House of Eratosthenes

The “Critical Thinking Community” has a number of definitions, as one would expect. And I know maybe I’m not in much position to talk, but the clarity-to-word-count ratio runs a bit on the low side:

…the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.

That makes people feel good when they belong in a Critical Thinking Community, I’m sure, but I’m inclined to believe that’s the primary point of coming up with this definition, which would tend to indicate it’s not helping us as we seek to DEFINE the term. It’s full of glurge which doesn’t define. It does not transform the subjective to the objective, which is one of the things definition is supposed to do. We would have to hunt down the author of it, with each specimen that may or may not be critical thinking, and ask him “Is this what you had in mind?” That means the job of defining remains undone.

Critical thinking must be critical. A good example of it would be: You’re at home and you receive a call, in the middle of the day, from very prestigious investment broker telling you about this amazing opportunity, they need the money right away if you want to go for it, be sure and keep it a secret because they only want a few people to have the opportunity…

Non critical thinking would be: They’re so prestigious! Who am I to doubt them? And: How could I get my hands on that amount of money before 5 p.m.? Critical thinking would be: If it’s such a great deal and you only want a few people to know about it, why do you need me? Why even tell me about it? Why not invest in it yourself? This meets the Wiki definition; it involves critique.

I would say it is making, or at least pursuing, a conclusive opinion based on the miscellany of available information left after one removes 1) observed evidence, 2) statements of fact & opinion from others and 3) personal biases. Within that residue, critical thinking consists of detecting apparent contradictions, and working to resolve them.

Saw in a comment under a blog post, of which I became aware over a year ago, a great generalized observation of critical thinking, and some of the problems we see with it…although this doesn’t actually use the term.

The fact that increasing sophistication of analysis often causes one to flip back and forth tells us that (1) we should be suspicious when our complicated tools allow us to return to what we wanted to believe anyways and (2) we should decrease our confidence in this process…since even at the highest levels of sophistication available we might expect yet higher levels to change our opinion.

Good advice, for a lot of people I’ve encountered who are a bit too sure of their opinions. You know the type: So much pre-canned data, and statistics, and ALL of it, every jot & tittle, enforces their own preconceived notions. Every speck, every smidgen. Now, this doesn’t apply just to liberals, they don’t have a monopoly on this problem, although doubtlessly they do have a lock on a sizable majority of the suffering from it.

To a liberal, critical thinking is nothing more than maintaining the feeling that that’s what one is doing.

Things “they” always forget…..
…..clear, rational thinking.
……..irrational fear or hatred.
Well, you know, fungible I suppose. …
- CaptDMO | 10/17/2016 @ 07:52
I think I can help here. It’s been a while since you’ve been on campus, I assume? These days, colleges spend a whole lot of time teaching “critical thinking.” Ask any professor; she’ll tell you that’s one of academia’s primary missions. But as with all things academic, you have to use their Very Special Words in just their precise Very Special Way….

In this case, “critical thinking” means “attack white males.” Really. Seriously. Literally, even. There’s an entire jargon devoted to it. “Cisgender,” for example, means “to believe one’s birth-genitals have some relationship to one’s behavior.” By using that word, you’re doing “critical thinking.” You’re “interrogating the gender binary.” Etc.

Thus, they all come out of college thinking they’re champion “critical thinkers,” because they got A’s for this.
- Severian | 10/17/2016 @ 08:13
Yeah, that’s why I thought the Wikipedia definition fell short. “Gonna blame this on straight white males” would fall under “thinking that involves critique,” since the possessor of the idea intends to criticize straight white males. Whereas the definition that actually works would be much more exclusive, qualifying only the ideas that follow a cookie-cutter template:

“Hey waitaminnit…if we are to accept [x], then how come [y]?” Where [x] is a dictum that is not to be challenged and is not called into question by any available evidence, and [y] is a similar dictum that was proposed earlier.

If Donald Trump is an intolerably right-wing extremist according to democrats, then how is it that he’s such an obvious left-wing democrat plant according to Republicans?

“If so powerful you are, why leave?” — Yoda.

I have the impression that it is falling out of favor because it is seen, rightfully, as a prelude to conflict. Like the “and that’s when it started” jokes. As in, “My wife asked me if her jeans made her look fat, and I told her no, her fat ass makes her look fat — and that’s when it started.” Truth, it seems, has given way to the more important objective of avoiding conflict. As a result, somehow, our discourse is more contentious and polarized than we ever remember it being…which is an obserrvation that inspires more critical thinking all by itself…
- mkfreeberg | 10/18/2016 @ 04:39
“And that’s when it started.” I like that! I always use “and then what?” in these types of situations. Ok, so I got my A in Critical Thinking. And then what? “I’ve concluded that gender is a social construction.” Ok, and then what? “So we must change society. Only the following configurations are allowed.” Ok, and then what? “And then, ummm, there shall be… um….there oughtta be a law that… shut up, racist!”

Which is why I keep saying that today’s blue-haired bicurious vegan slam poet is tomorrow’s obergruppenfuhrer. It’s easy to believe this stuff when you can force class after class of cowed students to parrot it back to you on final exams. It’s an entirely different thing to explain to the broke CisHetPat white male who’s getting evicted from his shithole apartment because he can’t even get a job as a janitor because he’s not diverse enough, that he’s got “privilege.” Eventually those folks are going to “construct” their own identity, and how can you possibly stop them, given the tools in your “Critical Thinking” kit?

It won’t end well. Make-believe never does.
- Severian | 10/18/2016 @ 07:10
[…] So I was lately wondering if we’re witnessing the demise of epistemology, and a few months ago I was wondering essentially the same thing about critical thinking. […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 01/15/2017 @ 05:08

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Critical ThinkingSunday, October 16th, 2016

Critical Thinking
Sunday, October 16th, 2016