Explain Why Is Critical Thinking Essential To Biopsychology

Why is critical thinking essential to biopsychology?

The basis for all psychological experiments is critical thinking Without critical thinking, a significant result to an experiment cannot be established, this is because, critical thinking is essential to

Critical thinking is defined as the process of coming to an overall objective judgement by evaluating claims and arguments along with evidence that is supported and concrete. and biopsychology is a sub- section of psychology that is involved with the biological effects on behaviour within different species. In order to evaluate the reasoning behind the of critical thinking in biopsychology, essential topics need to be discussed. The use of critical thinking within non- human experiments

One of the most infamous case studies in relation to biopsychology was the case Jimmie G. Oliver Sacks, a famous neurologist, was most active in the 1970’s for his work on this case, in 1975 a 49 year old man who was named Jimmie G by Sacks was questioned about his life experiences. He used the present tense to recall his memories from the navy, which he worked in when he was 19 years old, Sacks asked Jimmie Gon his age, in which JImmie G replied 19 (even though Sacks knew he was indeed 49). Sacks concluded that Jimmie G thought that he was the age of 19 and suffered with a type of early onset amnesia called Korsakoff's syndrome. Jimmie G was described as a man ‘frozen in time’. The outcomes and lessons learnt from experiment led to future experiments taking place that are linked to the results of this particular study, which ultimately helps with the evolution of psychological findings and explanations. It also helped with the treatment and care of patients who suffer with brain damage, for example in some cases the solution to the diagnosis would be upping the dosage of vitamins. Within case studies, critical thinking is therefore important as it enables scientists who

To explain this further, blindingly accepting scientific findings as the ultimate truth only leads to long- term damage which can be detrimental. In the results of an experiment investigating a link between the MMR vaccine and ‘behavioural regression and pervasive developmental disorder’ was published to the general public. The scientist ( along with his colleagues) that were behind this study was Andrew Wakefield, who in 1998 published his findings in the Lancet, in which he claimed that the MMR vaccine ‘may predispose behavioural regression and pervasive developmental disorder in children’. Due to it being common knowledge that both signs of autism and MMR were both known to develop in early childhood, in response to the publication, a large sample of the public chose to cherry pick from the results what they thought was a direct correlation between having the MMR vaccine and the development of autism. This was an extremely dangerous and unprofessional decision the scientists made to publish due to the complete disregard for critical thinking and validity. The criticism of this experiment included a small sample size, uncontrolled overall design of the experiment, lack of concrete evidence and the experiment was broadly based on complete speculation, which are all limitations that affected the reliability and validity of the study. From extensive investigation into