What is Critical Thinking?

[Tsuyoiko]

I don't want to hijack the thread on Japan's education problems so I've brought the discussion on critical thinking to the Serious Discussion forum.

yes i know what critical thinking is
and would argue thus:
Science is universal....it is the same subject the world over.

Even if it's true that Science is universal, that doesn't have any relevance to whether or not it involves critical thinking. Critical thinking is about deciding what to believe, i.e., it's about weighing up evidence and coming to conclusions, which is exactly what science does.

I like Edward Glaser's definition:

Critical thinking calls for a persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports it and the further conclusions to which it tends. It also generally requires ability to recognize problems, to find workable means for meeting those problems, to gather and marshal pertinent information, to recognize unstated assumptions and values, to comprehend and use language with accuracy, clarity, and discrimination, to interpret data, to appraise evidence and evaluate arguments, to recognize the existence (or non-existence) of logical relationships between propositions, to draw warranted conclusions and generalizations, to put to test the conclusions and generalizations at which one arrives, to reconstruct one's patterns of beliefs on the basis of wider experience, and to render accurate judgments about specific things and qualities in everyday life.

That could almost be a definition of the scientific method!

AlphaDuck, if you're right that critical thinking is irrelevant to Science, then Edward Glaser's definition must be flawed. Can you point out where the flaws lie?

You must also believe that the definition at Wikipedia is wrong, since it makes repeated references to Science, and includes the article on Scientific Method as a related link.

Google 'critical thinking' and you will see many books with titles such as "Developing Critical Thinking Through Science" (example). Are all those authors wrong in assuming a connection?

Can you exercise your own capacity for critical thinking by examining your belief that critical thinking is irrelevant to science in the light of this evidence? If you still believe that there's no connection, at least provide us with some evidence to support that assertion, in the same way that I have provided evidence that you're mistaken.

I may have done better to give this thread a more general title. So long as it concerns critical thinking in general, I'm happy if discussion proceeds along broader terms than just looking at the actual definition of that term - as I tried, perhaps unsuccessfully, to suggest in the OP. Any comments about when critical thinking is appropriate and where it should be applied are welcome!

 

[Mars Man]

I had been thinking of opening just this very subject here too, Tsuyoiko san, to relieve some of the pressure from that other thread--since it's set up in such a narrow scope, and doesn't give definitions of terms and such.

In that critical thinking can surely be said to have given rise to modern science (especially), it most definitely comes pack and parcel with it. For that reason, while foundational elements may be in some ways, to some degree, quite 'black and white' (or factual in nature) reasoning upon connections between these bits and pieces, various properties, and so on, is not so often so--thus hypothesis and theories (even ones that are almost consider locked in as being a true description of nature).

I'll try to come back with some examples. Thanks for going ahead and getting the thread going.

 

[hideway]

Uhm..

Isn't critical thinking just the ability to continuously re analyse all your pre concepts?

 

[Mars Man]

No. In taking the definition given in the OP, it is more than just that.

First of all, just for clarification here, if a person were to continuously act, it would imply no more than the ability to continue--a bit different from continually acting.

If a person were to initiate any analysis of any held concept, it would seem that it would first take an act of determining a need to analysize. That much would signify, of course, awareness as an extension of a critically thinking brain.

Being able to see the patterns towards any conclusion was mentioned in that definition, therefore, being able to see patterns which give rise to the need to re-analyze is a preliminary stage--again, awareness of a critically thinking brain.

Then, in the process of going through the analyzing process, to what degree the thinking mode described above is used/applied, also will determine the degree or length and breadth of the quality of critical thought.

Therefore, what you have presented, hideway san, while being concieved in truth, is not the fullest extent of the truth on the matter, and thus most likely recieves a negative response-critical thinking is not just and only that.

 

[Kinsao]

I think critical thinking is exactly what it says on the tin - the ability to think in a critical way around a subject, which can be applied to scientific ideas/concepts, and also to non-scientific subjects such as literature, and everything in between.

 

[theAlphaDuck]

Firstly... understand that Critical Thinking IS (no two way's about it)
Subjective thought on the objective
Theory.... based on Fact

yes Critical thinking IS used in Science.... however it is ONLY used
when pushing the frontiers of knowledge (be it your own or
humanities)... I.E. RESEARCH

Thus in terms of EDUCATION (the context in which those comments were made)
Science does not do well to teach critical thinking....

yes you CAN teach Critical thinking in a science class...(by having
students perform an experiment without telling them what is going to
happen and (most importantly) WHY)
but this is a VERY inefficient way to learn Science!

(you could put a kid in a room with some VERY basic apparetus.... and
if you TOLD him about gravity he could do some simple experiments to
show that this was indeed the case
but don't tell him about Gravity and i think you will be there for
some time before coming to the conclusion that there exists a force
between ALL bodies that atracts them to one another over an infinite
distance yet with an a force that is inversly squared to the distance
and that the gravitational force of earth 9.8 newtons!)

because science is based completely on FACT
(Quantum physics does not count as it makes NO SENSE....they may as
well just call all the particles 'strange' )
and LEARNING science is about knowing and UNDERSTANDING facts

this is why in a science class (usually)... the teacher explains a
theory.... explaines an experiment...and THEN you do the experiment.

science is like a riddle.... the text of the riddle is the world
around us....and the answer is WHY, HOW, WHERE and/or WHEN
if the answer is given to...as is the case with teaching science in
all but the most academic levels... then one does not have to use
Critical thinking, one simply uses Logic to UNDERSTAND the answer.



ERGO

the Subjects that are more usefull are the ones where Critical
Thinking is Mandetory in order to gain the UNDERSTANDING!!
such as HISTORY!

as for "some fundamental elements of Science being black and white"
NO....
ALL elements of science are black and white..
there is a theory...and it is either correct...or like the above
statement....it is WRONG
(once again Quantum theory is left out of this because it Makes no
Sense...you may as well talk about religion...it is, as it were the
anomalous result = P )

as regarding that little quote of yours...
YES... it could mean science (RESEARCH)
but lets do some CRITICAL THINKING
lets take this quote as the OBJECIVE fact...
and NOW apply a bit of SUBJECTIVE reasoning....
could this definition not also be used to describe history?
or philosophy?.... or almost ANY other form of academic thought?

read it again.....

and you should see my point.

 

[Mars Man]

As put forth by theAlphaDuck, I quote the following by him:

as regarding that little quote of yours...
YES... it could mean science (RESEARCH)
but lets do some CRITICAL THINKING
lets take this quote as the OBJECIVE fact...
and NOW apply a bit of SUBJECTIVE reasoning....
could this definition not also be used to describe history?​

This proposition may seem sound in a number of ways, I would argue. It does break down, however, on appeal to the principle of Wrong in one, wrong in all (taking the proposition as a whole and self-contained statement) in that history cannot be tested.

To build any degree of argument, in any attempt to define, describe, or explain by example just what critical thinking is, on the base that any type of thinking is subjective, is of course non sequitur. This is true in that it is without doubt most obviously the case that all thought process by the brain is totally subjective in the final analysis. In other words, to contend that critical thinking process is a subjective exercise, is without doubt true, therefore what conclusions can be drawn from that to show that that statement can or will make any difference in our efforts to define, describe, or explain just what critical thinking is? Obviously none !

Then, in the next turn of statement, to set 'any thing theorized' (thus theory) as being objective, is to contradict the previous statement, due to the fact that the previous statement claims that critical thinking is subjective.

Therefore, we will surely find that we have to allow room for relative margins of subjectivity balanced with, or against, objectivity. This, we could again say, is the very heart and essence of what has been given in that quote.

While on this thread, we are not concerned about the application (thus education matters) of critical thinking, it might be good to do some embedding (as per example) so as to help bolster our understanding of just what critical thinking is.

 

[theAlphaDuck]

i think perhaps you got a bit confused there...i would suggest you perhaps read the post again....
firstly HISTORY can be tested!
secondly the brain is fully able to think objectivly
subjective thought...upon objective fact.
that is what it comes down to.... any further than that and you just drop down into the world of semantics.
also i can't quite read where i say that EVERY theory is objective...
regaring science it must be...but that is not to say that all theory is objective

 

[Tsuyoiko]

yes you CAN teach Critical thinking in a science class...(by having
students perform an experiment without telling them what is going to
happen and (most importantly) WHY)
but this is a VERY inefficient way to learn Science!

It may be an inefficient way to learn the facts of Science, but Science education shouldn't be just about learning the facts, at least not if you hope to produce scientists. What progress could there ever be in Science if students learnt nothing beyond the facts? Newton formulated the Theory of Gravitation because he thought critically about the facts he had learnt, and about how his experience related to those facts. Perhaps those skills can be acquired without education, but why leave it to chance?

Quantum physics does not count as it makes NO SENSE....

Perhaps it makes no sense to you, but that doesn't mean it's not Science! Quantum theory provides the best explanation of observed phenomena at the sub-atomic level, in just the same way that Natural Selection, Heliocentrism, Gravitation etc provide explanations at the macroscopic level.

science is like a riddle.... the text of the riddle is the world
around us....and the answer is WHY, HOW, WHERE and/or WHEN
if the answer is given to...as is the case with teaching science in
all but the most academic levels... then one does not have to use
Critical thinking, one simply uses Logic to UNDERSTAND the answer.

And then what does one learn? Just rote facts, which are of only limited use if we hope to inspire young people to appreciate Science. I've taught Science to 5 year olds, and even at this level, it's when using their own powers of critical thinking that students learn and appreciate most. I wonder what scientific facts 5 year olds could actually retain?

I remember teaching a class about properties of materials. In your model of science education, the children would be told "the objects in this pile are waterproof, the objects in this pile are not". Not exactly thrilling for the kids. What we actually do is give the kids a mixed pile of objects and a bowl of water and let them decide for themselves. Great fun for everyone, and the kids really learn something.

(Here's an online example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/scienceclips/ages/5_6/sorting_using_mate.shtml)

ALL elements of science are black and white..
there is a theory...and it is either correct...or like the above
statement....it is WRONG

Even if that's true (if) it doesn't entail that Science is taught that way. A five-year-old can learn the objective fact that plastic is waterproof in one of two ways. We can tell him that it's waterproof and hope that he remembers. Or we can give him a plastic boat and a bowl of water and let him find out for himself. Can you honestly say that the first method would be more appropriate?

 

[theAlphaDuck]

firstly...regarding quantum physics...

IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.....i understand it...fully

e.g.
if gods particle is removed from the matter within mount fuji one could lift the entire mountain with a single feather....
I don't know about you but that makes very little sense to me...

if it makes sense to you....then you don't understand it fully

as for TEACHING SCIENCE!!
yes experiments are great fun and good way's to engage children in a subject...

however it is simply not possible to learn everything you NEED to learn by the time you get to 16 if the only method of learning is to experiment for yourself....

there simply is not enough time!
and the same could be said about almost every subject...with the possible exception of maths.

yes burning stuff with bunsen burners is GREAT fun...
but science is about FACT.
and to a certain extent they DO need to be learnt as FACTS!
in the post you are quoting from i said the following

"this is why in a science class (usually)... the teacher explains a
theory.... explaines an experiment...and THEN you do the experiment."

now with these 5 year olds...did you explain to them that SOME things float/are waterproof and others dont?
yes?
and then did you tell them HOW they were to conduct the experiment?
and then knowing what the likely results were (i.e. some objects would hold water and others would not)...they then did the experiment.
that's not testing critical thinking... there is nothing to think about...
you DO the experiment as youve been TOLD to do it...and watch what happens...

where in all of that is ANY critical thinking going on?

logic and reasoning perhaps...if you got the kids to guess what the answer is going to be before hand....

subjective thought...upon the objective...
if you want to use science as a medium to teach that skill then good for you... but as it is NOT the best subject to do so...you are learning critical thinking at the COST of learning the science itself.

 

[Matthew Ota]

From Webster's Dictionary:

the mental process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information to reach an answer or conclusion

Do not use Wikipedia for a reference, it is anarchy there.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

and the same could be said about almost every subject

Absolutely true. Whether it's Science or History, good education should be a mixture of sharing facts and encouraging critical thinking.

 

[Mercer Publishin]

Critical thinking is the ability to be able to break down complex thoughts or arguments into smaller pieces, then applying logic to those portions of the issue to solve for a larger more complex issue. One example of this is as simple as understanding if something is different or similar to something else. An Apple and an Orange. Both fruits, both have seeds, both grow on a trees, but they have different color, taste different, are segmented differently and are pealed differently. Individuals with strong critical thinking skills are better able to break down complex thoughts or arguments to their roots and therefore more likely to form a better understanding of the complex task.

 

[johnnyG]

Hmm...

Or...?