and understanding.
So, when the scientific method yields knowledge, we can be certain that under certain conditions, a certain result can be expected.
And when our ideas do not come from the scientific method, nothing happens, it is not obligatory that everything we say and do be preceded by a scientific conclusion, but we cannot expect it to be true.
Example, if I tell you that the white chocolate with hazelnut from Starbucks is the best... well that can be my opinion, it has no obligation to be true, but if it's only my opinion I can't treat it as the truth. Do you see the difference?
If it comes from the scientific method I can say that it is true, not just for me but for everyone.
If it does not come from the scientific method but from my personal experience, I cannot say that it is true for everyone because there is not enough information. I can only say that for me it is true.
Scientific Thinking is not reserved for scientists.
We can all develop and use scientific thinking in practically all areas of our lives. Specifically, when preparing and delivering a public presentation you can do it.
Let's say there are 2 types of public presentations, or 2 ways of speaking in public. Imagine it as if it were a pendulum
On the left side are public presentations based on Ideology.
On the right side are those based on Methodology.
And it's not that some are good and others are bad, they are simply different. In fact, within the same presentation you can evoke ideology and then methodology, so they are not at odds.
Ideology are my ideas, my opinions, my judgments and prejudices, my experiences and my way of seeing life.
Methodology is what I can derive from scientific thinking.
Which of the two things has more value? I think that a combination of both in the right measure is the best when presenting, but when you talk about facts, data and truths, you have to make sure that your pendulum is on the methodology side, not on the ideology side.
Giving information from the ideology side is like when someone says "Young people are lazy, so you can't trust them". That, I'm sorry, but that's a personal opinion. It is not based on scientific thinking.
Giving information from the methodology side is saying: X institution did a study where 1,000 young people were observed and asked about their priorities, and X% responded and X% responded Z. Therefore it can be said that (at least in terms of this study) ABC is true.
Science is not reserved only for scientists, because we all have the possibility to develop scientific thinking, if we acquire certain habits:
1.- Research of sources
Knowledge when it is the result of an investigation is always, and should be, traceable to the origin of the same, and researching sources is not something reserved for science people, anyone can and should acquire the habit of investigating where information comes from.
Simply get used to the fact that when someone comes with a conclusion, get used to asking yourself: Where does that information come from? Is there any study that supports it? What are the sources?
And if the answer to this question is not forthcoming, well then, you will do well to question that conclusion.
2.- Question everything
If something cannot be questioned, it probably cannot be said to be true. The only things that cannot be questioned in life are dogmas and taboos. Dogmas cannot be questioned because they have no rational justification. Taboos cannot be questioned because it is politically incorrect. Behind both of these things are either bad intentions or naivety.
The best way to eliminate dogmas and taboos is by disintegrating them, atomizing them and analyzing them by their parts. This is not bad, never let anyone tell you it is. If it is dogmatic, what you want is to make it understandable, because only through questioning will we be able to continue advancing up the ladder of knowledge.
Imagine a world where we all worked as a team that way. What would it be like if instead of allying ourselves with each other against others, we allied ourselves with others against the true enemies that are dogma and taboo?
3.- STOP disseminating false, incorrect or unverified information.
According to Statista, about 40% of people in the United States have accidentally disseminated false information without knowing it was false. Enough really, because this is one of the cancers of our era. If the source is not clear, if it is not verified or if the origin of certain information cannot be traced and we cannot clearly explain how we got from Point A to Point B, most likely it is false information
Of course it is very tempting to find interesting and alarmist information for our public presentations, but the cost we pay as a society is very high. And all for what? For applause? For money? For likes? it's not worth it, and it's not right. It is our duty as global citizens and as responsible internet users to be critical and seek where information comes from before repeating it. And don't forget to always cite.
4.- That something sounds right does not always mean it is right.
You have to pay attention to the familiarity effect. Imagine that every day on the way home you pass by an avenue where there is an advertisement with a new brand of soft drinks. And you see it every single day for many years.
The principle of familiarity tells us that tomorrow, when you have to choose between a soda of that brand and one from the competition, perhaps out of familiarity you will feel inclined to choose the one from the known brand.
Media and politicians know this, and they understand that a lie repeated enough times becomes in people's minds a truth.
Familiarity is the reason. If you repeat a lie enough times it becomes true, and it is true.
Developing critical thinking and applying it when researching information for our public presentations is not easy, but it is our duty and obligation. It is important that you recognize that your position of leadership also gives you a role in shaping public opinion, and that role is something you have to take with the utmost responsibility.