Logic, Critical Thinking, and the Local Clinical Scientist

Abstract

Sherlock Holmes would have a bewildering time were he to pursue training in scientific professional psychology. He might wish to apply his celebrated method to the investigation of mind, but he would find our scientific ways frustrating. In his training, he would learn a great deal about psychopathology, psychotherapy, developmental and social issues across the life span, and perhaps a bit about himself. He would learn about research methods and statistics. He would find that there are more journal articles than any one investigator could ever read, and theory abounds. But in the end, he would find that methods he perfected for his criminal investigations are largely absent in our training.

Scientific work... demands the utmost candor and openness of mind.... One must be willing to abandon any theory as soon as it is found to disagree with the facts. And this is by no means an easy thing to do. When one has a theory which suffices for nearly all the facts, there is always the temptation to cling to it, and to neglect or explain away any troublesome or contradictory facts.

—Creighton and Smart (1932, p. 332)

There is no royal road to logic, and really valuable ideas can only be had at the price of close attention.

—Peirce (1878/1955, p. 40)

True science teaches, above all, to doubt and to be ignorant.

—Miguel de Unamuno y Jugo