what is critical thinking?
In: 27
Critical thinking is simply a way of assessing information in a totally objective and unbiased manner. No biases or subjectivity. For example, go outside and see whether it’s raining or not. Even if you wish it were not raining, if it is, and you can acknowledge it, you’re exercising critical thinking skills.
It means questioning and analyzing information carefully before coming to a conclusion, according to general principles of rationality. For example, if you read someone on reddit arguing that ice cream causes people to turn evil because murder rates get higher whenever ice cream sales go up, a critical thinker would 1) verify that that information is even true in the first place, and 2) keep in mind that correlation does not equal causation and try to think of any alternate explanations for why both of those things could go up at the same time (e.g., maybe people are both more likely to commit murders and more likely to buy ice cream when the weather is warmer).
Its just a way of thinking which analyses a situation or claim with a high degree of logic and unbiased thought process. For instance, if someone told you that the moon was made out of cheese, you could think critically about that claim. Does it make sense? Does it have a significant basis to rely on? Although this was drastically oversimplified, critically thinking should be used daily. Use your insight to guide you to a solid conclusion that isn’t irrational and isn’t without proper consideration.
The way I usually tell people how to do critical thinking is to just follow its namesake: Critical.
Treat the question as something critical, as if you or someone else will die if you get this wrong. So, what happens when the stake is high? Well, you start being skeptical, double and triple checking everything before jumping into conclusion.
Analyzing multiple opinions and facts and determining strengths and weaknesses of each argument yourself in a non emotional, fact based way. There is a shortage of this method of thinking and I commend you for trying to think this way
Seeing how many different ways you can/could consider the “evidence” you’re presented with and come to the same And different conclusions than was offered as a contemplation prompt/thought topic
Personal experience allows for one interpretation
Hypothesizing allows for “wonderment” discussions… “Imagine if this….” Without laying claim to absolute knowledge
Second hand knowledge “I know someone who says they experienced such and such” …. This has an Extremely Limited use during a debate and will make you lose perspective and at times tends to become a “fight for the honor of another” You become part of a chum pool (what sharks are fed by us, for us tourists to oohhh and ahhhh at)
Learned or Book Smarts type of knowledge (which changes as we learn more about everything existing within our Universe) is useful And needs to allow for the fact that Others have different information available Always.
Critical Thinking takes all these things into account And allows for the recognition of WHAT TYPE of Perspective you are using while Also being able to clearly announce it as such. To both yourself And others during conversation…. It always allows for a respectful dialogue Without Fail when done by all participating in a discussion…. Some can kill a constructive discussion just with interruptive body language they are so uncomfortable around critical thinking/thinkers…. You’d think it was poison… Beware of that type of folk…. They secretly Hate Good Sportsmanship and would prefer to be the center or ender of whatever companionship is taking place
(that last sentence was a bit hard nosed from personal perspective, please pick it apart and consider some other reasons body language might be speaking something different than what I have interpreted… Or anything else I offered that seemed good for it)
Great question!
Consider that there are people who believe that the earth is flat. You can:
1. Ridicule and denounce these people as being unworthy of your time.
2. Find evidence to refute their beliefs.
3. Try to learn what it is that causes them to hold these beliefs.
Number 3 would require you to evaluate and ponder on what you’ve learned, and that pondering is considered critical thinking.
It is essentially the ability to think about *how* you’re thinking- how did you come to your conclusions, what’s the validity of that thought process, what possible courses of action should come from this thought, etc.
This won’t actually eliminate subjectivity, and it won’t guarantee you come to the right conclusion, but you won’t be the victim of the first thought that comes into your head, either.
Person A: X is true.
Person B: Should I believe that X is true? Is X a fact, or just person A’s opinion? Does X seem unlikely, or does it fit in with the other things I know about the world? Is X something I emotionally want to believe? Could X *seem* true, but be easy to be wrong about? Is X something I emotionally want *not* to believe? If X were false, how could I find that out? Is person A knowledgeable and reliable about X? Would person A have motive to lie to me about X? Is person A a trustworthy source? Could person A be wrong, lied-to about or misunderstanding X? Does X mean what I think it does, or have I got the wrong end of it? Am I drawing conclusion Y about it, and could I be wrong about that?
You know, just sanity-checking things you’re told, and not just blindly believing them without poking and prodding them a bit first.
If someone told you they put lunch on your desk so you should pay them $5 now… you’d ask yourself a few questions before forking over the money, right? You’d want to go check – or if you couldn’t do that, you’d wonder if this was some kind of scam, and whether you should trust them. The way you work that out is called critical thinking.
There already is a lot of good answers, which revolve around the idea of checking the validity of facts, the concept they are facts and not just opinions or hypothesis, and how valid the reasoning is.
One thing that is often overlooked is that humans tend to apply critical thinking only on stuff we disagree on, and never do it on stuff we agree on because … well, if we agree/believe in something, it must be right, so no need to check it… right ?
Applying critical thinking to everything, including what you yourself agree on, is a major hurdle, but is something necessary if you want to grow. It hurts the ego when you start doing it, but after a while you realize there is actually no harm in accepting you were wrong about something. It is actually the opposite, while refusing the possibility that you could be wrong, you will most certainly protect your ego right now, but this is where your intellectual growth stops.
Logic is also something humans are seriously not good at. We always lived with the opposite of it actually. Following whoever has the most charisma was the best way to survive physically, and is still the case socially today. You are attracted to people that share the same beliefs, and you will be rejected if you “prove them wrong”, and this reaction gets more violent the stronger the belief. There is no point explaining thermodynamics to people who strongly believe in perpetual devices like motors running of water, or stuff based on water memory like homeopathy.
Which means that critical thinking should only be applied by oneself, on oneself. Never discuss this with someone, unless that someone made it very clear he wanted that.
Using flawed logics deliberately is a very common occurence in speeches. It is way easier to convince people using fallacies than logics.
Latest Answers