Critical Thinking

[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 sh!t and sh!nola.

 

[epepke]

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 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

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.

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
[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 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
"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 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" 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]

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]

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.