Talk:Critical thinking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Needs a clearer opening paragraph

This article needs to be clearly labelled and contextualized from the outset as an "Education Page" - that is, "critical thinking" has very specific meanings due to its origin (? the phrase as commonly used originated in the US educational community, no? Or did it? This is not immediately clear from the article, and should be.) People might well be confused, if they came to the page, for example, seeking something related to informal reasoning or logic. The subject is by nature tendentious - "Critical Thinking" seems to refer more to a movement, a set of proposed techniques in education, a quasi-ideological stance, etc than to an "actual thing" that an encylopedia can simply describe. (in so far as it is not clearly grounded in a particular fashion in the education field, then "critical thinking" seems like just a pointless synonym for "clear thinking".) Starting the article with some sort of "etymology" for the term might help.

[edit] misc

It seems to me that this page has somehow morphed largley into a shameless plug for a book and a website. maybe this paged should be retitled:

Critical Thinking: It's definition and institution according to "criticalthinking.org".

Maybe even a little "paypal" check-out link where you can buy the book!

Really, I wouldn't be quite so offended if said website wasn't ridiculously hailed as, "The Foundation".

Cheers,

euneirophrenia

[edit] editing well researched entries

I contributed to this article last summer as I was writing a thesis on critical thinking. It seems that it has been removed or edited. The entry I offered explored the trajectory between complete subjectivity and striving for more objective understandings (and of course, understanding critical thinking and practicing it leaves the learner in a state of ongoing redressing of inexcapable bias).

Anyway, I was sad to see my contributions wiped away. And I also feel that what it was replaced by seemed pretty contribed and devoid of critical thought -- instead relying on dogmatic interpretation.

But who am I to judge?

What is wrong with this article that it has been suggested for clean-up? (See also my comment below: frankahilario)

  • Confirmation that the article is o.k. now? Tag removed. Sunray 16:25, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
    • Looks hunky-dory to me, 'cepting some capitals in the See-also list. It was still showing up in the Cleanup/Leftovers list (which is where I found it). ...and now it isn't. All better. Blair P. Houghton 22:01, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Someone added a quotation with a tag {Fromm} after it. Was this meant to be a link to Erich Fromm? If not, who is the quote from? Jon the Geek 14:31, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

I've added the link as you suggest. Sunray 18:57, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
The only problem with that is that the Erich Fromm article doesn't mention a "concept of man," so I don't know what the author who inserted that was referring to. Jon the Geek 00:56, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] merge with "critical thought"

I have removed the article Critical thought and changed it into a redirect to critical thinking, as it seemed to be rather duplicate. For completeness I include here the full text of the old critical thought article. It might contain some useful information which is not already in Critical thinking. Kind regards. --Lenthe 12:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Critical thought is often interpreted as "being critical" in the sense of "taking a negative attitude". The philosophical meaning however is that of thought which:

  • probes, identifies and questions the assumptions on which a viewpoint etc. is logically (or factually) based.
  • seeks to draw out the logical (or factual) implications, consequences and limits of a viewpoint, to assess whether those who uphold it could agree with those implications and thus continue to maintain that viewpoint.

Therefore, critical thought requires:

  • the ability to question and inquire, in contrast to just accepting a parent's, teacher's or authority's say-so as "the truth".
  • a concern to discover and verify independently what is really the truth, regardless of what particular people may say is the truth.
  • a willingness to pursue a line of thought to its ultimate conclusion, which may take courage, perseverance, discipline and an open-minded approach.
  • an ability to approach the object of critical thought in a sufficiently sympathetic way, so that it is fairly, accurately and validly represented, rather than misrepresented.
  • an ability for self-criticism, to the extent that one's capacity for understanding something correctly may be limited by various factors; one must allow for at least the possibility that one's own interpretation could be wrong in part or as a whole.
  • an ability in practical life to "live with" the results or consequences of one's critical thought, which might not be accepted straightaway by many people.


[edit] Perhaps a degree of confusion?

"Critical thinking is a mental process of analyzing or evaluating information..."

Analysis is, I think we can agree, a division and ordering process. In most cases, the ordering involves representation in consciousness, according to some already established organizing principle. Which, of course, is the evaluation component in the quoted line. Analytic, evaluative consciousness is inherently dogmatic, in short. An examination of the tenacity with which natural (and for that matter, social) scientists historically cling to notions which are more comfortable than adequate to reality is a good gauge of this, perhaps.

But: This is not critical thinking. Critique avoids (so far as that is possible -- we can discuss the limits...) the evaluative representation in consciousness -- merely analytic thinking.

Or, to put that polemically, even English teachers can teach "critical thinking" that is merely analysis. Most seem less able to suspend the set of evaluative criteria with which they have been saddled (or have saddled themselves), and to break through into critical thinking propter se.

Don Jenner jenner.citigraphics.net

Don: You raise an interesting point and one that resonates with me. Of course you are *right* that the meaning of the word analysis has come to be that "division and ordering process." The first definition in several dictionaries is "the separation of something into its constitutent parts in order to..." So it thus becomes subject to whichever discipline the analyst subscribes to. The term "disciplinary matrix," perhaps, captures the dilemma you pose. Kuhn used the term "disciplinary" to refer to the "common possession of the practitioners of a particular discipline" and "'matrix' because it is composed of ordered elements of various sorts, each requiring further specification" (emphasis mine). In short, most analysis subscribes to a particular paradigm. I agree that such a process is not critique in its purest form.
Interestingly, in light of what you've said, the roots of the word "analysis" do not forsee this disciplinary spin. The word comes from the Greek analusis, a dissolving, from analein, to undo : ana-, throughout. Many dictionary definitions seem to have drifted away from this original meaning. The definition I like is: "The separation of a whole into its constituent parts for individual study." So a division, but not necessarily an ordering (which would necessarily be along disciplinary lines).
What could we do to differentiate true critical thought from the "ordering process" that you describe? One option might be to summarize what you have said and incorporate it into the lead. Sunray 18:30, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, analuein is just "I dissolve". No disciplinary thing, but maybe the idea of dividing the question and making a distinction (paraphrasing, er, Montesquieu?) and so on is very much alive. [Fascinating word: Clearly from lusis and luo — and now I am wondering how I ever got through the Platonic dialogue "Lysis" without thinking about this; Lysis is unbinding of Socrates? I was such a callow youth.] Maybe just a freeing of what is complex matters?

A case could be made, real analysis is inherently critical; the division and distinction process cannot proceed without first understanding what is present before one (at least, in consciousness) and that even dogamtic understanding starts in critique. Not sure I want to do that, but I can see how it could be done.

My concern has been with the reduction (I am being kindly...) of what I understand to be critical thinking, to what seems to be taught those who wander into my classes (whether management or philosophy -- I do both), having taken a class in "critical thinking" and which seems to be just analysis, and rather poor analysis at that.

I have no objection to incorporating something like the distinction I noted, but am not sure how best to do it. There are some implications, I think -- a large part of what I understand to be at stake in "post-Modern" is tied up in this distinction. Say if you will, I think Foucault (and maybe Ricoeur before him?) is very critical; I am less sure Derrida gets it. --djenner 15:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you about Foucault (who has one of the most nuanced perspectives on disciplinary control I've ever encountered--control through surveilance) and mounts a withering critique. I've never been able to get interested enough in Derrida's stuff to read more than a paragraph at one sitting, so I don't know whether or not he gets it either. The dilemma you pose of the student who arrives with a course in critical thinking and proceeds to deploy its concepts in your class is both intriguing and disquieting. It is interesting to me that "critical thinking" is taught in critical thinking "mills" (as I found out when I was doing some research for this article). I had always thought that it was something acquired in a good liberal arts education. But of course, with much of our education being brought to us by Coca Cola, etc., is it any wonder? I'm beginning to visualise a section near the top of the article covering this discussion. Also, we could adjust the lead, if you like. Why not just wade in? Be bold and take your "pen" to it as you deem necessary. Sunray 21:06, August 27, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Scope

Sorry to butt in like this, guys, but after all you have said and done, I a newcomer to all this am now saying: FIRST THINGS FIRST. We go back to the basics. So, we have to define/delimit/discuss/debate CRITICAL THINKING in relation with CREATIVE THINKING (CREATIVITY) in relation with INTELLIGENCE. Please see my comments in INTELLIGENCE: I was there first.

frankahilario 20 october 2005 0625 manila time


Not sure what you mean here
Among other things, "intelligence" is spoken in several senses. Sadly, the several senses seem often to have a common referent, and that is a prima facie case for the likelihood that no clear discussion is going to be possible.
Then there is my absolutely all-time favorite Kant quote:
"Der Mangel an Urteilskraft ist eigentlich das, was man Dummheit nennt, und einem solchen Gebrechen ist gar nicht abzuhelfen. Ein stumpfer oder eingeschränkter Kopf, dem es an nichts, als am gehörigen Grade des Verstandes und eigenen Begriffen desselben mangelt, ist durch Erlernung sehr wohl, sogar bis zur Gelehrsamkeit, auszurüsten. Da es aber gemeiniglich alsdann auch an jenem (der secunda Petri) zu fehlen pflegt, so ist es nichts ungewöhnliches, sehr gelehrte Männer anzutreffen, die, im Gebrauche ihrer Wissenschaft, jenen nie zu bessernden Mangel häufig blicken lassen." [Immanuel Kant, Kritik der reinen Vernunft, A135/B173]
[The full quote in English (Kemp Smith):
Deficiency in judgment is just what is ordinarily called stupidity, and for such a failing there is no remedy. An obtuse or narrowminded person to whom nothing is wanting save a proper degree of understanding and the concepts appropriate thereto, may indeed be trained through study, even to the extent of becoming learned. But as such people are commonly still lacking in judgment, it is not unusual to meet learned men who in the application of their scientific knowledge betray that original want, which can never be made good.]
Admittedly, more a bon mot than a brilliant analysis. Still, an interesting insight which others have also expressed for the last, O, 2,700 years or so: Intelligence has very little to do with it. Critical thinking seems to be tied to judgment -- prudence and so on -- and the ability to intuit what is universal in a unique particular moment.
Quite a lot of intelligent people, seems to me, are good at analyzing a particular case, and determining in that analysis under what extant universal explanatory schemata it can be subsumed. It is sufficiently ordinary that folks do it quite accurately from partial, even defective data. [Consider "evidence-based" medical practice, which (regardless of the Wikipedia article's claim), can be shown to allow quite remarkable leaps across wide gaps in solid, scientific, ætiologically sound explanation. This is a good thing, by the bye; medical practice would collapse if physicians weren't good at this.] It seems to me pretty clear, this is what it comes down to, in most discussions of "critical reasoning": really good analysis.
We want something more than that, though. We want to be able to deal with the case that is sui generis. We need to be able to assess events that come to pass that are not much like things that have gone before. And so on. This is where critique plays, and I submit that some very intelligent people (Messrs. Rumsfeld and Cheney, e. g.) just don't do that very well. [This is a much kindlier assessment than other possible explanations, and fits better with the sort of ancien regime that seems to obtain in the U. S..]
--djenner 02:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Links...

... and online guides to critical thinking please!

Wikipedia is not a collection of web links. It is an encyclopedia :) Dlohcierekim 19:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed a few links but this list of links is way to big. More weeding is in order here to leave the three of four best links. LarryQ 21:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm about to remove links to anything selling something... books, study guides, etc. All going away. -- Xinit 00:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverte

I removed a plug for a book. :) Dlohcierekim 19:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extraneous?

"The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal awards the Robert P. Balles Annual Prize in Critical Thinking."

This is completely out of place. Why is this in the definition of critical thinking?

"or that which is nutritive from that which is not.Critical thinking begins almost at birth. An infant or any warm blooded animal must be able to discern the nipple from the breast in order that nutrition be provided.This faculty is humanity's most important, as it is the implementation and honing of criticism which allows continued existence and social growth. The loss of this faculty through injury, denial or subversion can lead to fatal mistakes. Critical thinking is humanity's most important mental faculty."

What do people think of this slightly 'purple' passage? I didn't want to edit out someones work but I personally feel it's a bit wooly and not very encyclopedic in tone, and may not even be factually accurate. It doesn't really follow on from the greek definition as it implies. Also, finding the nipple is largely by instinct, not critical thought; hence a newborn puppy or other animal can do it.Merkinsmum 02:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree and think that your changes to the article are a big improvement. Sunray 09:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign language?

What's with the various foreign language exerts in the article? I don't understand why it's there and what purpose it serves.Wikidudeman 03:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] long/repetitive

I love critical thinking, but I find it impossible to wade through this article, it's overlong and just seems to define critical thinking in different ways, again and again and again, as if different authors have just stuck their own views on the end rather than editing what was there? I suggest thorough condensing of itMerkinsmum 19:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I just looked at it again and it seems to have been pruned since a few weeks ago when I last tried to read it, and is now readable, hurrah! Has someone done some serious pruning?Merkinsmum 19:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What does this mean?

Here is a passage currently in the article:

"Are there any additional benefits given to critical thinkers? According to some philosophers, that's luck. But paradox may exist because luck, by critical thinking, is usually defined as fallacy."

This should be made sensible or remove -- most likely removed.

64.91.107.186 06:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GCE : what and where ?

this is a very minor comment, but could someone clarify what this means "The full advanced GCE is now available and, though very challenging" -- I don't know what a GCE is (I suspect it is some fascet of english educational testing) and I don't know WHERE it is available (ie, is there a textbook, etc. for it, and if so, what is it and where can I get it ?)

thanks, Mercmisfire 01:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I expect you'll want to read General Certificate of Education. -Phoenixrod 19:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

My new edits and any copyright issues regarding the Foundation for Critical Thinking

I hate this course with a passion. 82.44.209.28 21:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content from the Foundation

I just wanted to make sure that I am clear regarding the new content I have submitted on this page and a few others regarding Critical Thinking, Socratic questioning and associated pages. I have emailed permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org a release for use of content from the Foundation for Critical Thinking. If you see any content that has been reused from www.criticalthinking.org, know that it is being provided with permission. Please contact me for any questions regarding this. If I have not jumped through all the correct hoops in the correct order please contact me before doing a "speedy delete" DanBlanchard 18:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just out of curiosity...

Shouldn't the article's title use a noun (thought) rather than a gerund (thinking)? Just wondering. Paul 03:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Your grammar is impeccable. Nevertheless, I see a difference between the two terms: Critical thinking is a structured thinking process that is learned in schools and universities and, sometimes, taught in courses. Critical thought simply a component of criticism. Comparing the prevalence of the two terms on the Internet, critical thinking is by far the most common (2.3M vs. 736K). Sunray 15:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree Sunray, Critical Thinking is the established term. Another aspect as I see it is that use of Critical Thinking reminds one that it an ongoing active process. DanBlanchard 18:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overall Cruddiness

This article really sucks. It's one person's narrow perspective of a large and interesting subject. This topic deserves better.

[edit] Advertising?

Moving a link here:

  • Learning for a Cause, a non-profit organization which promotes critical thinking through the promotion and publishing of student voices.

Reason: Ok, the organisation promotes critical thinking, as do thousands of others. But the page linked here doesn't even use the words "critical thinking", it's a fairly tenuous connection as far as I can see. As such this looks to me very much like a "vanity" link. Or am I mistaken? SociableLiberal 19:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It is link spam to my mind. Sunray 15:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] oh gawd

Critical thinking is very important, because it enables one to analyze, evaluate, and restructure our thinking, decreasing thereby the risk of acting on, or thinking with, a false premise. However, even with the use of critical thinking skills, mistakes can happen due to a thinker's egocentrism or sociocentrism or failure to be in possession of the full facts. In addition, there is always the possibility of inadvertent human error.

I think the first of those sentences just needs to go. (so it's very important, is it? I guess that's why it's in Wikipedia.) Then we have "inadvertent human error." I love the repetitive redundancy there. ;-)

Yes, please be bold, this article has a lot of "how to" and an awful lot of poor writing. Please, go right ahead!
And please remember to sign your posts. :-) SociableLiberal 14:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stuff removed on August 29

It appears that a section (Common concepts used in critical thinking activities) was removed on August 29, 2007 (by 76.176.236.204), with no apparent reason given. The removed section does not appear to be in good style, nevertheless I find it strange that it simply disappeared with no one noticing.Erkcan 11:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Critical_thinking&diff=154324028&oldid=151998698

[edit] Proposal for a new first paragraph

Critical thinking is thinking that self-consciously seeks to follow certain norms for the purpose of avoiding undesired outcomes. Controversies concerning how to define critical thinking in less general terms can be explained as disagreement about (a) what norms apply, (b) how they are to be followed, and (c) what critical thinkers seek.

In academia, critical thinking encompasses the subject matter of informal logic and argumentation theory, which together comprise much of what has been traditionally taught under the banner of “critical thinking.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.1.1.101 (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism?

Where's talk of the criticism of critical thinking? I'm sure I'm not the only person who sees this as a vehicle of strong social constructionist dominance.

At the very least, Wikipedia owes a fair hearing to those whom are allying themselves against this unnatural exercise in group think. One should not seek to overcome one's own biases, but to understand them. Only with understanding can one affirm both the strengths and the weaknesses of the bias, and to decide its merits thereupon.

Don't think it's too late. We can still stop this destructive filter of human potential from corroding our educational institutions. And the first step, is to expose critical thinking's critics. 07:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)