Editing Thought (section)

==Related concepts and theories==
===Laws of thought===
Traditionally, the term "[[laws of thought]]" refers to three fundamental laws of logic: the [[law of contradiction]], the [[law of excluded middle]], and the [[principle of identity]].<ref name="BritannicaLaws"/><ref name="BorchertLaws"/> These laws by themselves are not sufficient as axioms of logic but they can be seen as important precursors to the modern [[Axiomatic system|axiomatization]] of logic. The ''law of contradiction'' states that for any proposition, it is impossible that both it and its negation are true: <math>\lnot (p \land \lnot p)</math>. According to the ''law of excluded middle'', for any proposition, either it or its opposite is true: <math>p \lor \lnot p</math>. The principle of identity asserts that any object is identical to itself: <math>\forall x (x = x)</math>.<ref name="BritannicaLaws"/><ref name="BorchertLaws"/> There are different conceptions of how the laws of thought are to be understood. The interpretations most relevant to thinking are to understand them as prescriptive laws of how one should think or as formal laws of propositions that are true only because of their form and independent of their content or context.<ref name="BorchertLaws"/> [[Metaphysics|Metaphysical]] interpretations, on the other hand, see them as expressing the nature of "being as such".<ref name="BorchertLaws"/>

While there is a very wide acceptance of these three laws among logicians, they are not universally accepted.<ref name="BritannicaLaws"/><ref name="BorchertLaws"/> Aristotle, for example, held that there are some cases in which the law of excluded middle is false. This concerns primarily uncertain future events. On his view, it is currently "not ... either true or false that there will be a naval battle tomorrow".<ref name="BritannicaLaws">{{cite web |title=Laws of thought |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/laws-of-thought |website=Encyclopedia Britannica |access-date=28 October 2021 |language=en}}</ref><ref name="BorchertLaws"/> Modern [[intuitionist logic]] also rejects the law of excluded middle. This rejection is based on the idea that mathematical truth depends on verification through a [[Mathematical proof|proof]]. The law fails for cases where no such proof is possible, which exist in every sufficiently strong formal system, according to [[Gödel's incompleteness theorems]].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Moschovakis |first1=Joan |title=Intuitionistic Logic: 1. Rejection of Tertium Non Datur |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-intuitionistic/#RejTerNonDat |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=28 October 2021 |date=2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=McKubre-Jordens |first1=Maarten |title=Constructive Mathematics: 1b Constructivism as Philosophy |url=https://iep.utm.edu/con-math/#SH1b |website=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=28 October 2021}}</ref><ref name="BritannicaLaws"/><ref name="BorchertLaws"/> [[Dialetheism|Dialetheists]], on the other hand, reject the law of contradiction by holding that some propositions are both true and false. One motivation of this position is to avoid certain paradoxes in classical logic and set theory, like the [[liar's paradox]] and [[Russell's paradox]]. One of its problems is to find a formulation that circumvents the [[principle of explosion]], i.e. that anything follows from a contradiction.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Priest |first1=Graham |last2=Berto |first2=Francesco |last3=Weber |first3=Zach |title=Dialetheism |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |date=2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Horn |first1=Laurence R. |title=Contradiction |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contradiction/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |date=2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Weber |first1=Zach |title=Dialetheism |url=https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195396577/obo-9780195396577-0310.xml |website=Oxford Bibliographies |access-date=28 October 2021 |language=en}}</ref>

Some formulations of the laws of thought include a fourth law: the [[principle of sufficient reason]].<ref name="BorchertLaws"/> It states that everything has a sufficient [[reason]], ground, or [[cause]]. It is closely connected to the idea that everything is intelligible or can be explained in reference to its sufficient reason.<ref name="BritannicaSufficient"/><ref name="Melamed"/> According to this idea, there should always be a full explanation, at least in principle, to questions like why the sky is blue or why [[World War II]] happened. One problem for including this principle among the laws of thought is that it is a metaphysical principle, unlike the other three laws, which pertain primarily to logic.<ref name="Melamed">{{cite web |last1=Melamed |first1=Yitzhak Y. |last2=Lin |first2=Martin |title=Principle of Sufficient Reason |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=28 October 2021 |date=2021}}</ref><ref name="BorchertLaws">{{cite book |last1=Borchert |first1=Donald |title=Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd Edition |date=2006 |publisher=Macmillan |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/BORMEO |chapter=Laws of Thought }}</ref><ref name="BritannicaSufficient">{{cite web |title=principle of sufficient reason |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/principle-of-sufficient-reason |website=Encyclopædia Britannica |access-date=28 October 2021 |language=en}}</ref>

===Counterfactual thinking===
[[Counterfactual thinking]] involves mental representations of non-actual situations and events, i.e. of what is "contrary to the facts".<ref name="Roese">{{cite journal |last1=Roese |first1=Neal J. |title=Counterfactual thinking |journal=Psychological Bulletin |date=1997 |volume=121 |issue=1 |pages=133–148 |doi=10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.133 |pmid=9000895 |url=https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-02112-007}}</ref><ref name="KazdinCounterfactual">{{cite book |editor1-last=Kazdin |editor1-first=Alan E. |title=Encyclopedia of Psychology |date=2000 |publisher=American Psychological Association |isbn=978-1-55798-187-5 |url=https://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4600100 |chapter=Counterfactual thought}}</ref> It is usually ''conditional'': it aims at assessing what would be the case if a certain condition had obtained.<ref name="Van Hoeck"/><ref name="Starr"/> In this sense, it tries to answer "What if"-questions. For example, thinking after an accident that one would be dead if one had not used the seatbelt is a form of counterfactual thinking: it assumes, contrary to the facts, that one had not used the seatbelt and tries to assess the result of this state of affairs.<ref name="KazdinCounterfactual"/> In this sense, counterfactual thinking is normally counterfactual only to a small degree since just a few facts are changed, like concerning the seatbelt, while most other facts are kept in place, like that one was driving, one's gender, the laws of physics, etc.<ref name="Roese"/> When understood in the widest sense, there are forms of counterfactual thinking that do not involve anything contrary to the facts at all.<ref name="Starr">{{cite web |last1=Starr |first1=William |title=Counterfactuals: 1.1 What are Counterfactuals? |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/counterfactuals/#WhatCoun |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=28 October 2021 |date=2021}}</ref> This is the case, for example, when one tries to anticipate what might happen in the future if an uncertain event occurs and this event actually occurs later and brings with it the anticipated consequences.<ref name="Van Hoeck">{{cite journal |last1=Van Hoeck |first1=Nicole |last2=Watson |first2=Patrick D. |last3=Barbey |first3=Aron K. |title=Cognitive neuroscience of human counterfactual reasoning |journal=Frontiers in Human Neuroscience |date=2015 |volume=9 |pages=420 |doi=10.3389/fnhum.2015.00420 |pmid=26257633 |pmc=4511878 |issn=1662-5161|doi-access=free }}</ref> In this wider sense, the term "subjunctive conditional" is sometimes used instead of "[[counterfactual conditional]]".<ref name="Starr"/> But the paradigmatic cases of counterfactual thinking involve alternatives to past events.<ref name="Roese"/>

Counterfactual thinking plays an important role since we evaluate the world around us not only by what actually happened but also by what could have happened.<ref name="KazdinCounterfactual"/> Humans have a greater tendency to engage in counterfactual thinking after something bad happened because of some kind of action the agent performed.<ref name="Van Hoeck"/><ref name="Roese"/> In this sense, many regrets are associated with counterfactual thinking in which the agent contemplates how a better outcome could have been obtained if only they had acted differently.<ref name="KazdinCounterfactual"/> These cases are known as upward counterfactuals, in contrast to downward counterfactuals, in which the counterfactual scenario is worse than actuality.<ref name="Van Hoeck"/><ref name="Roese"/> Upward counterfactual thinking is usually experienced as unpleasant, since it presents the actual circumstances in a bad light. This contrasts with the positive emotions associated with downward counterfactual thinking.<ref name="KazdinCounterfactual"/> But both forms are important since it is possible to learn from them and to adjust one's behavior accordingly to get better results in the future.<ref name="KazdinCounterfactual"/><ref name="Roese"/>

===Thought experiments===
[[Thought experiment]]s involve thinking about imaginary situations, often with the aim of investigating the possible consequences of a change to the actual sequence of events.<ref>{{cite web |title=The American Heritage Dictionary entry: thought experiment |url=https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=thought+experiment |website=www.ahdictionary.com |publisher=Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing |access-date=30 October 2021}}</ref><ref name="Brown"/><ref name="Goffi"/> It is a controversial issue to what extent thought experiments should be understood as actual experiments.<ref name="Sorensen10"/><ref name="Bishop">{{cite journal |last1=Bishop |first1=Michael A. |title=Why Thought Experiments Are Not Arguments |journal=Philosophy of Science |date=1999 |volume=66 |issue=4 |pages=534–541 |doi=10.1086/392753 |s2cid=170519663 |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/BISWTE}}</ref><ref name="Norton">{{cite journal |last1=Norton |first1=John D. |title=Are Thought Experiments Just What You Thought? |journal=Canadian Journal of Philosophy |date=1996 |volume=26 |issue=3 |pages=333–366 |doi=10.1080/00455091.1996.10717457 |s2cid=143017404 |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/NORATE}}</ref> They are experiments in the sense that a certain situation is set up and one tries to learn from this situation by understanding what follows from it.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Sorensen |first1=Roy |title=Roy Sorensen's Thought Experiments |journal=Informal Logic |date=1 January 1995 |volume=17 |issue=3 |doi=10.22329/il.v17i3.2425 |url=https://informallogic.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/2425/ |language=en |issn=2293-734X|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Sorensen10"/> They differ from regular experiments in that imagination is used to set up the situation and counterfactual reasoning is employed to evaluate what follows from it, instead of setting it up physically and observing the consequences through perception.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Reiss |first1=Julian |title=Counterfactuals, Thought Experiments, and Singular Causal Analysis in History |journal=Philosophy of Science |date=1 December 2009 |volume=76 |issue=5 |pages=712–723 |doi=10.1086/605826 |s2cid=43496954 |url=https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/605826?journalCode=phos |issn=0031-8248}}</ref><ref name="Brown">{{cite web |last1=Brown |first1=James Robert |last2=Fehige |first2=Yiftach |title=Thought Experiments |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thought-experiment/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=29 October 2021 |date=2019}}</ref><ref name="Sorensen10">{{cite book |last1=Sorensen |first1=Roy A. |title=Thought Experiments |date=1999 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-512913-7 |url=https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/019512913X.001.0001/acprof-9780195129137-chapter-10 |chapter=Are Thought Experiments Experiments?|doi=10.1093/019512913X.001.0001 }}</ref><ref name="Goffi"/> Counterfactual thinking, therefore, plays a central role in thought experiments.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Aligica |first1=Paul Dragos |last2=Evans |first2=Anthony J. |title=Thought experiments, counterfactuals and comparative analysis |journal=The Review of Austrian Economics |date=1 September 2009 |volume=22 |issue=3 |pages=225–239 |doi=10.1007/s11138-009-0082-8 |s2cid=144831020 |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11138-009-0082-8 |language=en |issn=1573-7128}}</ref>

The [[Chinese room argument]] is a famous thought experiment proposed by [[John Searle]].<ref name="Cole"/><ref name="Hauser"/> It involves a person sitting inside a closed-off room, tasked with responding to messages written in Chinese. This person does not know Chinese but has a giant rule book that specifies exactly how to reply to any possible message, similar to how a computer would react to messages. The core idea of this thought experiment is that neither the person nor the computer understands Chinese. This way, Searle aims to show that computers lack a mind capable of deeper forms of understanding despite acting intelligently.<ref name="Cole">{{cite web |last1=Cole |first1=David |title=The Chinese Room Argument |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=29 October 2021 |date=2020}}</ref><ref name="Hauser">{{cite web |last1=Hauser |first1=Larry |title=Chinese Room Argument |url=https://iep.utm.edu/chineser/ |website=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=29 October 2021}}</ref>

Thought experiments are employed for various purposes, for example, for entertainment, education, or as arguments for or against theories. Most discussions focus on their use as arguments. This use is found in fields like philosophy, the natural sciences, and history.<ref name="Brown"/><ref name="Norton"/><ref name="Bishop"/><ref name="Sorensen10"/> It is controversial since there is a lot of disagreement concerning the epistemic status of thought experiments, i.e. how reliable they are as [[evidence]] supporting or refuting a theory.<ref name="Brown"/><ref name="Norton"/><ref name="Bishop"/><ref name="Sorensen10"/> Central to the rejection of this usage is the fact that they pretend to be a source of knowledge without the need to leave one's armchair in search of any new empirical data. Defenders of thought experiments usually contend that the intuitions underlying and guiding the thought experiments are, at least in some cases, reliable.<ref name="Brown"/><ref name="Sorensen10"/> But thought experiments can also fail if they are not properly supported by intuitions or if they go beyond what the intuitions support.<ref name="Brown"/><ref name="Goffi"/> In the latter sense, sometimes counter thought experiments are proposed that modify the original scenario in slight ways in order to show that initial intuitions cannot survive this change.<ref name="Brown"/> Various taxonomies of thought experiments have been suggested. They can be distinguished, for example, by whether they are successful or not, by the discipline that uses them, by their role in a theory, or by whether they accept or modify the actual laws of physics.<ref name="Goffi">{{cite journal |last1=Goffi |first1=Jean-Yves |last2=Roux |first2=Sophie|author2-link=Sophie Roux |title=On the Very Idea of a Thought Experiment |journal=Thought Experiments in Methodological and Historical Contexts |date=2011 |pages=165–191 |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/GOFOTV |publisher=Brill|doi=10.1163/ej.9789004201767.i-233.35 |isbn=978-9004201774 |s2cid=260640180 }}</ref><ref name="Brown"/>

===Critical thinking===
[[Critical thinking]] is a form of thinking that is [[reason]]able, reflective, and focused on determining what to believe or how to act.<ref name="Ennis">{{cite book |last1=Ennis |first1=Robert H. |title=The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education |date=2015 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan US |isbn=978-1-137-37805-7 |pages=31–47 |chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137378057_2 |language=en |chapter=Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception|doi=10.1057/9781137378057_2 }}</ref><ref name="Davies">{{cite book |last1=Davies |first1=Martin |last2=Barnett |first2=Ronald |title=The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education |date=2015 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan US |isbn=978-1-137-37805-7 |pages=1–25 |chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137378057_1 |language=en |chapter=Introduction|doi=10.1057/9781137378057_1 }}</ref><ref name="Hitchcock">{{cite web |last1=Hitchcock |first1=David |title=Critical Thinking |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-thinking/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=1 November 2021 |date=2020}}</ref> It holds itself to various standards, like clarity and rationality. In this sense, it involves not just cognitive processes trying to solve the issue at hand but at the same time [[Meta-cognition|meta-cognitive]] processes ensuring that it lives up to its own standards.<ref name="Davies"/> This includes assessing both that the reasoning itself is sound and that the [[evidence]] it rests on is reliable.<ref name="Davies"/> This means that [[logic]] plays an important role in critical thinking. It concerns not just [[formal logic]], but also [[informal logic]], specifically to avoid various [[informal fallacies]] due to vague or ambiguous expressions in natural language.<ref name="Davies"/><ref name="philpapers.org"/><ref name="John Benjamins"/> No generally accepted standard definition of "critical thinking" exists but there is significant overlap between the proposed definitions in their characterization of critical thinking as careful and goal-directed.<ref name="Hitchcock"/> According to some versions, only the thinker's own observations and experiments are accepted as evidence in critical thinking. Some restrict it to the formation of judgments but exclude action as its goal.<ref name="Hitchcock"/>

A concrete everyday example of critical thinking, due to [[John Dewey]], involves observing foam bubbles moving in a direction that is contrary to one's initial expectations. The critical thinker tries to come up with various possible explanations of this behavior and then slightly modifies the original situation in order to determine which one is the right explanation.<ref name="Hitchcock"/><ref>{{cite book |last1=Dewey |first1=John |title=How We Think |date=1910 |url=https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/Dewey/Dewey_1910a/Dewey_1910_f.html |chapter=6: The Analysis of a Complete Act of Thought}}</ref> But not all forms of cognitively valuable processes involve critical thinking. Arriving at the correct solution to a problem by blindly following the steps of an algorithm does not qualify as critical thinking. The same is true if the solution is presented to the thinker in a sudden flash of insight and accepted straight away.<ref name="Hitchcock"/>

Critical thinking plays an important role in education: fostering the student's ability to think critically is often seen as an important educational goal.<ref name="Hitchcock"/><ref name="Davies"/><ref name="Siegel">{{cite book |last1=Siegel |first1=Harvey |title=Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd Edition |date=2006 |publisher=Macmillan |url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/philosophy-education-epistemological-issues |chapter=Philosophy if Education, Epistemological Issues In }}</ref> In this sense, it is important to convey not just a set of true beliefs to the student but also the ability to draw one's own conclusions and to question pre-existing beliefs.<ref name="Siegel"/> The abilities and dispositions learned this way may profit not just the individual but also society at large.<ref name="Davies"/> Critics of the emphasis on critical thinking in education have argued that there is no universal form of correct thinking. Instead, they contend that different subject matters rely on different standards and education should focus on imparting these subject-specific skills instead of trying to teach universal methods of thinking.<ref name="Hitchcock"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Monteiro |first1=Sandra |last2=Sherbino |first2=Jonathan |last3=Sibbald |first3=Matthew |last4=Norman |first4=Geoff |title=Critical thinking, biases and dual processing: The enduring myth of generalisable skills |journal=Medical Education |date=2020 |volume=54 |issue=1 |pages=66–73 |doi=10.1111/medu.13872 |pmid=31468581 |s2cid=201674464 |language=en |issn=1365-2923|doi-access=free }}</ref> Other objections are based on the idea that critical thinking and the attitude underlying it involve various unjustified biases, like egocentrism, distanced objectivity, indifference, and an overemphasis of the theoretical in contrast to the practical.<ref name="Hitchcock"/>

===Positive thinking===
Positive thinking is an important topic in [[positive psychology]].<ref name="Khalid"/> It involves focusing one's attention on the positive aspects of one's situation and thereby withdrawing one's attention from its negative sides.<ref name="Khalid">{{cite journal |last1=Khalid |first1=Ruhi |title=Positive Thinking in Coping with Stress and Health outcomes: Literature Review |journal=Journal of Research and Reflections in Education |date=June 2010 |volume=4 |issue=1 |pages=42–61 |url=https://www.academia.edu/30299598}}</ref> This is usually seen as a global outlook that applies especially to thinking but includes other mental processes, like feeling, as well.<ref name="Khalid"/> In this sense, it is closely related to [[optimism]]. It includes expecting positive things to happen in the future.<ref name="Scheier"/><ref name="Khalid"/> This positive outlook makes it more likely for people to seek to attain new goals.<ref name="Khalid"/> It also increases the probability of continuing to strive towards pre-existing goals that seem difficult to reach instead of just giving up.<ref name="Scheier">{{cite journal |last1=Scheier |first1=Michael F. |last2=Carver |first2=Charles S. |title=On the Power of Positive Thinking: The Benefits of Being Optimistic |journal=Current Directions in Psychological Science |date=1 February 1993 |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=26–30 |doi=10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770572 |s2cid=145393172 |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770572?journalCode=cdpa |language=en |issn=0963-7214}}</ref><ref name="Khalid"/>

The effects of positive thinking are not yet thoroughly researched, but some studies suggest that there is a correlation between positive thinking and well-being.<ref name="Khalid"/> For example, students and pregnant women with a positive outlook tend to be better at dealing with stressful situations.<ref name="Scheier"/><ref name="Khalid"/> This is sometimes explained by pointing out that stress is not inherent in stressful situations but depends on the agent's interpretation of the situation. Reduced stress may therefore be found in positive thinkers because they tend to see such situations in a more positive light.<ref name="Khalid"/> But the effects also include the practical domain in that positive thinkers tend to employ healthier coping strategies when faced with difficult situations.<ref name="Khalid"/> This effects, for example, the time needed to fully recover from surgeries and the tendency to resume physical exercise afterward.<ref name="Scheier"/>

But it has been argued that whether positive thinking actually leads to positive outcomes depends on various other factors. Without these factors, it may lead to negative results. For example, the tendency of optimists to keep striving in difficult situations can backfire if the course of events is outside the agent's control.<ref name="Scheier"/> Another danger associated with positive thinking is that it may remain only on the level of unrealistic fantasies and thereby fail to make a positive practical contribution to the agent's life.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Oettingen |first1=Gabriele |last2=Cachia |first2=Julie Y. A. |title=Handbook of Self-Regulation: Third Edition: Research, Theory, and Applications |date=2017 |url=https://www.guilford.com/books/Handbook-of-Self-Regulation/Vohs-Baumeister/9781462533824/contents |chapter=30. Problems with Positive Thinking and How to Overcome Them}}</ref> [[Defensive pessimism|Pessimism]], on the other hand, may have positive effects since it can mitigate disappointments by anticipating failures.<ref name="Scheier"/><ref>{{cite book |last1=Thomas |first1=Sandra P. |title=Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences |date=2020 |publisher=Springer International Publishing |isbn=978-3-319-24612-3 |pages=1036–1038 |chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3-319-24612-3_1061 |language=en |chapter=Defensive Pessimism|doi=10.1007/978-3-319-24612-3_1061 |s2cid=243736790 }}</ref>

Positive thinking is a recurrent topic in the self-help literature.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Peale |first1=Norman Vincent |title=The Power of Positive Thinking |publisher=Om Books International |isbn=978-93-85609-89-3 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=A0u0DAAAQBAJ |language=en}}</ref> Here, often the claim is made that one can significantly improve one's life by trying to think positively, even if this means fostering beliefs that are contrary to evidence.<ref name="Seligman"/> Such claims and the effectiveness of the suggested methods are controversial and have been criticized due to their lack of scientific evidence.<ref name="Seligman">{{cite book |last1=Seligman |first1=Martin E. P. |title=Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize Your Potential for Lasting Fulfillment |date= 2002 |publisher=Simon and Schuster |isbn=978-0-7432-4788-7 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_JaY2K2dhC0C |language=en |chapter=6. Optimism about the Future}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Woodstock |first1=Louise |title=Think About It: The Misbegotten Promise of Positive Thinking Discourse |journal=Journal of Communication Inquiry |date=1 April 2007 |volume=31 |issue=2 |pages=166–189 |doi=10.1177/0196859906298177 |s2cid=145436993 |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0196859906298177 |language=en |issn=0196-8599}}</ref> In the [[New Thought movement]], positive thinking figures in the [[Law of attraction (New Thought)|law of attraction]], the pseudoscientific claim that positive thoughts can directly influence the external world by attracting positive outcomes.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Chabris |first1=Christopher F. |last2=Simons |first2=Daniel J. |title=Fight 'The Power' |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/books/review/Chabris-t.html |website=The New York Times |date=24 September 2010}}</ref>