Critical Thinker Habitually Pulls Back the Curtain

@Khethil,

Entering into debate without having preconceived opinions and attitudes is an almost impossible task and it almost needs a flag of defeat waved before you even mutter a word.The same goes for critical thinking it demands you accept your acquired knowledge and opinions but then realise it could be wrong..I can hardly ever do it.

@xris,

xris wrote:

Entering into debate without having preconceived opinions and attitudes is an almost impossible task and it almost needs a flag of defeat waved before you even mutter a word.The same goes for critical thinking it demands you accept your acquired knowledge and opinions but then realise it could be wrong..I can hardly ever do it.

I think the point in to try to set aside preconceived opinion and attitudes, or at least reduce their influence. We are all human so none of us are perfect, and the more we realize this in debate and deliberation, the better for it.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

I think the point in to try to set aside preconceived opinion and attitudes, or at least reduce their influence. We are all human so none of us are perfect, and the more we realize this in debate and deliberation, the better for it.

What do you carry forward and what do you leave behind..If you have formed an opinion by previous examination, you cant in all honesty reject it automatically.

@coberst phil,

I think the key to critical thought is not leaving behind anything, but instead setting aside personal believes and thoughts for the initial examination to fully take in other perspectives, and then compare and contrast with previously held notions, beliefs, opinions, etc. By dialectically viewing things from different perspectives, better conclusions can be arrived at.

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

[INDENT]"People who think critically consistently attempt to live rationally, reasonably, empathically. They are keenly aware of the inherently flawed nature of human thinking when left unchecked. They strive to diminish the power of their egocentric and sociocentric tendencies. They use the intellectual tools that critical thinking offers - concepts and principles that enable them to analyze, assess, and improve thinking. They work diligently to develop the intellectual virtues of intellectual integrity, intellectual humility, intellectual civility, intellectual empathy, intellectual sense of justice and confidence in reason. They realize that no matter how skilled they are as thinkers, they can always improve their reasoning abilities.. ...They strive never to think simplistically about complicated issues and always to consider the rights and needs of relevant others. They recognize the complexities in developing as thinkers, and commit themselves to life-long practice toward self-improvement..." -Linda Elder, from Critical Thinking.org

I dont agree with this definition, it is too idealistic: It assumes everone has the same goals in life, and that they are all pro-humanity goals.
[/INDENT]

@manored,

manored wrote:

I dont agree with this definition, it is too idealistic: It assumes everone has the same goals in life, and that they are all pro-humanity goals.
[/indent]

I think I'd have to agree with you on that; there is some injection of the writer's values. Whether towards integrity, civility, virtues or uniform cat hair, the basic process described seems solid towards what CT is.

Good catch

@coberst phil,

CT is an acronym for Critical Thinking. Everybody considers themselves to be a critical thinker. That is why we need to differentiate among different levels of critical thinking.

Most people fall in the category that I call Reagan thinkers-trust but verify. Then there are those who have taken the basic college course taught by the philosophy dept that I call Logic 101. This is a credit course that teaches the basic principles of reasoning. Of course, a person need not take the college course and can learn the matter on their own effort, but I suspect few do that.

The third level I call CT (Critical Thinking). CT includes the knowledge of Logic 101 and also the knowledge that focuses upon the intellectual character and attitude of critical thinking. It includes knowledge regarding the ego and social centric forces that impede rational thinking.

Most decisions we have to make are judgment calls. A judgment call is made when we must make a decision when there is no "true" or "false" answers. When we make a judgment call our decision is bad, good, or better.

Many factors are involved: there are the available facts, assumptions, skills, knowledge, and especially personal experience and attitude. I think that the two most important elements in the mix are personal experience and attitude.

When we study math we learn how to use various algorithms to facilitate our skill in dealing with quantities. If we never studied math we could deal with quantity on a primary level but our quantifying ability would be minimal. Likewise with making judgments; if we study the art and science of good judgment we can make better decisions and if we never study the art and science of judgment our decision ability will remain minimal.

I am convinced that a fundamental problem we have in this country (USA) is that our citizens have never learned the art and science of good judgment. Before the recent introduction of CT into our schools and colleges our young people have been taught primarily what to think and not how to think. All of us graduated with insufficient comprehension of the knowledge, skills, and attitude necessary for the formulation of good judgment. The result of this inability to make good judgment is evident and is dangerous.

I am primarily interested in the judgment that adults exercise in regard to public issues. Of course, any improvement in judgment generally will affect both personal and community matters.

I would say that there are bad judgments, good judgments, and better judgments. The results determine whether a judgment is bad, good, or better. By their results we shall judge them.

To put the matter into a nut shell:

Normal men and women can significantly improve their ability to make judgments.
CT is the domain of knowledge that delineates the knowledge, skills, and intellectual character demanded for good judgment.
CT has been introduced into our schools and colleges slowly in the last two or three decades.
Few of today's adults were ever taught CT.
I suspect that at least another two generations will pass before our society reaps significant rewards resulting from teaching CT to our children.
Can our democracy survive that long?
I think that every effort must be made to convince today's adults that they need to study and learn CT on their own. I am not suggesting that adults find a teacher but I am suggesting that adults become self-actualizing learners.
I am convinced that learning the art and science of Critical Thinking is an important step toward becoming a better citizen in today's democratic society.

@coberst phil,

xris wrote:

What do you carry forward and what do you leave behind..If you have formed an opinion by previous examination, you cant in all honesty reject it automatically.

You take forward whatever you've chosen to critically consider. You must weigh arguments and evidence for your opinion, attempting to come to a more accurate conclusion. One should not automatically throw out anything.

Here was Russell's take:

"Russell maintains that the kind of criticism aimed at is not that which seeks to reject, but that which considers apparent knowledge on its merits, retaining whatever survives critical scrutiny. "

You aren't throwing anything out without going through the process -- all should be reevaluated. And, as you note, one cannot come to a completely unbiased point of view, it's impossible. The task, however, is to consistently put your beliefs through critical scrutiny; Russell notes the critical thinker is habitual. The aim here is to correct the stagnant mind, to make one question why they believe what they believe. It's not to make one not believe something: One must come to that conclusion, and any conclusion, through their own critical thought.

Nameless: Thanks for the link, by the way. I'm a big fan of Russell.

@Zetherin,

I think we could all agree that ego is the enemy of critical thinking.How does one constantly remind oneself of the fact that ego is constantly preying on our ability to be critical? A flag should fly in our mind on each and every occasion..

@xris,

xris wrote:

I think we could all agree that ego is the enemy of critical thinking.How does one constantly remind oneself of the fact that ego is constantly preying on our ability to be critical? A flag should fly in our mind on each and every occasion..

No one said it was easy Smile

Yes, it is quite difficult to let go of some beliefs - or even reevaluate them. But one can condition themselves to apply critical analysis. I've overcome my *ego* in order to reevaluate some of the things I believe, and it often puts me in a state close to cognitive dissonance. Humans don't enjoy this state as it's uncomfortable, one is unsure, usually of deep-seeded notions like values.

I think it's worth it in the end. This process can help all become better decision-makers.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

No one said it was easy

Yes, it is quite difficult to let go of some beliefs - or even reevaluate them. But one can condition themselves to apply critical analysis. I've overcome my *ego* in order to reevaluate some of the things I believe, and it often puts me in a state close to cognitive dissonance. Humans don't enjoy this state as it's uncomfortable, one is unsure, usually of deep-seeded notions like values.

I think it's worth it in the end. This process can help all become better decision-makers.

Through life's experiences i have realised that believing i have come to a certain opinion has been extremely silly! From one dogmatic expression to the next i have laboured to really believe.. i should never ever say i believe..

@xris,

xris wrote:

I think we could all agree that ego is the enemy of critical thinking.How does one constantly remind oneself of the fact that ego is constantly preying on our ability to be critical? A flag should fly in our mind on each and every occasion..

Develop the habit of fairmindedness.

To be fair-minded one must be vigilant (consciousness plus intention) of the need to treat all viewpoints alike. This demands that we adhere to intellectual standards such as accuracy and sound reasoning, which are unaffected by self-interest.

A contrast with fair-mindedness is intellectual self-centeredness.

Fair-mindedness is a challenging task that demands a family of character traits: intellectual humility, courage, empathy, honesty, perseverance, and a confidence in the value of reason.

Our culture places maximum value not on fair-mindedness but upon self-interest, and maximizing production, and consumption.

Intellectual humility begins with the recognition that absolute certainty regarding any matter of fact is beyond human capacity. There exists no mind-independent reality that we have the capacity to know. We can know only that which is "colored" by our experiences and historical perspective.

Our common sense views, coupled with philosophical tradition and religious dogma, all teach us that such is not the case, that we can find absolute certainty. This cultural tradition works aggressively against our goal of intellectual humility thus demanding that we must become more intellectually sophisticated in order to gain the level of intellectual humility required.

Intellectual courage is a difficult assignment. We all tend to place great value on our own opinion, which is more often than not just something that we grabbed as it flew by. But this is even more of a problem when we are "wedded" to something that we have a strong commitment to, for what ever reason. Our political affiliation is one example.

Intellectual courage is especially difficult, and even dangerous to our well being when we hold ideas that society considers them to be dangerous; even though we are confident that they are rationally grounded. Society often punishes severely all forms of nonconformity; the execution of Socrates by the citizens of Athens might serve as a good example.

By developing this character trait of intellectual courage we will often be ostracized from a group or even a large community. Such an experience will give us incentive to recognize that most people live their lives in such a manner as to be secure in the middle of the approval of those about us.

Intellectual courage ain't for sissies!

Intellectual empathy is a consciousness that one must engage the imagination in an effort to intellectually place your self into the shoes of another so as to comprehend that other person as well as possible. To accomplish this transaction we must try to learn as much as possible about the other person's situation so as to reconstruct that person's assumptions, premises, and ideas.

Many of these ideas were gleaned from the book Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life by Richard Paul and Linda Elder

@xris,

xris wrote:

I think we could all agree that ego is the enemy of critical thinking.How does one constantly remind oneself of the fact that ego is constantly preying on our ability to be critical? A flag should fly in our mind on each and every occasion..

Basically, then you think in something that "hurts", that is, something you dont wanna think about, that is ego. At this point we usually retreat from those thoughs, but what we should do is dive into then even more, because although they are painfull to think they will increase our understanding.

Philosophy Forum

Critical Thinker Habitually Pulls Back the Curtain

Quick Links

My Account

able2know