René Descartes, French Philosopher and Mathematician and leader in development of Rationalism.

The news media continues to report stories about potential health risks from the radio frequency emissions of smart meters — even though such risks remain unproven after intense study and scrutiny. There also have been many news stories about customers who want to opt out of smart meter programs — even though fewer than one in 1,000 customers has elected to do so.

This got me wondering: What makes a story important enough to be in the news, and how should we consider these reports? Whose opinions really matter?…

The January issue of Miller-McCune Magazine — a nonpartisan, thoughtful publication for business and policy leaders which I’ll often skim during long overseas flights — reports on a successful effort to teach critical thinking to sixth graders. No debate: Kids can learn by arguing describes the work of Deanna Kuhn, professor of psychology and education at Columbia University.

“Let’s not ‘agree to disagree,’” wrote Kuhn. She is tired of hearing that people have a right to their own opinion. That makes it too easy to fall into believing that all opinions are equal, she says — and “so why bother?”

According to Kuhn, the U.S. needs citizens who can make logical arguments “based on substantive claims, sound reasoning, and relevant evidence. …The ultimate goal is for students to value discourse as a way of being in the world and addressing the problems of the day.”

How can kids become deep thinkers?

To find out, Kuhn and Amanda Crowell (a doctoral candidate at Columbia’s Teachers College) set up an experiment at a public middle school in Harlem, New York City. Nearly 50 students, mostly Latino and black, took philosophy classes from sixth through eighth grade. Each year they debated four new subjects. Under a coach’s supervision, they chose one side or another on an issue and tried to anticipate their opponents’ arguments.

At first, as each new topic was introduced, the researchers were startled: the youngsters were clueless about complexity. (For example: “Prisoners, not animals, should be used in medical research because prisoners are guilty and animals are innocent!”)

Also, early in the experiment the kids showed no interest in written questions and answers offered by their coaches. However, by the end of year two the students developed a thirst for evidence.

Each quarter students held a “showdown” — a verbal debate in which every three minutes two new students (one from each side) would rotate into the “hot seat.” During each post-showdown debriefing, coaches awarded points for good moves (counterarguments and rebuttals), took away points for bad moves (unwarranted assumptions and unconnected responses), and declared the winning side.

Also at this school, a separate group of 23 students studied philosophy in a more traditional way, using a textbook. Discussions were led by the teacher; the class rarely broke into sides or held formal debates.

At the end of each school year, both groups of students wrote essays on a subject which neither group had ever discussed. One year the topic was seniority-based pay versus equal pay for teachers; another, whether family members and doctors should assist in euthanasia.

Hands down, the winners were the students in the experimental debate group — despite that they received much less practice in writing. By the end of year one, two-thirds of the students in the experimental group were submitting essays which considered and addressed opposing arguments — a skill demonstrated by only 38% of the students in the comparison group.

By the end of the third year, nearly 80% of the students in the experimental group were submitting essays which identified and weighed opposing views in an argument — but fewer than 30% of the students in the comparison group were doing this.

In an increasingly divided nation, reasoned argument is becoming a lost art, Kuhn says. Rather than assigning piles of writing, teachers would do well to step back and foster some debate.

Kuhn’s last word? “Students must learn that opinions have reasons, that some reasons are better than others, and that nothing is as simple as it seems.”

…There’s also a lighter side to critical thinking:

Rene Descartes walks into a bar. The bartender said, “Would you like a beer?” Descartes paused, pondered, and then replied: “I think not.” And POOF! He disappeared.