What does critical thinking mean to you?

[CriticalThinking]

What is your definition of critical thinking? I don't want you to go look it up right now. Just from your current state, what is critical thinking to you?

[rjh01]

One part of it is being able to tell the difference between something that is rubbish with something that may be valid.

[MattC]

Someone whose ego is not based upon what they are now but what they could become, and who is therefore unafraid to apply scientific analysis to those issues which matter most to them.

~ Matt

[politas]

Critical thinking is a process of examining statements and arguments to test that they are supported by logic and evidence. In particular, it is focussed on countering the human tendency towards self-deception.

[Sideroxylon]

An attitude and skill set that can get me measurably close to knowing the truth about the external world.

[H3LL]

Just from your current state, what is critical thinking to you?

Waiting for the evidence that a new, aggressive and prolific poster is a troll pretending to be something they aren't, or evidence to the contrary.

So far the evidence is inconclusive but leaning toward fundie troll.

We shall see.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Media literacy, awareness of communication and brain processes which affect how we perceive the Universe, understanding the scientific process,

In other words, to me critical thinking is accomplished by learning about and understanding all the things which result in the best interpretation of the Universe and those things which interfere with reaching the best interpretation. Understanding marketing and propaganda techniques immunizes you to their influences. Recognizing the principles of the scientific process allows you to interpret scientific research and other information correctly.

The best interpretation of the Universe which is accomplished by critical thinking is verified because it leads to success. For example, science successfully heals, prayer does not.

[MattC]

Being perfectly honest, more chances to get my posts sent to AAH.

~ Matt

[athon]

There is no simple definition, unfortunately. In education circles, it refers to a range of skills and applications. The nature of these skills varies depending on who you talk to.

In my experience, the best way to sum it up succinctly is to describe critical thinking as the process of evaluating information for its inherent value. In other words, it involves receiving a block of information through some form of media and understanding its context, forming a level of confidence in how 'useful' it might be in given applications. This isn't a simple exercise and does not result in a simple, objective outcome. It isn't a panacea for misinformation or a cure for bad thinking. It is, however, a field of educational practices which can help give people the right tools to make better decisions.

Athon

[Jeff Corey]

Gilovich's great book on the topic starts by quoting Artemus Ward:

It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us into trouble. It's the things we know that just ain't so.

[DC]

our knowledge is uncertain

[Gord_in_Toronto]

our knowledge is uncertain

And the knowledge of this uncertainty is knowledge. ;)

[skepticalfred]

the ability to sift though non-sense and pseudoscience.

[leonAzul]

Critical thinking is the process of evaluating information recursively. It involves attention to context, logic, assumptions, biases, and the quality of the data.

ETA

Didn't mean to sound like I was parroting you, athon; we just happen to share a similar POV on the subject :D

[Jeff Corey]

Critical thinking is the process of evaluating information recursively. It involves attention to context, logic, assumptions, biases, and the quality of the data...

As far as I know, "evaluating recursively" means evaluating something with regard to itself. It sounds extremely difficult, possibly involving a never ending process.

Did you mean it that way or, perhaps another?

[rsaavedra]

A mindset of constant BS detection.

[RichardR]

Funnily enough, I've started to write a blog post on this exact subject. I'm not sure there's a simple definition, but I can list some of the steps or processes the critical thinker will take. For example, in my view the critical thinker:



Evaluates claims using evidence
Knows what extraordinary claims are, and that they require extraordinary evidence. This implies at least some elementary scientific knowledge to know what is, actually, extraordinary.
Controls for bias where possible. Bias can include experimenter bias and confirmation bias. The need to control for bias is one of the main reasons we use double-blind controls.
Understands some basic principles of statistics and how to apply them.
Understands logical fallacies - recognizes them in someone else's arguments; doesn't rely on them in his or her own arguments. You will note that woos invariably rely on logical fallacies in their arguments.
Applies Occam's Razor where appropriate.
Looks for evidence to dis-confirm his or her ideas as well as evidence that confirms them.

And in the spirit of #7 above, I'd be interested to know what anyone thinks of this list.

[I Ratant]

I like it.
#5 and #6 get a lot of abuse in the "common-sense" barroom type of arguments.

[articulett]

I like your list.... I especially like #7.

Faith based believers are always seeking to confirm their faith--to prove to themselves that what they believe is true.

Evidence based believers understand confirmation bias and so try to prove their notions wrong --knowing that it is the best way to find out what is true.

I think it's good to get in the frame of mind of asking... "If this were true, we should expect this--" and/or "if this were false, we should expect this". (e.g. If something is true, the evidence and information should accumulate and be refined and honed like it has for evolution or "technological marvels"... etc. )

[leonAzul]

As far as I know, "evaluating recursively" means evaluating something with regard to itself. It sounds extremely difficult, possibly involving a never ending process.

Did you mean it that way or, perhaps another?

I did mean it that way. It is self-evaluating and without end, although there are certain "break points" when a decision needs to be made and implemented. That is part of the process: learning when enough is enough ;)

[Hindmost]

Based on what the "pundits" involved in US elections and US economy have been spewing, I would have to include:

The ability to use the scientific method and NOT:

Choose an ideology and base all analysis, decisions, and conclusions on the tenets of that ideology to the exclusion of evidence and reality.

glenn

[athon]

Funnily enough, I've started to write a blog post on this exact subject. I'm not sure there's a simple definition, but I can list some of the steps or processes the critical thinker will take. For example, in my view the critical thinker:



Evaluates claims using evidence
Knows what extraordinary claims are, and that they require extraordinary evidence. This implies at least some elementary scientific knowledge to know what is, actually, extraordinary.
Controls for bias where possible. Bias can include experimenter bias and confirmation bias. The need to control for bias is one of the main reasons we use double-blind controls.
Understands some basic principles of statistics and how to apply them.
Understands logical fallacies - recognizes them in someone else's arguments; doesn't rely on them in his or her own arguments. You will note that woos invariably rely on logical fallacies in their arguments.
Applies Occam's Razor where appropriate.
Looks for evidence to dis-confirm his or her ideas as well as evidence that confirms them.

And in the spirit of #7 above, I'd be interested to know what anyone thinks of this list.

I think the list is comprehensive, but doesn't reflect a broad range of inquiries. For instance, the average person on the street may not need to actively control for bias (even if they should be aware of the effects of bias in their decision making).

Second of all, 'evidence' is a rather subjective position, and in my experience is where skeptics trip up the most. Rather than simply use 'evidence' (which everybody does), people need to be aware of the weight of different types of evidence. Our brains are tuned to weigh social evidence, such as the opinion of a close friend or relative, over objective or critical evidence, such as the evidence that has been tested and addressed by a variety of people from different backgrounds. Telling somebody to simply use evidence is often ineffective, as in their mind the fact that millions of people share their belief IS good evidence.

Number 7 is definitely the key to effective critical thinking. Unfortunately, it's not as simple as you might think. A group of like-minded people discussing the 'flaws' in their belief will often arrive at the same problems. Like 'evidence', 'flaws' are subjective.

The real trick is to introduce thinking from a range of cultural backgrounds.

Athon

[Ron_Tomkins]

Second of all, 'evidence' is a rather subjective position, and in my experience is where skeptics trip up the most. Rather than simply use 'evidence' (which everybody does), people need to be aware of the weight of different types of evidence. Our brains are tuned to weigh social evidence, such as the opinion of a close friend or relative, over objective or critical evidence, such as the evidence that has been tested and addressed by a variety of people from different backgrounds. Telling somebody to simply use evidence is often ineffective, as in their mind the fact that millions of people share their belief IS good evidence.

I believe you've hit the jackpot there. The problem is that people, because they've never actually sat to think about this, do not know that they have a complete false concept of Evidence. I think a great deal of "closet skeptics", do come out of the closet because when they start thinking and investigating on these issues, they begin to realize that their concept of "evidence" was an erratic one filled with inconsistencies. When people enter the awareness that evidence is not anechdotes nor personal experiences, and most importantly: When people fully realize that evidence is always evidence regardless of what's convenient for them to believe, then things change. A lot.

[Gurdur]

What does critical thinking mean to you?



Marriage.

Commonly, the female partner in a marriage will become ever more stridently critical in thinking, and very vocal with it, while the male partner will slide into beer-sodden stupors. This is a fascinating sexual dimorphism in humans, and seems to indicate an evolutionary connection with [insert_name_of_animal (you think) the_weirdest_&_stupidest_here].

[Hazy Daisy]

Marriage.

Commonly, the female partner in a marriage will become ever more stridently critical in thinking, and very vocal with it, while the male partner will slide into beer-sodden stupors. This is a fascinating sexual dimorphism in humans, and seems to indicate an evolutionary connection with [insert_name_of_animal (you think) the_weirdest_&_stupidest_here].

What wombat logic.

Everyone knows that beer is a good thing.

[leonAzul]

Everyone knows that beer is a good thing.

Especially when beer is used for a proper marinade for goats.

IMHO.

:bgrin:

ETA

"Never mind the furthermore the plea is self-defence"

[TheDoLittle]

To answer the questions who, what, when, where, why, and how.

[Dave Rogers]

I think it's a two-step process.

Step 1:

When initially confronted with a claim, examining the evidence for and against the truth of that claim, and forming a conclusion on the basis of the quality as well as the quantity of evidence available. This involves considering the totality of evidence, and accepting that, if neither case is entirely consistent, that a tentative conclusion in favour of the case better supported is reasonable.

Step 2:

When provided with new evidence on the truth or falsehood of a claim, considering that evidence on its own merits and adding it to the totality of evidence you already possess, and re-evaluating your conclusion if the evidence warrants it.

Rinse, and repeat as required.

To take a good (hypothetical) example: suppose a friend of mine tells of a friend of a friend who sleepwalked naked, and one night woke up outside his house as the door locked itself behind him, with ensuing hilarity. My immediate critical response is to recall being told an identical anecdote twenty-five years ago, and to note the absence of verifiable details of the protagonist. I can also place this in the context of having heard many other similar urban legends told in similar fashion, and found them on inspection to be unverifiable, and having read on the topic of urban legends in general. Offset against this is the fact that I know my friend to be skeptical minded, but on balance I would assume the story to be false.

Suppose, now, that my friend decides to investigate further, and finds the friend of a friend, who tells me the same story in the first person, and supplies a few individual details, such as the date and place of the events. I now have to re-evaluate the original claim, on the basis that urban legends are rarely, if ever, told in this way. I may conclude that the story is still untrue; my friend may simplybe playing a joke on me. I may see evidence that convinces me otherwise, for example official police records of an arrest for public nudity. In the latter case, although I've changed my conclusion, there is no failure of critical thinking involved.

It's probably more complex than that; there's a lot of detail, mentioned by other posters, about the sort of evidence available, the weighting of it, and the errors people make in doing so. These are important to the implementation of the process. But the basic process, at the core, is simple: weigh up the evidence objectively, and form a conclusion; and reconsider the conclusion objectively in the light of any new evidence.

Dave

[Jeff Corey]

All these ideas are pretty clear and straightforward as goals for a teacher, except for the goats, beer, marinade, KY Jelly and recursive (department of redundancy department) jokes. Any ideas how to teach it? I've used Shermer, Sagan, Gillovich texts and many a reprint from SI and others. Now I have access to the net in my classroom, and have been using various Randi Youtube clips.
Any other suggestions?

[athon]

All these ideas are pretty clear and straightforward as goals for a teacher, except for the goats, beer, marinade, KY Jelly and recursive (department of redundancy department) jokes. Any ideas how to teach it? I've used Shermer, Sagan, Gillovich texts and many a reprint from SI and others. Now I have access to the net in my classroom, and have been using various Randi Youtube clips.
Any other suggestions?

Welcome to the past decade of my life. :D

My findings - yes and no. Yes, it can be taught. No, not as a simple exercise that is easy for a single teacher to implement.

Critical thinking isn't a single skill, and unfortunately isn't something that can necessarily be taught to everybody in a 'one-size-fits-all' lesson. It relies on a range of values, thinking skills and epistemologies. Worst of all, it goes against the natural human condition of social thinking.

Here's the short version (you'd be familiar with most of this, Jeff):

Human brains have evolved to deal primarily with a social environment. We have a nervous system that reads, communicates and sympathises with other people in our social groups. So long as that information provides some benefit within our environment, the overall accuracy of it isn't really important. It just needs to be 'useful'. Hence for 99.9% of human history, we've viewed the world animistically, relying on what we currently often refer to as folk thinking.

That means 'social evidence' sits far more easily in our brains than any other form of empirical evidence. Skeptics will often resort to the 'use evidence' line in opposition to what they perceive as woo, without realising that the charge carries no weight. It isn't the evidence that it missing, but rather the ability to evaluate that evidence for its inherent worth.

The way we build our beliefs (our epistemology) starts young. We learn how to value the types of information we receive from the moment we begin to copy members of our intimate community (such as our family). These cultural values can be make-or-break for a skeptic. Even if a parent is extremely biased in their views, so long as a child is exposed to multiple viewpoints and develops a way of seeing them each as having some value, they will have the ability to think critically later.

Kids are naturally inquisitive and questioning, but rapidly go through a range of developmental phases in their early years. By the time they've reached adolescence, their social skills are being geared towards their non-immediate family and unrelated peers. This makes it extremely hard to fundamentally change how a person creates their beliefs once they've hit their teen years.

Of course there are many courses which attempt to do this, with varying success. I suspect that those who experience a long-term benefit from post-adolescent critical thinking courses are simply polishing the more fundamental skills they've already had from earlier in their life, while picking up a few new tricks.

So, what can teachers do?

First of all, primary school teachers are of absolute importance. The classroom must be set up to foster a culture of open discussion, where peers are allowed to challenge while displaying respect for other's conclusions. This isn't skill or content based, but rather a culture based (i.e. hidden curriculum...for those who use that jargon still). The students must see that changing one's mind is a positive thing, and not a sign of weakness or stupidity.

Second, teachers of higher grades should advance this culture and weave in skills for evaluating information. 'Evidence' should be taught in a hierarchy, where some forms are better than others. The practice of 'what do I know?/how might I be wrong?/where would I find more information?' should be emphasised across all curricula - not just in science. Critical literacy (where text is openly assessed for its worth) should be a school policy.

Lastly, teachers should role-model this behaviour openly. This way students 'see' what it looks like when somebody is being critical of the information they receive. Currently, many teachers employ an absolute authority demeanour when it comes to information, which encourages students to continue to seek those absolute authorities in the community.

This barely scratches the surface of the 'how to' when it comes to teaching critical thinking. If anybody is interested in joining a mailing list where these topics can be discussed, see the Google Groups CTEG (http://groups.google.com.au/group/critical-teaching?hl=en).

Athon

[leonAzul]

Rinse, and repeat as required.



This is what I meant by "recursively".

[leonAzul]

Human brains have evolved to deal primarily with a social environment.

More to the point, human brains have evolved to behave heuristically, that is, they tend to seek out patterns and arrange their understanding of "Life, the Universe, and Everything" accordingly.

If the pattern-forming is done critically, then this is a very powerful decision-making skill that facilitates useful biases against guano crazy nonsense, and for important and urgent information.

If the pattern-forming is done carelessly, there are all sorts of consequences.

[athon]

More to the point, human brains have evolved to behave heuristically, that is, they tend to seek out patterns and arrange their understanding of "Life, the Universe, and Everything" accordingly.

If the pattern-forming is done critically, then this is a very powerful decision-making skill that facilitates useful biases against guano crazy nonsense, and for important and urgent information.

If the pattern-forming is done carelessly, there are all sorts of consequences.

This is true to a point. I might correct you on 'human brains have evolved...': nervous systems of all types are essentially pattern seekers. Human brains can find more complex patterns through mentally modelling their surroundings (both back and forward in time), but the pattern seeking wasn't an evolved feature in itself.

I agree that good thinking skills can negotiate bias better than poor thinking skills. However, I think skeptics often see critical thinking as something of a panacea when it comes to 'woo' thinking, choosing to dichotomise society into 'critical thinkers' and 'bleevers' (not saying that this is your point - I'm just aware of the overuse of critical thinking as the atomic bomb of skeptics).

Athon

[leonAzul]

All these ideas are pretty clear and straightforward as goals for a teacher, except for the goats, beer, marinade, KY Jelly and recursive (department of redundancy department) jokes.

OK, I'm guilty of exhibiting an odd sense of humor, yet the recursive nature of critical thinking is decidedly not a joke. It is at the very heart and soul of it.

IFF it can be demonstrated within the scope of a particular context that a quick look is sufficient to gather a meaningful assessment of an event, then enough is enough.

Else, assiduous and recursive analysis and synthesis is in order.

The "quick look" is only as good as the preparation. That is to say, its value depends on the habits cultivated by the "looker".

As an educator, the goal is to encourage the habit of critical thinking. This includes the ability to qualify resources as references to original sources of information. The ability to absorb and regurgitate apply information is an index of a student's ability to think critically, and except for certain fundamental knowledge bases like the alphabet and the times-tables that ought to be learned by rote, the ability to recognize and seek the advice of an expert or a trusted resource in a particular field of interest is far more useful than carrying around a truck-load of facts that might soon be outdated in one's head.

[leonAzul]

This is true to a point. I might correct you on 'human brains have evolved...': nervous systems of all types are essentially pattern seekers. Human brains can find more complex patterns through mentally modelling their surroundings (both back and forward in time), but the pattern seeking wasn't an evolved feature in itself.


Point well taken. It was not my intention to exclude other modes of intelligence, but rather to focus on the human.


I agree that good thinking skills can negotiate bias better than poor thinking skills. However, I think skeptics often see critical thinking as something of a panacea when it comes to 'woo' thinking, choosing to dichotomise society into 'critical thinkers' and 'bleevers' (not saying that this is your point - I'm just aware of the overuse of critical thinking as the atomic bomb of skeptics).


I grok you. I promote it (critical thinking) not so much as a panacea but rather as a point of departure.

[athon]

Point well taken. It was not my intention to exclude other modes of intelligence, but rather to focus on the human.

Cool. I've read far too many articles in my time which seem to focus on the human abilities to recognise complex patterns, which occasionally leads to this ascension of humans from animals.

I think it pays to remember that humans might have a lot more complexity of thought, but our nervous systems are still very biological, and aren't 'designed' (for lack of a better word) to create an accurate view of our universe. Just a useful one.

That said, we do have a neat trick - metacognition. We can think about thinking. :) While not perfect, it does allow us to do some pretty awesome things.

I grok you. I promote it (critical thinking) not so much as a panacea but rather as a point of departure.

Haha, I love the word grok. Haven't heard it in ages.

I do agree that the vague clump of values and skills we call critical thinking is where we can 'depart' from the limitations imposed by social thinking. Without wanting to seem argumentative or pedantic (I agree with your views - I'm just being nit-picky for the sake of discussion), I feel teachers need to be aware that critical thinking isn't so much a 'point' as it is a scattering of points, covering values in science and belief in objective thought, skills in evaluating information, knowledge in the fundamental facts and theories which currently describe the world etc. This is why schools need to work with their communities in creating a critical culture, and the lone-wolf teachers - while admirable - are fighting a losing battle if they're struggling along on their own.

Athon

[DanishDynamite]

It means not accepting anything anyone says without evidence.

What does it mean to you?

[cheezfri]

I have a Squidoo lens (webpage) on Critical Thinking. It is still in its infancy right now. I actually have several lenses but the one I'm referring to right now is on squidoo.com. Since I haven't made 15 posts here yet, I'm not allowed to post the whole url here. And I'm sure you all would not appreciate me making 15 junk posts just to get that privilege. So please just go to Squidoo's website and add a slash (/) and Skeptical_Critical_Thinking to the end of the .com part. The primary goal of this lens is to educate ordinary people on how to think critically. In the interest of full disclosure, the secondary goal is to make money from Amazon book sales and ad revenue, although I'm sure it will be a very small amount!

Anyway, the primary goal is truly to help people understand critical thinking. I have included links to critical thinking and skeptical blogs, but in order to provide high-quality original content, I wrote an article myself on how to evaluate a scientific study. I encourage people to visit the above link and rate it, and leave constructive criticism in the Reader Feedback section at the bottom of that page. I am a neophyte myself, and if I have posted bad info, then I want to know that and get it corrected. Plus I'm sure I will get some negative ratings and comments from those who think I'm full of crap, so please, if you have anything positive to ad, help out a fellow skeptic and post it there! The more positive the rating, the higher it gets ranked, and the more likely it is to turn up in searches etc, and we will get more "converts" to the ways of critical thinking!

Also, I would like to add many more useful original articles. If anyone would like to write an article, send it to me and I will publish it there with full credits to you and if you have a website I would be happy to add that link too.

Thanks in advance
"cheezfri"

[PingOfPong]

What is critical thinking to you?


Critical thinking is the practice of looking for the flaws of an idea in order to improve upon it or perhaps drop it completely.

[athon]

For cheezfri's link: http://www.squidoo.com/Skeptical_Critical_Thinking

Nice post on how to evaluate scientific studies, btw.

Athon

[cheezfri]

Athon, thanks so much for the link and the comment. It really means a lot to me. I have read many of your other posts as well. I'm just not a big post-er myself. More of a quiet lurker, especially because I don't feel I have much to contribute yet. Around my friends and co-workers I feel very smart but here I feel quite stupid :) Don't know if that says more about me or my friends...

For cheezfri's link...

Nice post on how to evaluate scientific studies, btw.

Athon

[Michelle Lyon]

The ability to consider multiple views of a situation before making up my mind which view I believe (reserving the right not to believe any of them). Or, in a debate situation where I already hold my own beliefs, the ability to consider another perspective, whether or not my own is changed as a result of listening.

[SleuthM]

1. Disregard (or be highly skeptical of) ideas which seem to confirm my prejudices

2. Look closer at ideas which question my beliefs

3. Apply Occam's Razor often but know its limits

4. Accept that some people have weird beliefs and let them be

5. Accept that the homeopathic effect can't be distinguished from the placebo effect and is therefore (occasionally) a valid therapeutic instrument

6. Find that Goodhart’s Law* is valid across a range of social problems

7. Maintain a sense of irony and learn to distinguish it from cynicism

8. Maintain the skill of being amazed

* `When a measure becomes a target it ceases to become a good measure`

[fls]

I have included links to critical thinking and skeptical blogs, but in order to provide high-quality original content, I wrote an article myself on how to evaluate a scientific study. I encourage people to visit the above link and rate it, and leave constructive criticism in the Reader Feedback section at the bottom of that page.

Hi cheezfri,

I think you did a good job. I had a quibble with one of your statements and left a comment, but it looks like a useful article, presented with a nice tone.

Linda

[IndridCold]

Taking in all the facts available and making your best judgment with the data presented. Even if you're wrong, doesn't mean you weren't thinking critically. You may just not have had all the facts.

[Jeff Corey]

I have a Squidoo lens (webpage) on Critical Thinking. It is still in its infancy right now. I actually have several lenses but the one I'm referring to right now is on squidoo.com. Since I haven't made 15 posts here yet, I'm not allowed to post the whole url here. And I'm sure you all would not appreciate me making 15 junk posts just to get that privilege. So please just go to Squidoo's website and add a slash (/) and Skeptical_Critical_Thinking to the end of the .com part. The primary goal of this lens is to educate ordinary people on how to think critically. In the interest of full disclosure, the secondary goal is to make money from Amazon book sales and ad revenue, although I'm sure it will be a very small amount!

Anyway, the primary goal is truly to help people understand critical thinking. I have included links to critical thinking and skeptical blogs, but in order to provide high-quality original content, I wrote an article myself on how to evaluate a scientific study. I encourage people to visit the above link and rate it, and leave constructive criticism in the Reader Feedback section at the bottom of that page. I am a neophyte myself, and if I have posted bad info, then I want to know that and get it corrected. Plus I'm sure I will get some negative ratings and comments from those who think I'm full of crap, so please, if you have anything positive to ad, help out a fellow skeptic and post it there! The more positive the rating, the higher it gets ranked, and the more likely it is to turn up in searches etc, and we will get more "converts" to the ways of critical thinking!

Also, I would like to add many more useful original articles. If anyone would like to write an article, send it to me and I will publish it there with full credits to you and if you have a website I would be happy to add that link too.

Thanks in advance
"cheezfri"

One thing. It is a common mistake to demand this:
"The study itself: What are the hallmarks of a good scientific study?
a. Is it conducted on a random sample of people -- not just a very specific subset which could skew the data?"

People? A random sample of what people? All the people in this world? Never done. Well, I cannot ever recall seeing one.

[CFLarsen]

I think God once did a random sample of people. Noah and that lot.

No, not that Lot.

[Darth Rotor]

What does critical thinking mean to you? A mindset of constant BS detection.
Nominated for Pith. That is the best short definition of critical thinking I've seen in a while. :)

DR

[Jeff Corey]

I think God once did a random sample of people. Noah and that lot.

No, not that Lot.

Thanks a lot and his wife...

(Word association football)

[arthwollipot]

I agree that good thinking skills can negotiate bias better than poor thinking skills. However, I think skeptics often see critical thinking as something of a panacea when it comes to 'woo' thinking, choosing to dichotomise society into 'critical thinkers' and 'bleevers' (not saying that this is your point - I'm just aware of the overuse of critical thinking as the atomic bomb of skeptics).I've definitely been guilty of that in the past. I was called to account for it recently by someone. Boy, was that unpleasant. But I'm glad he did that, because I hadn't realised how uncritical I was being about some things.

[athon]

I've definitely been guilty of that in the past. I was called to account for it recently by someone. Boy, was that unpleasant. But I'm glad he did that, because I hadn't realised how uncritical I was being about some things.

Great thing about critical thinking - it means you don't have to be right; you just have to recognise when you're wrong. :)

Athon

[arthwollipot]

Great thing about critical thinking - it means you don't have to be right; you just have to recognise when you're wrong. :)Yep. Absolutely. I'm always happy to admit when I am wrong, for a very simple reason.

When someone demonstrates me wrong, I have learned something new!

Here's a recent example. I was under the mistaken impression that since Australia is a member of the British Commonwealth, and our head of state is the Queen, we had a state religion. Until someone showed me our very own Establishment and Free Exercise clause in the Constitution. That was a very cool discovery.

[tanstaafl28]

Critical thinking is a general set of skills for the purpose of evaluating information for the purposes of determining whether it is factual and useful.

[polarbear777]

In high school they taught us how to develop our thinking skills by having us write essays. They taught us to think critically by having us consider both sides of hot button issues. I have come to the conlusion that such education merely helps you communicate with others on a deeper level. It does not protect you from frauds, liars, scammers or brainwashing, because all of your thinking and criticism are based on your own preferences and those of your authorities and teachers. Those preferences and criticisms are often very weak and riddled with errors.

For me, real critical thinking involves deep suspicion of the thinking of others and of movements (like religions or advertisers). It involves a suspicion of ones own perception and analysis of events. Once someone has a solid foundation of suspicion and self-doubt of their thoughts, they can commit themselves to learning about effective means of analyzing information, like through science. They can also commit to avoiding basic human errors, by actively learning about them and fighting against them in the way they think and in the information they absorb.

[arthwollipot]

How do you work out who to be suspicious of? That's the hard question. You end up being suspicious of everyone, checking out everything, and then getting a general idea of the kinds of things that are worth being suspicious about. For example, if I read about some new technological breakthrough in Scientific American, I'll generally take it at face value, even though Scientific American is not a peer-reviewed journal. It is, however, a popular science magazine with a reputation for accuracy and quality, so it can generally be relied on.

This is the kind of thing that needs to be learned.

[athon]

For me, real critical thinking involves deep suspicion of the thinking of others and of movements (like religions or advertisers). It involves a suspicion of ones own perception and analysis of events. Once someone has a solid foundation of suspicion and self-doubt of their thoughts, they can commit themselves to learning about effective means of analyzing information, like through science. They can also commit to avoiding basic human errors, by actively learning about them and fighting against them in the way they think and in the information they absorb.

This sounds to me to be a polite way of suggesting we teach paranoia as a means of communicating critical thinking. While awareness of fallibility plays a role in thinking critically, I wouldn't say it lies at the core.

As I said earlier, critical thinking is about evaluation. I can't imagine how one could thinking critically without practicing some form of bayesian judgement - it is a means of gaining confidence in how likely it is that some piece of information is going to prove useful, and comparing this with how significant the decision is that you're applying it to. This doesn't require 'suspician', as far as I might interpret the word, but rather an ability to assess information metacognitively.

Athon

[Jeff Corey]

Athon,
I'm not very fond of the term cognitive, let alone metacognitive. Thinking about thinking seems to be more a philosophical activity than any concrete ways to change behavior.

[Prometheus]

If the sought after behavioural change is an improvement in the facility with which one evaluates information, then I don't see how that can be achieved without 'thinking about thinking.'

[arthwollipot]

This sounds to me to be a polite way of suggesting we teach paranoia as a means of communicating critical thinking.That's kinda what I was trying to say, but failing.

[athon]

Athon,
I'm not very fond of the term cognitive, let alone metacognitive. Thinking about thinking seems to be more a philosophical activity than any concrete ways to change behavior.

I'm not sure how you can change how you think if you're not aware of how you go about it in the first place. I realise I'm coming at this from a pedagogical background, however 'thinking about the process of thinking', to me, has always been quite a useful way of getting kids to analyse their own learning processes.

Even if you consider this philosophical, I'm something of a firm believer of having some philosophy in education.

Athon

[CFLarsen]

People have epiphanies. Revelations. Aha-moments.

[Prometheus]

People have epiphanies. Revelations. Aha-moments.

Do they choose to have them? Can they be trusted (to always result in more critical thinking).

[blutoski]

In high school they taught us how to develop our thinking skills by having us write essays. They taught us to think critically by having us consider both sides of hot button issues. I have come to the conlusion that such education merely helps you communicate with others on a deeper level. It does not protect you from frauds, liars, scammers or brainwashing, because all of your thinking and criticism are based on your own preferences and those of your authorities and teachers. Those preferences and criticisms are often very weak and riddled with errors.

For me, real critical thinking involves deep suspicion of the thinking of others and of movements (like religions or advertisers). It involves a suspicion of ones own perception and analysis of events. Once someone has a solid foundation of suspicion and self-doubt of their thoughts, they can commit themselves to learning about effective means of analyzing information, like through science. They can also commit to avoiding basic human errors, by actively learning about them and fighting against them in the way they think and in the information they absorb.

I do think, though, that this discrepancy can be managed by accepting that critical thinking and skeptical thinking may be different skillsets.

Critical thinking is probably a general skillset, upon which a person may become a better thinker in any field of study.

Whereas, skeptical thinking is dealing with managing deception and self-deception, with a special focus on certain topics.

My opinion is that while skeptics are "on the right track" with our policy of promoting critical thinking, that actually the returns may be very slight - if not actually negative - in terms of creating a more skeptical population as an end through critical thinking training as a means.

[polarbear777]

blutoski,

I agree that there is a difference between critical thinking and skepticism. I couldn't very well decipher your last sentence, but I assume you were saying that critical thinking is the most beneficial thing to teach. That sounds reasonable. Once people are capable of thinking critically, then they can develop their skeptical skills. It seems to be a sort of progression.

arthwollipot,

you ask: "How do you work out, who to be suspicious of?"
To me critical thinking involves being slightly suspicious of everyone and anything. The only sources I know of that are really reliable are science. And in science suspicion is built into the system. Every published work or 'fact' is considered to be flawed. Science demands that any conclusion be double checked, continually refined and expanded upon. Because science places itself under such extreme scrutiny it is extremely reliable.

Now when I wrote my answer I was talking about Critical Thinking as Skepticism. To me that is the only real form of critical thinking. The only form that had value in my life.

I am very disappointed with the non-skeptical, but regular critical thinking they taught me in Highschool. It did me very little good. It merely helped me compare two different ideas. It did not teach me to be suspicious of the credibility of those ideas and it didn't teach me how to double check the sources for reliability or that I should even have considered doing so.

[inquiringone]

polarbear777 said: "I am very disappointed with the non-skeptical, but regular critical thinking they taught me in Highschool. It did me very little good. It merely helped me compare two different ideas. It did not teach me to be suspicious of the credibility of those ideas and it didn't teach me how to double check the sources for reliability or that I should even have considered doing so. "

Yeah. That's the kind of "critical thinking" I got taught in school. I also got taught a little bit about how to spot bad advertising in middle school. But that did not keep me from bad thinking of every kind. I'm speding a lot of time lately realizing, "Wow! I was wrong about this!"

[arthwollipot]

I'm speding a lot of time lately realizing, "Wow! I was wrong about this!"Yep. As athon said earlier in the thread, being right isn't important. What's important is to realise when you're being wrong.

[Jeff Corey]

As in Gilovich's How We Know What Isn't So that I have used as a critical thinking text.

[dann]

Yep. As athon said earlier in the thread, being right isn't important. What's important is to realise when you're being wrong.

If that realization is correct, you are right, aren't you??? Seems to be important after all .... :)

[arthwollipot]

If that realization is correct, you are right, aren't you??? Seems to be important after all .... :)Well, if you want to overanalyse everything, sure.

[genesplicer]

Critical thinking is a process of examining statements and arguments to test that they are supported by logic and evidence. In particular, it is focussed on countering the human tendency towards self-deception.

For my students I add to this "The ability to formulate some kind of test to check the validity of the statement being considered." But then, I'm a science teacher...

[thull]

Math teacher here, although i usually don't have a beautiful system like the scientific method to fall back on. I do however have a ton of exploitative usages of math in news stories, advertisements, and loan/lease/credit card deals to cite each week. Usually it ends up being a horrible misrepresentation of statistics or percents.

1. emotional response, I have them tell me what they think it says (most ads and news stories try to appeal to that nature, so i figure might as well start with it).
2. sort through the fluff and find what the actual information is
(which leads to prep on my end, usually getting definitions and finding sources)
3. adjust values for accurate representation
4. discuss if/how the example changes in our eyes, given the correct/honest changes

I do this about one to two times a week with each class. The first few weeks start slow, but the pace picks nicely so no example goes over five minutes. A few months in i start being mean and have a couple examples that have nothing wrong with them. The interesting thing is the perception of the article still changes for some within those five minutes.

Btw, yes a math teacher dealing with emotional responses does sound about as strange as when i first explained it in my lesson plans. However, as many of my students may never receive additional education after they are eighteen, I'd rather not have them as easily deceived by numbers in news/advertising. Also my strongest emotional response from these examples happens anytime someone uses the term "near statistically significant".

[athon]

Math teacher here, although i usually don't have a beautiful system like the scientific method to fall back on.

Nice post, but I just wanted to pick up on one small point - the concept of 'the scientific method' is something of a myth. It's an awfully sad thing that we teach science as 'a method', as opposed to what it really is, which is a methodology.

Science is a way of looking at the way in which we arrived at a conclusion and deciding on how efficient it was, and therefore how reliable the conclusion might be. Everything we do in science, from developing a hypothesis to discussing the results of an experiment, focuses on the behaviour which led to people deciding how likely it is an answer will be productive or useful in relation to a question.

In that way, mathematics plays an essential role in creating a language which allows greater communication of that process. It is important for all students of maths to understand how to 'talk' in science and evaluate the methods it uses for their worth.

Athon

[psikeyhackr]

Critical thinking is a process of examining statements and arguments to test that they are supported by logic and evidence. In particular, it is focussed on countering the human tendency towards self-deception.

The problem here is recognizing whether statements correspond to reality and this includes questioning definitions. A lot of people base their LOGIC on definitions instead of reality.

My favorite example is this Europe being a continent business. There is no water separating Europe from Asia. There are either 4 or 6 continents though an argument might be made for 5 if the Suez canal contains no locks. But anyone that insists that Europe is a continent is definitely not implementing "critical thinking".

psik

[athon]

The problem here is recognizing whether statements correspond to reality and this includes questioning definitions. A lot of people base their LOGIC on definitions instead of reality.

My favorite example is this Europe being a continent business. There is no water separating Europe from Asia. There are either 4 or 6 continents though an argument might be made for 5 if the Suez canal contains no locks. But anyone that insists that Europe is a continent is definitely not implementing "critical thinking".

psik

I'm confused. I totally agree that statements rely heavily on agreed definitions for the words they use, and that many arguments are semantic rather than logical. However, definitions aren't objective entities - they rely on a group of people sharing an understood meaning.

By that, the continental nature of Europe only depends on what people understand a continent to be. You can argue that you always mean it to be a land mass over a set size surrounded completely by water, however others might have a slightly different understanding of the term which is shared within their group. There is nothing illogical or non-critical about using the term in this fashion, so long as meaning is retained. If anything, to ignore this cultural variation is to abstain from critical thinking in itself.

Athon

[thull]

7. Maintain a sense of irony and learn to distinguish it from cynicism

8. Maintain the skill of being amazed


Many different suggestions on how to start the analysis and be fair to each of the opposing views were given. I just want to highlight one point made that some might have passed over: Enjoy. Conflict allows two ideas to collide, critical thinking allows us to start pulling them apart. Too often people become disheartened by the actual mess they are trying to sort through that they miss the actual wonder of the process. To see both sides clearly is in itself a great reward, even if the truth of one side is tough to swallow. Hence, the ability to laugh and be amazed at the height or depth of other human reasoning and belief is vital to the process.

TLDR: Without enjoyment in the process, you'll be less likely to try again.

[psikeyhackr]

By that, the continental nature of Europe only depends on what people understand a continent to be. You can argue that you always mean it to be a land mass over a set size surrounded completely by water, however others might have a slightly different understanding of the term which is shared within their group. There is nothing illogical or non-critical about using the term in this fashion, so long as meaning is retained. If anything, to ignore this cultural variation is to abstain from critical thinking in itself.

Athon
.
Imagine you are a cartographer on the starship Enterprise. Every time you come to a new planet you have to write the report saying how many continents it has. What definition of continent do you use?

Five Ways to Count Continents

#1 - Seven Continents
Africa - Antarctica - Asia - Europe
North America - South America - Oceania

#2 - Six Continents
Africa - Antarctica - Eurasia - Oceania
North America - South America

#3 - Six Continents
Africa - America - Antarctica
Asia - Europe - Oceania

#4 - Five Continents
Africa - America - Antarctica
Eurasia - Oceania

#5 - Four Continents
Eurafrasia - America - Antarctica - Oceania
http://www.countriesandcities.com/continents/

That is your basic critical thinking problem. Do you go along with what the majority agrees to even if it is totally illogical. It is certainly the easier thing to do. I often just accept it but still regard it as STUPID. It just isn't important enough to argue about.

I have had someone tell me that Europe was separated from Asia by the Ural Mountains. So I asked why India was not a continent since it was separated from the rest of Asia by the Himalayas. He said it was because the Himalayas run east and west. ROFL

Now that is critical thinking.

But when was EUROPE invented and who invented it. I find it rather difficult to imagine that people living on the border 2000 years ago between what we now call Europe and Asia regarded them as separate land masses so when was this separation defined?

How much of what we call culture depends on children being indoctrinated to NOT engage in critical thinking. Can you imagine a planet full of Vulcans? :D It would probably be rather annoying.

psik

[athon]

.
Imagine you are a cartographer on the starship Enterprise. Every time you come to a new planet you have to write the report saying how many continents it has. What definition of continent do you use?

You totally missed the point. This isn't an argument about a specific situation where a definition would be most useful - this is about the shared meaning of a term. If you were in a meeting of marketing agents who understood 'continent' to refer to particular language groups or economic clusters or something, your insistence on their being incorrect would be detrimental to your communication. Words rely on shared meaning - period! Critical thinking relies on understanding the relatedness of meanings and the significance of those relationships.

That is your basic critical thinking problem. Do you go along with what the majority agrees to even if it is totally illogical. It is certainly the easier thing to do. I often just accept it but still regard it as STUPID. It just isn't important enough to argue about.

Actually, it is. It is vital to the argument. You might not like the meaning of a word, but if you ignore the fact that others are using it to communicate then you won't be able to think critically at all. I'd go so far to say that understanding the sub-cultural variation in language is one of the central skills necessary for thinking critically.

Of course, this goes both ways. If somebody uses the word 'continent' and doesn't understand that you have a different interpretation of it to them, then once again communication breaks down.

Athon

[Roma]

To be a critical thinker you have to be able to be wrong about something.
Some people believe they are critical thinkers if they can "scientifically" prove to themselves that what they believe is right without spending the same energy to investigate other theories about the same subject that could also be right or disprove their original theories.
You can identify non-critical thinkers if all the books on their shelves only support their beliefs.