I'm afraid that the whole paragraph with the offending cornea reference in it is pseudoscientific bullshit. Yep. There's a lot of it about. That's why we need the critical thinking. Jamie made a comment about "intuitive" being misunderstood. The same is true of "critical thinking". It is not negative thinking as the offending article (!) claimed. It's sole purpose is to test a claim and a solid claim will withstand thorough criticism. Negative thinking, on the other hand, may well dismiss something on spurious grounds. It is, by way of analogy, how skills are improved by recognising and addressing their weaknesses. That is not negative.
|