A Word About Critical Thinking

[Jcrowley]

Critical thinking skills do not necessarily require additional, new training or experience. Nothing new has to be learned; something old and familiar, instead, has to be unlearned.

I'm realizing, now, that the term "critical thinking" is often used without ensuring that it means the same thing to the people who are using it. I'm gathering that it may not.

"The evidence regarding critical thinking is not reassuring. ... Usually, it isn't the logical structure of people's inferences that chiefly causes uncritical thinking but rather the uninformed or misinformed faultiness of their premises."
-- Prof. E. D. Hirsch, Jr., "The Schools We Need and Why We Don't Have Them"

I, basically, agree with Prof. Hersch. Illogic isn't the problem. Forming premises, on which opinions or conclusions are later based, on insufficient information or misinformation is.

Most Americans are too willing to presume shit. I see evidence of this each and every day, and in every context imaginable.

It's their willingness to presume something to be something, while requiring little corroborative information or not scrutinizing for misinformation, that's the underpinning for uncritical thought.

I don't think that some thing new has to be taught or learned. Rather, something old and familiar has to be unlearned.

"The problem with many youngsters today is not that they don't have opinions but that they don't have the facts on which to base their opinions." -- Albert Shanker, quoted in "Debating the Standards", New York Times, Jan. 29, 1995

[Ninga]

1. Good stuff. I think one of the reasons we are in the shape we are is because our

heads are shaped just like the new plasma TeeVee's.

[mzteris]

2. **they don't have the facts**

or they don't check their sources to see if the "facts" they DO have are valid, reliable, authentic, qualified, unbiased, and current.

One of my biggest complaints with people.

[TahitiNut]

3. Challenging one's own assumptions is an essential component to critical thinking.

So is a firm grasp of logic and fallacies. Both are required. Indeed, the ability to even challenge one's own assumptions is premised on the ability to identify those assumptions. That's am ability enhanced by a grasp of valid logic and argument. When I observe the appalling number of ad hominem fallacies rampant on DU, I'm inclined to think skills in logic and deduction are the prevalent issue. When I consider that the first stage of warfare is and has always has been the dehumanization of the 'enemy' - the most pernicious ad hominem of all - I have to believe that inherently fallacious thinking is the greatest disability.

Now, if one calls that dehumanization a 'premise' then I can understand the stance. I call it 'logic' - an ad hominem fallacy.

[depakid]

23. On the other hand- credibility

or "ethos" is one of three basic principles in Aristotle's art of rhetoric, which remain applicable today. It even has a neologism on the web: "street cred."

For example, a member of another board I frequent has a habit of quoting things out of context or citing the American Enterprise or the Hudson Institute- or worse. He's been inaccurate so often, he lacks "street cred."

Moreover, he'll often accuse me of going ad hominem when I question the credibility of his sources- either due to repeated instances of lying or distortion- or for conflicts of interest- that I can prove. He doesn't like when I "impeach his witnesses," but the bottom line is that a reasonable person shouldn't believe certain sources without extensive corroboration.

Since he often lacks a good command of the facts, he's prone to repeating talking points, and gets exasperated when I show him objective links (say, to studies about global warming) or point out faulty analysis used by his source- and hence him!

Sometimes as the OP mentioned, it's not formal logic that's the problem- it's just that the premises have no material worth in terms of fact! So what we get amounts sophistry. Formally valid, but materially worthless. I see all too much of this today, even among progressives.

[hobbit709]

4. Another problem is the unwillingness

to change your mind after getting more information. It's one thing to come to a conclusion based on what you think you know-it's another to not change your opinion in light of new evidence.

[Warpy]

5. Shanker was a wise man

That was Rand's problem (well, aside from being a lousy writer). She based flawless logic upon erroneous principles.

The most brilliant minds in the world will appear utterly witless and incapable of forming conclusions if they have only bigotry and fairy tales to base everything on. The more outlandish the belief system, the more vehemently they'll defend it.

Look at Greenspan. Look at Scalia. Hell, look at Cheney. None of these men are stupid. They were just raised with a lot of wrong assumptions that class based Ivy League educations failed to correct. There is no way any of them could possibly arrive at a sensible conclusion.

It's why the neocons are so intransigent in their insistence to begin unwinnable wars that will squander every cent of wealth in this country while destroying a generation of its young. They have a set of faulty premises that promise disaster if they don't.

[Jcrowley]

6. Excellent points

I've been thinking lately about many of the underlying premises tossed about in the high halls of academia.

Another factor is simply how mediated our existence has become.

[Gregorian]

9. Invaluable thread. (Sometimes we have to focus on the obvious.)

This is one of the most important threads I've read here. Absolutely spot on.

It's the reason why we are so frustrated. And why they are so stubborn.

[TahitiNut]

19. Birds of compatible premises flock together.

I think people adopt premises by affiliation, not learning and thinking. :shrug:

[Bonhomme Richard]

7. My theory is............

that a segment of the population can not process information properly. If you think of the brain as a file cabinet with many drawers. When info comes into the brain it is put in a file drawer for processing. When new info enters the brain it also is put in a file drawer. The average person has the ability to access or "network" all file drawers so that they may come to some sort of intelligent decision when new information is filed. It seems to me that about 30% of any population is missing that "networking" ability the rest of us take for grated. That explains why they retain old fixed beliefs even when the original source of info recants that info or is caught in a lie.
They just can't process information properly.
That's what I think, for what it's worth.

[MonkeyFunk]

16. It seems more than 30% to me

and isn't exclusive to any one side of the political spectrum (do you see many minds change here on DU, even after erroneous "facts" have been corrected?)

"Confirmation bias" is rampant - people only absorb the facts that fit into the conclusion they've already drawn. If you believe Sen. Clinton is an overly-ambitious Republican-lite harridan, then any information you receive about her will be accepted if it confirms your belief, or rejected if it doesn't conform. This is true for all candidates and all issues.

[many a good man]

8. Logic

Back in college I never took Logic because it seemed so ... self evident. Now I wish that I had. We live in a culture awash in fallacies and I think that this kind of background is essential in identifying and deconstructing the lies told on a daily basis. This knowledge would also prove to be extremely helpful in argument.

Do you have any good links that can help us bone up on this subject? I remember coming across some good sites a few years ago but I failed to bookmark them.

[myrna minx]

30. This is a very good site.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

:hi: I think it is helpful to recognize if people are using inductive or deductive reasoning, too.

[nam78_two]

10. Very true-excellent post

As a tangent, one of the greatest abuses of the use of the phrase "critical thinking" in common parlance now, is its usage as the guise for attacking an idea one is pre-disposed towards disliking.
Is Bush merely unfriendly towards science that might hurt the bank balances of his oil buddies or is he a "critical thinker" ;)?

[Joe Chi Minh]

11. The formation of our assumptions, however, is our life's work.

The thing about the greatest innovative thinkers, indeed, TRUE high-achievers in every sphere, was and is their integrity.

We often read about the failings of Einstein as a family man, and insofar, as a human being, yet if you read his views on politics, and indeed on empirical science, it becomes quicky apparent why he had difficulty with his studies. He had an infant's passion for truth, to learn the truth, not to gain an academic accreditation, but to edify and clarify his world-view.

On the other hand, virtually by definition, it is normal for university students, including lectures and professors, to be motivated by the desire to "get on", to "do well" in the world, to earn a good living and to gain relatively high status. Fortunately, there are some who manage to combine the two, and they are the ones on whom our societies depend for just and sane government and just about everything else of value - at least in terms of enabling others.

Unfortunately, within the sphere of the panoply of state, government, police, the forces, the legal system, etc, the very places where such integrity is most needed, its arch-enemy, naked unconscionable ambition tends to exert undue influence. Little wonder that Christ identified ambition as the most pernicious of vices. There must be few career ambitions which cannot be inspired by a proper disposition of the heart: the wish to act in all things, however humble, for some permutation of the glory of God and the good of our fellow human beings.

The attack on Christianity is man's loss - as indeed most of the people understand. When God is lost sight of, so is man. Fortunately, in spite of all, according to Christ's own description of the Last Judgment, many who seek to observe the second commandment will turn out to have thereby been observing the first. But not all. And nowhere, perhaps, is that more evident than in politics. Politicians of both parties have been wont to use the first two commandments, respectively, as fronts for their own aggrandisement. "By their fruit you shall know them."

However, this is just one more of a host of insights on the human condition conveyed by Christ in the scriptures, which, together, can form the basis of right thinking; which means critical thinking. Not the plain idiocy of a certain "Pat Robertson"-style of secular fundamentalism, as promoted by the likes of Rchard Dawkins. He doesn't even have the intelligence to grasp that he can no more disprove God's existence than a theist, can prove it. That takes a surreal lack of understanding.

[Jonathan50]

15. “Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.”

Not the plain idiocy of a certain "Pat Robertson"-style of secular fundamentalism, as promoted by the likes of Rchard Dawkins. He doesn't even have the intelligence to grasp that he can no more disprove God's existence than a theist, can prove it. That takes a surreal lack of understanding.

You mischaracterize Dawkins' position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

Dawkins does not attempt to prove there is no God, it is impossible to prove a negative.

Rather, Dawkins challenges theists to prove that there *is* a God.

Occam's razor states that the simplest explanation is the most likely explanation. The simplest explanation for our existence is that we simply are and were not created by any intelligent designer. The presence of an intelligent designer is a more complex explanation for our existence and hence a less likely explanation.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

Occam's razor (also spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off", those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae (law of succinctness or parsimony):

[Joe Chi Minh]

20. "Rather, Dawkins challenges theists to prove that there *is* a God."

It amounts to the same thing. Christians are not stupid enough to believe that they can prove the existence of God. And they certainly don't claim to.

Actually, its like intelligent design, plain common-sense, the product of intellectual integrity. All assumptions are chosen by the human heart, because the deepest truths are neither quantifiable nor were meant to be so. It just happens that, in the Christian experience, the facts and events of daily life vindicate it. But it still can't be proved.

Dawkins, however, rails and rants at theist beliefs as if his atheist beliefs were demonstrable, had even been conclusively demonstrated. He and his poor followers adduce Evolution and goodness knows what else, as definitive proof that the world had no Creator. He's a mutt and if you can't see it, you can't be a lot more perceptive.

The speed of light is absolute; the rest of our universe of space-time, relative or inter-relative. It scarcely takes a gigantic leap of the imagination to realise from that, while light interacts with space-time and within it, and is routinely generated in a host of ways, its proper framework of reference and consequently its ultimate origin, must be extra-cosmic and completely opaque to empirical science.

[Jonathan50]

28. Dawikins no more "rants and rails" than do plenty of theists.

He's a mutt and if you can't see it, you can't be a lot more perceptive.

Personal attacks are uncalled for, do nothing to further your argument and against DU rules.

It amounts to the same thing. Christians are not stupid enough to believe that they can prove the existence of God. And they certainly don't claim to.

I guess you've not read the threads about "Creationist Museums" then?


Take the presence of an intelligent designer of us and the universe as a given.

An intelligent designer must needs be more complex than that which he/she/it designs.

Which then immediately raises the question of where the intelligent designer came from?

Our intelligent designer must have an intelligent designer of his/hers/its own which must needs be more complex than our own intelligent designer.

This leads inevitably to an infinite cascade of ever more complex intelligent designers.

The simple version of Occam's Razor states that all things being equal, the least complex explanation is the most likely one.

The least complex explanation for our existence is that we evolved from natural processes without any intelligent designer, therefore that explanation is the most likely one.

[nuxvomica]

12. People don't think critically unless they appreciate the risks...

of not doing so. There has to be an expansion of risk perception before people think critically about issues that they otherwise feel don't matter to them. The Katrina aftermath changed many people's perceptions about their government not so much because they felt any solidarity with the victims on the Gulf Coast but because they realized that their assumptions about their own personal safety were illusory. To appreciate the value of critical thinking, folks need to see how necessary it is for their own survival cuz that's what our brains are wired for. In the average American's own little personal space their are risks in abandoning widely held false assumptions so they need to understand that there are greater risks in maintaining them. Al Gore's campaign against global warming denial is a classic example of widening the perception of risk. His critics continue to try to localize that perception by saying that lowering emissions standards will cause serious economic problems.

[Klukie]

13. Great post!!

We have become a nation of CliffsNotes.

[Uncle Joe]

14. I know nothing, I believe is the strongest statement,

I will make about anything.

[Jonathan50]

17. The more you learn the more you realize how little you really know n/t

[siligut]

18. Perception warfare

A great links to the tricks they play

Bobthedrummer gave this link a few days ago, it belongs in this thread too.

[Jcrowley]

25. Excellent

You're not who you think you are;
you're not who others think you are;
you're who you think others think you are!
--- Source Unknown

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
--- T. S. Eliot

Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.
--- Albert Einstein

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
--- Arthur Schopenhauer

When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.
--- The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence (1962 movie)

Thanks

[NNadir]

21. I see faulty reasoning about as often as I see faulty facts.

This is an impression of course, since I don't keep records.

I don't know that the origin of uncritical thinking is readily discernible.

My beat is energy. Energy is necessarily a discussion of numbers and the way people torture numbers is simply amazing. I have been seeing this my whole adult life and it is astounding. There really can be few things as clear cut as numbers, but I am astounded, simply astounded by the desperate measures through which people will avoid numbers. I have seen many times that you can put the correct numbers before people explicitly and still have them draw the wrong conclusions.

[Jonathan50]

22. Here's a really interesting article on teaching "expert reasoning"

http://www.physorg.com/news90254938.html

In addition to mastering a large body of knowledge, successful researchers must acquire a host of high-level cognitive skills: critical thinking, "framing" a problem, ongoing evaluation of the solution as it progresses, and ruthless validation of one's final answer. Some students pick these skills up on their own as they advance towards their degree, especially those who participate in research, but they rarely appear in a curriculum.

Professor Craig Ogilvie of Iowa State University has developed a problem-solving environment that not only encourages students to practice these skills but also monitors their progress.

As a physics professor, I often find myself torn between competing educational goals. On the one hand, most courses have a laundry list of fundamental theories and techniques that must be taught if the students are to advance further in the subject. On the other hand, there are a number of higher cognitive skills that I would also like to emphasize. The cognitive skills are more useful in life, but how much subject matter can I reasonably sacrifice to make room for teaching them?

Traditional teaching methods reinforce the course content by assigning busy work — practice makes perfect, after all. Homework assignments consist of simple "plug and chug" problems that students can solve easily by finding the appropriate formula. While such assignments do help students learn the main topics of a course and prepare for the inevitable final exam, they promote a very limited style of problem-solving. More importantly, they provide little motivation for students to absorb the lessons of scientific thought.

[133724]

24. In college during the '60s I read Kierkegaard's "Concept of Irony, With reference to Socrates"

It was Kierkegaard's Master's Thesis and it was published in Danish not Latin as was the requirement.

What I learned from that book:

It is not what you know but what you do not know that makes a difference.

You have an obligation (if only to yourself) to examine you own presuppositions.

Those concepts have permeated my life and my beliefs in Christ.

Like a great teacher said "an unexamined life is not worth living"

[Chantico]

26. Wonderful thread.

I grew up reading and watching a lot of sci-fi and although I wanted to believe the Positive stories of possible human evolution such as higher intelligence, more understanding and tolerance, less warfare and more cooperation to solve big problems, the negative possibilities were always close by.

Unfortunately I see the negatives "winning" in this world. We have extremely sophisticated and fast means of communication than we did just compared to five years ago, yet communications seem to be getting worse. Misinformation, misperceptions, and mass distractions made possible via the Internet tubes as opposed to the Truth and Justice awareness we had hoped to spread like a Good Virus that infected people worldwide with knowledge and compassion.

There is such a thing as *too much information* and it creates just as much uncertainty in the mind as *too little information* does.

[rebel with a cause]

27. Critical thinking is easy

when you are a "know it all", because if you it all - you know that others know next to nothing or very little - so you must be critical of anything they say. Save your amunition this is just a joke to lighten the mood this morning. After all I am a "know it all" and I know it. ;-)

[mzmolly]

29. As a home-schooler I follow ED Hirsch's recommendations for education.

Hirsch founded the Core Knowledge Foundation, and there are great resources for "teachers" and parents. There are also "Core Knowledge" Schools across the nation. ED Hirsch is a democrat, and a self described liberal, but his ideals for education are embraced by many conservatives as well. For example, Bill Bennett started K12 using Hirsch's ideas/foundation. http://www.k12.com/ That's not a selling point for ME personally, but it's interesting that his ideals cross political lines.

More about Core Knowledge:


http://coreknowledge.org/CK/about/index.htm

1. What is "Core Knowledge"?

The "Core Knowledge" movement is an educational reform based on the premise that a grade-by-grade core of common learning is necessary to ensure a sound and fair elementary education. The movement was started by Professor E. D. Hirsch, Jr., author of Cultural Literacy and The Schools We Need, and is based on a large body of research in cognitive psychology, as well as a careful examination of several of the world's fairest and most effective school systems. Professor Hirsch has argued that, for the sake of academic excellence, greater fairness, and higher literacy, early schooling should provide a solid, specific, shared core curriculum in order to help children establish strong foundations of knowledge. After wide consultation, the content of this core curriculum has been outlined in two books — the Core Knowledge Preschool Sequence and the Core Knowledge Sequence, K–8 — that state explicitly what students should learn at each grade level. Currently, hundreds of schools and thousands of dedicated educators are participating in this school reform movement throughout the United States.

Hirsch's suggestions/methods are hotly debated among educators, however CK schools have proven successful even among the most challenging conditions.

Thanks for the post. :hi:

[Beelzebud]

31. Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World is a guide to critical thinking.

I recommend it to everyone.

[Jonathan50]

32. Kick n/t