Critical-thinking is so praised and also so under-practiced

From Hauntings, homeopathy, and the Hopkinsville Goblins: Using pseudoscience to teach scientific thinking by Rodney Michael Schmaltz and Scott O Lilienfeld. Their opening sentence in the Abstract:

With access to information ever increasing, it is essential that students acquire the skills to distinguish fact from fiction.

Well, yes. That would seem to be a goal that everyone might support.

Ross Pomeroy summarizes Schmaltz and Lilienfeld's test for what constitute pseudoscience in Time to Bring Pseudoscience into Science Class!. Schmaltz and Lilienfeld posit that there are seven clear signs that an argument is pseudoscience. I would argue that pseudoscience is too pejorative a term. Perhaps - seven signs that an argument is a faith-based conviction.

1. The use of psychobabble - words that sound scientific and professional but are used incorrectly, or in a misleading manner.
2. A substantial reliance on anecdotal evidence.
3. Extraordinary claims in the absence of extraordinary evidence.
4. Claims which cannot be proven false.
5. Claims that counter established scientific fact.
6. Absence of adequate peer review.
7. Claims that are repeated despite being refuted.

I like this list. But Schmaltz and Lilienfeld are substantially focused on the popular, but epistemologically fringe issues of UFO's, ESP, telekinesis, ghosts, etc. But apply these criteria to any contemporary policy or political issue such as anthropogenic global warming, sexting and bullying, gun control, rape culture, three-strikes sentencing, etc. and see how many fail to pass muster.

I am not disagreeing with the list because of that. In fact, on most issues of public policy, I think opinions and beliefs are way out in front of the evidence, so it is not surprising that they fail. But I think it explains why critical-thinking is so praised and also so under-practiced. It doesn't usually support what people want it to support.