The way I see it, the difference between the main method taught in the hard sciences (the empirical or scientific method) and between critical thinking as taugh

The way I see it, the difference between the main method taught in the hard sciences (the empirical or scientific method) and between critical thinking as taught in the humanities is that the latter does not frown upon "intuitive" knowledge the way the first one does. In the empirical method, you are encouraged to put on a blindfold and pretend to be perfectly unbiased when making a decision. That works very well for things about which you can actually pretend to be unbiased. Less so for things where you have to make conclusions based on your life experience. Critical thinking (as opposed to the scientific method) becomes important when doing things like hiring people. I cannot afford to go outside, put on a mask, randomly sample people, spend a few years with each, write down the results, and generate a correctly averaged profile of my perfect employee. On the other hand, I do have an intuitive "feeling" for what type of people I am compatible with, what type of person is most likely to be smart and productive, and I have to make decisions based on this. At the same time I have to take into account my own biases. Critical thinking as taught in the humanities is about balancing biases, while the empirical method as taught in the hard sciences is about attempting to remove bias altogether. The latter is superior but very expensive.