Critical thinking

[MrSpock]

@Progster said "We aren't born with knowledge, all knowledge comes from some source or another, and that source is often just one opinion, one presentation of a complex issue, or just one interpretation of one person."

There is knowledge that exists independently of us and which would be true even if there were nobody to think it. For example mathematics works the way that it has to, if there is another planet where beings are adding, subtracting, multiplying etc. the effect is the same as when we do it. They may use different symbols, a different base number, however there are undeniable rules which are not arbitrary despite the arbitrariness with which they may be expressed. Mathematics is truly objective.

Just as there is a real mathematics which exists independently of the people using mathematics, so logic is independent of us. I think that this logic, besides being that which rightly determines how we organize knowledge in our minds, is also knowledge in it's own right. Successful critical thinking must at all times respect this a priori knowledge, and an accurate worldview must abide by these rules whilst building a model of reality that contains no internal contradictions.

This may be what @Theodiskaz was referring to when he said "That's when I used clear critical thinking remove logical flaws inconsistencies and contradictions as well as old beliefs and associations inculcated upon me when I was young. I decided to try to be fully intentional about everything that I believed to be true."


@Propianotuner said "I'm actually given to understand that this reliance on emotions at a base level is logical itself."

Emotions give us a reason to act in the first place. Without emotion we might be content to starve to death, however hunger drives us to eat. While there may be no purely logical reason to eat, we might say "Given that we wish to eat, it is then logical that...". I would suggest that critical reasoning cannot be held to pure logic before the statement "Given that...", however after that point we might reasonably expect a series of statements to answer to logic and factual circumstances alone.


@Propianotuner said "Everyone does have basic critical thinking skills because it is an inherent feature of the species."

Agreed, however applying this idea to the term 'critical thinking skills' robs it of meaning. We might more productively accept that when we say 'critical thinking' we mean 'better than average critical thinking among humans'. In contrast consider speed walkers. There are people who put effort into walking significantly faster than others do. A slower walker may point out that ants walk much more slowly than they do, therefore any human who walks is a speed walker. While not incorrect, this point of view is one from which it's not easy to see the difference in walking that is readily apparent to many. Given that the topic is that specific difference, bringing ants into the equation serves to bring shadow, not light, to the conversation.


Regarding stubbornness and speaking only for myself, I have often been called stubborn, however I (stubbornly?) refuse to admit to it. If I am presented with more compelling evidence against an idea than I have for it I will change my mind. What others seem to fail to understand is that I have often put a great deal of thought into something before forming an opinion in the first place, and they seem to think that a small amount of evidence ought to be enough to counter the overwhelming evidence I already have. It is not. That's not going to change, and it's not stubbornness. If you do present such evidence as is necessary, it will then be even more difficult for someone else to change my opinion again.

 

[sidd851]

While I definitely sympathize with this kind of experience I can't relate to it as much because I'm quite unsure of what "accuracy" and "truth" look like in the first place. If anything can get tiresome for me, it's the same emotional mess you're referring to but rather its propensity to get in the way of healthy self skepticism.

It was not until I tamped down my propensity for self-skepticism, and self doubt, that I finally realized that I was an immensely better problem-solver, analyst, engineer than Jane or Joe Emotive.
Only when I began to ignore the derisive, baseless, smug, self-aggrandizing, other-deprecating stuff, did I realize that I was far more talented than I could have hoped, and quite aware as to how to improve that talent, and thus, my performance.
Fast-paced industrial maintenance...
Science's Playground!
Hyper-awareness had rarely felt so good, or been so directly responsible for my welfare.
So I taught myself tunnelvision, tuned out everything else and prospered. As I realize that there was a first element to the scope of your observation, I will address it:
Because we cannot ultimately define "truth" (in this sense), and hence we cannot know whether we have achieved said state or understanding does not mean that it does
not behoove us to hedge along toward it, improving our vantage and perspective of it as we progress, making it a relative truth, and I'm okay with that. As long as I am improving. As for "accuracy", it is a little more absolute. You can refine your ability for estimation, pushing thresholds tighter and smaller-- the bohemian definition of accuracy, and I'm okay with that too... (see Fermi, Trinity Test)
As to emotion in my observations, hypotheses, remediations; I (seem) utterly devoid of it, as everything becomes a numbers game, fact comparison, formulas and equations---mathematics...
Where's the emotion in mathematics?
I will admit to the use of intuition(as ephemeral as the definition of that would be), when the situation has become overly complicated, BUT... My best information is colored by my intuition---not the obverse,
and so, using a relative scale, one can press on toward the goal in lieu of "at it".
I don't have to be the best, I only have to be better than everyone else, and I'm okay with that, too.

 

[Fridgemagnetman]

behoove

10 points

 

[FlowerChild]

Hmm - interesting question! As a university teacher, I often have to grade my students' abilities in 'critical thinking'. Students who score poorly in critical thinking tend to merely repeat what they've been told--they will not 'engage' with that information, as such. Comparatively, a good to excellent critical thinking skillset is measured in the following ways, depending primarily upon the sophistication of the student's *engagement* with course materials:

For a student to get a B in critical thinking:

• Can they go beyond paraphrasing what they've been taught in class, and apply that knowledge to examples of their own choosing? So, if I say, "give an example of 'Concept A'"--do they merely repeat the example that I've put in my presentation slides, or do they identify a creative answer of their own?

For a student to get a low-mid A in critical thinking, all of the above and:

• Can they critique information, rather than assume that it is fact?
  
• Can they go beyond explaining the concepts we cover in the course, and critically analyse those concepts; can they highlight the strengths and limitations of these concepts, for example?
• Can they independently propose potential solutions to weaknesses and limitations of these concepts?

For a student to score a high-A in critical thinking (this tends to only be the top 5-10% of the class) all of the above and:

• Can they formulate a novel and creative argument and/or application using the concepts in question?
• Can they subsequently critique their OWN work and ideas--what are the strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of their own arguments, for example?
• Can they take a nuanced approach identifying the 'grey areas' of a debate, or is everything black and white / right or wrong to them? Can they use examples to show a nuanced understanding?

How my students lose marks for critical thinking:

• I often get students writing essays that are purely descriptive; they give a lot of examples, without interpreting what those examples mean in any way
  
• simply summarising the prescribed readings from the courses I teach, or paraphrasing my lecture/teaching materials

The students who consistently achieve higher results in my subjects are those who can demonstrate an ability to 'critically engage' with the subject matter at hand. Interestingly, it's very rare to have an essay score well in critical thinking and poorly in everything else, but very frequent to score well in everything except for critical thinking--if they can think critically, their overall skillset (writing, argument, research, etc.) is generally very highly developed. Make of that what you will!

 

[Johann]

One longtime and passionate obsession of mine has been the idea of critical thinking. I've often asked myself: what is critical thinking? How well can I do it and how well do people in general do it, especially in comparison to the way they perceive their ability to think critically?

In the past I read much on forums for people with ASD about how folks on the spectrum tend to place more of a premium on being sober-minded and making logical assessments. As I've carefully practiced and studied the art of reasoning I've found that this may not be all that true, and most importantly that I need a more modest sense of self awareness, that I should be just as quick, if not more so, to recognize my own failures to reason well about the world around me.

How do you understand critical thinking? How much of the time do you believe you can do it to your satisfaction?

What a terrifying question to begin to answer. This is a question of much complexity and nuance. I am afraid that I wont even be able to scratch the surface of the question without much contemplation over the underlying and foundational questions that the aforementioned question is built on. But, I will give it a shot.

Simplest Definition: Conscious goal-oriented thinking.

Simple Definition: A cognitive simulation where one carefully and attentively moves towards some goal or end result.

Complex Definition: A standardized and systematic internal manipulation of cognitive representations of knowledge, that embody either real or imaginary states of the world, with the intent of accomplishing a goal or sufficing to some result.

If anyone wants me to explain some of these ideas further, I am happy to provide further explanation.

 

[Propianotuner]

Simplest Definition: Conscious goal-oriented thinking.

I'm not sure I understand what the first two have to do with the 'critical' part but I suppose it is a kind of thinking.

Simple Definition: A cognitive simulation where one carefully and attentively moves towards some goal or end result.

What does simulation have to do with critical thinking?

Complex Definition: A standardized and systematic internal manipulation of cognitive representations of knowledge, that embody either real or imaginary states of the world, with the intent of accomplishing a goal or sufficing to some result.

-Why does critical thinking have to have some goal or result to be what it is?

-No offense, but "a standardized and systematic internal manipulation of cognitive representations of knowledge" sounds like word salad to me. It's not just abstruse, it simply doesn't make sense so far as I can tell. It would help if you could take this out of its packaging.

I'm all for employing a voluminous vocabulary, but precision, clarity, and a reasonable degree of simplicity are more important in communication. Technical terms are reserved for specifically technical contexts, not such contexts as these. If we're talking about something standardized it makes more sense to talk about a glossary or encyclopedia. If we're talking about something systematic then, as before, it makes more sense to talk about some philosophical or theological treatise that makes an attempt at being systematic.

But we're talking about a general subject. If and when a technical subject is brought to bear on the question it's sensible to use technical terms. Using a series of redundant technical terms merely as an intelligent way to state a decent definition doesn't serve as a functional, complex definition, because it doesn't help us to understand anything more of the complexities of the subject. It helps us to understand that someone can form a complex sentence.

 

[the_tortoise]

Interestingly, it's very rare to have an essay score well in critical thinking and poorly in everything else, but very frequent to score well in everything except for critical thinking--if they can think critically, their overall skillset (writing, argument, research, etc.) is generally very highly developed. Make of that what you will!

What comes to my mind is this:

Those who struggle with written language may have such difficulty that they cannot express any critical analysis in writing, even if they have highly developed critical thinking skills (some may have overall difficulty with expressive language, and be unable to demonstrate critical thinking skills verbally or in writing). Such a person might also have difficulty understanding the information presented to them (receptive language issues), which could limit (to whatever degree) their ability to conduct a critical analysis in the first place but, again, not necessarily indicate that they lack highly developed critical thinking skills.

For individuals whose thoughts are mostly/entirely words/narrative, the development of good written and verbal communication skills seems like it could be a pre-requisite for the development of critical thinking skills...but this is just a guess, since that's not how I think and I don't really understand how it works.

 

[Johann]

-Why does critical thinking have to have some goal or result to be what it is?

-No offense, but "a standardized and systematic internal manipulation of cognitive representations of knowledge" sounds like word salad to me. It's not just abstruse, it simply doesn't make sense so far as I can tell. It would help if you could take this out of its packaging.

I'm all for employing a voluminous vocabulary, but precision, clarity, and a reasonable degree of simplicity are more important in communication. Technical terms are reserved for specifically technical contexts, not such contexts as these. If we're talking about something standardized it makes more sense to talk about a glossary or encyclopedia. If we're talking about something systematic then, as before, it makes more sense to talk about some philosophical or theological treatise that makes an attempt at being systematic.

But we're talking about a general subject. If and when a technical subject is brought to bear on the question it's sensible to use technical terms. Using a series of redundant technical terms merely as an intelligent way to state a decent definition doesn't serve as a functional, complex definition, because it doesn't help us to understand anything more of the complexities of the subject. It helps us to understand that someone can form a complex sentence.

No offence taken. I tried to think about thinking and critical thinking simultaneously. The complex definition includes some ideas of both. I think it best to start with an explanation of the proposed complex definition.

"A standardized and systematic internal manipulation of cognitive representations of knowledge, that embody either real or imaginary states of the world, with the intent of accomplishing a goal or sufficing to some result. "

Standardized: Thinking that fulfills norms adequate to describe critical thinking. These norms could consist of conscious thinking of which one is aware(cognito, ergo sum), explicit rather than implicit, norms that enforce attempts to be logical, rational, and optimal, a standard process of evaluating, synthesizing, conceptualizing, information, etc.

Systematic: Thinking that is governed by constraints and not just random generated associations. Another way to put it is thinking that adheres to some overarching method in order to contain and focus one's thoughts clearly and consciously.

Internal Manipulation: The information/knowledge/concepts, however, you want to think about it, must be manipulated to some threshold. For example, using heuristics(mental shortcuts), wouldn't manipulate the information enough to be considered "critical" thinking.

Cognitive Representations of Knowledge: Simply, the "knowledge" must adhere to some state of the world. Additionally, I wanted to emphasize the subjectivity of these representations of knowledge. Not that these representations of knowledge cant adhere to objective reality but, often they will be subjective. That is, conforming to ones own perception of reality. With that said, in critical thinking I think these representations are selected consciously.

Real/Imaginary States of the World: Although the knowledge must adhere to some state of the world, the "world" can be real or imaginary. By real, I mean, that it truly exists in reality. For example, if you were to think about trees, you would be thinking about an object that is "real". However, thinking can also include a world of fantasy. Like, if you would think about a unicorn. As a caveat, the fantasy world would still be governed by laws, but those laws would adhere to the laws created by the fantasy world creator(yourself).

Goal: It takes a great deal of energy to think critically. It costs something. One has to have motivation to do so and I am connecting that motivation to goal-setting. Some goal has induced one to think critically and critical thinking is part of a solution to that goal.

Sufficing to some result: Simply, motivation and goals can change. You may have had a goal in mind but, feel you have explored the idea to your satisfaction in distinction of your initial goal and thus, stopped prior to it. Another example, if you could have realized the method you are using isn't sufficient to accomplish your goal and thus, need to go about it another way; to be critical.


These are just some of my initial thoughts and ideas.

 

[Johann]

I'm not sure I understand what the first two have to do with the 'critical' part but I suppose it is a kind of thinking.
What does simulation have to do with critical thinking?

When I use the phrase "cognitive simulation" in the sentence, I mean that thinking takes the form of cognitive simulation. That is, thinking starts with some real or abstract simulation of the world where simulated operations are carried out to modify that world to some end. If those operations are done carefully and attentively, I would consider the thinking to be critical.

I'm not sure I understand what the first two have to do with the 'critical' part but I suppose it is a kind of thinking.

"Simplest Definition: Conscious goal-oriented thinking."

Just not subconscious. I dont think subconscious thinking is "critical" in the "active" sense. I think critical thinking is "active" and requires "awareness" if you will. Although, I do think subconscious processing is a type of thinking. I wouldn't categorize it as critical in the way I am defining it.

Judgments, Decision-making, Problem-solving, Reasoning, etc., all sub-fields of thinking that are interrelated and present difficulty, for me, in thinking about where critical thinking stands in relation to those fields and thinking as a whole. Everything that I stated was an initial attempt in reconciling the difficulty for the community, you, and myself.

I hope this helps.

P.S. It would be helpful for me if anyone would like to add their critiques of my initial thoughts. I am here to grow

 

[NecroCurator]

Hi!

This was an interesting thread to read. I am not going to address individual posts, as there are quite many that I should address, so excuse me if I barge in here and start explaining, apparently out of nowhere.

One thing that I was tought right at the start, is that there is no "right" definition for critical thinking or reason. If one theory of reason absolutely relied on a specific definition, the theory would collapse upon a simple changing of the spoken language. So for starters, modern philosophers avoid definitions, unless there are very clear and obvious ones. If there is something truly profound to say about reason, it should be sayable independently of definitions.

That being said, there ought to be some clarity as to what we are talking about. For example, a psychologist might study reason as it is, meaning as a biological ability that came about as a result of evolution. While that field of study is indeed interesting, it is quite pointless when regarding critical thinking. Philosophers study reason as it ought to be, which makes logic and critical thinking more about the ethics of thinking, rather than the study of the structure of thinking. (Which, again, is a field for psychologists.)

When you think about it, this makes much sense. Looking at what reason is, we find a jungle of cognitive biases and selective use of reason. This is not what we mean when we think about critical thinking. We should be aware that this is close to the field of ethics, and as such there is much relativism and ideology as to it's contents.

With this in mind it is still an open case whether or not autistic people are "smarter". Certainly autistic people think alot of humbug, but interestingly enough, psychologists think it might be a sign of a smart person. As mentioned, reason as it is has flaws, and one of those flaws is that it's evolutionary purpose is to explain views, not to form them. Intelligent people are better at rationalizing their views, and as such, can more vehemetly keep views that they gained for non-smart reasons. Simpler people cannot defend their points in arguments, and as such are preassured to eventually change their views. I will put a link here below.

Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds

This bring us to an interesting feature of reason as it ought to be. The thing with even highly formalized systems of logic, is that you can pretty much justify anything with them. Professional logicians actually try to avoid making their arguments logically infallible, because that's usually a sign that there is something wrong with those arguments. To put it in layman's terms: If your argument is true regardless of how the world goes, then your argument does not tell about the world. More probably it tells us something about your system of logic.

For an example, the theory of evolution is not strong because it is logically infallible. On the contrary, the theory states very simple and technically easy ways to completely tear the theory apart. For example, a simple finding of a dog fossil in pre-cambrian era would absolutely tear open the theory of evolution. The theory is strong presicely because it "gives weapons" in the hands of it's enemies, and still doesn't fall. Contrast this with the market theory of economics, which is somewhat older, and is formed to be logically infallible. That is to say that you can't go to a market and find a price which would question the market theory of economics.

More interestingly, even if to be logically true is a bad thing, to prove something logically false is a very potent argument. That is to say, if you prove something logically contradictory, it means that the argument can't even follow the logical system that it set for itself.

Also about thinking: reason can be instinctional or deliberate, and it can be well founded or poorly founded. These two dualities are separate, and can be combined in any way. Instinctional reason can be well founded, and deliberate reason can be poorly founded. We shouldn't get stuck on the question of whether or not someone is well reasonable by nature or by education.

There was also a mention of motivation earlier, which is important. As stated, reason as it is can be used for basically any goal one wants to. This is a problem, as it means you can justify something with reason if you want to. This doesn't mean that you must kill all your ideologies and emotions, as plenty of things fall outside the realm of reason. It does mean however, that you are not being very polite if you engage in an argument but have no intention of changing your mind. If you think something irregardless of what reason says, it is good manners to admit as much, at least to yourself if not to others.

Sorry if this went on a bit, but this topic touches on my special interest/education. I went on a rambling mode a bit, but trust me, this is still quite contained. I am also translating alot of things into english, so I will not quarantee that all terms are academically valid in english.

 

[Kyou Nukui]

I like this thread.
I am not in the mood or awake enough for writing a sixteen paragraph explanation of why I agree with most of the last three pages of posts (and its a total pain to type out long replies on this phone that constantly malfunctions!) but I just wanted to say. You lot are great. I'm so glad that I found this forum.