scientific-critical-thinking
Apply scientific critical thinking to research
Also available from: davila7
Scientific claims often contain hidden flaws in methodology, bias, or logic. This skill provides systematic frameworks to evaluate evidence quality, identify cognitive biases, assess experimental design, and detect logical fallacies in scientific discourse.
Download the skill ZIP
Upload in Claude
Go to Settings → Capabilities → Skills → Upload skill
Toggle on and start using
Test it
Using "scientific-critical-thinking". Evaluate this claim: A new study shows that drinking coffee extends lifespan by 10 years.
Expected outcome:
- **Methodology concerns:** Is this observational or experimental? If observational, correlation does not equal causation.
- **Potential biases:** Selection bias if coffee drinkers differ systematically; recall bias in self-reported consumption.
- **Evidence quality:** Single study means low quality. Need replication and mechanistic evidence.
- **Logical issues:** Without randomization, cannot rule out confounding variables like socioeconomic status.
- **Recommendation:** Claim overstates evidence. Causal language inappropriate without RCT.
Using "scientific-critical-thinking". Analyze this abstract for methodological red flags: A drug showed significant improvement in 50 patients. P-value = 0.04.
Expected outcome:
- **Sample size concern:** 50 patients is small; effect size may be inflated (Winner's Curse).
- **P-value interpretation:** P = 0.04 is barely significant; check for p-hacking or multiple comparisons.
- **Missing information:** No power analysis mentioned; no confidence interval reported.
- **Generalizability:** Were patients representative? No information on demographics or selection criteria.
- **Design details:** Was this randomized? Controlled? Blinded? Abstract does not specify.
Security Audit
SafeThis is a pure documentation skill containing only markdown reference materials for scientific critical thinking. All 206 static findings are FALSE POSITIVES. The scanner misidentified common scientific terms (algorithm, randomization, base rate) as cryptographic patterns, research methodology terminology as reconnaissance patterns, and markdown code block delimiters as shell backtick execution. No executable code, network calls, file system operations, or cryptographic functionality exists. This skill provides educational frameworks for evaluating research methodology and evidence quality.
Risk Factors
⚙️ External commands (1)
Quality Score
What You Can Build
Critique research papers
Systematically evaluate published studies for methodological rigor, bias, and validity of conclusions.
Learn evidence evaluation
Develop skills to assess scientific claims using established frameworks like GRADE and evidence hierarchy.
Verify media claims
Apply critical thinking frameworks to evaluate scientific claims reported in popular media.
Try These Prompts
Evaluate this research study for methodology quality, potential biases, and whether conclusions are supported by evidence. Identify any logical fallacies in the argument.
Apply the GRADE framework to assess the quality of evidence for this claim. What factors downgrade or upgrade the evidence quality?
Identify all potential sources of bias in this study design. For each bias, explain how it could affect the results and conclusions.
Analyze the reasoning in this scientific argument. Identify any logical fallacies present and explain why each undermines the argument's validity.
Best Practices
- Distinguish between correlation and causation; demand experimental evidence for causal claims
- Apply consistent evaluation standards regardless of whether you agree with conclusions
- Acknowledge uncertainty and limitations; avoid overstating evidence strength
Avoid
- Accepting claims without examining methodology or potential confounding variables
- Using study design alone to determine quality; a well-designed observational study beats a poor RCT
- Ignoring base rates and prior probability when evaluating statistical evidence