What's the first rule of critical thinking?

[Darat]

Case in point.

What fact did Joe mention?

 

[JoeMorgue]

What fact did Joe mention?

The fact that it's possible to be wrong.

That one triggers so many people for some reason.

Usually people who are wrong a lot.

 

[Lplus]

And what is the orthodox view about the earth being round and orbits around the sun?

Back when Gallileo was around the orthodox view was that the Sun orbited the earth. Good job he didn't follow the orthodox view isn't it?

Or was it Copernicus? Eh whatever.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Back when Gallileo was around the orthodox view was that the Sun orbited the earth. Good job he didn't follow the orthodox view isn't it?

This is the "But they laughed at the Wright Brothers!" argument.

Being laughed at doesn't make you right.

Iconclasticness (that needs to be a word), contrarianism, "going against the grain" and other vague allusions to "Well at least I'm not a sheep and think for myself" are nowhere near the qualities nor prerequisites for intellectual progress people treat them as.

 

[Darat]

Back when Gallileo was around the orthodox view was that the Sun orbited the earth. Good job he didn't follow the orthodox view isn't it?

Or was it Copernicus? Eh whatever.

I had asked you: And what is the orthodox view about the earth being round and orbits around the sun?

 

[Lplus]

This is the "But they laughed at the Wright Brothers!" argument.

Being laughed at doesn't make you right. Iconclasticness (that needs to be a word), contrarianism, "going against the grain" and other vague allusions to "Well at least I'm not a sheep and think for myself" are nowhere near the qualities nor prerequisites for intellectual progress people treat it as.

True, but you might be - and in this case he was. (or Copernicus, as I did add)

How about Barrie Marshall and the orthodox view that peptic ulcers were caused by stress?


Questioning the orthodoxy should a skeptic's first action. That is not the same as refuting it simply to be contrarian.

 

[Thermal]

True, but you might be - and in this case he was. (or Copernicus, as I did add)

How about Barrie Marshall and the orthodox view that peptic ulcers were caused by stress?


Questioning the orthodoxy should a skeptic's first action. That is not the same as refuting it simply to be contrarian.

Sooooooort of. A skeptic should drop their preconceptions and thoughts on the subject first. Just forget about your opinions and the persona you are inclined to portray. If the orthodoxy stands, it need not be questioned. If it doesn't, give it both barrels.

 

[Lplus]

Sooooooort of. A skeptic should drop their preconceptions and thoughts on the subject first. Just forget about your opinions and the persona you are inclined to portray. If the orthodoxy stands, it need not be questioned. If it doesn't, give it both barrels.

Without first questioning it, how do you know it stands?

 

[ahhell]

I don't think even a critical thinker could make the morning coffee and shovel the driveway if they started with the proposition that one shouldn't make assumptions. Is there a paper in the box? Will the sun rise today? The boundary between inductive logic and assumption is a bit fuzzy, but in any case, we'd bog down intractably if we did not settle for assumption at times.

You don't need to discard your assumptions, only to remember that that's what they are, and be gracious when they turn out to be wrong.

More importantly in my opinion, be gracious when the other guy turns out to be wrong.

As to a first rule of skepticism, "remember that all knowledge is provisional on further evidence"?

 

[Thermal]

Without first questioning it, how do you know it stands?

Because it leads naturally to always questioning whether water is reeeeeeallly wet. We can take a lot as-is, or cursory questioning. I don't think everything needs meticulous scrutiny right off the bat. I don't need to conduct an investigation regarding where the sun rises in the morning. It has been settled to my satisfaction.

 

[Lplus]

Because it leads naturally to always questioning whether water is reeeeeeallly wet. We can take a lot as-is, or cursory questioning. I don't think everything needs meticulous scrutiny right off the bat. I don't need to conduct an investigation regarding where the sun rises in the morning. It has been settled to my satisfaction.

Indeed, so you don't adopt a skeptical stance for every single thing you encounter in your life, especially things that occur everyday. That doesn't stop you having a skeptic outlook and questioning the orthodoxy of something others are beginning to question.

 

[Thermal]

Indeed, so you don't adopt a skeptical stance for every single thing you encounter in your life, especially things that occur everyday. That doesn't stop you having a skeptic outlook and questioning the orthodoxy of something others are beginning to question.

Oh, I agree, and have taken a ton of heat for doing so on the forum. The trick is finding the line between what is reasonable to question, and what is just being difficult.

 

[Lplus]

Oh, I agree, and have taken a ton of heat for doing so on the forum. The trick is finding the line between what is reasonable to question, and what is just being difficult.

I wouldn't argue with that.

 

[psionl0]

And I'm still waiting for you to disprove that there's a dragon in my garage.

Watching the same dozen people have the exact same hissy fit every time anyone suggests "Hey maybe DON'T just think wrong things" will never fail to delight me.

Maybe it wasn't a case in point. Maybe you aren't trying to be wrong all the time. Your post is too tangential to be a relevant response to what you quoted. You are too wrapped up in your own agenda to care about what you quoted is actually about.

 

[psionl0]

Precisely, so you don't need proven in front of it.

A sensible interpretation of "proven fact" is an assertion that has been proven to be true and can thus be called a "fact".

Then again, if you just want to be disagreeable . . .

 

[ponderingturtle]

This is the "But they laughed at the Wright Brothers!" argument.

Being laughed at doesn't make you right.

Iconclasticness (that needs to be a word), contrarianism, "going against the grain" and other vague allusions to "Well at least I'm not a sheep and think for myself" are nowhere near the qualities nor prerequisites for intellectual progress people treat them as.

They laughed at Columbus too, but he proved the world is pear shaped not round like those hide bound fools believed!

 

[Dr. Keith]

They laughed at “Mad” Mike Hughes, and he sacrificed everything for us.

 

[Darat]

A sensible interpretation of "proven fact" is an assertion that has been proven to be true and can thus be called a "fact".

Then again, if you just want to be disagreeable . . .

It isn't a fact if it hasn't been proven, therefore it is redundant to say "proven fact".

 

[bruto]

I think there's a difference among challenges to the "orthodox view." It is, of course, possible at times to challenge an orthodox view because one has a better idea, or better data, or better technique, and win. That is, I think, quite different from some people's conclusion that we should challenge the orthodox view simply because we can.

 

[psionl0]

It isn't a fact if it hasn't been proven, therefore it is redundant to say "proven fact".

Who cares? You are not so unintelligent that you didn't understand my point. This stand on semantics proves that you just want to be disagreeable.

 

[ynot]

"What's the first rule of critical thinking?"

Thinking there's a first rule of critical thinking isn't critical thinking.

 

[AmyStrange]

"What's the first rule of critical thinking?"

Thinking there's a first rule of critical thinking isn't critical thinking.

Ok, I'll bite, so what's the first thing you do when you critically think something through?

 

[ynot]

Ok, I'll bite, so what's the first thing you do when you critically think something through?

Critical thinking doesn't require doing a "first thing".

ETA - Other than starting the process of course (there's no "first way" of starting).

 

[psionl0]

Thinking there's a first rule of critical thinking isn't critical thinking.

Critical thinking doesn't require doing a "first thing".

I don't know if you are making a semantic point or if you are arguing that a haphazard approach to a thinking exercise is better than a structured approach.

 

[AmyStrange]

Critical thinking doesn't require doing a "first thing".

In other words, what you're saying is that critical thinking is not a one rule fits all kind of situation.

Ok, I can see that, but that's you and not me.

ETA: You realize that you're critically analyzing my original statement by analyzing my assumption (that there is a first rule) by saying there is no first rule. Seems to me that you're using the first rule right there.

 

[novaphile]

And what is the orthodox view about the earth being round and orbits around the sun?

That's easy, the Earth isn't round, it's an oblate spheroid, and it doesn't orbit around the sun, the sun and the earth both orbit the solar system's centre of mass. (Which is inside the sun)

(That's one way that we discover extra solar planets, i.e. the 'wobbling' of stars)

 

[ynot]

In other words, what you're saying is that critical thinking is not a one rule fits all kind of situation.

Ok, I can see that, but that's you and not me.

Your initial "one rule that fits all kind of situation" attempt . . .

I believe that it's not to assume anything

you almost immediately admitted is "limited" . . .

You're right, assuming nothing has its limits, and you have to know which assumptions are worth looking into.

Seems you don't have a "first rule" but think there should be one for some reason. Perhaps like pision10 you think critical thinking would be haphazard and unstructured without a "first rule"?

 

[ynot]

I don't know if you are making a semantic point or if you are arguing that a haphazard approach to a thinking exercise is better than a structured approach.

Neither a semantic point nor haphazard.

 

[Pixel42]

I'm not sure there's a first rule as such, but I think the key to critical thinking is understanding that everyone has cognitive biases, malleable memories and perceptual limitations which can fool them into believing things that aren't true. Just because something seems obvious to you, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's true. Critical thinking is a method of determining which of the signals we think we see in the noise are really there.

 

[Venom]

Second rule could be: Favor fallible expertise over armchair research.

Not trust experts over armchairs in every instance--they should be preferred. Nine out of 10 times, the opinion of people whose job it is to be good at their craft is worth more than your half-assed skeptical analysis on a Friday afternoon.

 

[AmyStrange]

I'm not sure there's a first rule as such, but I think the key to critical thinking is understanding that everyone has cognitive biases, malleable memories and perceptual limitations which can fool them into believing things that aren't true. Just because something seems obvious to you, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's true. Critical thinking is a method of determining which of the signals we think we see in the noise are really there.

That makes sense to me and thank you.

Someone on this thread kind of said the same thing:

My first rule is to be more skeptical about anything I emotionally want to be true. My career was designing things that improved on the state of the art. This involves many ideas and some of the more compelling ones were dead ends. I learned early on to focus on the ways an approach could fail and design tests to uncover flaws in my understanding.

I evaluate other information based on how congruent it is with my math and science background. When evaluating things significantly out of my expertise, I evaluate those parts that I am knowledgeable about and make a risk estimate on the overall paper. If interesting, I look for other papers with a different take. Over time one builds up a base of what makes the most sense.

I don't seek agreement or winning arguments. Neither of those increases my understanding of the World.

 

[ynot]

I'm not sure there's a first rule as such, but I think the key to critical thinking is understanding that everyone has cognitive biases, malleable memories and perceptual limitations which can fool them into believing things that aren't true. Just because something seems obvious to you, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's true. Critical thinking is a method of determining which of the signals we think we see in the noise are really there.

Critical thinking methods are like scientific methods, there's no one scientific method that suits all scientific inquiry, and no one critical thinking method that suits all critical thinking endeavour.

I'm comfortable describing critical thinking as being scientific methods applied to thinking.

 

[AmyStrange]

Your initial "one rule that fits all kind of situation" attempt . . .

you almost immediately admitted is "limited" . . .

Seems you don't have a "first rule" but think there should be one for some reason. Perhaps like pision10 you think critical thinking would be haphazard and unstructured without a "first rule"?

Nope. That's an assumption, because if you'll notice, my first rule was not stated as a fact, but as a question that I began by making my own assumption and asking what y'all thought.

As a matter of fact, I've actually agreed with some of the other posters here.

Your answer is as good as anyone else's, including mine, but of course, if you want to argue semantics...

 

[ynot]

Nope. That's an assumption, because if you'll notice, my first rule was not stated as a fact, but as a question that I began by making my own assumption and asking what y'all thought.

As a matter of fact, I've actually agreed with some of the other posters here.

Your answer is as good as anyone else's, including mine, but of course, if you want to argue semantics...

I'm not competing with you. No need to be so catty defensive.

 

[AmyStrange]

I'm not competing with you. No need to be so catty defensive.

Heh, heh, heh. Ok, that's funny and thank you.

 

[ynot]

Heh, heh, heh. Ok, that's funny and thank you.

And thank you for taking it in the way intended

 

[AmyStrange]

Critical thinking methods are like scientific methods, there's no one scientific method that suits all scientific inquiry, and no one critical thinking method that suits all critical thinking endeavour.

I'm comfortable describing critical thinking as being scientific methods applied to thinking.

Actually, there is a kind of structure to the scientific method. The first one (of course) is optional:

1) make sure no one else has done the work before you

2) formulate a theory

3) create experiments to test if the theory is correct

4) and finally, a review by your peers to see if your conclusions can be replicated

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I believe that it's not to assume anything, but what do y'all think?

Probably better is to not assume any conclusion. Get the best evidence. Follow where it goes. Not assuming anything is problematic because it discards the weight of things we know that are based on a heavy weight of evidence.

If we dig into the philosophical weeds, the first rule be that no knowledge of the natural universe is definitively true or false. But that is more philosophy than critical thinking.

In terms of critical thinking, the place to start is with not making any conclusions. Follow the evidence. But there can be assumptions made down that path. But you have to start with no idea of the truth. Even start with the basic question of how we know anything, or if water is wet, or any other such Bobs. Making assumptions for well-established knowledge when evaluating evidence is entirely correct while assumptions of a conclusion is, in most cases, not.

 

[AmyStrange]

Probably better is to not assume any conclusion. Get the best evidence. Follow where it goes. Not assuming anything is problematic because it discards the weight of things we know that are based on a heavy weight of evidence.

If we dig into the philosophical weeds, the first rule be that no knowledge of the natural universe is definitively true or false. But that is more philosophy than critical thinking.

In terms of critical thinking, the place to start is with not making any conclusions. Follow the evidence. But there can be assumptions made down that path. But you have to start with no idea of the truth. Even start with the basic question of how we know anything, or if water is wet, or any other such Bobs. Making assumptions for well-established knowledge when evaluating evidence is entirely correct while assumptions of a conclusion is, in most cases, not.

That all makes sense, especially the last part.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

That's easy, the Earth isn't round, it's an oblate spheroid

This is the kind of 'critical' thinking that gives skeptics a bad name.

What Is Earth? | NASA

Even though our planet is a sphere, it is not a perfect sphere. Because of the force caused when Earth rotates, the North and South Poles are slightly flat. Earth's rotation, wobbly motion and other forces are making the planet change shape very slowly, but it is still round.