Critical thinking is essential in science, obviously.
I wonder what the most distilled form of critical thinking as practice is.
You develop this skill when you are interpreting data that you obtained in your lab.
That's a very basic part of critical thinking. You've observed something. You now have a fact, and maybe an extrapolation. Going further with that is the core of good thinking.
Your job is then to deliver this data as clearly and precisely as you can.
Ah, the great lie of the natural sciences, well and economists. Your job is to convince people to believe what you want them to believe. The difference between a historian and a scientist on this issue is that historians have to make their arguments clear. Scientists generally do not because they lean on implicit ideas about their methodology much more heavily. The fact that scientists can do this obscures what their goal actually is. It also is a major explanation for why so many scientists understanding of the philosophy of science is bafflingly horrible.
Natural writing skills can help, especially if you are writing an academic paper (some are better than others at this)
The bolded is the absolute core of what it means to be a scientist.
but a writing class in a science course is a waste of time/resources that would be better spent elsewhere.
You haven't made an argument for this. You've just relied on the implicit one, though I suppose you actually made it explicit, that writing is stupid and pointless.
If I understand what you mean by "writing class", then I'm also against it because I don't believe writing should be taught in isolation from other things. Good writing is inherently contextual, and thus differs greatly. But that's an argument for science instruction to involve more, not less, writing exercises.
Of course this is all still ignoring the fact that you think the history, and maybe philosophy you just ignored that one, of Science is based on "nonsense about your thoughts and feelings".
I get that you're a lay person and shouldn't be taken as indicative of the field you studied as an undergraduate, but this blind superiority complex is a massive problem. Ironically just as much for the natural sciences as for everyone else.
This knowledge makes me profoundly sad.
Did it drive you to drink? Because it would definitely drive me to drink.
I can only grade when drinking.
What "science" are you talking about?
All vaguely defined "science" is the same don't ya know. I mean don't ever ask a chemist what his method is as a physicist because that won't end well, but I'm sure they are all the exact same.
