Discussion: Critical ThinkingIn psychology, critical thinking is akin to the process of scientific reasoning. Unfortunately, numerous practices claim to be “science” but have no basis in fact or have not been supported by scientific evidentiary processes. Learning to become a skeptical consumer of information can help you distinguish among scientific and pseudoscience claims.After reviewing the Learning Resources this week, conduct an online search of popular media (e.g., magazines, infomercials, websites, newspapers) for a claim that appears to have been “tested,” but for which the claim’s validity has raised your skepticism. Following are some suggested topic areas: brain-training, magnet theory, diet for curing diseases, cures for autism, and ADHD. Then, locate a peer-reviewed journal article from the Walden Library (APA PsycINFO database) on the same or similar topic. Compare and contrast the two different sources of information on this topic.With these thoughts in mindBy Day 3Post a response to the following:Briefly summarize the claim and the evidence to support the claim(s) made in the popular media.Identify at least one aspect in the popular media that increased your skepticism.Discuss examples of possible bias and/or faulty reasoning.Briefly summarize the claim(s) and the evidence to support the claim(s) made in the journal article.Compare the strengths and limitations of the evidentiary processes in both articles.Use APA format and style to cite your sources within the body of the post.Include a Reference list formatted in APA format and style that includes the full reference for the media claim, the journal article and any other sources used and cited within the assignment.By Day 5Respond to at least two of your colleagues’ initial Discussion assignment postings in one or more of the following ways:Ask a probing question and provide insight into how you would answer your question and why.Ask a probing question and provide the foundation, or rationale, for the question.Expand on your colleague’s posting by offering a new perspective or insight.Agree with a colleague and offer additional (new) supporting information for consideration.Disagree with a colleague by respectfully discussing and supporting a different perspective.