|
Post by beth on Feb 21, 2011 20:58:49 GMT -5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is Critical Thinking? No one always acts purely objectively and rationally. We connive for selfish interests. We gossip, boast, exaggerate, and equivocate. It is "only human" to wish to validate our prior knowledge, to vindicate our prior decisions, or to sustain our earlier beliefs. In the process of satisfying our ego, however, we can often deny ourselves intellectual growth and opportunity. We may not always want to apply critical thinking skills, but we should have those skills available to be employed when needed.
Critical thinking includes a complex combination of skills. Among the main characteristics are the following:
Rationality We are thinking critically when we rely on reason rather than emotion, require evidence, ignore no known evidence, and follow evidence where it leads, and are concerned more with finding the best explanation than being right analyzing apparent confusion and asking questions.
Self-awareness We are thinking critically when we weigh the influences of motives and bias, and recognize our own assumptions, prejudices, biases, or point of view.
Honesty We are thinking critically when we recognize emotional impulses, selfish motives, nefarious purposes, or other modes of self-deception.
Open-mindedness We are thinking critically when we evaluate all reasonable inferences consider a variety of possible viewpoints or perspectives, remain open to alternative interpretations accept a new explanation, model, or paradigm because it explains the evidence better, is simpler, or has fewer inconsistencies or covers more data accept new priorities in response to a reevaluation of the evidence or reassessment of our real interests, and do not reject unpopular views out of hand.
Discipline We are thinking critically when we are precise, meticulous comprehensive, and exhaustive resist manipulation and irrational appeals, and avoid snap judgments.
Judgment We are thinking critically when we recognize the relevance and/or merit of alternative assumptions and perspectives recognize the extent and weight of evidence
In sum,
Critical thinkers are by nature skeptical. They approach texts with the same skepticism and suspicion as they approach spoken remarks.
Critical thinkers are active, not passive. They ask questions and analyze. They consciously apply tactics and strategies to uncover meaning or assure their understanding.
Critical thinkers do not take an egotistical view of the world. They areopento new ideas and perspectives. They are willing to challenge their beliefs and investigate competing evidence.
Critical thinking enables us to recognize a wide range of subjective analyses of otherwise objective data, and to evaluate how well each analysis might meet our needs. Facts may be facts, but how we interpret them may vary.
By contrast, passive, non-critical thinkers take a simplistic view of the world.
They see things in black and white, as either-or, rather than recognizing a variety of possible understanding.
They see questions as yes or no with no subtleties.
They fail to see linkages and complexities.
They fail to recognize related elements.
Non-critical thinkers take an egotistical view of the world
They taketheirfacts as the only relevant ones.
They taketheir ownperspective as the only sensible one.
They taketheir goalas the only valid one.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 21, 2011 21:02:00 GMT -5
It's my opinion, based on years of observation, that good text communicators are, more often than not, critical thinkers. Are you? If so, under what circumstances do you use critical thought most?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2011 7:44:18 GMT -5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What is Critical Thinking?... In sum, ....Critical thinkers are by natureskeptical. They approach texts with the same skepticism and suspicion as they approach spoken remarks..... Dear Beth, <ok> I agree with most of your OP except this one. This is a fallacy I recognised nearly 4 decades ago when I embarked on my post-graduate research work. Above all, good researcher must be NEUTRAL; i.e. neither skeptic nor gullible. He'she must regard both the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis with equal lack of passion or commitment. He/she must be prepared to go wherever the evidence and analysis leads. Regards. Prashna
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2011 7:45:56 GMT -5
1. It's my opinion, based on years of observation, that good text communicators are, more often than not, critical thinkers. 2. If so, under what circumstances do you use critical thought most? 1. I concur. 2. Always. Prashna
|
|
|
Post by biglin on Feb 22, 2011 9:29:57 GMT -5
It's my opinion, based on years of observation, that good text communicators are, more often than not, critical thinkers. Are you? If so, under what circumstances do you use critical thought most? I guess it depends on what you mean by 'critical thinking.' If you mean not being dogmatic, being open to other points of view, not letting prejudices get in the way of uncomfortable facts, then I suppose I am. If I'm weighing up decisions I do try to look at them honestly and take what I think is the most rational course of action. On the other hand, it depends on the situation as well. A lot of times in life you just have to react instantly and follow your hunches. The funny thing is that statistics show that, for instance, businessmen who follow their hunches do BETTER than those who invest millions in R & D so go figure! And, of course, I don't pretend that I'm not mainly someone who feels passionately, cares deeply and speaks from the heart. Heart without head is blind but head without heart is dead! (Don't know if any of that makes sense LOL!)
|
|
Jessiealan
xr
Member of the Month, October 2013
Posts: 8,726
|
Post by Jessiealan on Feb 22, 2011 18:05:55 GMT -5
Lady Linda, the definition for critical thinking is in the first post and that is the point of reference we have been given. I don't understand where you are coming from or going. Maybe I should go back and read again later.
|
|
|
Post by biglin on Feb 22, 2011 18:30:25 GMT -5
I was responding to that definition, Jessie.
Actually I think it's a bit of a myth to believe that anyone exhibits it 100% of the time.
For what it's worth I think my post was on topic and addressed the problems with the whole idea.
Sorry if I didn't express myself more clearly.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Feb 22, 2011 19:23:07 GMT -5
I'm not sure it has to do with speaking from the heart or mind, although it probably includes not being driven by emotion.
Critical thinking mainly requires the main focus to be on thinking as objectively as possible ... looking at all sides, recognizing that world view, bias, social influences and personal perogatives can tip opinion one way or the other with nothing to do with fact and realiety.
Sometimes it needs the luxury of standing back and viewing the subject from a distance.
I don't think day to day communication would necessarily benefit from constant critical thinking, but when it comes to working out problems ad finding solultions, it's an excellent tool.
|
|
|
Post by biglin on Feb 22, 2011 19:34:29 GMT -5
Beth, it's NOT that I don't UNDERSTAND it; I just think it's:
a) an inadequate way of looking at the world
b) NOT the way people in fact DO look at the world.
Mike can deconstruct it better than I can but basically it's just another example of people trying to make out their opinions are more rational than they really are.
|
|
|
Post by peterf on Feb 23, 2011 3:46:48 GMT -5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What is Critical Thinking? No one always acts purely objectively and rationally. We connive for selfish interests. We gossip, boast, exaggerate, and equivocate. It is "only human" to wish to validate our prior knowledge, to vindicate our prior decisions, or to sustain our earlier beliefs. In the process of satisfying our ego, however, we can often deny ourselves intellectual growth and opportunity. We may not always want to apply critical thinking skills, but we should have those skills available to be employed when needed. Critical thinking includes a complex combination of skills. Among the main characteristics are the following: Rationality We are thinking critically when we rely on reason rather than emotion, require evidence, ignore no known evidence, and follow evidence where it leads, and are concerned more with finding the best explanation than being right analyzing apparent confusion and asking questions. Self-awareness We are thinking critically when we weigh the influences of motives and bias, and recognize our own assumptions, prejudices, biases, or point of view. Honesty We are thinking critically when we recognize emotional impulses, selfish motives, nefarious purposes, or other modes of self-deception. Open-mindedness We are thinking critically when we evaluate all reasonable inferences consider a variety of possible viewpoints or perspectives, remain open to alternative interpretations accept a new explanation, model, or paradigm because it explains the evidence better, is simpler, or has fewer inconsistencies or covers more data accept new priorities in response to a reevaluation of the evidence or reassessment of our real interests, and do not reject unpopular views out of hand. Discipline We are thinking critically when we are precise, meticulous comprehensive, and exhaustive resist manipulation and irrational appeals, and avoid snap judgments. Judgment We are thinking critically when we recognize the relevance and/or merit of alternative assumptions and perspectives recognize the extent and weight of evidence In sum, Critical thinkers are by natureskeptical. They approach texts with the same skepticism and suspicion as they approach spoken remarks. Critical thinkers areactive, not passive. They ask questions and analyze. They consciously apply tactics and strategies to uncover meaning or assure their understanding. Critical thinkers do not take an egotistical view of the world. They areopento new ideas and perspectives. They are willing to challenge their beliefs and investigate competing evidence. Critical thinking enables us to recognize a wide range of subjective analyses of otherwise objective data, and to evaluate how well each analysis might meet our needs. Facts may be facts, but how we interpret them may vary. By contrast, passive, non-critical thinkers take a simplistic view of the world. They see things in black and white, as either-or, rather than recognizing a variety of possible understanding. They see questions as yes or no with no subtleties. They fail to see linkages and complexities. They fail to recognize related elements. Non-critical thinkers take an egotistical view of the world They taketheirfacts as the only relevant ones. They taketheir ownperspective as the only sensible one. They taketheir goalas the only valid one. All very worthy. But the word 'thinking' suffiices. No need to add the prefix 'critical'.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 23, 2011 9:13:05 GMT -5
I'm not sure it has to do with speaking from the heart or mind, although it probably includes not being driven by emotion. Sometimes it needs the luxury of standing back and viewing the subject from a distance. speaking or acting from heart and mind..isnt thinking so much as reaction isnt it....gut feeling and emotion thinking is looking without enotion weighing up as you say all the angles and possible consequences etc
|
|
|
Post by biglin on Feb 23, 2011 11:39:21 GMT -5
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Critical thinking, in its broadest sense has been described as "purposeful reflective judgment concerning what to believe or what to do."[1] Contents [hide]
* 1 Meaning * 2 Skills * 3 Critical Thinking and creativity * 4 Procedure o 4.1 Example thinker * 5 Principles and dispositions o 5.1 Willingness to criticize oneself o 5.2 Reflective thought o 5.3 Competence * 6 Habits or traits of mind * 7 Importance * 8 Research * 9 In schooling o 9.1 Research in efficiency of critical thinking instruction * 10 See also * 11 References * 12 Further reading * 13 External links
Meaning
Critical thinking clarifies goals, examines assumptions, discerns hidden values, evaluates evidence, accomplishes actions, and assesses conclusions.
"Critical" as used in the expression "critical thinking" connotes the importance or centrality of the thinking to an issue, question or problem of concern. "Critical" in this context does not mean "disapproval" or "negative." There are many positive and useful uses of critical thinking, for example formulating a workable solution to a complex personal problem, deliberating as a group about what course of action to take, or analyzing the assumptions and the quality of the methods used in scientifically arriving at a reasonable level of confidence about a given hypothesis. Using strong critical thinking we might evaluate an argument, for example, as worthy of acceptance because it is valid and based on true premises. Upon reflection, a speaker may be evaluated as a credible source of knowledge on a given topic.
Critical thinking can occur whenever one judges, decides, or solves a problem; in general, whenever one must figure out what to believe or what to do, and do so in a reasonable and reflective way. Reading, writing, speaking, and listening can all be done critically or uncritically. Critical thinking is crucial to becoming a close reader and a substantive writer. Expressed most generally, critical thinking is "a way of taking up the problems of life."[2]
"Fluid Intelligence" directly correlates with critical thinking skills. You are able to determine patterns, make connections and solve new problems. When you improve your critical thinking skills you also improve your fluid intelligence which also helps increase your problem solving skills and deep thinking elements. All of these skills relate to one part of the brain, and the more you use them the easier it will be to put your skill to the test.[citation needed]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2011 12:40:54 GMT -5
Rationality We are thinking critically when we rely on reason rather than emotion, require evidence, ignore no known evidence, and follow evidence where it leads, and are concerned more with finding the best explanation than being right analyzing apparent confusion and asking questions.
This definition simply begs the question as well as being a circular argument. To say that rationality relies on reason is akin to saying that mathematics relies upon numbers. It says nothing and means nothing.
Furthermore, it assumes an equivalence between rationality - which is essentially an exercise in logical deduction - and 'requiring evidence,' which is essentially a process of inference from empirical induction.
It has long been known (at the very least since the time of David Hume in the eighteenth century) that the inductive approach can furnish nothing beyond the process of repetition. Induction is NOT based upon deductions from first principles but upon observation and on making inferences from those observations. As Hume demonstrated clearly, that demonstrates NOTHING beyond what he called 'a constant concurrence.' There is NOTHING in induction that corresponds to any kind of universal principles or to any body of knowledge upon which we can credibly make assumptions of invariance.
The notion of 'ignoring no known evidence' is a pious hope at best. Scientists, for instance, ROUTINELY ignore evidence that conflicts with their theories, or, even worse, their prejudices.
A whole book has been written on the subject of scientific fraud. I have not read it for many years but if my memory serves me correctly it was entitled 'Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of SCience.'
Galileo, Newton and Mendel faked their data; scientists routinely dismiss 'rogue' results that conflict with their theories.
Scientists, in fact, ROUTINELY ignore known evidence.
For example, the American organisation of sceptics dedicated to debunking the paranormal was faced with an embarrassing situation some years ago. They had investigated the notion that there WAS some kind of statistically significant correlation between an individual's star sign and their character or accomplishments, as had been put forward by Michel Gauqelin.
To their horror they discovered that Gauqelin's data was CORRECT and that their own investigation SUPPORTED his conclusions.
How did these 'scientists' react? By SUPPRESSING the evidence and NOT publishing the report of their own investigators!
Then there is the notorious comment by a so-called 'scientist' when asked for his opinion of telepathy. His response was 'this is the sort of thing I would not believe in even if it happened.'
The entire 'definition' of rationality given in the above quote does NOT apply either to the way in which scientists actually work nor to the way in which they think. Ironically, the scientific community is riddled with prejudice, superstition and irrationality. Whether it is Dawkins desperately clinging on to the improbable notion of the uniqueness of human DNA and the consequent assumption that life exists nowhere else in the universe; whether it is rejecting research (for instance, by Jensen, Eysenck and others) that appears to suggest that there ARE certain INHERENT degrees of superiority and inferiority based upon the ethnicity of people; and the list goes on.
And, of course, any approach to life that bases itself upon such an arid and ultimately false philosophy is, not surprisingly, eompletely incapable of explaining or understanding emotions. Why do we love, or hate, or fear, or feel a sense of wonder, beauty, excitement?
Of course there ARE answers to these questions but NONE of them are afforded by those who believe in critical thinking or a 'rational' approach to life.
Reason is a tool but like any tool it needs to be tempered and used skilfully. Where would we be without joy, imagination, or laughter, for instance?
None of those things are even INTELLIGIBLE on the basis of critical thinking! When they attempt to provide 'explanations' for them, we are seeing a blind man talking about colour or a deaf man speaking of music.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2011 12:45:58 GMT -5
Self-awareness We are thinking critically when we weigh the influences of motives and bias, and recognize our own assumptions, prejudices, biases, or point of view.
Apart from the fact that this is a partial rather than a complete account of the factors that are involved in the process of self-awareness, it is also entirely possible for one to conclude, ON THE BASIS OF SUCH CRITICAL THINKING, that certain morally repugnant acts are in fact JUSTIFIED.
The whole sad story of eugenics is a classic case in point. One does not have to turn to the Third Reich to find examples of this insanity being logically justified; America in particular adopted policies that were almost as bad.
Even today prisoners in the United States are routinely used as guinea pigs for new drugs and new medical procedures.
From the point of view of critical thinking there is nothing wrong with that behaviour.
From the point of view of a compassionate morality, there is nothing RIGHT about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2011 12:50:09 GMT -5
Honesty We are thinking critically when we recognize emotional impulses, selfish motives, nefarious purposes, or other modes of self-deception.
You do not need to THINK (critically or otherwise) to be able to recognise an emotional impulse. I would have thought that anyone who thought otherwise would not recognise an emotion if it came up to them and bit them!
On the question of nefarious purposes, what of kleptomania? Since the kleptomaniac is NOT aware of either the nefarious nature of their behaviour nor indeed OF their own behaviour, clearly this is an instance where the whole fictive apparatus of 'critical thinking' does not and cannot apply.
Honesty is an EMOTION and NOT a thought or a pattern of thinking!
|
|