It is often breezily suggested that, in an age of post-truth politics and AI-driven workplaces, the graduate attribute of critical thinking has become more valuable than ever. Only this, it is said, can prevent charlatans stealing our votes and machines stealing our jobs.

Critical thinking is often presented as higher education¡¯s USP, the inculcation of which distinguishes a degree course from lower-level training. And critical thinking has been labelled a core graduate competency by accreditation bodies, such as the .

But are students really leaving college more critical and capable of assessing evidence? Are they really prepared to separate science from nonsense, handle the flow of misinformation and anti-scientific claims, such as climate and vaccine denialism? Are they really able to resist the appeal of a wellness market ready to push unnecessary and sometimes harmful products?

The evidence is far from encouraging. A recent , for instance, shows that college students are just as likely to believe in pseudoscience as people who didn¡¯t attend college. And research indicates that among college students, in critical thinking skills after two years.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

Most college departments claim that they are already teaching critical thinking via their regular courses but they disagree on what it means, and most do not seem to be doing a very good job of it. In fact, it has been shown that the best strategy is to teach specific critical thinking courses, focused on how to separate science from noise, how to recognise cognitive biases and logical fallacies that affect our judgement, and how to assess scientific evidence within different social, cultural, political and economic backgrounds.

In 2023, my colleagues and I co-founded the for the teaching of rational scepticism. We named it after Scott Lilienfeld, a psychology professor who was a pioneer in the field and advocated for the teaching of scientific critical thinking with a ¡°refutational¡± approach, in which students are directly exposed to refutations of pseudoscience and muddled thinking. We took this approach to the classroom and tested it. The refutational approach allows students to address misconceptions directly and understand why and how it is possible to separate what works from what doesn¡¯t.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

One study published in 2018 by two members of our group, , compared the persistence of unwarranted beliefs among college students who took regular science methodology classes and students who took a specific course on ¡°science and nonsense¡±, using a refutational approach. The latter group showed a significant drop in unwarranted beliefs, while the former didn¡¯t. Controlled studies published by others also showed a significant reduction in unwarranted beliefs with the use of the refutational approach, not only in science classes but also in and .

We are not alone in this approach. Nobel Physics Laureate Saul Perlmutter has been teaching a similar class at Berkeley for the past 10 years, called , aimed at about complicated issues by using critical scientific thinking.

Perlmutter¡¯s approach has recently been replicated by other universities but getting dedicated critical thinking courses implemented in higher education has, in general, been a challenge ¨C not least because almost anything can be labelled as such. Logic courses in philosophy departments could be considered critical thinking courses. So could basic mathematics and engineering courses, since these are all deemed to involve systematic thinking. So, for that matter, could regular science methodology classes.

Then there is the ¡°interdisciplinarity curse¡±. Since critical thinking isn¡¯t a clear-cut discipline, who should be responsible for teaching it? Science departments? Psychology? Philosophy?

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

A survey our group conducted of existing courses for undergraduate students in the US found a lot that were labelled ¡°critical thinking¡± but only 58 used a refutational approach and addressed misconceptions directly.

Moreover, most courses were electives, championed by lone professors whose departures they rarely survived. But if critical thinking skills are an essential component of higher education, they should be part of core and general education programmes for all majors, even if ¨C or maybe precisely if ¨C they are not science-oriented.

After all, students who major in the arts, music or literature are just as likely as any other citizen to benefit from classes that teach them, in a clear, straightforward and direct manner, how to use science as a critical thinking tool. I teach courses on the , for instance. Most of my students don¡¯t have a science background, and they appreciate the critical tools of science to help them make informed choices in policy.

They also appreciate learning about common sense misconceptions and how our own biases and personal motivations easily fool us. And they change their minds when evidence is well presented and respectfully discussed in class.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

The Lilienfeld Alliance organises annual conferences ¨C ¨C where we bring professors of critical thinking together to discuss strategies, learning goals and barriers in the field. If you are a higher education professor trying to teach similar courses, or trying to include critical thinking tools in your regular classes, you are welcome to join us and help us promote more rationality in the world.

After all, one thing we can surely all agree on is that critical thinking, properly understood and taught, really is the most important skill that universities can pass on to their graduates ¨C now more than ever.

̽»¨ÊÓƵ

is professor of science communication and policy at Columbia University, president of Instituto Quest?o de Ci¨ºncia in Brazil, a member of the Strategic Advisory Group on Vaccine-Preventable Diseases of the Pan-American Health Organization and a co-founder of the Lilienfeld Alliance.