Critical Thinking

[Peter Morris]

Okay folks, hard question for you. What does the phrase critical thinking mean to you?

I don't want you to google for a definition. What I'm interested in is finding out what you folks think it means. When you have read the phrase in the past what meaning have you given to the words? If you have used it yourself, what did you mean by it? How many people on this forum have ever given consideration to the actual meaning of the words?


When you see Randi using the phrase, what meaning do you think he intends to convey?

Do you think Randi is a good critical thinker? If so, please give a specific example of him applying critical thinking. And specify in what way the term critical thinking fits what he has done.

[Dr Adequate]

First of all, I'd like to say that these are sensible questions, and that if you'll keep on like this I'm happy to suspend our old feud.

To answer: critical thinking asks: "what's wrong with this idea?" and should follow any act of creative thinking, where you think of a new idea.

As for Randi, if you look at the recent posts on the Commentary Issues forum, he is not very critical about his own ideas concerning prayer and the inverse square law, it seems. I agree with KRAMER that he seems very solid on debunking frauds, which is the area of critical thinking he specialises in.

[RichardR]

It’s a method used to evaluate claims.

Basis principles (in no particular order):

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Basic knowledge of statistics to determine what could have occurred by chance

Understand biases:
- confirmation bias
- forer effect
Recognize them in other people’s arguments / try to avoid them yourself. Understand where double-blinding is required to control for bias

Basic understanding of the scientific method:
- falsification / testable
- replication / peer review
Recognize the difference between science and psuedoscience

Apply Occam’s Razor

Understand logical fallacies - recognize them in other people’s arguments / try to avoid using them yourself.

[plindboe]

Critical thinking, to me, is about being aware how easy it is as a human being to fool oneself into false beliefs, and as a consequence of this awareness to always be on the guard for these tendencies. It's about questioning your own beliefs, while using logic and skepticism in the process of forming new ones.

I do not know enough about Randi to conclude whether he's a good critical thinker or not.

[Ashles]

I think critical thinking also involves an element of thinking about new information in regards to already known information.

If it conflicts greatly with prior information perhaps it warrants closer examination.

[Jeff Corey]

I teach "Critical Thinking in Psychology" and agree with the previous posters in describing the range of activities that comprise the area. Active investigation of a claim of the paranormal is one possible class project.
By the way, does anyone have any suggestions for a textbook? The ones I've used in the past (Gilovich, Sagan, Shermer) are a bit dated.

[apoger]

I'd say that Critical thinking is a way of describing the application of skepticism at an appropriate opportunity.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by apoger
I'd say that Critical thinking is a way of describing the application of skepticism at an appropriate opportunity. Which begs the question, what is skepticism? ;)

IMO skepticism is the application of critical thinking.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Ashles
I think critical thinking also involves an element of thinking about new information in regards to already known information.

If it conflicts greatly with prior information perhaps it warrants closer examination. Agreed. This is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". A claim is extraordinary if it contradicts already known information. It required extraordinary evidence because the already known information is already backed by extraordinary evidence.

[Open Mind]

Critical thinking means ‘take nobody’s word for it’ ........ yes ..... not even CSICOPs ;)

If possible investigate it for yourself :)

:xnewyear

[c4ts]

Socrates' criticism of the trial's allegations in Plato's "Apology" is what I always think of when it comes to an example. Here Socrates is on trial for what amounts to atheism, and at the same time, he is also accused of leading youths astray by teaching them demon worship. Socrates looks into the matter, asks about each one, and finds that the claims conflict with each other. How can he deny the existance of divine things, and at the same time worship divine things?


Well, my remembered translation is pretty crappy, and you can still see how Plato uses Socrates to show critical thinkng in action. Critical thought is not simply finding contradictions, it's the process of careful observation and intellectual discovery in finding them.

Plato isn't the only one with the decency to lead us through it, Randi does it too, though not quite as well. Randi is very good making observations others would easily miss, probably because his experience as a magician gives him some idea of what to look for. When Randi sees something, he shows his work. Most of this is evident in his books where he has time to explain everything and complete his projects, I suggest you go to your local library and check out one or two of his books. But if you want an example from the commentaries, this week's example of Sylvia Browne's methods will do. He finds remarkable similarities and leads us through them, and we find Sylvia making the exact same psychic observations of two different people, and getting different responses, when asked if one of them is really worth $750. He shows you his careful observations, he shows you his process of discovery, and that's what critical thinking is about.

[apoger]

Which begs the question, what is skepticism?


A posture of doubt. To demand appropriate evidence before according belief.

[Jyera]

Originally posted by plindboe
Critical thinking, to me, is about being aware how easy it is as a human being to fool oneself into false beliefs, and as a consequence of this awareness to always be on the guard for these tendencies. It's about questioning your own beliefs, while using logic and skepticism in the process of forming new ones.

I do not know enough about Randi to conclude whether he's a good critical thinker or not.

Agree with above.
And to add ...
To think in such a way, so as to critique your own thinking process.

[Jyera]

Personally, my definition of Critical thinking is influnenced by
the "General Paper"(English language paper) under GCE 'A' level exam.

My impression about GP is that it is said to require a good amount of Critical thinking to do well.
We had to write essays to presents argument in various opposing perspectives, before finding a conclusion.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
What does the phrase critical thinking mean to you?
Blind trust in unknowable deities. And carrying a big gun, too.

(You asked what I think it is, and you got it.)

[Peter Morris]

Additional question:

Please consider this quote. (http://www.skepticreport.com/general/about.htm)

Skeptic Report hopes to help dispel the darkness by providing a forum for skeptical and critical thinking.

What do you see as the relationship between skeptical and critical thinking? Are they the same thing? Different? How similar are they?

If you promote one, do you have to promote the other? Can you do one without the other? Should one even try?

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
What do you see as the relationship between skeptical and critical thinking? Are they the same thing? Different? How similar are they?

If you promote one, do you have to promote the other? Can you do one without the other? Should one even try? IMO, they’re the same thing.

Most people apply critical thinking some of the time. But a skeptic applies critical thinking when evaluating any claim – nothing gets a free pass. (Not trivial claims obviously.)

[Dancing David]

Scepticism is a subset of critical thinking, it says 'doubt what you know', 'doubt what others tell you.'

[cbish]

Jeff Corey wrote:

By the way, does anyone have any suggestions for a textbook? The ones I've used in the past (Gilovich, Sagan, Shermer) are a bit dated.

Try this http://skepdic.com/ctinfo.html.

Bob Carroll teaches philosophy at Sac City College in Sacramento, CA. I'm sure you could e-mail him.

[cbish]

Ooops that didn't work.

Try this:http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0536600600/roberttoddcarrolA/102-4963693-9570541

If this doesn't work, go back to the other link, go to home page, and the book is on the lower left. There is a newer version than the one listed on Amazon.

[Peter Morris]

Any other answers?

(I'll post my own opinions shortly)

[jmercer]

Sounds like you've got some really good definitions - don't know exactly what I can add to them except that a critical thinker takes nothing for granted - expecially the correctness of his/her own point of view. :)

[Tricky]

Although they are closely related, I would say that skepticism suggests requiring evidence for beliefs and critical thinking would be the process of evaluating that evidence, including recognizing logical fallacies and examination of one's assumptions and personal prejudices.

A skeptic can just say "I don't believe it". A critical thinker says "here are the problems with this belief."

Just my off-the-cuff opinion, subject to change with further discussion.

[Jeff Corey]

Critical thinking involves telling the difference between ***** and sh!nola.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Okay folks, hard question for you. What does the phrase critical thinking mean to you?

I don't want you to google for a definition. What I'm interested in is finding out what you folks think it means. When you have read the phrase in the past what meaning have you given to the words? If you have used it yourself, what did you mean by it? How many people on this forum have ever given consideration to the actual meaning of the words?

Critical thinking is thinking with an eye to finding flaws, if they exist.

When you see Randi using the phrase, what meaning do you think he intends to convey?

The same.

Do you think Randi is a good critical thinker? If so, please give a specific example of him applying critical thinking. And specify in what way the term critical thinking fits what he has done.

Yes, I think he's a good critical thinker. An example is the book The Faith Healers, which involves a lot of good critical thinking about faith healing.

I wouldn't assert that he's the best critical thinker on the planet. He's an expert in conjuring and brings those skills to the table. He's a good leader and, to use a neologism, "networker." He's an excellent speaker and writer, when he writes books. Some of the commentaries are rough, but that's what happens when you put out one every week and don't have a year or so to get the words just right.

He makes use of other critical thinkers quite a lot, many of them better than he. It seems to me that he freely admits this.

[BPScooter]

The words do carry some baggage, I think. Nobody wants to be 'criticized' but it is OK to have something subjected to a 'critique,' and to be called a mere 'critic' is somehow a bad thing.

I operate under the assumption that a 'critique' or a 'critical review' is more or less an impartial assessment of the work in question. Thomas Mann chose not to return to Germany in the 1930s because he dared write a critique of Wagner.

So I applaud critical thinking, at that level of informed commentary and reaction. However, it becomes an easy pose to be the barking bullfrog, as one of my mentors put it, and croak "B*llsh*t" all the time.

Science and the arts probably don't have the same measure of what it means to be a "critic."

The shared quality probably is a willingess to get one's own answer for oneself, and not take too much on authority, but to know to whom to turn when the going gets rough and the questions get difficult.

[Peter Morris]

Well, I was interested to see your answers. now, allow me to share my own thoughts on the matter. I asked these questions because I think that the phrase is widely misunderstood by skeptics. You keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think it means. Many people are under the impression that critical thinking is about finding flaws. I don't think it means that.

What follows is my my own understanding of the term. Feel free to disagree if you want to.

Q1) What does the phrase critical thinking mean to you?

My answer: I've recently read a lot of definitions of CT, but I think this one (http://www.santarosa.edu/~dpeterso/permanenthtml/lessonFRAME.html) expresses it best [A critical thinker] is someone who is able to think well and fairmindedly not just about her own beliefs and viewpoints, but about beliefs and viewpoints that are diametrically opposed to her own. And not just to think about them, but to explore and appreciate their adequacy, their cohesion, their very reasonableness [when compared with] their own. More, a person who thinks critically is not just willing and able to explore alien, potentially threatening viewpoints, but she also desires to do so. She questions her own deeply-held beliefs, and if there are no opposing viewpoints ready at hand, she seeks them out or constructs them herself.
Or then there's this one (http://www.accd.edu/sac/history/keller/ACCDitg/SSCT.htm)Critical thinking is best understood as the ability of thinkers to take charge of their own thinking. This requires that they develop sound criteria and standards for analyzing and assessing their own thinking and routinely use those criteria and standards to improve its quality.
And various other definitions here. (http://www.kcmetro.cc.mo.us/longview/ctac/definitions.htm)

My own understanding of CT is that it is a process of self-examination - the important word being self. A critical thinker is aware that some of the things he believes are wrong. He re-examines his own ideas and beliefs, trying to weed out his own misconceptions. He studies ideas opposite his own looking for something that will change his own mind. Looking for arguments that support your opponents is very hard, but it is the key part of critical thinking.

Another aspect of Critical Thinking concerns a method of choosing between opposing viewpoints. For the sake of argument, lets call two points of view Valjean and Javert. To decide between them, a critical thinker makes a list : Whats right with Javert.
What's wrong with Javert.
What's right with Valjean.
What's wrong with Valjean. whilst taking great care that he represents both positions accurately, completely and fairly. Then he weighs up the evidence on both sides and sees which makes the stronger case.




Q2) Do you think Randi is a good critical thinker?

I can only offer my own opinion on this one, but IMHO he isn't. I think he has got the concept entirely the wrong way round. Critical thinking is about examining and improving your own beliefs and ideas. What James Randi does is to attack other people's ideas, and smugly tell people what's wrong with their beliefs. Critical thinking, as I understand it, is the exact opposite of what he does.

What would it actually mean to think critically about a paranormal claim? Or any other kind of claim for that matter.

A critical thinker suspends judgement, that is he neither believes nor denies the claim. He reviews the evidence in favour of the claim, and the evidence against. He takes an active role, taking an effort to seek out evidence for himself. Only after carefully weighing the evidence does he form a conclusion.

By contrast, Randi starts from a position of disbelief. He then takes a pasive role. He waits for other people to provide evidence to him. This may be logically valid in its way, but it isn't critical thinking.




Q3) What do you see as the relationship between skeptical and critical thinking? Are they the same thing? Different? How similar are they?

In my understanding, skepticism and Critical thinking are two entirely different things, with no connection between them. Critical thinking is a method of establishing and reviewing a point of view. Skepticism - in the specific sense of disbelieving paranormal claims - is a point of view. Applying Critical Thinking to a particular claim might well lead one person to disbelief. Another critical thinker might decide the evidence supports the claim.

Don't assume that critical thinking will always lead to skepticism. That would be an act of hubris that in itself is anti-critical thinking.




Q4) If you promote one, do you have to promote the other? Can you do one without the other? Should one even try?

In my opinion one should not try to promote both of them. A teacher of critical thinking should teach his students how to form their own opinions. He ought not to try to tell them which opinions are right or wrong.

To go back to my earlier example, a teacher of CT teacher should train his students how to analyse the contradicory opinions of Javert vs Valjean, then leave them to form their own opinions. A critical thinking teacher has no business telling his students that Javert is right while Valjean is deluded. That's something they have to decide for themselves.

Here (http://www.dnr.state.md.us/forests/kids/plt.html)
[Project Learning Tree] focuses on developing critical thinking skills. It does not seek to teach children what to think about the environment, but teaches them how to think about the environment.


Here (http://www.louisville.edu/provost/wroffice/new2-3ramey.html) It is taken for granted now that teachers across the disciplines want their students to do more than merely mouth the “right� answers to well-posed questions. We want them to interrogate the material they are required to learn, to develop their own questions through a process of reflection and informed inquiry. In other words, we want to teach our students how to think instead of what to think.

Here (http://www.freeinquiry.com/critical-thinking.html)
"We should be teaching students how to think. Instead, we are teaching them what to think." Clement and Lochhead, 1980, Cognitive Process Instruction.

Here
"We should be teaching students how to think. Instead, we are teaching them what to think."


As I see it, one cannot advocate a particular point of view AND teach critical thinking at the same time. Randi advocates scepticism and calls the paranormal "woo-woo" or say that its supporters are "deluded" and tries to persude people to his point of view. He is telling people what to think, rather than how to think. I don't think it is possible for anyone to promote their own point of view AND teach critical thinking at the same time.

[apoger]

Many people are under the impression that critical thinking is about finding flaws. I don't think it means that.

Not a single person here offered this as their impression.



What follows is my my own understanding of the term. Feel free to disagree if you want to.


You have a whole bunch of replies already. None agree with your semantic games.

You are playing word games. Apparently with the intent of twisting things enough so you can make the assertion that Mr. Randi is not a critical thinker.


In my understanding, skepticism and Critical thinking are two entirely different things, with no connection between them.

As a result of your wonderous strawman, and your long standing grudge against Randi, you have come to this, and other sad conclusions.

If you were a new poster I'd spend some time hacking at your arguments. However having spent time jousting with you before, I know how pointless that would be. Hopefully someone else will have more energy than I.

[Jyera]

Looking up the dictionary for the meaning of "critical".

There are two groups.
Group1 : Inclined to judge severely and find fault.
Group2 : "important", "crucial", "vital", "decisive".

In Group 1:
"critical(criticize) thinking", as in thinking to criticise is quite straight forward.

Whereas in group 2:
"critical thinking" as in "important thinking", "vital thinking", "decisive thinking" all seeks to decide for you how to think. Telling you what is the right way to think. Which is "carefully", "scientifically", ... etc.

No doubt it might be very scientific, logical and anti-superstition.
People who evocate "critical thinking" skills are all very well intended. Many people tried to coin a meaning to critical thinking. These people as well as Randi and Peter are well intended. They want people to think critically. But what is the right "critical thinking"?

Why should we call "critical thinking" , "critical thinking"? Why not it call "careful thinking", or "important thinking", or "scientific thinking" etc etc ... Call it what ever you think is critical, just don't call it critical thinking.
(But I suspect "critical thinking" is already a "Branded" term, and a positive marketing "Buzzword" )

But who is to say what is the most important "critical thinking"? Obviously the most power or influnential person or group.

Who knows...
In future, perhaps a power personality/group/community might re-define critical thinking. Such that it involves a mandatory search of the internet via a computer chip in-planted in the brain.

Perhaps everyone can make life much simpler by saying "critical thinking" is just "thinking so as to criticise".

[Jyera]

The meme (http://www.lucifer.com/virus/alt.memetics/what.is.html) called "critical thinking" has such a strong influnence on us.

With it's various mutated form, it causes people to "go at each other's throat", just to assert what it means.

Ego hurt, reputation tainted with all the action.
It's is surprising the host remains faithful to the invader.

Perhaps part of it's "critical success factor" lies in the "promise"
that the "owner" gets to assert what is most important.

I think I'm infected, and everyone else too.
Is this a dream ? Should I take the"Blue Pill or Red Pill" (http://www.arrod.co.uk/essays/matrix.php) To slumber on or face the Truth?

[Jyera]

What is Critical thinking?

I think it is what Jyera and Apoger says...
Because ....

As at time of posting, the forum register

Jyera
Critical Thinker
Registered: Jun 2004
Location:
Posts: 255

apoger
Critical Thinker
Registered: Oct 2001
Location: Forest Hills, NY
Posts: 465

Peter Morris ??? He is a Muse. What ever that means...

Peter Morris
Muse
Registered: May 2003
Location:
Posts: 714

May be he is just aMUSEd ?
Urrrghh! I'm mad !!!
Maybe I'm to be trusted because a mad man nevers lies.
lskjg;lkfjg

[Peter Morris]

Peter :Many people are under the impression that critical thinking is about finding flaws.

apoger Not a single person here offered this as their impression.


Actually, you might like to take a look at what people wrote.


epepke : Critical thinking is thinking with an eye to finding flaws, if they exist."

Tricky : "A critical thinker says "here are the problems with this belief."

and when asked to provide examples of Randi's critical thinking abilities :

Dr Adequate: he seems very solid on debunking frauds, which is the area of critical thinking he specialises in.

c4ts : But if you want an example from the commentaries, this week's example of Sylvia Browne's methods will do.


Really, based on people's direct answers to my question it seems that quite a few people here think that critical thinking is about finding flaws and proving other people wrong.

Are they right to think so?

[MRC_Hans]

Critical thinking is about finding flaws in ALL beliefs, not just those of other people. Skepticism is the realization that critical thinking needs to be applied to a subject.

James Randi is obviously a good critical thinker, but what you see published is the RESULTS of his critical thinking process. You are not viewing the process of weighing pro et contra, you are seing the net result.

Hans

[apoger]

Actually, you might like to take a look at what people wrote.


Fine. I withdraw my comment about the term flaws.


Now address the real substance of your posting, which is your need to redefine the term critical thinking until you have changed it enough so that it can be used as a feeble insult versus Randi.

[Peter Morris]

Then he should lose marks for not showing his working.
C+

[voidx]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
My own understanding of CT is that it is a process of self-examination - the important word being self. A critical thinker is aware that some of the things he believes are wrong. He re-examines his own ideas and beliefs, trying to weed out his own misconceptions. He studies ideas opposite his own looking for something that will change his own mind. Looking for arguments that support your opponents is very hard, but it is the key part of critical thinking.

So is it not then just as valid to do this in reverse. To take someone else's idea's, apply them to his own and see if he can find any misconceptions in their thinking? It works as well one way as the other. Critical thinking is a very simple term. It means to think critically. To say what we're thinking critically about is to merely load the meaning of the term as it suits us. Once can think critically about his own ideas every bit as much as he can about another's ideas. What your attempting to do is to restrict critical thinking to only ones own ideas. You then expand on this by saying that since Randi attacks others ideas, what he's doing is not critical thinking. This is a rather loaded scenario, and when you look at it very similiar to what your accusing Randi of. I for the record do not believe Randi is always critical. No one ever is. Everyone has bias, and that bias varies depending on the subject at hand. Its easier to be critical of some of ones ideas than others. But this applies to everyone.


As I see it, one cannot advocate a particular point of view AND teach critical thinking at the same time.

Of course you can. Your particular point of view can be an example of critical thinking. You can give people all the information about a topic and then explain that as per your critical assessment, this is the view you hold. Then allow them to come to theirs and compare and discuss.

[MRC_Hans]

Then he should lose marks for not showing his working.
C+ Who says he is going for marks? However, you can easily find out how he gets to his results if you apply a bit of critical thinking yourself. Also, you might notice that Randi does not say e.g "dowsing does not work", he says, essentially "nobody has been able to show dowsing to work under controlled contitions and I predict nobody ever will". An observation and a prediction based on the obsevation. That is critical thinking for you.

Hans

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Peter Morris:

As I see it, one cannot advocate a particular point of view AND teach critical thinking at the same time.


Of course one can. One can even do it correctly and legitimately if the advocated pov is the result of critical thinking and the process is made available for review.

Two things strike me in reading this comment:

1. It is a repackaging of the ideas that truth is relative and that one can claim themselves to be wrong but not others.

2. It is contradictory. You are advocating your particular point of view while trying to teach us critical thinking.

I agree with a previous poster. You are playing semantic games so you can apply a derogatory label to Randi.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by apoger
Fine. I withdraw my comment about the term flaws.


Now address the real substance of your posting, which is your need to redefine the term critical thinking until you have changed it enough so that it can be used as a feeble insult versus Randi.

Me redefine?

I refer you to Jyera who has been studying critical thinking in school. Look at his/ her comments.

To think in such a way, so as to critique your own thinking process.

My impression about GP is that it is said to require a good amount of Critical thinking to do well. We had to write essays to presents argument in various opposing perspectives, before finding a conclusion.


Note:
1) critique your own thinking process.
2) present arguments in various opposing perspectives, before finding a conclusion.

Do you think he/she got that wrong? That is my impression of what Critical Thinking means.

I've provided several quotes from people describing what the term means, matching my impression, and Jyera's comments. I can show you plenty more if you want.

Are all of them wrong?

I humbly submit that this is the true definition of critical thinking.

[apoger]

Me redefine?

Yes you.



I refer you to Jyera ...

Jyera is a fruitcake. Do you really want to hitch your wagon to his nonsense?



1) critique your own thinking process.
2) present arguments in various opposing perspectives, before finding a conclusion.

Do you think he/she got that wrong?




Yes, it's wrong, as has been explained to you.
The requirement that critical thinking only be applied to "your own" thoughts is ridiculous.



I humbly submit that this is the true definition of critical thinking

I humbly submit that your definition is junk.

However I am not going to play this game with you. I have had more than my fill of this style of idiocy where posters attempt to redefine words in order to adapt them to their worldview.

When you have something worth discussing let us know.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by apoger
Yes, it's wrong, as has been explained to you.
The requirement that critical thinking only be applied to "your own" thoughts is ridiculous.



Do you have any evidence to support your views? I have provided a number of cites supporting my definition. Can you give any actual evidence to refute it?

Can you offer any evidence, or will you just continue to "explain" that I'm wrong without evidence?

By the way, I didn't say that it can be applied only to your own thoughts. I said that examining your own thoughts is a very important part of it, but that's not all.

The other part of it is examining other people's thoughts to see if they present valid arguments that will change your mind. And you do this by listing and examining the evidence both for and against their ideas. If you only list the evidence against it, then it isn't critical thinking.

[Hawk one]

By the way, I didn't say that it can be applied only to your own thoughts. I said that examining your own thoughts is a very important part of it, but that's not all.

The other part of it is examining other people's thoughts to see if they present valid arguments that will change your mind. And you do this by listing and examining the evidence both for and against their ideas. If you only list the evidence against it, then it isn't critical thinking.

And this comes from the man that blatantly has refused to for example examinethe actual evidence of whether CFLarsen actually said that the JREF prize money was cursed. Priceless. :)

[Nex]

Peter Morris--

I am also taking Critical Thinking in college right now. Why don't I go get my textbook and see what it says?

R. Paul & L. Elder, Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge©2001, p. 397

Critical Thinking: (1) Disciplined, self-directed thinking that exemplifies the perfections of thinking appropriate to a specific mode or domain of thinking; (2) Thinking that displays mastery of intellectual skills and abilities; (3) The art of thinking about one's thinking while thinking, to make one's thinking better, more clear, more accurate, more defensible; (4) Thinking that is fully aware of and continually guards against the natural human tendency to self-deceive and rationalise to selfishly get what it wants.
Critical thinking can be distinguished into two forms: (1) "selfish" or "sophistic," and (2) fair-minded or open-minded.
In thinking critically, we use our command of the elements of thinking and the universal intellectual standards to adjust our thinking successfully to the logical demands of a type or mode of thinking.

...

Critical Person: One who has mastered a range of intellectual skills and abilities. If that person generally uses those skills to advance his or her own selfish interests, that person is only a critical person in a weak sense. If that person generally uses those skills fair-mindedly, entering empathically into the points of view of others, he or she is a critical thinker in the strong sense.

[Ashles]

Well this was quite an interesting thread up until Peter Morris' one single agenda (criticising Randi) leapt out once again with the grinding inevitability of a Greek tragedy.

Now it will inevitably collapse into a wearisome discussion of how Peter's definition of critical thinking is correct, thus Randi doesn't think critically etc. etc. ad nauseam.

Hans has already clearly explained why it doesn't mean it isn't critical thinking just because you don't verbally, or in writing outline every step that you went through to get there.

Which Peter appears to have ignored.

[apoger]

Do you have any evidence to support your views? I have provided a number of cites supporting my definition. Can you give any actual evidence to refute it?


Well now I don't need to since you have backed off your claim that critical thinking is only for your own thoughts.

Do you read your own posts?



The other part of it is examining other people's thoughts to see if they present valid arguments that will change your mind. And you do this by listing and examining the evidence both for and against their ideas. If you only list the evidence against it, then it isn't critical thinking.


Who has made the assertion that critical thinking is only examining evidence against and not for? Indeed, isn't the whole mission of the JREF an attempt to test for evidence?

[Dr Adequate]

Morris dance [n] : a strange pointless ritual in which an attention-seeking fool makes himself look as daft as possible and prances around flailing away ineffectually at nothing, while onlookers laugh at him and wonder if he's nuts, an idiot, or just completely lacking in self-awareness.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Ashles
Well this was quite an interesting thread up until Peter Morris' one single agenda (criticising Randi) leapt out once again with the grinding inevitability of a Greek tragedy.


Indeed. When I first saw this thread, I thought about replying, but I realised that it was a thinly disguised trap.

All Peter wanted was a definitions that he could pull out and say "See! By your own words Randi ain't critical thinker! Haw! Haw! Haw!"

[Ashles]

I wonder if anyone in the world could have possibly written anything in this thread, any possible combination of words, that Peter Morris wouldn't have considered support for his theory that Randi isn't critically thinking?

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
My own understanding of CT is that it is a process of self-examination - the important word being self. That’s your opinion, but I disagree with it. You examine your own beliefs for sure, but it is used to evaluate others’ claims too. You have defined it too narrowly so that you can make your views known on Randi. Perhaps you should apply critical thinking to your own views.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
James Randi does is to attack other people's ideas, and smugly tell people what's wrong with their beliefs.Based on the lack of evidence for their beliefs (or sometimes evidence against their beliefs). So he is applying critical thinking, your pejorative wording notwithstanding.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
What would it actually mean to think critically about a paranormal claim? Or any other kind of claim for that matter.

A critical thinker suspends judgement, that is he neither believes nor denies the claim. He reviews the evidence in favour of the claim, and the evidence against. He takes an active role, taking an effort to seek out evidence for himself. Only after carefully weighing the evidence does he form a conclusion. OK, please show that Randi does not weigh the evidence before forming a conclusion.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
By contrast, Randi starts from a position of disbelief. He then takes a pasive role. He waits for other people to provide evidence to him. This may be logically valid in its way, but it isn't critical thinking. Please show that his position of disbelief did not arise until after he had examined the evidence.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
In my understanding, skepticism and Critical thinking are two entirely different things, with no connection between them. Critical thinking is a method of establishing and reviewing a point of view. Skepticism - in the specific sense of disbelieving paranormal claims - is a point of view.You can define it that way if you want to, but the conclusions you derive will be faulty. Skepticism is not a belief system, it is a method.

Your post and the purpose of this thread is just one big straw man. You need to apply critical thinking to your own dislike of Randi, and not rely on logical fallacies (as no critical thinker should), to prove your viewpoint.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Morris dance [n] : a strange pointless ritual in which an attention-seeking fool makes himself look as daft as possible and prances around flailing away ineffectually at nothing, while onlookers laugh at him and wonder if he's nuts, an idiot, or just completely lacking in self-awareness. :D

[Wally]

Just a quick thought, if there’s no evidence to be critical of, it doesn’t make much difference how you define critical thinking.

;)

[Jyera]

Originally posted by apoger
...
Jyera is a fruitcake. Do you really want to hitch your wagon to his nonsense? ....

Apoger, Did I somehow offended you?

I find it objectionable for your statement to imply that whatever I say is totally nonsense.

I really have nothing against you.

[apoger]

My apologies Jyera.
I didn't mean for my lack of respect for your postings to cause you discomfort.

[Dragon]

Peter, for the sake of convenience and clarity, why not produce your own "glossary of tems" so that we can share in your redefinitions of words and phrases?

[MRC_Hans]

Yes, then we can file it alongside the "Franko Dictionary", the "Interesting Ian Dictionary", the "Hammegk Dictionary, the "Iacchus Dictionary", the "Lifegazer Dictionary", etc, etc.

Only problem is that those dictionaries tend to be dynamic, with terms being constantly redefined to fit each discussion :rolleyes:.

Hans

[Jyera]

Originally posted by apoger
My apologies Jyera.
I didn't mean for my lack of respect for your postings to cause you discomfort.
Apologies accepted.