What is Critical Thinking?

[chris epic]

You are incredibly dangerous if you tell people that. Because that is a sure fire way to die.

If you toss out the belief that

• Stepping off a cliff will kill you
• Putting a gun to your head and pull the trigger will kill you
• Playing in traffic will kill you
• Eating lots of those pills in your mother's medicine cabinet will kill you

you will die, long before you have learned how to distinguish between what will harm you, and what won't.

Sometimes, it is OK to believe what your parents told you.

Um, Mr. Larson, haven't you read Descartes? That's all TA was referencing. It's the fundamental first step that Descartes took to conlude cogito ergo sum via deductive reasoning.

 

[The Atheist]

It demonstrates exactly what so many people believe - that critical thinking is synonymous with just 'thinking'.

Isn't that really all it is, just thinking?

Couple of excellent recent examples:

1 The bloke who took his kids fishing, but noticed shortly after anchoring that the boat was taking water fast. Cuts anchor rope, slams motor into flat-out to head for nearby island. Rope catches on propellor which pulls the boat backwards into the sea. Father dives overboard, two kids drown, pulled down with the boat.

If he'd just stopped for even 5 seconds and thought about it, those kids would be alive. Extreme example, but I find it hard to separate the "critical" part from thinking, because without actual thinking, it's just a conditioned response. This bloke's conditioned response was panic/flight when the appropriate action was screwing the bugs in and baling out the boat!. He is appropriately being charged with manslaughter of his own two children.

2 Car breaks down in driveway of busy school at busiest time. Two men race over to start pushing car up the reasonably steep driveway so she can block the traffic right in the middle of it. I mosy over and suggest that if they let they let roll down the hill 10 feet, the driver can steer into a carpark and get out of everyone's way and no effort at all would be required. This process was duly completed in about 9 seconds and traffic returned to normal immediately.

Again, no thinking was involved; these blokes think they thought "let's go help that woman by pushing her car" but in fact they were just acting automatically - "car, go forward, grunt". Yet two or three seconds assessment of the complete situation revealed an instant and obvious answer. The two Neanderthals didn't consider any options - cars go in two directions, is back better? - or "where does it go when we push it up this hill?" While it's a minute example, the same lack of thinking prevails.

I suspect trying to add in another type of thinking by calling it "critical" is a bit of a red herring.

Take this for example:

Critical thinking is essentially a process of evaluation based on a set of standards and values.

How does leaving "Critical" weaken the sentence?

 

[Hokulele]

Isn't that really all it is, just thinking?

I would disagree a bit. I have seen plenty of examples of thought without any critical aspects. Your examples were of thoughtless actions, but I would argue that what separates critical thinking from just thinking would be how well the thoughts have been subjected to analysis prior to being written or verbalized. I would submit many of Iamme's and BAGO's posts as examples of thinking, but not necessarily critical thinking.

Somewhat related, I think (haha!) that the reason people on this forum like to use references to logical fallacies is as a shortcut to show others where the critical part is left off. For example, an appeal to authority is an example of thinking, but not an example of critical thinking.

 

[The Atheist]

I would disagree a bit. I have seen plenty of examples of thought without any critical aspects. Your examples were of thoughtless actions, but I would argue that what separates critical thinking from just thinking would be how well the thoughts have been subjected to analysis prior to being written or verbalized. I would submit many of Iamme's and BAGO's posts as examples of thinking, but not necessarily critical thinking.

Nah, I see them as just parroting cliches, canards and tired metaphors plagiarised from something they've read. If they thought about their positions, they wouldn't be in them. See, you even mention analysis - well, if there's no analysis, no actual thinking has taken place.

Somewhat related, I think (haha!) that the reason people on this forum like to use references to logical fallacies is as a shortcut to show others where the critical part is left off. For example, an appeal to authority is an example of thinking, but not an example of critical thinking.

Well again, I see resort to logical fallacies as the antithesis of thinking. Anyone can jot down a hasty reply and be wrong. It may startle you to know that I've even done that myself. Once. Maybe twice.

I think your kind of thinking is driving halfway round a race track and saying "I drove a race car", while standing next to whichever of the A J Foyts is still alive.

 

[athon]

Isn't that really all it is, just thinking?

Not really.

Thinking is a process. It relies on taking information in, basically relating it to what you already know and either (a) incorporating the information into an existing framework, (b) rejecting the information, or (c) adjusting the framework (I've simplified it down somewhat - I've got a fantastic paper on how people deal with anomalous information which deals with this much better than I could in a short post).

People accomplish this process in different ways. However, all people evaluate information against a schema they have. Being human, we tend to consider new information in association with social cues - for example, if a number of people in our social group accept it, it's easier for the individual to embrace it as well. Or if an individual who is socially close to us provides the information, again we'll embrace it far more readily.

That is still thinking.

Critical thinking evolves evaluating information using other cues, such as not whether the source is a member of our social group but rather what value the source has in the information being correct. It also involves starting with more of a null hypothesis - there is an innate tendency for people to more readily accept what they have to contemplate over rejecting it.

Some things demand efficient critical thinking. Other things matter less. However, critical thinking is not just 'thinking'. I could think about what my friend tells me regarding a UFO stealing his pet pig, evaluate the information based on the fact he's my friend and I trust he wouldn't lie to me. I've therefore used evidence to weigh my decision to accept this belief. The fact that the evidence used is weak is a matter of not applying critical thinking, which embodies the ability to weigh evidence.

Couple of excellent recent examples:

1 The bloke who took his kids fishing, but noticed shortly after anchoring that the boat was taking water fast. Cuts anchor rope, slams motor into flat-out to head for nearby island. Rope catches on propellor which pulls the boat backwards into the sea. Father dives overboard, two kids drown, pulled down with the boat.

If he'd just stopped for even 5 seconds and thought about it, those kids would be alive. Extreme example, but I find it hard to separate the "critical" part from thinking, because without actual thinking, it's just a conditioned response. This bloke's conditioned response was panic/flight when the appropriate action was screwing the bugs in and baling out the boat!. He is appropriately being charged with manslaughter of his own two children.

I'm not sure what this is suggesting. He could have stopped and thought 'If I pray hard enough, God will save my boat'. It's still an example of thinking, but based only on the shared view of those in his social group. Critical thinking would only apply when dealing with information he is given by others. 'Praying to God has far less of a chance of keeping me and the kids alive than me making for that island' would be a critical consideration of what he'd been told.

Stopping to consider what would happen if he cut the anchor would certainly be a form of thinking, but I'd probably describe it as logical than social or critical.

2 Car breaks down in driveway of busy school at busiest time. *snip*

Same thing. I don't see how this implies merely thinking is the same as critical thinking.

I'll see if I can restate it - critical thinking involves how somebody evaluates information for its worthiness. If I'm given information by a source, I can trust it simply because I reason that I like the way the source phrased it using jargon (not critical) or I can consider the fact I know little about the material and, until I learn more, the information has low potential value to me (critical).

The situations you suggested certainly involved no thinking, however I don't see what the information source they could be evaluating might be, in order to suggest they could have thought critically.

How does leaving "Critical" weaken the sentence?

I should have said 'a particular set of values and standards'. Those values could be based on a fallacy, such as an argument of popularity. Still thinking, but not critical.

Athon

 

[The Atheist]

Some things demand efficient critical thinking. Other things matter less. However, critical thinking is not just 'thinking'. I could think about what my friend tells me regarding a UFO stealing his pet pig, evaluate the information based on the fact he's my friend and I trust he wouldn't lie to me. I've therefore used evidence to weigh my decision to accept this belief. The fact that the evidence used is weak is a matter of not applying critical thinking, which embodies the ability to weigh evidence.

Yeah, this just shows that the difference is simply semantic, because I'd see accepting the uncorroborated word of one person would be "not thinking".

I'm not sure what this is suggesting. He could have stopped and thought 'If I pray hard enough, God will save my boat'. It's still an example of thinking, but based only on the shared view of those in his social group.

No, that's not thinking at all, just spewing up a conditioned response. It would however, have had the advantage of being no worse than panicking.

I'll see if I can restate it - critical thinking involves how somebody evaluates information for its worthiness.

Yep, and I'd consider it unthinking to not evaluate information for worthiness - if we don't evaluate the worth of information going in, we just end up with "gigo". Thinking is a rounded process, taking all relevant bits into account, and even thinking about which bits are relevant.

I understand your argument completely; I just don't see it as a particularly worthwhile distinction. It has the feel of attempting to create an elitist or intellectual difference in quality of thought and I see that as being a turn-off rather than a turn-on for lots of people.

 

[athon]

Yeah, this just shows that the difference is simply semantic, because I'd see accepting the uncorroborated word of one person would be "not thinking".

Your argument does indeed come down to a matter of semantics. You've defined 'thinking' as only occurring when an individual addresses information in a critical manner. In your view, it seems if it's not done critically, it's not 'thinking' at all. Of course, we could then play the dictionary game, cite psychology papers or something equally silly...in the end, it's simply a personal difference in the view of what constitutes 'thinking' about something.

In my view, any time somebody considers and manipulates novel information with view of accepting it, using it or rejecting it, they are thinking.

Athon

 

[athon]

I just don't see it as a particularly worthwhile distinction. It has the feel of attempting to create an elitist or intellectual difference in quality of thought and I see that as being a turn-off rather than a turn-on for lots of people.

To some, it might. Telling somebody that the way they are thinking is ineffectual would certainly upset some people. Then again, so would telling them that they aren't thinking. I guarentee the first thing they'll say is 'Yes I am'.

Criticizing anybody's method of how they deal with information is bound to be a 'turn off' for them. I feel presenting an alternative method of addressing information works far better than simply saying 'you're not thinking'.

Athon

 

[The Atheist]

To some, it might. Telling somebody that the way they are thinking is ineffectual would certainly upset some people.

Yes, that is one benefit.

Criticizing anybody's method of how they deal with information is bound to be a 'turn off' for them. I feel presenting an alternative method of addressing information works far better than simply saying 'you're not thinking'.

Athon

Fair enough, it probably comes down to how I see most people viewing the word "critical". I've found the common misconception that it implies criticism in a negative sense.

It's all no biggie - as long as we can get the bastards to think things through, I'm not too concerned how we classify it.

 

[CFLarsen]

At this point, the only one I can see in need of such knowledge is you. The things you listed are facts, not beliefs. You failed to distinguish that, yourself, in making your list.

You are also the one who brought children into the point TA was making, not TA. He was advising a fellow adult. How on earth did kids enter into what TA was saying?

I gave the examples to point out that knowledge is not inherent, nor is all knowledge self-experienced.

Quoting your list again:

These are not beliefs. They are facts. These are not the sorts of things TA was suggesting anyone "toss out."

...and the second one on your list isn't even true if the gun isn't loaded. Although it's wisest to always assume all guns are loaded, the simple truth is that pulling the trigger on an unloaded gun cannot kill anyone.

Why do you think the things you listed are beliefs, instead of facts any reasonably intelligent adult might already know?

The question is, how does the person - be it child or adult - know that it is wisest to always assume all guns are loaded? You are told to stay away from guns, you don't find out for yourself.

Likewise, did you wait until you were taught the scientific explanation of why things fall down, before you decided to stay away from the cliff? No, you relied on knowledge gained from other people.

This explains it well:

Thinking is a process. It relies on taking information in, basically relating it to what you already know and either (a) incorporating the information into an existing framework, (b) rejecting the information, or (c) adjusting the framework (I've simplified it down somewhat - I've got a fantastic paper on how people deal with anomalous information which deals with this much better than I could in a short post).

People accomplish this process in different ways. However, all people evaluate information against a schema they have. Being human, we tend to consider new information in association with social cues - for example, if a number of people in our social group accept it, it's easier for the individual to embrace it as well. Or if an individual who is socially close to us provides the information, again we'll embrace it far more readily.

That is still thinking.

Critical thinking evolves evaluating information using other cues, such as not whether the source is a member of our social group but rather what value the source has in the information being correct. It also involves starting with more of a null hypothesis - there is an innate tendency for people to more readily accept what they have to contemplate over rejecting it.

Some things demand efficient critical thinking. Other things matter less. However, critical thinking is not just 'thinking'. I could think about what my friend tells me regarding a UFO stealing his pet pig, evaluate the information based on the fact he's my friend and I trust he wouldn't lie to me. I've therefore used evidence to weigh my decision to accept this belief. The fact that the evidence used is weak is a matter of not applying critical thinking, which embodies the ability to weigh evidence.

Um, Mr. Larson, haven't you read Descartes? That's all TA was referencing. It's the fundamental first step that Descartes took to conlude cogito ergo sum via deductive reasoning.

Rene Descartes was a drunken fart...

But TheAtheist wasn't referencing Descartes. TheAtheist said to throw out all beliefs - but forgot to explain how to distinguish between beliefs and knowledge. "Know what you know" is as fatuous a statement as those we hear from woos. It doesn't explain how we know, it presumes that we do.

 

[Dr H]

At this point, the only one I can see in need of such knowledge is you. The things you listed are facts, not beliefs. You failed to distinguish that, yourself, in making your list.

You are confusing "belief" with "faith".

We all have all sorts of beliefs; beliefs may be based on evidence or they may be based on faith. Faith is a belief held -without- evidence, or in the face of evidence which contradicts the belief.

One of the characteristics of critical thinking is that all conclusions are provisional. This is why scientific theories must be falsifiable in order to be considered valid theories.

A "fact" is simply a belief which happens to be validated the preponderance of physical evidence currently available. There is always the possibility, however, that additional evidence may become available which would falsify any of those particular beliefs.

 

[slingblade]

How? By asking himself, as the adult to whom TA was speaking:

"Do I really 'know' this, or do I just believe and accept what I've been told? I'd better examine what I believe...in fact, it wouldn't hurt me to examine what I know. I need to find out if what I know is really so."

Is there some kind of problem with this?

 

[CFLarsen]

You are confusing "belief" with "faith".

We all have all sorts of beliefs; beliefs may be based on evidence or they may be based on faith. Faith is a belief held -without- evidence, or in the face of evidence which contradicts the belief.

One of the characteristics of critical thinking is that all conclusions are provisional. This is why scientific theories must be falsifiable in order to be considered valid theories.

A "fact" is simply a belief which happens to be validated the preponderance of physical evidence currently available. There is always the possibility, however, that additional evidence may become available which would falsify any of those particular beliefs.

Bingo.

 

[Piscivore]

Likewise, did you wait until you were taught the scientific explanation of why things fall down, before you decided to stay away from the cliff? No, you relied on knowledge gained from other people.

Not quite. You do not need to know why things fall down, only that they do. No other person is needed to make the observation, or the inference that this phenomenon applies equally to one's self and cliffs.

 

[CFLarsen]

Not quite. You do not need to know why things fall down, only that they do. No other person is needed to make the observation, or the inference that this phenomenon applies equally to one's self and cliffs.

As you will see, I already said in the first post I made that you don't need to know why.

However, if you have to learn this yourself, you won't survive. Or, of course, you build your knowledge on other people falling off cliffs.

 

[slingblade]

You are confusing "belief" with "faith".

No. I am not. I am talking about specific statements that were made, and the flaws in their logic.

We all have all sorts of beliefs; beliefs may be based on evidence or they may be based on faith. Faith is a belief held -without- evidence, or in the face of evidence which contradicts the belief.

Which is exactly my point: if there is already evidence for a thing, it isn't a belief. Your ignorance about it doesn't render the information less factual; it simply means you are still ignorant.

Were I to say "I believe the world is flat," you can and should say to me, "But there isn't any reason to merely believe that. There's a great deal of information about the earth that you can access. It's possible for you to know the shape of the earth, or at least know what scientists know about it."

By the same token, were I to say "I know pink invisible unicorns exist," you'd want my evidence, my proof. You'd want to see how I know this. And when I can't produce anything that even remotely resembles evidence, you can then say to me: "This is a belief. If we someday find evidence for it, we will then consider it knowledge. It may, in fact, be knowledge right now. But since we can't access it, since we remain ignorant at this time, to us it is only a belief."

One of the characteristics of critical thinking is that all conclusions are provisional. This is why scientific theories must be falsifiable in order to be considered valid theories.

A "fact" is simply a belief which happens to be validated the preponderance of physical evidence currently available. There is always the possibility, however, that additional evidence may become available which would falsify any of those particular beliefs.

That's largely correct, but I take slight exception to the statement that all facts are merely well-verified beliefs, any or all of which could change in the future. I can think of several simple facts which would not change due to discovery of additional evidence, especially if there is no additional evidence to discover.

There are twelve inches in a standard U.S. foot. This is a simple fact.
The U.S. may choose to change its standards of measurement at some point in the future, but that is not "undiscovered evidence" that changes the length of a standard foot.

I was graduated from high school on January 18, 1977. That's a fact. There is no additional evidence to uncover that will change it.

If a person is cremated after death, pouring a glass of tap water on the ashes will not reconstitute the body and restore the person to life. This is a fact. Is there really a possiblity of undiscovered information that will render this untrue, or that could change this simple fact?

But none of this is really the point. When TA suggested another poster "toss out" his beliefs, he was urging the poster to verify his knowledge base, and stop relying on mere belief. If it is possible to know a thing, choose to know it. Find out what can be considered factual, and what must be relegated to belief. Know what you know.

I find that sound advice.

 

[CFLarsen]

Which is exactly my point: if there is already evidence for a thing, it isn't a belief. Your ignorance about it doesn't render the information less factual; it simply means you are still ignorant.

Were I to say "I believe the world is flat," you can and should say to me, "But there isn't any reason to merely believe that. There's a great deal of information about the earth that you can access. It's possible for you to know the shape of the earth, or at least know what scientists know about it."

By the same token, were I to say "I know pink invisible unicorns exist," you'd want my evidence, my proof. You'd want to see how I know this. And when I can't produce anything that even remotely resembles evidence, you can then say to me: "This is a belief. If we someday find evidence for it, we will then consider it knowledge. It may, in fact, be knowledge right now. But since we can't access it, since we remain ignorant at this time, to us it is only a belief."

But at the time where people thought the world was flat, that was fact - as they understood it. And it made sense: I mean....give me a break! What is the most likely to be true, us walking on a flat surface, or us walking on a ball? We know that the Earth ends, because we have eyewitness accounts of monsters guarding the edges of the Earth. Why, we even have hardcore evidence of the mermaids. What more do you want?

You say that unicorns don't exist? You are denying the existence of unicorns.

....catch m'drift?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not quite. You do not need to know why things fall down, only that they do. No other person is needed to make the observation, or the inference that this phenomenon applies equally to one's self and cliffs.

My point with this example would be that while the 'why' doesn't matter to the physicist, to those it does matter to, there is a separate data set to analyze. You don't pull the 'why' magically out of your brain. One needs critical thinking skills to get that data set right just as one needs those skills to interpret the physical data correctly.

 

[slingblade]

But at the time where people thought the world was flat, that was fact - as they understood it. And it made sense: I mean....give me a break! What is the most likely to be true, us walking on a flat surface, or us walking on a ball? We know that the Earth ends, because we have eyewitness accounts of monsters guarding the edges of the Earth. Why, we even have hardcore evidence of the mermaids. What more do you want?

You say that unicorns don't exist? You are denying the existence of unicorns.

....catch m'drift?

No.

Lack of knowledge about a thing does not mean the knowledge doesn't exist. It means you lack it. It also means you have an opportunity to gain this knowledge, if it already exists. And that you should try, whenever possible, to gain it, rather than rely on mere belief if you don't have to.

That is the key phrase you're missing: if you don't have to.

The advice to make discovery about your own knowledge base is the basis of skepticism, of critical thought. That's the very thing critical thought does: am I sure of that? Can I find out? If I do find out, can I be willing to exchange my belief for this knowledge? Can I make this into even a provisional fact, instead of an open-ended, unprovisional belief?

TA was simply saying: don't settle for belief. Find out if you can know. Yes, of course, if it's something you can't know, that no one can know, you have to relegate it to belief. But if you can know, and safely, of course, then why not choose to know?

 

[The Atheist]

You are confusing "belief" with "faith".

You may well be approaching this as more of a semantic argument, because Slingblade's poost is correct, in my view - beliefs are about things we don't already know from observation.

Gravity, for instance, is usually discovered in infancy and repeated tests show that things fall to the floor from the cot or high chair every single time. Infants have no idea of the concept of gravity, but they know it works. They may believe an invisible giant is pushing things down to the floor, so the fact of gravity combines with a belief about how it works. The belief may change, but the fact never will.

That said, I believe I'll have a beer.