I find most people are not "anti-science" they are con-science.
Most of the so-called Science
that is pushed out there is actually psuedo-science manufactured by mega-corporations and supported by willing dupes.
It is an affront to real knowledge and Science
that is balanced. Obviously if the guy is already calling people that have conscience "anti-science" I can already tell that the video is obviously bias, without even watching it.
"rational thinking skills" sounds dubious. Thinking is supposed to be rational and at the very least has rationality as a component, that is part of its definition. If it's not rational then you aren't thinking.
Here is a definition I found for Rational Thinking Skills
...skills, including the Science
process skills, used to solve problems utilizing what is already known.
Lack of distinction appears to be an obvious ploy the author of the video uses, after all he is using Rational Thinking Skills and should know better.
think⋅ing [thing-king] Show IPA
1. rational; reasoning: People are thinking animals.
2. thoughtful; reflective:
–verb (used with object)
11. to have or form in the mind as an idea, conception, etc.
12. to consider for evaluation or for possible action upon: Think the deal over.
13. to regard as specified: He thought me unkind.
14. to believe to be true of someone or something: to think evil of the neighbors.
15. to analyze or evolve rationally: to think the problem out.
16. to have as a plan or intention: I thought that I would go.
17. to anticipate or expect:
When using"rational thinking skills" distinction must be made. Let us consider a paper where they delve into "rational thinking skills"...
Analytic Processes for School Leaders
by Cynthia T. Richetti and Benjamin B. Tregoe
in the first couple paragraphs this is the given premise
"This book is about rational thinking. The phrase is not a redundancy. Contrary to popular opinion, not all thinking is rational, at least as we would define rational. Rational thinking is the ability to consider the relevant variables of a situation and to access, organize, and analyze relevant information (e.g., facts, opinions, judgments, and data) to arrive at a sound conclusion."
Who defines what is relevant? Who's opinions count? Who's judgements are enforced? And what manufactured data is being used?
It goes on...
"Although the study of thought and thinking as an end in itself is a worthwhile pursuit, our focus is on the need to apply thought (i.e., use thought as a precursor to action). Rational thinking helps us arrive at a conclusion to be able to do something (i.e., take rational action)."
Already it goes on to infer that a conclusion must be made, that is hardly rational.
Science etymology translates as [related to knowledge}, if you are talking about some other more specific kind of science then a distinction must be made. You can't lump all science together, after all there are branches of science... psychology, astrology, etc, with obvious arbitrary mechanisms that are not true.
sci⋅ence [sahy-uhns] Show IPA
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.