What is critical thinking?

[Thomas Hood]

your so-called seven virtues of critical thinking are not in any way indicative of a canon of thought for critical thinking.

That's true, Johnson, because critical thinking isn't thinking. It's emoting.

would you be appeased, ye god of misinterpretation, if it were called something else?

I don't care what it's call, but I would like for people to be more independent, creative, and productive, which some of them will be when they give up the critical thinking shortcut to thinking.

have you taken note that you are the only person trying to defend critical thinking as some kind of institution?

Gee, if I had a crowd behind me I'd feel so much surer of myself Did Alfred Wagener need a crowd? Did Ignaz Semmelweis need a crowd? Did Galileo need a crowd? . . . .

Geo summed it up most elequently:

Critical thinking = Thinking Critically.

There is nothing about it any more scandalous than this TH.

Alas, Johnson, that is scandalous:

A circular definition is one that assumes a prior understanding of the term being defined. By using the term(s) being defined as a part of the definition, a circular definition provides no new or useful information; . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_definition

i present the following example of how critical thinking was employed. . . .

The earth-centric solar system.
Aristotelian Cosmology contended that all objects in the night sky orbited the earth. this was the geocentric model.

With the invention of the telescope it was observed by Galileo that Jupiter appeared to have moons of it's own. 3 dim stars were seen to reside in the space near the colossal planet, when later observed one had disappeared.

Despite what everyone KNEW about the universe and it's workings Galileo could not escape the idea that the apparent stars were orbiting Jupiter.

despite tremendous pressure from without, and the commonly held belief, and surely what he was taught, that the earth was the center and all revolved around it, Galileo confronted his own mis-conceptions about the workings of the universe to work out a heliocentric, or sun-centered, model. . . .

Johnson, you are poorly informed about the history of science. Copernicus died before Galileo was born, and Galileo knew Copernicus's system. The earth was described as a sphere in the Tractatus de Sphaera of Sacrobosco (c. 1195 – c. 1256), the standard medieval textbook in its field. The educated knew that the earth was round and had a good idea of its size. Colombus had difficulty getting support because the scholars in Spain who examined his proposal for the king rejected it since his figures were fudged to minimize the length of the trip. People weren't as ignorant as you suppose.

If you imagine that the irrational groupthink fog that is critical thinking has anything to do with Galileo, you are mistaken.

Tom

[geo]

at this point it seems more like a defense of language against a very confused and hoplessly polarized assertion about what it is we are all supposed to be thinking.

I know I've been incommunicado for a few days. I'm on vacation and I'm doing fun stuff like biking, sailing, kayaking, eating crabs, etc. Also my internet hookup is not great.

This thread has taken off but seemingly not in a very constructive way. Many of us are trying to convince Thomas of the benefits and rewards of using critical thinking in our daily lives and johnson has provided some excellent historic examples of how critical thinking has helped to yield great advances in science. But Thomas is so convinced that critical thinking is a bunch of hooey (I'm paraphrasing here) and I am reminded of that saying that "you cannot reason people out of a position they have not reasoned themselves into."

Then it occurs to me that I don't really know what Thomas' criticisms of critical thinking are. I do suspect that Thomas is harboring precious beliefs that he feels are being threatened, but until he better articulates his position, I don't think it's going to be very useful to argue with him.

For example, Thomas has expressed concerns that critical thinking is part of a liberal agenda. But what does he base this on? Can we have some examples of this liberal conspiracy (if that is what is being alleged)?

That said, I'll have to agree that critical thinking has become a sort of buzz term used in many different situations. We've all expressed here what critical thinking means for us individually, but I wonder, in its general use has critical thinking become a vague sort of term that means think better? Is it possible that critical thinking is being used as a sort of meme?

meme: Richard Dawkins first introduced the word in The Selfish Gene (1976) to discuss evolutionary principles in explaining the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena. He gave as examples melodies, catch-phrases, and beliefs (notably religious belief), clothing/fashion, and the technology of building arches. - Wikipedia

As such, is it possible that critical thinking is being used as a way to propagate group think, only instead of furthering religious ideas it is being used to advance an atheistic or liberal agenda?

I only ask this in the spirit of "Intellectual Courage" one of Ellis' "valuable intellectual traits. Here is that definition again:

Intellectual Courage - Having a consciousness of the need to face and fairly address ideas, beliefs or viewpoints toward which we have strong negative emotions and to which we have not given a serious hearing. This courage is connected with the recognition that ideas considered dangerous or absurd are sometimes rationally justified (in whole or in part) and that conclusions and beliefs inculcated in us are sometimes false or misleading. To determine for ourselves which is which, we must not passively and uncritically "accept" what we have "learned." Intellectual courage comes into play here, because inevitably we will come to see some truth in some ideas considered dangerous and absurd, and distortion or falsity in some ideas strongly held in our social group. We need courage to be true to our own thinking in such circumstances. The penalties for non-conformity can be severe.

So, yes, in a sense I'm thinking critically about the possibility of a larger and distorted use of the term, "critical thinking." Is there some truth there?

[Chris OConnor]

Drunk Driving = driving drunk

[Frank 013]

TH
The truth stands alone.

Oftentimes so do the unreasonable… you are sounding more and more like the latter.

TH
My objection to critical thinking is that it is a compulsory and subjective social activity, not thinking, which in my experience is best done quietly and alone.

And is in fact wrong… so wrong that you are embarrassing yourself and making yourself look like an idiot.

TH
Angela is getting critical thinking (of which she apparently approves) in English 101, a compulsory course, necessary for graduation from college. If she were to resist critical thinking indoctrination, her options in life could be seriously impacted.

Critical thinking classes are not indoctrination but training… but you are correct that by resisting this training she would severely limit her career options… because she would think stupidly.

TH
I hope, Frank, that you will rest your ad hominem arguments for awhile and give us your take on the Seven Virtues of critical thinking:

First of all that definition is just one more of many…

Here is one…

Critical thinking: disciplined intellectual criticism that combines research, knowledge of historical context, and balanced judgment.

Encarta Dictionary

And another

Critical thinking: is purposeful and reflective judgment about what to believe or what to do.

Ennis (1985)

Another…

Critical thinking: Critical thinking is the use of those cognitive skills or strategies that increase the probability of a desirable outcome. It is used to describe thinking that is purposeful, reasoned and goal directed - the kind of thinking involved in solving problems, formulating inferences, calculating likelihoods, and making decisions when the thinker is using skills that are thoughtful and effective for the particular context and type of thinking task. Critical thinking also involves evaluating the thinking process - the reasoning that went into the conclusion we've arrived at the kinds of factors considered in making a decision. Critical thinking is sometimes called directed thinking because it focuses on a desired outcome.

Halpern, Diane F. Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking. 1996.

Another…

Critical thinking: Critical thinking is the development of cohesive and logical reasoning patterns.

Stahl and Stahl, 1991.

Another…

Critical thinking: Critical thinking is careful and deliberate determination of whether to accept, reject, or suspend judgment.

Moore and Parker, 1994.

Another…

Critical thinking: Critical thinking is "a process which stresses an attitude of suspended judgment, incorporates logical inquiry and problem solving, and leads to an evaluative decision or action."

NCTE Committee on Critical Thinking and the Language Arts.

That is just a few of the many I have found…

Do you have any idea why critical thinking has so many definitions?

Because it is a process, a tool that can be used many ways, there is no one way to think critically. I do think that Geo may have hit on an important point the term critical thinking may be a buzz term for any rational, logical thinking process that repeatedly yields accurate results.

This seems to be supported by the vast number of definitions out there.

There are of course rules and “virtues” that help a person better manage their thinking process, but those guidelines are not propaganda any more than learning the rules of algebra is propaganda.

Finally sharing my views with you on the virtues of critical thinking would be wasted effort… you have already made up your mind… however (for the rest of the participants) I think those are good guidelines to strive for when thinking… and I think Suzanne did a good job of showing how those “virtues” work when thinking critically.

Later

[Robert Tulip]

critical thinking has become a sort of buzz term used in many different situations. We've all expressed here what critical thinking means for us individually, but I wonder, in its general use has critical thinking become a vague sort of term that means think better? Is it possible that critical thinking is being used as a sort of meme?...As such, is it possible that critical thinking is being used as a way to propagate group think, only instead of furthering religious ideas it is being used to advance an atheistic or liberal agenda?…So, yes, in a sense I'm thinking critically about the possibility of a larger and distorted use of the term, "critical thinking." Is there some truth there?

Great post Geo. A sociological decomposition of critical thinking will reveal its association with key liberal trends. Primarily, critical thinking is hostile to religious acceptance of received wisdom, preferring to assess all claims against scientific evidence. It is a movement originating with Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, a main inaugural enlightenment text of critical thought, and very influential on enlightenment thought in the USA.

Social assumptions which flow from Kantian logic, such ideas as modernity, science, reason, liberty, are seen as intrinsically critical, while traditional reaction to these ideas of the enlightenment is seen as backward, ignorant and self-serving. Kant was known as the ‘all-destroyer’ for applying critical reason to assessment of religious claims, so this problem, essentially the merits of piety, is a central issue for philosophy and culture.

The critical attitude is good, but it can also calcify in an uncritical way into a sort of group view, for example the assumption that atheism is smart and theism is stupid. People holding this assumption will use it as a prejudice, seeing religious language as stupid and backward and scientific language as intelligent and progressive, and considering society as split between good (modern) and evil (traditional). The problem here is that such divisions are very unclear and dubious. There is a lot in traditional culture which is valid and adaptive, but modern culture has a tendency to want to sweep all tradition away. Of course this tendency is chastened by memory of the tumbrils and the terror, but revolutionary fanaticism remains beneath the surface in the condescending attitudes of moderns towards piety and ritual.

RT

[Frank 013]

TH
If you imagine that the irrational groupthink fog that is critical thinking has anything to do with Galileo, you are mistaken.

Here lies the problem… TH will find a way to reject any example offered by finding flaws in the material even though those flaws have nothing to do with the method of thinking used by the person of interest.

The fact remains that Galileo had to honestly consider data that had not been seen before and he had to challenge earlier assumptions of the solar system to do it, this thought process led him to his new and original conclusions.

Like it or not, the above process is indicative of critical thinking.

Later

[Chris OConnor]

I never thought I would live to see the day where someone argues against critical thinking.

[Frank 013]

Robert Tulip
The critical attitude is good, but it can also calcify in an uncritical way into a sort of group view, for example the assumption that atheism is smart and theism is stupid. People holding this assumption will use it as a prejudice, seeing religious language as stupid and backward and scientific language as intelligent and progressive, and considering society as split between good (modern) and evil (traditional). The problem here is that such divisions are very unclear and dubious. There is a lot in traditional culture which is valid and adaptive, but modern culture has a tendency to want to sweep all tradition away. Of course this tendency is chastened by memory of the tumbrels and the terror, but revolutionary fanaticism remains beneath the surface in the condescending attitudes of moderns towards piety and ritual.

Well TH seems to think that theists should expect such prejudice, surely you must be aware that in the minds of many people theists are all associated with all of the “tumbrels and terror” of the past as well as its totalitarian nature…

I refer you to TH’s logic on the matter…

TH
About the discrimination you have experienced as an atheist, surely you are aware that in the minds of many persons, atheism and its rebellion against tradition has been a main prop of atheistic totalitarianism. When you are considered to be part of such a horror, you should expect others to be punitive.

Of course I seriously doubt that he thought that his logic would be used in such a matter… but that is the problem with lacking common sense.

But I do not believe that that is good logic anyway… a person should only be judged on their individual merit and actions, not solely on their beliefs, irrational or otherwise.

Seriously though you do make a good point… people who embrace the virtues of critical thinking sometimes do abandon religion and its few truly virtuous aspects… but I suspect that that is because they realize that those aspects are commonplace in our culture and religion is not needed to be a healthy and happy person.

I do not know weather or not that realization leads to prejudice, most atheists have religious friends… we have to… there are not enough atheists out there to have them exclusively as friends… if that were the case I would have no friends locally… I have yet to meet another atheist here in rural New York.

Are there prejudice atheists? Sure, almost certainly… but as a persecuted group in America it is possible that the prejudice you mention is a result of active bigotry and not the belief of the individual targeted by prejudice.

However you may notice that religious belief and the bigotry towards atheists go hand in hand.

You may also note that atheists rarely, if ever, scrutinize the beliefs of Wiccans or Buddhists… did you ever wonder why?

It’s because those religions do not actively try to convert or demonize us… Christians do.

I think any prejudice you may see is most often a retort to the demonizing theists, not one of intellectual elitism.

Of course this is only my opinion, but I think it’s worth consideration.

Later

[Frank 013]

TH
Yes, I agree. It is a fine example of the Seven Virtues of Critical Thinking, -- and also of its Seven Deadly Sins. Instead of turning to text and context autonomously and making up your mind independently, you are dependent upon another person for your views. Critical thinking replaces objective, independent thought with social dependence.

Here you go stretching the truth again… Suzanne is not dependant on Aussie_Lifter’s opinion but she is willing to consider it and in doing so she may find a more suitable approach to the material.

You may note that Suzanne did come to her own conclusion but remained open to other ideas as to the meaning of the reading.

And finally she is going to read the book again to confirm the material… showing that she is willing to independently research the material and confirm Aussie_Lifter’s opinion.

Your claims that she is dependant on another and that she did not make an independent judgment are both wrong, and that can easily be seen by reading her post.

TH
However pleasant the social activities of Critical thinking may be to some, they cannot replaces objective work -- personal investigation, research, and responsibility.

I wonder if you are aware just how contradictory your idea of critical thinking is.

First of all critical thinking is often times not very pleasant… it involves putting aside your personal view and truly exploring credible opposing views.

Secondly… when you research what do you think you are looking at?

It’s another person’s studies and findings on the topic… according to you that information cannot be considered because then you will be socially dependant.

We are all socially dependant for our information, and that is why critical thinking is so important, we need a good tool for separating the junk from the truth... critical thinking has proven itself to be the best tool to date.

You can whine and cry about it and try to discredit it but its record speaks for itself.

You might see this if you could let go of your prejudice for just a moment.

Finally critical thinking is the most responsible approach, especially if the truth of the matter is of any importance, which I gather from your arguments, is NOT important to you.

You would rather be a cry baby calling life unfair because the fairest way of thinking makes religion look irrational…

Would a pacifier help stop your whining?



Later

[geo]

It is a fine example of the Seven Virtues of Critical Thinking, -- and also of its Seven Deadly Sins. Instead of turning to text and context autonomously and making up your mind independently, you are dependent upon another person for your views. Critical thinking replaces objective, independent thought with social dependence.

This is absolute nonsense. The "acquired behavior patterns" of a critical thinker are what some guy came up and posted on his blog. It's just a web site, dude. No one here had ever seen Ellis' blog, much less incorporated Ellis' random thoughts into some sort of creed. I thought Ellis' examination of critical thinking was interesting, nothing more. You are simply making stuff up, Thomas. The question is why?

Are there prejudice atheists? Sure, almost certainly… but as a persecuted group in America it is possible that the prejudice you mention is a result of active bigotry and not the belief of the individual targeted by prejudice.

However you may notice that religious belief and the bigotry towards atheists go hand in hand.

You may also note that atheists rarely, if ever, scrutinize the beliefs of Wiccans or Buddhists… did you ever wonder why?

It’s because those religions do not actively try to convert or demonize us… Christians do.

I think any prejudice you may see is most often a retort to the demonizing theists, not one of intellectual elitism.

Of course this is only my opinion, but I think it’s worth consideration.

Later

These are excellent points. Atheists are an oppressed minority group in America. As such, we have to respond forcefully just to make ourselves heard. Even so, many people will do anything to shut us up (including imagining atheism to be something akin to Naziism). The word "atheist" is constantly being misconstrued to mean something sinister and foreign. Even on this board we have to continually remind people that "atheist" only means without belief in God. At the very least, most people seem to insist on believing it means an active disbelief in God despite that most atheists are the agnostic variety. Agnostic atheists simply accept the fact that there is not evidence to support an active belief in God.

Yes, there are militant thinkers out there, but I have no doubt that theist militants outnumber the atheist militants simply by virtue of the fact that there are so many more theists than atheists.

The critical attitude is good, but it can also calcify in an uncritical way into a sort of group view, for example the assumption that atheism is smart and theism is stupid. People holding this assumption will use it as a prejudice, seeing religious language as stupid and backward and scientific language as intelligent and progressive, and considering society as split between good (modern) and evil (traditional). The problem here is that such divisions are very unclear and dubious. There is a lot in traditional culture which is valid and adaptive, but modern culture has a tendency to want to sweep all tradition away. Of course this tendency is chastened by memory of the tumbrils and the terror, but revolutionary fanaticism remains beneath the surface in the condescending attitudes of moderns towards piety and ritual.

RT

Yes, there is a danger with any rising social group (and despite the lack of organization, I think atheists are certainly a rising social group), falling into group think, prejudice, and the assumption of superiority. I think atheists need to be aware of this and fight against it. The fact that atheist attitudes and thoughts are being distributed in meme-like fashion is not necessarily a bad thing. This mechanism which enables the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena can distribute good things just as well as the bad. But yes, we have to be on the watch for the calcification into group think that you speak of.

As for leaving traditional culture behind, maybe the Bible is becoming irrelevant because it is, in fact, irrelevant. Christianity has had its day and maybe it's time to move on to something else? However, to some degree I can understand your regret, Robert. Change is happening at an alarming rate but I do think it's mostly technologically driven. Think about how slow things must have been ten thousand years ago when generations would go by without any measurable change at all. I'm reading Harold Bloom's How to read and Why and he laments that our rapidly moving culture is leaving behind many great classics of literature. Beowulf, Milton, Joyce, Proust, etc.

I have acknowledged that the common reader now requires mediation to read Paradise Lost with full appreciation, and I fear that relatively few will make the attempt. This is a great sorrow, and true cultural loss. Why read so difficult and so erudite an epic poem? One could make the historical plea; Milton is as much the central Protestant poet as Dante is the central poet-prophet of Catholicism. Our culture and sensibility, even our religion, in the United States are in many subtle respects more post-Protestant than Protestant, yet hardly to be comprehended without some clear sense of the Protestant spirit. That spirit achieved its apotheosis in Paradise Lost, and an adventurous reader would be well counseled to brave the difficulties.

So it is perhaps inevitable for human beings to suffer great cultural loss as we speed towards whatever the future brings us. In fact, maybe in a hundred years books will be found only in museums.