Critical Thinking Cheat Sheet: Lesson 2 - Evaluating Evidence
Evidence Hierarchy (Strongest to Weakest)
- Direct Empirical Evidence: Observable through senses or measuring instruments
- Peer-Reviewed Scientific Research: Studies scrutinized by experts and published
- Expert Consensus: Agreement among specialists in a field
- Official Records: Information from established institutions with verification processes
- Journalistic Reporting: Information gathered by professional journalists
- Eyewitness Testimony: First-hand accounts (often unreliable despite seeming compelling)
- Anecdotal Evidence: Personal stories or isolated examples
- Testimonials: Personal statements often used in marketing
- Appeals to Tradition/Popularity: Claims based on longevity or popularity
The CRAAP Test for Source Evaluation
Letter | Stands For | Key Questions |
C | Currency | When was it published/updated? Is it recent enough for your topic? |
R | Relevance | Does it directly address your question? Is it at an appropriate level? |
A | Authority | Who is the author/publisher? What are their credentials? Any conflicts of interest? |
A | Accuracy | Is it supported by evidence? Has it been reviewed or fact-checked? Can you verify it? |
P | Purpose | Why was this created? To inform, teach, sell, entertain, or persuade? |
Red Flags: Warning Signs of Misleading Evidence
- Cherry-Picking: Selecting only data that supports a position
- Correlation ≠Causation: Assuming that because two things happen together, one causes the other
- Small/Biased Samples: Drawing broad conclusions from too few examples
- Misleading Statistics: Numbers presented without context or manipulated
- Appeal to False Authority: Citing experts speaking outside their expertise
- Weasel Words: Vague language creating impressions without verifiable claims
- Emotional Manipulation: Using emotional language to override critical thinking
Scientific Evidence Hierarchy
- Systematic reviews and meta-analyses
- Randomized controlled trials
- Cohort studies
- Case-control studies
- Cross-sectional surveys
- Case reports
- Expert opinions
- Animal or laboratory studies
Practical Strategies for Information Overload
- Prioritize scrutiny for information that influences important decisions
- Use trusted information filters (fact-checking organizations, reputable outlets)
- Look for consensus rather than outliers
- Practice “satisficing” for low-stakes matters
- Remember: The goal isn’t perfect information but appropriate confidence based on evidence quality