# Teach Critical Thinking in Public Schools? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 22, 2020, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teach-critical-thinking-in-public-schools/926207 "2020-11-22T19:19:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2020, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teach-critical-thinking-in-public-schools/926207/22 "2020-11-23T06:44:36Z")
[quote="Mijin, post:19 > [@Mijin](#): > > several subjects (of course the sciences, but also geography, history etc) should discuss a little _how we know things_ . My point of view exactly. The point of including any subject in the formal curriculum is not just to impart some body of approved fact, but also to open minds to different ways of thinking and of sharing knowledge: mostly implicitly until quite an advanced stage, perhaps, but there is a reason why “subjects” are often referred to as “disciplines”. FWIW, the National Curriculum in England includes components on “[learning and thinking skills](http://archive.teachfind.com/qcda/curriculum.qcda.gov.uk/uploads/PLTS_framework_tcm8-1811.pdf)” to guide how different subjects should be taught. AFAIK, critical thinking isn’t separated out, though I believe it is in the International Baccalaureate that some schools offer in the higher years of secondary school; and in France students in the final year of the academic Baccalauréat have to take Philosophy as a discrete subject. ---
**Author:** ![ZosterSandstorm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e0b2c6/32.png) [@ZosterSandstorm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZosterSandstorm)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2020, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teach-critical-thinking-in-public-schools/926207/23 "2020-11-23T10:54:47Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Most of the time when people complain about “trendy nonsense that’s being pushed into lower grades”, it’s the critical thinking itself that they’re complaining about. Did you have something else in mind? We all seem to agree that the critical thinking course would focus on debunking various right-wing myths such as climate change denial, apologism for slavery/the Confederacy, Qanon and perhaps the myth of “sex trafficking” more generally, the idea that all 1.8 billion Muslims in the world are “terrorists” or extremists of some kind, the notion that the U.S. has never done anything wrong, creationism, apologism for police brutality, and the idea that the U.S. election system is compromised against Republicans in any significant way. I have my doubts that the following left-wing idols would be targeted with equal rigor or in fact allowed to be questioned at all: Critical race theory, the 1619 project, and their various specific components Certain extreme parts of gender ideology The misuse of statistics and emotion in discussions of gun regulation The notions of “lived experience” and “progressive stacking” as being somehow a counterbalance to, or alternately valid form of, facts Unsustainable “this is always true 100% of the time no matter what” slogans-into-axioms that are not in fact true 100% of the time (there are _no_ false rape accusations, there has _never_ been someone who adopted a gender identity in bad faith to access a restroom for sexual purposes, etc) The notion of “learning styles” Nuclear power paranoia 2 + 2 = 4 is racist In my experience with pedagogy “critical thinking” isn’t really critical thinking at all and doesn’t focus on showing how to get around the myths of either the left or right. Rather, it’s a buzzword for “we won’t be doing any meaningful learning in this class” - the stereotypical, but based in actual fact, example is an American history class where 20 students who were never taught what Dred Scott, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, or the cotton gin were sit around debating why they think the Civil War happened. Thought must have an object and if you are going to think (“critically” or otherwise) there should be something tethered to factual reality that you are thinking about. “Critical thinking” is often cast as the antithesis of “rote memorization” which is another educrat code phrase that actually means “learning facts of any kind in any manner.” ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2020, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teach-critical-thinking-in-public-schools/926207/24 "2020-11-23T11:41:35Z")
It’s lovely that you’ve given us the facts to support your opinion. The shame is that the facts are so wrong. Your list of supposed “left-wing idols” is a mishmash of straw men and places of legitimate debate, nothing remotely like climate change denial or QAnon. Your understanding of what “rote memorization” means is completely off-base. A better approach, I teach my students, is to use facts linked to reliable sources. Perhaps instead of Gish-Galloping through everything that Tucker Carlson has told you about the evil Left, drill down on one thing that bothers you, and use reliable sources, and we can discuss that? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2020, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teach-critical-thinking-in-public-schools/926207/25 "2020-11-23T11:42:22Z")
Also: > [@ZosterSandstorm](#): > > The notions of “lived experience” and “progressive stacking” as being somehow a counterbalance to, or alternately valid form of, facts > [@ZosterSandstorm](#): > > In my experience with pedagogy _chef’s kiss_ ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2020, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teach-critical-thinking-in-public-schools/926207/26 "2020-11-23T11:58:12Z")
> [@ZosterSandstorm](#): > > We all seem to agree that the critical thinking course would focus on debunking various right-wing myths… “We all”? You and who else? Because focusing on specific myths is exactly what critical thinking isn’t. If you focus on specific myths, then you might manage to debunk those, but students will be just as unprepared to deal with whatever the next myth is, once it comes along. And your list of “left-wing idols” is just plain ludicrous. On the one hand, the notion of learning styles is about as well-established as it’s possible for anything to be in psychology. On the other hand, nobody of any consequence whatsoever has ever tried to claim that “2 + 2 = 4 is racist”. > [@ZosterSandstorm](#): > > Rather, it’s a buzzword for “we won’t be doing any meaningful learning in this class” - the stereotypical, but based in actual fact, example is an American history class where 20 students who were never taught what Dred Scott, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, or the cotton gin were sit around debating why they think the Civil War happened. “Based on actual fact”: In other words, not actual fact? Why not give us the actual facts, instead of just things “based on” them? ---
**Author:** ![ZosterSandstorm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e0b2c6/32.png) [@ZosterSandstorm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZosterSandstorm)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2020, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teach-critical-thinking-in-public-schools/926207/27 "2020-11-23T12:12:25Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Because focusing on specific myths is exactly what critical thinking isn’t. If you focus on specific myths, then you might manage to debunk those, but students will be just as unprepared to deal with whatever the next myth is, once it comes along. The point is that the whole project will be abandoned once students start using “critical thinking” against left-wing fashionable nonsense in education, no matter how they get there. > [@Chronos](#): > > On the one hand, the notion of learning styles is about as well-established as it’s possible for anything to be in psychology. [https://www.skeptic.com/insight/the-myth-of-learning-styles/](https://www.skeptic.com/insight/the-myth-of-learning-styles/) > **[The Myth of ‘Learning Styles’](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/the-myth-of-learning-styles/557687/)** > > A popular theory that some people learn better visually or aurally keeps getting debunked. > **[Learning Styles as a Myth](https://poorvucenter.yale.edu/LearningStylesMyth)** > > Examples In addition to the three core styles, over 71 separate learning-style instruments and theories have been documented in education literature (Coffield et al 2004). 30 popular ones include (Pashler 2008): ·     ... > **[3 reasons most teachers still believe the learning styles myth](https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/3-reasons-most-teachers-still-believe-learning-styles-myth)** > > By Daniel T. Willingham > [@Chronos](#): > > On the other hand, nobody of any consequence whatsoever has ever tried to claim that “2 + 2 = 4 is racist”. > > **[Some People Think 2+2=5, and They’re Right](https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/math/a33547137/why-some-people-think-2-plus-2-equals-5/)** > > A statistician explains how abstract math can have real-world limitations. Instead of doing this dance about whether Ivy League professors are “of consequence” in the field of education, would you like to admit whether or not YOU believe that arithmetic is racist? ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2020, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teach-critical-thinking-in-public-schools/926207/28 "2020-11-23T12:38:34Z")
I’m not sure it’s a critical thinking problem. I know people with excellent analytical skills who will look at you with a straight face and tout the benefits of homeopathy. The only moon conspiracy person I’ve ever met face-to-face was a damned engineer (civil I think). Both those people were very good at presenting arguments in favor of their particular brand of bullshit. They didn’t lack critical thinking skills. ---
**Author:** ![DPRK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4491bb/32.png) [@DPRK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPRK)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2020, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teach-critical-thinking-in-public-schools/926207/29 "2020-11-23T13:20:18Z")
Is it supposed to be an objection that classical dialectic is too Western? Who says schools cannot also cover non-Greek philosophy? > [@Odesio](#): > > I’m not sure it’s a critical thinking problem. I know people with excellent analytical skills who will look at you with a straight face and tout the benefits of homeopathy. The only moon conspiracy person I’ve ever met face-to-face was a damned engineer (civil I think). Both those people were very good at presenting arguments in favor of their particular brand of bullshit. They didn’t lack critical thinking skills. What is the problem? Sounds like good topics for critical thinking practice. Once I met one of your people with excellent analytical skills, not a troll, who had heard of a “moon conspiracy” theory, and the resulting dialogue did not take more than a couple of minutes to reach a correct conclusion. I have also witnessed analytical people repeat bullshit they heard, and were intended to hear, on TV, like any other person. If you can get them to think critically about it, that’s a good deed. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2020, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teach-critical-thinking-in-public-schools/926207/30 "2020-11-23T14:04:50Z")
This is a really, really good point. Reason and rationalization are close cousins, and one of the things that makes cons effective is that they provide a set of carefully massaged facts and let people work it out themselves, arriving at predictable conclusion but feeling like they “own” it. Once that happens, people cling to their conclusions because it’s personal. They made it themselves. Every anti-vaxer, climate change denier or astrology expert I know thinks I am the one that lacks critical thinking skills, that I am the steeple. If critical thinking means “support opinions with evidence and evaluate the quality of the evidence others use to support their opinions”, then yes, we teach that. What we don’t teach, and what was referenced in the OP, is psychology. We don’t talk about cognitive dissonance or confirmation bias. We may teach fallacies (not enough), but even then, only how to detect them in a debate, not how to avoid making them in your own heart. We talk about propaganda, but we talk about it like DARE talked about drugs: a creepy man in a long trench coat, terrifyingly pushing something any sane person could see us a bad thing. Honest to God, the crisis we have now is, in many ways, the crisis of too much critical thinking. It’s a total collapse of trust in institutions, including the facts presented by those institutions. But in the modern world, you have to trust someone. You can’t empirically decide if the moon landings happened or if the earth is heating up. It is possible to talk about a set of sources not to trust, some basic red flags. But how do you lay out standards for which facts to trust? That’s a lot more complicated, nuanced, and controversial than you can really cover in high school. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2020, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teach-critical-thinking-in-public-schools/926207/31 "2020-11-23T14:35:59Z")
> [@ZosterSandstorm](#): > > Instead of doing this dance about whether Ivy League professors are “of consequence” in the field of education, would you like to admit whether or not YOU believe that arithmetic is racist? Hold on to your hat. Ready? My liberal perspective is that some professors are wrong and arithmetic is NOT racist. Furthermore, your opinion is poorly informed with respect to what liberals actually think about one thing or another. A single individual posting an opinion on twitter is not data, it’s an anecdote. You’d know that if you’d have taken the time to apply some critical thinking skills. So it appears it may as well have been you posting nonsense on twitter and we would never have known or cared about it, except that here you are posting nonsense here. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2020, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teach-critical-thinking-in-public-schools/926207/32 "2020-11-23T15:10:02Z")
This is a great example of where you need to be applying critical thinking skills. That Tweet doesn’t say **2+2=4 is racist.** It says, **The idea that ‘of course math is neutral because 2+2=4’ is racist.** These are vastly different ideas. Can you tell the difference? The second link you offer is actually a really interesting discussion of how number theory interacts with the real world, and how numbers aren’t naturally occurring. Had you read the article instead of just Googling “2+2=5” and ctrl+K-ing the first result into the thread, you’d see it has fuckall to do with claims of racism. In my class, I’d advise you to be sure you’re reading your cites carefully and understanding them before offering them as evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2020, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teach-critical-thinking-in-public-schools/926207/33 "2020-11-23T15:44:15Z")
No quarrel with anything else you said, but: > [@Chronos](#): > > On the one hand, the notion of learning styles is about as well-established as it’s possible for anything to be in psychology. from another current thread: > [@Do most people retain spoken or read information better?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-most-people-retain-spoken-or-read-information-better/926000/32): > > So in the spirit of fighting ignorance, the first thing we need to clear up is that this whole pop culture notion of “visual, auditory or kinaesthetic” learning styles has been disproven and generally doesn’t hold water outside of pop culture and some in the education community. > > In a GQ thread that has very few citations, this cite has _ **many** _ within it: > > [The Learning Styles Myth - NeuroLogica Blog](https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-learning-styles-myth/) > > I have written previously about the fact that the scientific evidence does not support the notion that different people have different inherent learning styles. Despite this fact, the concept remains > > Some relevant quotes from the article (which discusses the latest Yale research on the topic): > > > …scientific evidence does not support the notion that different people have different inherent learning styles. Despite this fact, the concept remains popular, not only in popular culture but among educators > > > Regardless of why people find the notion appealing, or which system you prefer, the bottom line is that the basic concept of learning styles is simply not supported by scientific evidence] > > > … the Yale site goes beyond documenting that the notion of learning styles is a scientific dead end and needs to be abandoned. They also illustrate that we have scientific evidence supporting some actually useful ideas in education, but they tend to be overshadowed by the learning style myth. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2020, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teach-critical-thinking-in-public-schools/926207/34 "2020-11-23T15:49:37Z")
> [@ZosterSandstorm](#): > > Critical race theory, the 1619 project, and their various specific components > Certain extreme parts of gender ideology > The misuse of statistics and emotion in discussions of gun regulation > The notions of “lived experience” and “progressive stacking” as being somehow a counterbalance to, or alternately valid form of, facts > Unsustainable “this is always true 100% of the time no matter what” slogans-into-axioms that are not in fact true 100% of the time (there are _no_ false rape accusations, there has _never_ been someone who adopted a gender identity in bad faith to access a restroom for sexual purposes, etc) > The notion of “learning styles” > Nuclear power paranoia > 2 + 2 = 4 is racist Your post is perhaps the best example anyone could possibly come up with to prove that critical thinking skills need to be taught in schools. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2020, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teach-critical-thinking-in-public-schools/926207/35 "2020-11-23T16:10:13Z")
I took a Creative and Critical thinking elective course in college back in the 80’s. I was already working in my field and took classes at night. So many of the other students were also adults working in their respective careers. You wouldn’t believe how quickly and vehemently adults were to reject the most basic, rudimentary exercise and idea of “Brain Storming” and “Thinking outside the box”. These simplex theorems were considered new concepts at the time by those in established business roles. If we can’t get adults to to accept the first stepping stones of critical thinking, how can we expect them to agree to teaching their children these ideas? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2020, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teach-critical-thinking-in-public-schools/926207/36 "2020-11-23T17:12:17Z")
I see that **Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness** , **Chronos** and others are taking care of the caricatures that one can expect from Conservapedia. Just taking one apart, one point was about misuse of statistics in discussions of gun regulation, on that one one should remember the debacle from the part of gun right proponents about lead in shots contaminating the ecosystems in the USA. Groups like the NRA even did reach for classic climate change and tobacco cancer connection denial tactics like pointing at research they funded to show that there were doubts about lead from bullets being the main contaminant. > **[Ban on lead bullets pushed for all hunting in California](https://www.mercurynews.com/2013/02/19/ban-on-lead-bullets-pushed-for-all-hunting-in-california/)** > > Ban on lead bullets pushed for all hunting in California Not convincing in the end, but I did see that the website the NRA had setup for that tainted evidence was removed. Even so, I would not be surprised that there are to this day many on the right wing bubble of information that are not aware of how wrong the NRA or many of the opponents to not allowing lead in bullets are. Looking at proper science sources can then lead to proper policies, that even Republican Governor Schwarzenegger saw then the banning of lead in bullets as a good policy. As for the still current president’s minions: > **[Saving The California Condor - Faunalytics](https://faunalytics.org/saving-the-california-condor/)** > > Hunting already harms animals, and can lead to further unintended consequences. Lead poisoning is a key issue for endangered California condors, but it's one that advocates are acting on. > _ **End note:** _ _Since this study was published, a setback occurred. In 2017, in spite of the hundreds of scientific papers proving the serious toxicity of lead ingestion to humans, animals, and scavenger birds, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, on his first day in office, [rescinded the prohibition of the use of lead ammunition on most federal lands](https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/322058-interior-secretary-repeals-ban-on-lead-ammunition). So far, in the United States, [California is the only government to ban lead ammunition for hunting wildlife](https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/california-becomes-first-state-to-ban-lead-bullets-for-hunting)._ Looking at proper scientific sources is one big element that the great late James Randi used in his skeptical training courses that are free to use in schools, based on the work by Dr. Harriet Hall, concentrating mostly on quack medicine such as Homeopathy, the courses are available at the James Randi foundation. Their methodology can be applied to other issues such as lead in bullets, other critical thinking courses are available too. > **[Educational Modules](https://web.randi.org/educational-modules.html)** > > Educational Modules As for checking for good sources in the internet age, the Crash Course people have come also with a very good course on how to check for proper and good information: Navigating Digital Information (11 fifteen minute episodes of explanations with animations) https://www.youtube.com/embed/L4aNmdL3Hr0?feature=oembed&wmode=opaque&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtN07XYqqWSKpPrtNDiCHTzU ---
**Author:** ![ZosterSandstorm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e0b2c6/32.png) [@ZosterSandstorm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZosterSandstorm)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2020, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teach-critical-thinking-in-public-schools/926207/37 "2020-11-23T17:33:28Z")
The timeline for ideas going from “universally considered crazy” to “mainstream leftist orthodoxy” is something like: Step 1: “Nobody actually believes that, stop making up caricatures of our positions.” Step 2: “The people who believe that are a small fringe and you’re unfairly generalizing the whole left by attributing their opinions to all of us.” Step 3: “I don’t personally believe that so you can’t make me defend it.” Step 4: “Our candidates in swing states now endorse that as part of our platform, and any decent person must follow suit or be a racist.” Step 5: “We are teaching that in schools and your children will fail if they don’t regurgitate it back.” “2 + 2 = 4 is racist” is somewhere between step 2 and step 3 right now It will be interesting to check back in on this thread and others in about five years and see where we are. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2020, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teach-critical-thinking-in-public-schools/926207/38 "2020-11-23T17:49:14Z")
> [@ZosterSandstorm](#): > > The point is that the whole project will be abandoned once students start using “critical thinking” against left-wing fashionable nonsense in education, no matter how they get there. I deny this. You quote some kooks for what purpose? Do you think that we will abandon critical thinking because those crazies are claiming that math is racist? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2020, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teach-critical-thinking-in-public-schools/926207/39 "2020-11-23T17:56:32Z")
> [@ZosterSandstorm](#): > > The timeline for ideas going from “universally considered crazy” to “mainstream leftist orthodoxy” is something like: One important idea is that opinions should be backed by evidence. Some third graders believe that, in lieu of evidence, an opinion may be persuasive if it’s stated repeatedly, or with increasing stridency. Part of my job as a teacher is to disabuse them of this notion: an opinion stated repeatedly and stridently but without evidence will be rejected by judges in Pennsyvania, by third grade teachers, and by posters in Great Debates. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2020, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teach-critical-thinking-in-public-schools/926207/40 "2020-11-23T17:59:12Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > Do you think that we will abandon critical thinking because those crazies are claiming that math is racist? And again, that’s not even what he quoted. What he quoted was someone saying that a particular _attack_ on the idea of examining the cultural implications of specific mathematical pedagogy was racist. I know that’s a lot of nested ideas, so by way of analogy: Nobody is saying “Lemons are delicious” is a stupid opinion. The tweet says, “Lemons can’t be delicious, because they grow on trees” is a stupid opinion. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2020, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teach-critical-thinking-in-public-schools/926207/41 "2020-11-23T17:59:23Z")
> [@ZosterSandstorm](#): > > The timeline for ideas going from “universally considered crazy” to “mainstream leftist orthodoxy” is something like: > > Step 1: “Nobody actually believes that, stop making up caricatures of our positions.” > Step 2: “The people who believe that are a small fringe and you’re unfairly generalizing the whole left by attributing their opinions to all of us.” > Step 3: “I don’t personally believe that so you can’t make me defend it.” > Step 4: “Our candidates in swing states now endorse that as part of our platform, and any decent person must follow suit or be a racist.” > Step 5: “We are teaching that in schools and your children will fail if they don’t regurgitate it back.” > > “2 + 2 = 4 is racist” is somewhere between step 2 and step 3 right now It will be interesting to check back in on this thread and others in about five years and see where we are. Fascinating hypothesis. Do you mind if I give it a try?: The timeline for ideas going from “universally considered crazy” to “mainstream right-wing orthodoxy” is something like: Step 1: “The liberal elites have been lying to you! Wake up sheeple!” Step 2: “A lot of people are saying this thing is true.” Step 3: “We found experts who can confirm this thing that the deep state doesn’t want you to know about.” Step 4: “Our candidates in key states now endorse our platform, and any decent person must follow suit or else you must be a socialist commie lib-tard.” Step 5: “Stop teaching socialism and sharia law to children in our schools! JESUS! FREEDOM! LAW & ORDER!” Let’s look back at the past 5 years and see if any of the above hasn’t already happened. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teach-critical-thinking-in-public-schools/926207.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/teach-critical-thinking-in-public-schools/926207.md?page=3)