164 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking
Commentary
As stated, this is an open discussion, so there is
no single right way to tackle it. The only
stipulation is that you should provide more
than just opinions. If all you say is that you
think animals do behave like humans and
form social networks, or that they don’t, this
would not be a critical response. Nor would it
be a scientific one. For the response to be
critical it would have to include reasons as
well as opinions and judgements. For it to be
scientific it would have to have some
evidential basis.
You are also asked to consider the meaning
of the term ‘social’. It’s all very well to say that
many animals live in groups – herds, shoals,
flocks, packs, colonies, etc. – but it is another
thing altogether to assert that these are social
groups. On the other hand it is unjustified to
claim that social groups belong only to
humans unless you can say what you consider
so special about human groups. Recognising
and defining key terms in a text is one of the
essential skills of any critical thinking
assignment. In this case it is very obvious that
the whole discussion turns on the definition of
a ‘social’ group. For example, compare a group
of friends or work colleagues, or a military unit,
with a herd of wildebeest or with a shoal of
fish. Clearly these are all groups of one kind or
another. But what, if any, are the key
differences? It is generally argued by zoologists
and others that herding is an instinct for
self-preservation by the individuals in the
group. If a wildebeest strays from the herd it is
more likely to be singled out for attack by a
predator. A lone animal is easy prey. The best
place for a wildebeest to be is near the middle
of the herd, so wildebeest have developed a
herd instinct for reasons of survival. There is
no obvious evidence that within the herd
wildebeest form relationships, and less still
that fish form relationships within the shoal. If
all that is involved in herding is each
individual’s instinct for self-preservation, there
is nothing ‘social’ about that.Good science is self-critical on just these
points. Not only do serious scientists, whose
aim is to discover the truth, check their own
findings with care and make every effort to
avoid reasoning errors, they check each
other’s work critically – a procedure known as
‘peer review’. Among the flaws that they look
for are two which have been discussed in
previous chapters: over-generalising from
limited examples, and confusing correlation
with cause. Both are easy errors to make.
Scientific method is not only of interest
within science. Any evidence-based reasoning
should be subjected to the same critical
standards as good science. We see scientific
methods being applied in subjects as diverse as
history, economics, sociology, psychology and
education, and many more.An example: social networks
A field of study in which many modern
scientists have developed an interest is social
networking, especially with the coming of
phenomena such as Facebook, Twitter and so
on. Are these purely modern and human
inventions, or are they products of our natural
animal evolution? A key question is:Do other animals, besides humans, form
‘social’ networks?Take some time to think about and/or
discuss the question above. You do not need
any specialist knowledge to do this: it is an
open discussion, an exploration of ideas.
However, you should try to bring some
examples or evidence into the discussion.
You can use your own observations and
experiences as evidence – for example,
documentaries you have seen of animals in
the wild, and the way they behave. Think, too,
about what is meant by ‘social’ in this
context.Activity