scientific-critical-thinking

Scientific Critical Thinking

Overview

Critical thinking is a systematic process for evaluating scientific rigor. Assess methodology, experimental design, statistical validity, biases, confounding, and evidence quality using GRADE and Cochrane ROB frameworks. Apply this skill for critical analysis of scientific claims.

When to Use This Skill

This skill should be used when:

• Evaluating research methodology and experimental design
• Assessing statistical validity and evidence quality
• Identifying biases and confounding in studies
• Reviewing scientific claims and conclusions
• Conducting systematic reviews or meta-analyses
• Applying GRADE or Cochrane risk of bias assessments
• Providing critical analysis of research papers

Visual Enhancement with Scientific Schematics

When creating documents with this skill, always consider adding scientific diagrams and schematics to enhance visual communication.

If your document does not already contain schematics or diagrams:

• Use the scientific-schematics skill to generate AI-powered publication-quality diagrams
• Simply describe your desired diagram in natural language
• Nano Banana Pro will automatically generate, review, and refine the schematic

For new documents: Scientific schematics should be generated by default to visually represent key concepts, workflows, architectures, or relationships described in the text.

How to generate schematics:

python scripts/generate_schematic.py "your diagram description" -o figures/output.png

The AI will automatically:

• Create publication-quality images with proper formatting
• Review and refine through multiple iterations
• Ensure accessibility (colorblind-friendly, high contrast)
• Save outputs in the figures/ directory

When to add schematics:

• Critical thinking framework diagrams
• Bias identification decision trees
• Evidence quality assessment flowcharts
• GRADE assessment methodology diagrams
• Risk of bias evaluation frameworks
• Validity assessment visualizations
• Any complex concept that benefits from visualization

For detailed guidance on creating schematics, refer to the scientific-schematics skill documentation.

Core Capabilities

1. Methodology Critique

Evaluate research methodology for rigor, validity, and potential flaws.

Apply when:

• Reviewing research papers
• Assessing experimental designs
• Evaluating study protocols
• Planning new research

Evaluation framework:

1. Study Design Assessment
2. Is the design appropriate for the research question?
3. Can the design support causal claims being made?
4. Are comparison groups appropriate and adequate?
5. Consider whether experimental, quasi-experimental, or observational design is justified

1. Validity Analysis
2. Internal validity: Can we trust the causal inference?
3. Check randomization quality
4. Evaluate confounding control
5. Assess selection bias
6. Review attrition/dropout patterns
7. External validity: Do results generalize?
8. Evaluate sample representativeness
9. Consider ecological validity of setting
10. Assess whether conditions match target application
11. Construct validity: Do measures capture intended constructs?
12. Review measurement validation
13. Check operational definitions
14. Assess whether measures are direct or proxy
15. Statistical conclusion validity: Are statistical inferences sound?
16. Verify adequate power/sample size
17. Check assumption compliance
18. Evaluate test appropriateness

1. Control and Blinding
2. Was randomization properly implemented (sequence generation, allocation concealment)?
3. Was blinding feasible and implemented (participants, providers, assessors)?
4. Are control conditions appropriate (placebo, active control, no treatment)?
5. Could performance or detection bias affect results?

1. Measurement Quality
2. Are instruments validated and reliable?
3. Are measures objective when possible, or subjective with acknowledged limitations?
4. Is outcome assessment standardized?
5. Are multiple measures used to triangulate findings?

Reference: See references/scientific_method.md for detailed principles and references/experimental_design.md for comprehensive design checklist.

2. Bias Detection

Identify and evaluate potential sources of bias that could distort findings.

Apply when:

• Reviewing published research
• Designing new studies
• Interpreting conflicting evidence
• Assessing research quality

Systematic bias review:

1. Cognitive Biases (Researcher)
2. Confirmation bias: Are only supporting findings highlighted?
3. HARKing: Were hypotheses stated a priori or formed after seeing results?
4. Publication bias: Are negative results missing from literature?
5. Cherry-picking: Is evidence selectively reported?
6. Check for preregistration and analysis plan transparency

1. Selection Biases
2. Sampling bias: Is sample representative of target population?
3. Volunteer bias: Do participants self-select in systematic ways?
4. Attrition bias: Is dropout differential between groups?
5. Survivorship bias: Are only "survivors" visible in sample?
6. Examine participant flow diagrams and compare baseline characteristics

1. Measurement Biases
2. Observer bias: Could expectations influence observations?
3. Recall bias: Are retrospective reports systematically inaccurate?
4. Social desirability: Are responses biased toward acceptability?
5. Instrument bias: Do measurement tools systematically err?
6. Evaluate blinding, validation, and measurement objectivity

1. Analysis Biases
2. P-hacking: Were multiple analyses conducted until significance emerged?
3. Outcome switching: Were non-significant outcomes replaced with significant ones?
4. Selective reporting: Are all planned analyses reported?
5. Subgroup fishing: Were subgroup analyses conducted without correction?
6. Check for study registration and compare to published outcomes

1. Confounding
2. What variables could affect both exposure and outcome?
3. Were confounders measured and controlled (statistically or by design)?
4. Could unmeasured confounding explain findings?
5. Are there plausible alternative explanations?

Reference: See references/common_biases.md for comprehensive bias taxonomy with detection and mitigation strategies.

3. Statistical Analysis Evaluation

Critically assess statistical methods, interpretation, and reporting.

Apply when:

• Reviewing quantitative research
• Evaluating data-driven claims
• Assessing clinical trial results
• Reviewing meta-analyses

Statistical review checklist:

1. Sample Size and Power
2. Was a priori power analysis conducted?
3. Is sample adequate for detecting meaningful effects?
4. Is the study underpowered (common problem)?
5. Do significant results from small samples raise flags for inflated effect sizes?

1. Statistical Tests
2. Are tests appropriate for data type and distribution?
3. Were test assumptions checked and met?
4. Are parametric tests justified, or should non-parametric alternatives be used?
5. Is the analysis matched to study design (e.g., paired vs. independent)?

1. Multiple Comparisons
2. Were multiple hypotheses tested?
3. Was correction applied (Bonferroni, FDR, other)?
4. Are primary outcomes distinguished from secondary/exploratory?
5. Could findings be false positives from multiple testing?

1. P-Value Interpretation
2. Are p-values interpreted correctly (probability of data if null is true)?
3. Is non-significance incorrectly interpreted as "no effect"?
4. Is statistical significance conflated with practical importance?
5. Are exact p-values reported, or only "p < .05"?
6. Is there suspicious clustering just below .05?

1. **Effect Sizes and