Editorial: Critical Thinking Is Not a Spectator Sport

Kerry K. Carney, DDS, CDE

There is a scene in the 1976 film “All the President’s Men” set in an editorial meeting at The Washington Post. The repartee is fast and clipped. One journalist reminds another of the reporter’s duty to check and confirm all facts even if they seem obvious. “If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out.”

That need to fact-check is even more important today than it was in the last century. Institutions of journalism have been disrupted by free, trending internet information, untrained citizen reporters and social media algorithms. We are presented with more of what we like, and the information steered our way is ever more extreme.

I do not “do” Facebook. Probably a handful of people and I will go to our graves never having had a Facebook ID/profile/whatever. Even with that deficiency, I am still able to receive email and text messages from friends who forward comments, blogs or other internet communications. Occasionally, something is forwarded because my correspondent wants to share some infuriating communication with me. Primarily, they want me to share their infuriation and indignation. To adapt an old adage: A sorrow shared is a sorrow halved. A joy shared is a joy doubled. An indignation shared is an indignation exponentially intensified.

Institutions of journalism have been disrupted by free, trending internet information, untrained citizen reporters and social media algorithms.

During the last election cycle, a friend of 30 years texted me about what she was reading on social media about the candidates. She had allowed herself to become wound up by exchanges with others online. Her diatribes about some postings were shocking. What had happened to the person I had known for over three decades? She was so possessed by anger that she could not have a civil exchange of opinions. It was dismaying and alarming.

If my friend walked down the street, picked up a note skittering across the path and read it, she would have no reason to believe the information on that paper. For the scrap of paper to have any informational value, she would need to know the source, corroborate the information and evaluate if it made logical sense. However, for some folks, information communicated online is imbued with an aura of truth. It is not critically assessed. It is welcomed into that collection of things they believe. Things that confirm what we already believe tend to make our belief even stronger.

Simply believing something is true is easier than doing the hard work of critical thinking. In the past, a patient told me that all of her son’s behavior problems were the result of his allergic reactions to certain common environmental stimuli. She told me it was all scientifically tested and proven. I asked how this had been determined and she related how she had read about it online and communicated with the doctor who had a clinic in another state. I asked what had happened during their visit to the clinic. What tests had been performed and what were the results of those tests? She was very animated and told me, “That’s the best part. We did the whole exam over the phone.” I was underwhelmed.

Sometimes when I ask a patient why they are taking a certain homeopathic substance, they say they heard about it from a (trusted) friend or read about it on a website they trusted. That “trusted source” trumps their need for a critical analysis of the claimed benefits or an evaluation of the quality of supporting evidence.

There is an understandable allure to a solution as simple as a pill, a lotion or an elixir to solve a problem. That allure and simplicity are the very basis of the success of “snake oil” sales in the past and their “snake oil 2.0” versions of today.

The easy way to take in information on the internet is to read it uncritically. Then we ignore conflicting information and forward the information that confirms what we already believe or suspect. Taking information at face value relieves us of the need to critically analyze what we read or carefully fact-check and verify the information being offered. However, as the old reporter’s adage advises, we should be especially critical of information that seems to confirm what we already feel to be true. If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out.

At lunch with a colleague recently, the question arose as to how one could verify the truth of something one had heard or read. His conclusion was, “How can you fact-check when you cannot trust any source on the internet?” I was surprised at his resignation. There are many organizations dedicated to fact-checking and winnowing truth from fiction. It just takes a little effort to find and vet them.

As dentists, we are trained to critically analyze the data we are presented. When we review an article, it is imperative that we consider the source of the data, the quality of the data and the appropriateness of the conclusions. Why should anyone abandon those critical imperatives when considering anything from the internet?

During this pandemic, friends and colleagues have forwarded spurious “facts” or anecdotal evidence as real and true and meaningful. This was dismaying. It is in times like these that our professional training should bolster our reliance on fact-checking, critical analysis and logical consideration. It is even worthwhile to convey the importance of critical thinking to others, including those without scientific training. A little dab of skepticism could do us all some good.

The fundamental lesson is: Critical thinking is not a spectator sport. Factchecking, source-vetting and logical evaluation of information does not stop at the end of a formal education. We are all participants in life’s competition for hearts and minds. Critical thinking is a sport we cannot afford to play poorly.