Critical Thinking and Pandemics I: Evaluate claims

Critical thinking can save your life, especially in a pandemic of pathogens, misinformation and misinformation. While we are not writing in a pandemic while we are not going to reach the next question. Our government is likely to help us and cannot help us to deal with our own. Therefore, this series apply critical thinking to pandemic thinking.

Aside from the academic jargon, critical thinking is the rational assessment of a claim that is probably actually, to determine that you need to be sure, probably rule out a false trial or interruption. People often forget that the judgment may interrupt, but in the face of misinformation and misinformation, that is, sometimes the best option.

Suppose you saw that drinking Facebook would protect from a viral disease, you saw a tweet that you saw with a bleach, or the President Trump heard the hydroxicocloroquina as a treatment for Covid. How can you rate these claims whether you are not a medical expert? Fortunately, critical thinking can help whose medical knowledge are also limited to those who have seen Gray’s anatomy.

When it is worth evaluating the claim, it is the first step to see that you can check against your observation and it fits. If he does not, it is a mark against it. If so, that’s the plus. Take a bleach claim as an example. If you look at a bleach bottle you will see security alerts. While the virus will die, it is dangerous to garden. So it would be better to reject the claim that you should graduate from bleach. While your observations have a good claim verification, they are not impossible and encouraging to critically consider their reliability.

The second step is usually automatically, which is automatically testing the claim against information about your background. Your background information is all the things you’ve learned over the years. When you get a claim, you are linked to your background to achieve a rough evaluation of the initial plausibility. That’s what can be considered for the first time. The plausibility will be adjusted if you need to investigate more. As an example, consider the claim against alcohol on alcohol. On the one hand, you probably know that alcohol sterilizing things, which poses the feasibility of the claim. But you probably haven’t heard of people who successfully protect themselves from flu or cold (caused by viruses) drinking alcohol. You’ve also probably had information on your information because of poisonous alcohol used to sterilize, such as whiskey. So it would be sensible to believe that drinking alcohol is a good way to protect from one’s viruses.

Here is an important problem that everyone is full of false belief information. I know, from experience, have false beliefs and the conclusion I still do. I don’t know what fake is, if I do so, I would let you believe. Because of our fall, this method has a serious mistake: We could accept or reject the claim due to false belief. Therefore, it is a good idea to assess our beliefs. As our background will be correct, we can rely on the assessment of a claim rationally. The more you know, the better you will be able to make such evaluations.

Although being false beliefs can cause mistakes, people also cause misfortunes and falls. Since there are many inhabitants, I will discuss few important things that are important during the pandemic. People are twisted in favor of groups, it has been religion, political party or sports team. BIOS believes the claims made up of members of the group, the claims that the Group thinks of Falthathity: believing that the claim is true because you are proud of your team and someone who did it in your team. This can also be a version of the claim that he believes in the claim because it believes that their team is true. Pandemics party lines, the last pandemic was politized. Therefore, people who are often involved believe that their parties say and believe in the other side. But believe that being a member of the team is a bad logic and you can die. That being the case, considering that it is to convert rational evaluations in a pandemic (or any time) and consider that claims are as objectively as possible. That’s hard, but it can save your life.

Since the pandemic is scary and people want to be hope, it is a prudent to play fear (horror tactics) and desire for thought. The fear of fear occurs when the claim is true for fear, based on evidence or reasons. For example, if someone thinks migrants are criminals, because a news channel was afraid of migrants, that horror tactics have fallen.

It should be noted that it can also serve as evidence as fearful. To illustrate, the Ebola is scary, because he can kill him. So because of deadly reasoning, it’s a good logic. While the emotions believe, logically neutral is the feeling of fear or hope.

Wish you thinking when a person believes in the claim because they want to be true (or discard because it is a fake). When the pandemic is going on, it is natural to make people trying to think, believe the claims, because they want to be true. For example, a person may think that they will not be sick based on the desire of thought, which can be very dangerous for them and others. As another example, someone believes that someone will protect the drinking from alcohol because they want to be true; But that’s not true. The defense against the desire of thought is not to give up all expectations, but hope to avoid expectation as evidence. Claims that can be depressing during pandemiatives can be unlikely to objectively. But happy thoughts can kill you and others. In the next attempt, I will discuss how experts and alleged experts evaluated.