The Absence of Critical Thinking Skills and its Effects. Case Study: Vaccine Hesitation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18662/rrem/14.3/594Keywords:
Critical thinking, education, vaccine hesitation, thinking role, limited thinkingAbstract
The aim of this article is to estimate the relevance of developing a public policy aimed at increasing the importance of critical thinking skills among pupils, students and citizens in general, using the problem of vaccination as a reference. I thus aim to contribute to the possibility of identifying solutions designed to increase the impact of educational activities for the creation of critical thinking skills. Because perhaps the most important cognitive problem in this context is the decision to vaccinate against SARS-CoV-2, I use the report on the vaccination problem as a context for assessing the effectiveness of critical thinking, trying to test the hypothesis of reducing vaccine hesitation by using critical thinking. The case study on vaccine hesitation considers the use of the attitude towards vaccination as a potential revealer of critical thinking skills, contributing for the identification of both problems and solutions to remedy them. Critical reflection on critical thinking implies the possibility of being aware of its specific limits. I approach some of the problems of defining critical thinking by suggesting in this way some risks aimed at its use for ideological purposes. I indicate the specific limits of the deficit model, thus contributing to the shaking of common places in the field of causal explanation for vaccine hesitation. I systematize the cognitive errors according to some specific causes and types of solving the existing problems in the specialized literature, thus generating a relevant frame of reference for the debates regarding the public policies in the area.
References
Arede, M., Bravo-Araya, M., Bouchard, É., Singh Gill, G., Plajer, V., Shehraj, A., & Adam Shuaib, Y. (2019). Combating Vaccine Hesitancy: Teaching the Next Generation to Navigate Through the Post Truth Era. Frontiers in public health, 6, 381. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00381
Bandyopadhyay, S., & Szostek, J. (2019). Thinking critically about critical thinking: Assessing critical thinking of business students using multiple measures. Journal of Education for Business, 94(4), 259-270. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2018.1524355
Barua, S. (2021). Critical Thinking and Epistemic Responsibility Revisited, Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research, 38(3), 285 – 299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40961-021-00251-9
Cassam, Q. (2021). Misunderstanding vaccine hesitancy: A case study in epistemic injustice, Educational Philosophy and Theory. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2021.2006055
Cassam, Q. (2017). Diagnostic error, overconfidence and self-knowledge. Palgrave Commun, 3, 17025. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2017.25
Cassam, Q. (2019). Vices of the mind: From the intellectual to the political. Oxford University Press.
Elton, M. (2000). The Personal/Sub-personal Distinction: An Introduction. Philosophical Explorations, 3(1), 2–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/13869790008520977
European Union. (2021, April-May). European citizens’ knowledge and attitudes towards science and technology. Report Special Eurobarometer 516. https://doi.org/10.2775/071577
Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., & The ABC Research Group. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press.
Goldenberg, M. (2021). Vaccinebook hesitancy: Public trust, expertise, and the war on science. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Grüne-Yanoff, T., & Hertwig, R. (2016). Nudge versus boost: How coherent are policy and theory? Minds and Machines: Journal for Artificial Intelligence, Philosophy and Cognitive Science, 26(1-2), 149–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-015-9367-9
Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Pantheon Books.
Halpern, D. F., & Butler, H. A. (2019). Teaching critical thinking as if our future depends on it, because it does. In J. Dunlosky & K. A. Rawson (Eds.). The Cambridge handbook of cognition and education, (pp. 51–66). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235631.004
Herbert, A. S. (1955). A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852
Hertwig, R., & Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2017). Nudging and Boosting: Steering or Empowering Good Decisions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 973-986. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617702496
Huemer, M. (2005). Is Critical Thinking Epistemically Responsible? Metaphilosophy, 36, 522-531.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Penguin Books.
Kary, D. (2013). Critical thinking and epistemic responsibility. OSSA Conference Archive, 86. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA10/papersandcommentaries/86
Katsikopoulos, K. (2014). Bounded rationality: The two cultures. Journal of Economic Methodology, 21(1), 361-374. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2014.965908
Katsikopoulos, K. V. (2011). Psychological heuristics for making inferences: Definition, performance, and the emerging theory and practice. Decision Analysis, 8(1), 10–29. https://doi.org/10.1287/deca.1100.0191
Meyer, M., Alfano, M., & de Bruin, B. (2021a). The Development and Validation of the Epistemic Vice Scale. Review of Philosophy and Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-021-00562-5
Meyer, M., Alfano, M., & De Bruin, B. (2021b). Epistemic vice predicts acceptance of Covid-19 misinformation. Episteme, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2021.18
Miller, S. (2001). Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), 115–120. https://doi.org/10.3109/a036859
Mulnix, J. W. (2012). Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(5), 464-479. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00673.x
Nakatani, K., & Wynekoop, J. (2020). Improving Metacognition: A Case Study of a Business Critical Thinking Course. e-Journal of Business Education & Scholarship of Teaching, 14(3), 25-42. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1292858.pdf
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2019). PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do. PISA. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en
Proctor, R. N., & Schiebinger, L. L. (2008). Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance. Stanford University Press.
Rotilă, V. (coord.), Lungu, L., & Ciobanu, G. (2021). Centrul de Cercetare și Dezvoltare Socială „Solidaritatea” [„Solidarity” Research and Social Development Center]. COGNITEST.RO. https://cognitest.ro/
Rotilă, V. (2021). The Limits of Knowledge in the COVID-19 Pandemic. Some Prudential Recommendations in Uncertainty Conditions. Postmodern Openings, 12(1), 347-367. https://doi.org/10.18662/po/12.1/265
Rotilă, V. (2022). Why Don’t We Get Vaccinated? Some Explanatory Hypotheses of Vaccine Hesitation. Postmodern Openings, 13(1 Sup1), 509-554. https://doi.org/10.18662/po/13.1Sup1/439
Sunstein, C. R., & R. H. Thaler. (2003). Libertarian Paternalism Is Not an Oxymoron. University of Chicago Law Review, 70, 1159–1202. https://doi.org/10.2307/1600573
Taleb, N. N. (2007). The black swan: the impact of the highly improbable. Random House.
Taleb, N. N. (2012). Antifragile: things that gain from disorder. Random House.
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Penguin Books.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 The Authors & LUMEN Publishing House
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant this journalright of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work, with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g. post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as an earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Revista Romaneasca pentru Educatie Multidimensionala Journal has an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
CC BY-NC-ND
