Why I'm hesitant to give up critical thinking

Yesterday after listening to the first episode of Kiran Kumbhar's "Becoming Modern: Healthcare and History in India" (at https://www.sunoindia.in/becoming-modern-healthcare-and-history-in-india/history-and-historians ) I decided to go to the links in the description. One of the links was to a discussion in a literature festival between Githa Hariharan and Romila Thapar titled "Learning From the Past, Lessons for the Future" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgMB5SdPKU4

In it RT says, roughly, "it is not about the truth, it is about the method you're using" in reference to history. And the method RT is referring to is that of critical thinking that contextualizes information and reads between the lines.

This confirms my belief that the way I think about science is similar to how some historians think about history. I had written about it here: https://mbbshacker.blogspot.com/2023/02/history-is-to-practice.html

The summary is that science (or history) is not about what the truth is. It is about following a certain method. For the individual who is talking. As in, it is a personal endeavour. It is not about what the scientists at Indian Institute of Science thinks science is or what the "dominant" idea of science is. It is about what I practice.

And what I see as the basis of the method in science (and in history, and in medicine) is critical thinking. 

Now what is critical thinking? I had written a small guide in 2011:

Whatever you read, whatever you hear, whatever you think, ask yourself:

Could the opposite be true?

That's all there is to critical thinking.

Which is why I feel very happy when R Srivats shares an anecdote that is potentially contributing to my critical thinking on Aadhaar, for example.

In my experience, you keep questioning for many many rounds till you convince yourself that both sides are possible and then you make an informed choice (in some situations) to advocate for one side.

So when I'm vocally replying to Jagannath in mfc (and Ravi in SOCHARA) on the topic of homeopathy, I'm doing it with two hopes

1) that my opponents might have some point that can finally help me grow my position.

2) for the reason that critical thinking is the method that I'm using and it starts with the question of whether the opposite could be true.

What it means is that for a scientist or a historian, looking for contradictory evidence is essential, seeking ideas and facts that discredit their theories is what makes them more and more confident in their modified theories.

I see many theories that uses conjectures to arrive at certain truths. I keep wondering to myself how the proponents of these theories are being critical thinkers.

Now, of course, I can't claim that critical thinking is to be the only way of living life. But if you listen to this Romila Thapar discussion or look around on national media, you do get the sense that uncritical thinking directly contributes to alternative realities that enables and empowers violence against Muslims, oppression of Dalits, and so on.

And that's why I'm not willing to give up critical thinking.

ASD