Critical thinking in musicians' health education. Findings from four workshops with experts (Part I).

Health education encompasses building health knowledge, but also training skills such as critical thinking, that guide individuals' ability to access, understand and use health information to take care of their own health (WHO, 1998). This study aimed to document expert discussions on the content of an ideal health education curriculum for higher music education (HME) students in the UK, integrating critical thinking. Four interdisciplinary workshops were conducted, where 67 experts in relevant fields discussed the content of four lists created based on literature reviews (cognitive biases, logical fallacies, critical appraisal tools and health topics). Notes taken during the discussions were thematically analysed. Most of the participants thought that the topics and tools were relevant. Two of four identified themes are reported in this paper, which represents the first of a two-part series: (1) critical thinking applied to health; and (2) misconceptions. This is the first attempt to document conversations aimed at using the applied knowledge of key stakeholders to discuss the content of an ideal health education curriculum integrating critical thinking, for conservatoire students.

Professional classical musicians struggle with a range of occupational health issues, but clear guidelines around health education in HME are still missing. This paper reports the first attempt to document a series of four interdisciplinary discussions between 67 experts on (1) the ideal health education content for music students, and (2) the integration of critical thinking as part of music students' health education. Discussions were facilitated by comprehensive lists based on literature reviews. Notes were taken during discussions and were thematically analysed. Four themes were identified, two of which are discussed here: (1) critical thinking applied to health; and (2) misconceptions.

Epidemiology visualized: the prosecutor's fallacy.

The "prosecutor's fallacy" (the assumption that Pr [probability] (A|B) = Pr (B|A)) arises often in epidemiology but is often unrecognized as such, in part because investigators do not have strong intuitions about what the fallacy means. Here, we help inform such intuitions and remind investigators of this fallacy by using visualizations. In figures, we demonstrate the prosecutor's fallacy, as well as show conditions under which Pr (A|B) can be assumed to be equal to Pr (B|A). Visualizations can help build intuition around statistical concepts such as the prosecutor's fallacy and should be more widely considered as teaching tools.

Rebuttal of the arguments put forward in the Letter to the Editor by Nizzetto et al.

In their Letter to the Editor, Nizzetto et al. challange a recent article in which I show that there has been unwarranted alarmism about biodegradable mulch films due to the publication of numerous articles based on preliminary data that are irrelevant for drawing conclusions on environmental risk. The tendency to over-emphasise results in order to attract attention is a growing problem in the scientific world and has been studied by many scholars. Nizzetto et al. accuse me of not using scientific methodology and of not disclosing that I am a scientist working for a company that produces biodegradable plastics. In this rebuttal I show that Nizzetto et al.'s accusations suffer from a number of logical fallacies, in particular the "straw man" fallacy and the "ad hominem" fallacy.

Turkish middle school students' evaluation of fallacious claims about vaccination.

In today's world, there is too much information pollution and people circulate it without questioning, and the claims on controversial issues often contain fallacies and conspiracy theories. Considering this point of view, it is necessary to create citizens who critically evaluate information. In order to achieve this goal, science educators need to address students' evaluation of fallacies on controversial issues. The aim of the present study, thus, is to explore eighth graders' evaluation of fallacies about vaccination. We used case study in the study in which 29 eighth grade students participated. We adapted a rubric that was developed by Lombardi et al. (Int J Sci Educ 38(8):1393-1414, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1193912) to assess students' evaluation levels between claims and evidence and used it to analyze students' evaluations of each fallacy in groups and individually. The findings of this study indicate that students were mostly unable to evaluate claims and evidence critically. We advocate that attempts should be made so that students cope with misinformation and disinformation, ensuring that they establish a consistent relationship between claim and the evidence, and the social and cultural factors that affect their evaluation of false claims should be identified. The implications of this study suggest to make deliberate attempts in order to enable middle school students to evaluate claims and evidence critically in various science topics, particularly in health issues, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Implications of the present research include suggestion of a method including discussions of fallacies about controversial issues and utilizing additional data sources such as interviews to reveal student ideas in-depth and analyze students' decision-making skills.

Logical fallacies persist in invasion biology and blaming the messengers will not improve accountability in this field: a response to Frank et al.

We analyze the "Logical fallacies and reasonable debates in invasion biology: a response to Guiasu and Tindale" article by Frank et al., and also discuss this work in the context of recent intense debates in invasion biology, and reactions by leading invasion biologists to critics of aspects of their field. While we acknowledge the attempt by Frank et al., at least in the second half of their paper, to take into account more diverse points of view about non-native species and their complex roles in ecosystems, we also find the accusations of misrepresenting invasion biology, for instance by "cherry-picking" and "constructing 'straw people'", directed at the Guiasu and Tindale study to be unwarranted. Despite the sometimes harsh responses by leading invasion biologists to critics of their field, we believe that persistent and fundamental problems remain in invasion biology, and we discuss some of these problems in this article. Failing to recognize these problems, and simply dismissing or minimizing legitimate criticisms, will not advance the cause, or enhance the general appeal, of invasion biology and will prevent meaningful progress in understanding the multiple contributions non-native species can bring to various ecosystems worldwide. We recommend taking a more open-minded and pragmatic approach towards non-native species and the novel ecosystems they are an integral part of.

The jigsaw puzzle of fraudulent health claims: Missing psychological pieces.

Fraudulent health claims have become an inescapable fixture of the contemporary information (or misinformation) landscape. MacFarlane, Hurlstone, and Ecker (2020) provided a five-fold framework for conceptualizing susceptibility to fraudulent health claims, and proposed potential remedies for each driver of these claims. We build on their analysis by arguing that a complete account of fraudulent health claim susceptibility additionally requires a thoroughgoing consideration of (a) individual differences in cognitive styles and personality traits, (b) innumeracy and statistical illiteracy, and (c) persuasive appeals involving logical fallacies and commonplaces. We further contend that dual processing models of cognition may help to synthesize a variety of psychological variables relevant to fraudulent health claim vulnerability. In conjunction with our commentary, MacFarlane's framework underscores the broader point that complex, multifactorial psychological phenomena demand complex, multifactorial psychological explanations and solutions.

Comparison of the Informed Health Choices Key Concepts Framework to other frameworks relevant to teaching and learning how to think critically about health claims and choices: a systematic review.

Background: The Informed Health Choices (IHC) Key Concepts are principles for evaluating the trustworthiness of claims about treatment effects. The Key Concepts provide a framework for developing learning-resources to help people use the concepts when treatment claims are made, and when they make health choices. Objective: To compare the framework provided by the IHC Key Concepts to other frameworks intended to promote critical thinking about treatment (intervention) claims and choices. Methods: We identified relevant frameworks from reviews of frameworks, searching Google Scholar, citation searches, and contact with key informants. We included frameworks intended to provide a structure for teaching or learning to think critically about the basis for claims, evidence used to support claims, or informed choices. For a framework to be included, there had to be a description of its purpose; a list of concepts, competences, or dispositions; and definitions of key terms. We made independent assessments of framework eligibility and extracted data for each included framework using standardised forms. Results: Twenty-two frameworks met our inclusion criteria. The purpose of the IHC Framework is similar to that of two frameworks for critical thinking and somewhat similar to that of a framework for evidence-based practice. Those frameworks have broader scopes than the IHC Framework. An important limitation of broad frameworks is that they do not provide an adequate basis (concepts) for deciding which claims to believe and what to do. There was at most some overlap between the concepts, competences, and dispositions in each of the 22 included frameworks and those in the IHC Framework. Conclusions: The IHC Key Concepts Framework appears to be unique.  Our review has shown how it and other frameworks can be improved by taking account of the ways in which other related frameworks have been developed, evaluated, and made useful.

Logical fallacies and invasion biology.

Leading invasion biologists sometimes dismiss critics and criticisms of their field by invoking "the straw man" fallacy. Critics of invasion biology are also labelled as a small group of "naysayers" or "contrarians", who are sometimes engaging in "science denialism". Such unfortunate labels can be seen as a way to possibly suppress legitimate debates and dismiss or minimize reasonable concerns about some aspects of invasion biology, including the uncertainties about the geographic origins and complex environmental impacts of species, and the control programs against species perceived as "invasive". In assessing the quality of the debate in this area, we examine the validity of the use of various strategies, including the "straw man" concept, and explore a range of potential logical fallacies present in some recent prominent discussions about invasion biology and so-called "invasive" species. The goal is to add some clarity to the concepts involved, point out some problematic issues, and improve the quality of the debates as the discussions move forward.

Modeling and Theories of Pathophysiology and Physiology of the Basal Ganglia-Thalamic-Cortical System: Critical Analysis.

Theories impact the movement disorders clinic, not only affecting the development of new therapies but determining how current therapies are used. Models are theories that are procedural rather than declarative. Theories and models are important because, as argued by Kant, one cannot know the thing-in-itself (das Ding an sich) and only a model is knowable. Further, biological variability forces higher level abstraction relevant for all variants. It is that abstraction that is raison d'être of theories and models. Theories "connect the dots" to move from correlation to causation. The necessity of theory makes theories helpful or counterproductive. Theories and models of the pathophysiology and physiology of the basal ganglia-thalamic-cortical system do not spontaneously arise but have a history and consequently are legacies. Over the last 40 years, numerous theories and models of the basal ganglia have been proposed only to be forgotten or dismissed, rarely critiqued. It is not harsh to say that current popular theories positing increased neuronal activities in the Globus Pallidus Interna (GPi), excessive beta oscillations and increased synchronization not only fail to provide an adequate explication but are inconsistent with many observations. It is likely that their shared intellectual and epistemic inheritance plays a factor in their shared failures. These issues are critically examined. How one is to derive theories and models and have hope these will be better is explored as well.

Clinical thinking in psychiatry.

I discuss the lack of precision in the term 'clinical reasoning' and its relationship to evidence-based medicine and critical thinking. I examine critical thinking skills, their underemphasis in medical education and successful attempts to remediate them. Evidence-based medicine (and evidence-based psychiatry) offer much but are hampered by the ubiquity and flaws of meta-analysis. I explore views of evidence-based medicine among psychiatry residents, as well as capacity for critical thinking in residents before and after a course in philosophy. I discuss decision making by experienced doctors and suggest possible futures of this issue.