Critical Thinking for Transformative Justice

The e-Advocate
Quarterly Magazine
Critical Thinking
for Transformative Justice
1 Timothy 1:1-11
“Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities
Achieve Their Full Potential”
Vol. VI, Issue XXIII – Q-1 January| February| March 2020

The Advocacy Foundation, Inc.
Preparing Individuals, Organizations & Communities
to Achieve Their Full Potential
Critical Thinking
for Transformative Justice
1735 Market Street, Suite 3750 | 100 Edgewood Avenue, Suite 1690
Philadelphia, PA 19102 Atlanta, GA 30303
John C Johnson III, Esq.
Founder & CEO
(855) ADVOC8.0
(855) 238-6280 § (215) 486-2120
www.TheAdvocacyFoundation.org
Page 2 of 45

Page 3 of 45

Biblical Authority
1 Timothy 1:1-11 (AMP)
1 Paul, an apostle (special messenger) of Christ Jesus by appointment and command of God our
Savior and of Christ Jesus (the Messiah), our Hope,
2
To Timothy, my true son in the faith: Grace (spiritual blessing and favor), mercy, and [heart]
peace [be yours] from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
3
As I urged you when I was on my way to Macedonia, stay on where you are at Ephesus in order
that you may warn and admonish and charge certain individuals not to teach any different
doctrine,
4
Nor to give importance to or occupy themselves with legends
(fables, myths) and endless
genealogies, which foster and
promote useless speculations and questionings rather
than acceptance in faith of
God’s administration and
the divine training that is in
faith ( [a] in that leaning of
the entire human personality on God in
absolute trust and confidence)—
5
Whereas the object and purpose of our
instruction and charge is
love, which springs
from a pure heart and a good (clear)
conscience and sincere
(unfeigned) faith.
6
But certain individuals have missed the mark
on this very matter [and]
have wandered away
into vain arguments and discussions and
purposeless talk.
7
They are ambitious to be doctors of the Law (teachers of the Mosaic ritual), but they have no
understanding either of the words and terms they use or of the subjects about which they make
[such] dogmatic assertions.
8
Now we recognize and know that the Law is good if anyone uses it lawfully [for the purpose
for which it was designed],
9
Knowing and understanding this: that the Law is not enacted for the righteous (the upright and
just, who are in right standing with God), but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and
sinful, for the irreverent and profane, for those who strike and beat and [even] murder fathers
and strike and beat and [even] murder mothers, for manslayers,
Page 4 of 45

10
[For] impure and immoral persons, those who abuse themselves with men, kidnapers, liars,
perjurers—and whatever else is opposed to wholesome teaching and sound doctrine
11
As laid down by the glorious Gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.
Page 5 of 45

Page 6 of 45

Table of Contents
______
Biblical Authority
I. Introduction
II. Fundamentals of Critical Thinking
III. Deductive Reasoning
IV. Inductive Reasoning
V. Logic
VI. Critical Social Theory
VII. The Critique of Ideology
VIII.Enlightenment
______
Attachment A: Critical Thinking: What It Is
and Why It Counts
Attachment B: The Miniature Guide
to Critical Thinking
Page 7 of 45

Page 8 of 45

noun
Critical Thinking
1. disciplined thinking that is clear,
rational, open-minded, and informed by
evidence
- Dictionary.com
Critical thinking...the awakening of the intellect to
the study of itself.
Critical thinking is a rich
concept that has been
developing throughout the
past 2500 years. The term
"critical thinking" has its roots
in the mid-late 20th century.
We offer here overlapping
definitions, together which
form a substantive, transdisciplinary
conception of
critical thinking.
Critical Thinking as Defined
by the National Council for
Excellence
in Critical Thinking, 1987
A statement by Michael Scriven &
Richard Paul, presented at the 8th Annual
International Conference on Critical
Thinking and Education Reform,
Summer 1987.
Critical thinking is the intellectually
disciplined process of actively and
skillfully conceptualizing, applying,
analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating
information gathered from, or generated
by, observation, experience, reflection,
Introduction
The National Council for
Excellence in Critical Thinking
defines it as 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.
______
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.
It entails the examination of
those structures or elements
of thought implicit in all
reasoning: purpose,
problem, or question-atissue;
assumptions; concepts; empirical
grounding; reasoning leading to
conclusions; implications and
consequences; objections from alternative
viewpoints; and frame of reference.
Critical thinking — in being responsive to
variable subject matter, issues, and
purposes — is incorporated in a family of
interwoven modes of thinking, among
them: scientific thinking, mathematical
thinking, historical thinking,
anthropological thinking, economic
Page 9 of 45

thinking, moral thinking, and
philosophical thinking.
Critical
thinking can
be seen as
having two
components:
1) a set of
information
and belief
generating
and
processing
skills, and 2)
the habit, based on intellectual
commitment, of using those skills to
guide behavior. It is thus to be contrasted
with: 1) the mere acquisition and
retention of information alone, because it
involves a particular way in which
information is sought and treated; 2) the
mere possession of a set of skills, because
it involves the continual use of them; and
3) the mere use of those skills ("as an
exercise") without acceptance of their
results.
Critical thinking varies according to the
motivation underlying it. When grounded
in selfish motives, it is often manifested in
the skillful manipulation of ideas in
service of one’s own, or one's groups’,
vested interest. As such it is typically
intellectually flawed, however
pragmatically successful it might be.
When grounded in fairmindedness and
intellectual integrity, it is typically of a
higher order intellectually, though subject
to the charge of "idealism" by those
habituated to its selfish use.
Critical thinking of any kind is never
universal in any individual; everyone is
subject to episodes of undisciplined or
irrational thought. Its quality is therefore
typically a matter of degree and
dependent on, among other things, the
quality and depth of experience in a
given domain of thinking or with respect
to a particular class of questions. No one
is a critical thinker through-and-through,
but only to such-and-such a degree, with
such-and-such insights and blind spots,
subject to such-and-such tendencies
towards self-delusion. For this reason, the
development of critical thinking skills and
dispositions is a life-long endeavor.
Another Brief Conceptualization of
Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is self-guided, selfdisciplined
thinking which attempts to
reason at the highest level of quality in a
fair-minded way. 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 and they will at times
fall prey to mistakes in reasoning, human
irrationality, prejudices, biases,
distortions, uncritically accepted social
rules and taboos, self-interest, and vested
interest. They strive to improve the
Page 10 of 45

world in whatever ways they can and
contribute to a more rational, civilized
society. At the same time, they
recognize the complexities often inherent
in doing so. They avoid thinking
simplistically about complicated issues
and strive to
appropriately
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. They
embody the Socratic principle: The
unexamined life is not worth living ,
because they realize that many
unexamined lives together result in an
uncritical, unjust, dangerous world.
~ Linda Elder, September, 2007
______
The Problem
Why Critical Thinking?
Everyone thinks; it is our nature to do so.
But much of our thinking, left to itself, is
biased, distorted, partial, uninformed or
down-right prejudiced. Yet the quality of
our life and that of what we produce,
make, or build depends precisely on the
quality of our thought. Shoddy thinking
is costly, both in money and in quality of
life. Excellence in thought, however,
must be systematically cultivated.
A Definition
Critical thinking is that mode of thinking
- about any subject, content, or problem -
in which the thinker improves the quality
of his or her thinking by skillfully taking
charge of the structures inherent in
thinking and imposing intellectual
standards upon them.
The Result
A well cultivated critical thinker:
• raises vital questions and
problems, formulating them
clearly and precisely;
• gathers and assesses relevant
information, using abstract ideas
to interpret it effectively comes to
well-reasoned conclusions and
solutions, testing them against
relevant criteria and standards;
• thinks openmindedly within
alternative systems of thought,
recognizing and assessing, as need
be, their assumptions,
implications, and practical
consequences; and
• communicates effectively with
others in figuring out solutions to
complex problems.
Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed,
self-disciplined, self-monitored, and selfcorrective
thinking. It presupposes assent
to rigorous standards of excellence and
mindful command of their use. It entails
effective communication and problem
solving abilities and a commitment to
overcome our native egocentrism and
sociocentrism.
(Taken from Richard Paul and Linda
Elder, The Miniature Guide to Critical
Thinking Concepts and Tools, Foundation
for Critical Thinking Press, 2008)
Page 11 of 45

Critical Thinking Defined
by Edward Glaser
In a seminal study on critical thinking
and education in 1941, Edward Glaser
defines critical thinking as follows “The
ability to think critically, as conceived in
this volume, involves three things: ( 1 )
an attitude of being disposed to consider
in a thoughtful way the problems and
subjects that come within the range of
one's experiences, (2) knowledge of the
methods of logical inquiry and reasoning,
and (3) some skill in applying those
methods. 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.
(Edward M. Glaser, An Experiment in the
Development of Critical Thinking,
Teacher’s College, Columbia University,
1941)
Page 12 of 45

Fundamentals of Critical Thinking
No one always acts purely objectively and rationally. We connive for selfish interests. We gossip, boast,
exaggerate, and equivocate. It is "only human" to wish to validate our prior knowledge, to vindicate our
prior decisions, or to sustain our earlier beliefs. In the process of satisfying our ego, however, we can often
deny ourselves intellectual growth and opportunity. We may not always want to apply critical thinking skills,
but we should have those skills available to be employed when needed.
Critical thinking includes a complex combination of skills. Among the main characteristics are the
following:
Rationality
We are thinking critically when we
• rely on reason rather than emotion,
• require evidence, ignore no known evidence, and follow evidence where it leads, and
• are concerned more with finding the best explanation than being right analyzing apparent confusion
and asking questions.
Self-awareness
We are thinking critically when we
• weigh the influences of motives and bias, and
• recognize our own assumptions, prejudices, biases, or point of view.
Honesty
We are thinking critically when we recognize emotional impulses, selfish motives, nefarious purposes, or
other modes of self-deception.
Open-Mindedness
We are thinking critically when we
• evaluate all reasonable inferences
• consider a variety of possible viewpoints or perspectives,
• remain open to alternative interpretations
• accept a new explanation, model, or paradigm because it explains the evidence better, is simpler, or
has fewer inconsistencies or covers more data
• accept new priorities in response to a reevaluation of the evidence or reassessment of our real
interests, and
• do not reject unpopular views out of hand.
Discipline
We are thinking critically when we
• are precise, meticulous, comprehensive, and exhaustive
• resist manipulation and irrational appeals, and
• avoid snap judgments.
Page 13 of 45

Judgment
We are thinking critically when we
In sum,
• recognize the relevance and/or merit of alternative assumptions and perspectives
• recognize the extent and weight of evidence
• Critical thinkers are by nature skeptical. They approach texts with the same skepticism and
suspicion as they approach spoken remarks.
• Critical thinkers are active, not passive. They ask questions and analyze. They consciously apply
tactics and strategies to uncover meaning or assure their understanding.
• Critical thinkers do not take an egotistical view of the world. They are open to new ideas and
perspectives. They are willing to challenge their beliefs and investigate competing evidence.
Critical thinking enables us to recognize a wide range of subjective analyses of otherwise objective data, and
to evaluate how well each analysis might meet our needs. Facts may be facts, but how we interpret them may
vary.
By contrast, passive, non-critical thinkers take a simplistic view of the world.
• They see things in black and white, as either-or, rather than recognizing a variety of possible
understanding.
• They see questions as yes or no with no subtleties.
• They fail to see linkages and complexities.
• They fail to recognize related elements.
Non-critical thinkers take an egotistical view of the world
• They take their facts as the only relevant ones.
• They take their own perspective as the only sensible one.
• They take their goal as the only valid one.
Page 14 of 45

Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic
or logical deduction or, informally, "topdown"
logic, is the process of reasoning
from one or more statements (premises) to
reach a logically certain conclusion.
Deductive Reasoning
then states that
"Socrates" must be
"mortal" because he
inherits this attribute
from
his
classification as a
"man".
Deductive reasoning links premises with
conclusions. If all premises are true, the
terms are clear, and the rules of deductive
logic are followed, then the conclusion
reached is necessarily true.
Deductive reasoning (top-down logic)
contrasts with inductive reasoning (bottomup
logic) in the following way: In deductive
reasoning, a conclusion is reached
reductively by applying general rules that
hold over the entirety of a closed domain of
discourse, narrowing the range under
consideration until only the conclusion is
left. In inductive reasoning, the conclusion is
reached by generalizing or extrapolating
from initial information. As a result,
induction can be used even in an open
domain, one where there is epistemic
uncertainty. Note, however, that the
inductive reasoning mentioned here is not
the same as induction used in mathematical
proofs – mathematical induction is actually a
form of deductive reasoning.
An example of a deductive argument:
1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
The first premise states that all objects
classified as "men" have the attribute
"mortal". The second premise states that
"Socrates" is classified as a "man" – a
member of the set "men". The conclusion
The law of
detachment (also known as affirming the
antecedent and Modus ponens) is the first
form of deductive reasoning. A single
conditional statement is made, and a
hypothesis (P) is stated. The conclusion (Q)
is then deduced from the statement and the
hypothesis. The most basic form is listed
below:
1. P → Q (conditional statement)
2. P (hypothesis stated)
3. Q (conclusion deduced)
In deductive reasoning, we can conclude Q
from P by using the law of detachment.
However, if the conclusion (Q) is given
instead of the hypothesis (P) then there is no
definitive conclusion.
The following is an example of an argument
using the law of detachment in the form of
an if-then statement:
1. If an angle satisfies 90° < A < 180°,
then A is an obtuse angle.
2. A = 120°.
3. A is an obtuse angle.
Since the measurement of angle A is greater
than 90° and less than 180°, we can deduce
that A is an obtuse angle.
The law of Syllogism takes two
conditional statements and forms a
conclusion by combining the hypothesis of
Page 15 of 45

one statement with the conclusion of
another. Here is the general form:
1. P → Q
2. Q → R
3. Therefore, P → R.
The following is an example:
1. If Larry is sick, then he will be
absent.
2. If Larry is absent, then he will miss
his classwork.
3. Therefore, if Larry is sick, then he
will miss his classwork.
We deduced the final statement by
combining the hypothesis of the first
statement with the conclusion of the second
statement. We also allow that this could be a
false statement. This is an example of the
Transitive Property in mathematics. The
Transitive Property is sometimes phrased in
this form:
1. A = B.
2. B = C.
3. Therefore A = C.
The law of Contrapositive states that, in
a conditional, if the conclusion is false, then
the hypothesis must be false also. The
general form is the following:
1. P → Q.
2. ~Q.
3. Therefore we can conclude ~P.
The following are examples:
1. If it is raining, then there are clouds
in the sky.
2. There are no clouds in the sky.
3. Thus, it is not raining.
Deductive arguments are evaluated in terms
of their Validity and Soundness.
An argument is valid if it is impossible for
its premises to be true while its conclusion is
false. In other words, the conclusion must be
true if the premises are true. An argument
can be valid even though the premises are
false.
An argument is sound if it is valid and the
premises are true.
It is possible to have a deductive argument
that is logically valid but is not sound.
Fallacious arguments often take that form.
The following is an example of an argument
that is valid, but not sound:
1. Everyone who eats carrots is a
quarterback.
2. John eats carrots.
3. Therefore, John is a quarterback.
The example's first premise is false – there
are people who eat carrots and are not
quarterbacks – but the conclusion must be
true, so long as the premises are true (i.e. it
is impossible for the premises to be true and
the conclusion false). Therefore the
argument is valid, but not sound.
Generalizations are often used to make
invalid arguments, such as "everyone who
eats carrots is a quarterback." Not everyone
who eats carrots is a quarterback, thus
proving the flaw of such arguments.
In this example, the first statement uses
categorical reasoning, saying that all carroteaters
are definitely quarterbacks. This
theory of deductive reasoning – also known
as term logic – was developed by Aristotle,
but was superseded by propositional
(sentential) logic and predicate logic.
Page 16 of 45

Deductive reasoning can be contrasted with
inductive reasoning, in regards to validity
and soundness. In cases of inductive
reasoning, even though the premises are true
and the argument is "valid", it is possible for
the conclusion to be false (determined to be
false with a counterexample or other
means).
teaching or training. As a result of this
belief, deductive reasoning skills are not
taught in secondary schools, where students
are expected to use reasoning more often
and at a higher level. It is in high school, for
example, that students have an abrupt
introduction to mathematical proofs – which
rely heavily on deductive reasoning.
Deductive reasoning is generally thought of
as a skill that develops without any formal
Page 17 of 45

Page 18 of 45

Inductive Reasoning
Inductive reasoning (as opposed to
deductive reasoning) is reasoning in which
the premises seek to supply strong evidence
for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the
conclusion. While the conclusion of a
deductive argument is supposed to be
certain, the truth of the conclusion of an
inductive argument is supposed to be
probable, based upon the evidence given.
The philosophical definition of inductive
reasoning is more nuanced than simple
progression from particular/individual
instances to broader generalizations.
Rather, the premises of an
inductive logical argument
indicate some degree of support
(inductive probability) for the
conclusion but do not entail
it; that is, they suggest
truth but do not ensure it. In
this manner, there is the
possibility of moving from
general statements to individual
instances (for example,
statistical syllogisms, discussed
below).
Many dictionaries define inductive
reasoning as reasoning that derives general
principles from specific observations,
though some sources disagree with this
usage.
Inductive reasoning is inherently uncertain.
It only deals in degrees to which, given the
premises, the conclusion is credible
according to some theory of evidence.
Examples include a many-valued logic,
Dempster–Shafer Theory, or
probability theory with rules for inference
such as Bayes' rule. Unlike deductive
reasoning, it does not rely on universals
holding over a closed domain of discourse to
draw conclusions, so it can be applicable
even in cases of epistemic uncertainty
(technical issues with this may arise
however; for example, the second axiom of
probability is a closed-world assumption).
A statistical syllogism is an example of
inductive reasoning:
1. Almost all people are taller than
26 inches
2. Gareth is a person
3. Therefore, Gareth is
almost certainly taller
than 26 inches
As a stronger example:
100% of biological life
forms that we know of depend
on liquid water to exist.
Therefore, if we discover a
new biological life form it will
probably depend on liquid water to exist.
This argument could have been made every
time a new biological life form was found,
and would have been correct every time;
however, it is still possible that in the future
a biological life form not requiring water
could be discovered.
As a result, the argument may be stated less
formally as:
All biological life forms that we
know of depend on liquid water to
exist.
Page 19 of 45

All biological life probably depends
on liquid water to exist.
Inductive v. Deductive Reasoning
Unlike deductive arguments, inductive
reasoning allows for the possibility that the
conclusion is false, even if all of the
premises are true. Instead of being valid or
invalid, inductive arguments are either
strong or weak, which describes how
probable it is that the conclusion is true.
A classical example of an incorrect
inductive argument was presented by John
Vickers:
All of the swans we have seen are
white.
Therefore, all swans are white.
Note that this definition of inductive
reasoning excludes mathematical induction,
which is a form of deductive reasoning.
Criticism & Biases
Although the use of inductive reasoning
demonstrates considerable success, its
application has been questionable.
Recognizing this, Hume highlighted the fact
that our mind draws uncertain conclusions
from relatively limited experiences. In
deduction, the truth value of the conclusion
is based on the truth of the premise. In
induction, however, the dependence on the
premise is always uncertain. As an example,
let's assume "all ravens are black." The fact
that there are numerous black ravens
supports the assumption. However, the
assumption becomes inconsistent with the
fact that there are white ravens. Therefore,
the general rule of "all ravens are black" is
inconsistent with the existence of the white
raven. Hume further argued that it is
impossible to justify inductive reasoning:
specifically, that it cannot be justified
deductively, so our only option is to justify
it inductively. Since this is circular he
concluded that our use of induction is
unjustifiable with the help of "Hume's
Fork".
However, Hume then stated that even if
induction were proved unreliable, we would
still have to rely on it. So instead of a
position of severe skepticism, Hume
advocated a practical skepticism based on
common sense, where the inevitability of
induction is accepted.
Biases
Inductive reasoning is also known as
hypothesis construction because any
conclusions made are based on current
knowledge and predictions. As with
deductive arguments, biases can distort the
proper application of inductive argument,
thereby preventing the reasoner from
forming the most logical conclusion based
on the clues. Examples of these biases
include the availability heuristic,
confirmation bias, and the predictable-world
bias.
The availability heuristic causes the reasoner
to depend primarily upon information that is
readily available to him/her. People have a
tendency to rely on information that is easily
accessible in the world around them. For
example, in surveys, when people are asked
to estimate the percentage of people who
died from various causes, most respondents
would choose the causes that have been
most prevalent in the media such as
terrorism, and murders, and airplane
accidents rather than causes such as disease
and traffic accidents, which have been
technically "less accessible" to the
individual since they are not emphasized as
heavily in the world around him/her.
Page 20 of 45

The confirmation bias is based on the
natural tendency to confirm rather than to
deny a current hypothesis. Research has
demonstrated that people are inclined to
seek solutions to problems that are more
consistent with known hypotheses rather
than attempt to refute those hypotheses.
Often, in experiments, subjects will ask
questions that seek answers that fit
established hypotheses, thus confirming
these hypotheses. For example, if it is
hypothesized that Sally is a sociable
individual, subjects will naturally seek to
confirm the premise by asking questions that
would produce answers confirming that
Sally is in fact a sociable individual.
The predictable-world bias revolves around
the inclination to perceive order where it has
not been proved to exist, either at all or at a
particular level of abstraction. Gambling, for
example, is one of the most popular
examples of predictable-world bias.
Gamblers often begin to think that they see
simple and obvious patterns in the outcomes
and, therefore, believe that they are able to
predict outcomes based upon what they have
witnessed. In reality, however, the outcomes
of these games are difficult to predict and
highly complex in nature. However, in
general, people tend to seek some type of
simplistic order to explain or justify their
beliefs and experiences, and it is often
difficult for them to realize that their
perceptions of order may be entirely
different from the truth.
Page 21 of 45

Page 22 of 45

Logic
Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική,
logike) is the use and study of valid
reasoning. The study of logic features most
prominently in the subjects of philosophy,
mathematics, and computer science.
Logic was studied in several ancient
civilizations, including India, China, Persia
and Greece. In the West, logic was
established as a formal discipline by
Aristotle, who gave it a fundamental place in
philosophy. The study of
logic was part of the
classical trivium, which
also included grammar and
rhetoric. Logic was further
extended by Al-Farabi
who categorized it into
two separate groups (idea
and proof). Later,
Avicenna revived the study of logic and
developed relationship between temporalis
and the implication. In the East, logic was
developed by Buddhists and Jains.
Logic is often divided into three parts:
inductive reasoning, abductive reasoning,
and deductive reasoning.
The concept of logical form is central to
logic, it being held that the validity of an
argument is determined by its logical form,
not by its content. Traditional Aristotelian
syllogistic logic and modern symbolic logic
are examples of formal logics.
• Informal logic is the study of natural
language arguments. The study of
fallacies is an especially important
branch of informal logic. The
dialogues of Plato are good examples
of informal logic.
• Formal logic is the study of
inference with purely formal content.
An inference possesses a purely
formal content if it can be expressed
as a particular application of a
wholly abstract rule, that is, a rule
that is not about any particular thing
or property. The works of Aristotle
contain the earliest known formal
study of logic. Modern formal logic
follows and expands on Aristotle. In
many definitions of logic, logical
inference and
inference
with purely
formal
content are
the same.
This does not
render the
notion of
informal logic vacuous, because no
formal logic captures all of the
nuances of natural language.
• Symbolic logic is the study of
symbolic abstractions that capture
the formal features of logical
inference. Symbolic logic is often
divided into two branches:
propositional logic and predicate
logic.
• Mathematical logic is an extension
of symbolic logic into other areas, in
particular to the study of model
theory, proof theory, set theory, and
recursion theory.
Logical form
Main article: Logical form
Page 23 of 45

Logic is generally considered formal when
it analyzes and represents the form of any
valid argument type. The form of an
argument is displayed by representing its
sentences in the formal grammar and
symbolism of a logical language to make its
content usable in formal inference. If one
considers the notion of form too
philosophically loaded, one could say that
formalizing simply means translating
English sentences into the language of logic.
This is called showing the logical form of
the argument. It is necessary because
indicative sentences of ordinary language
show a considerable variety of form and
complexity that makes their use in inference
impractical. It requires, first, ignoring those
grammatical features irrelevant to logic
(such as gender and declension, if the
argument is in Latin), replacing conjunctions
irrelevant to logic (such as "but") with
logical conjunctions like "and" and
replacing ambiguous, or alternative logical
expressions ("any", "every", etc.) with
expressions of a standard type (such as "all",
or the universal quantifier ∀).
Second, certain parts of the sentence must be
replaced with schematic letters. Thus, for
example, the expression "all As are Bs"
shows the logical form common to the
sentences "all men are mortals", "all cats are
carnivores", "all Greeks are philosophers",
and so on.
That the concept of form is fundamental to
logic was already recognized in ancient
times. Aristotle uses variable letters to
represent valid inferences in Prior Analytics,
leading Jan Łukasiewicz to say that the
introduction of variables was "one of
Aristotle's greatest inventions". According
to the followers of Aristotle (such as
Ammonius), only the logical principles
stated in schematic terms belong to logic,
not those given in concrete terms. The
concrete terms "man", "mortal", etc., are
analogous to the substitution values of the
schematic placeholders A, B, C, which were
called the "matter" (Greek hyle) of the
inference.
The fundamental difference between modern
formal logic and traditional, or Aristotelian
logic, lies in their differing analysis of the
logical form of the sentences they treat.
• In the traditional view, the form of
the sentence consists of (1) a subject
(e.g., "man") plus a sign of quantity
("all" or "some" or "no"); (2) the
copula, which is of the form "is" or
"is not"; (3) a predicate (e.g.,
"mortal"). Thus: all men are mortal.
The logical constants such as "all",
"no" and so on, plus sentential
connectives such as "and" and "or"
were called "syncategorematic"
terms (from the Greek kategorei – to
predicate, and syn – together with).
This is a fixed scheme, where each
judgment has an identified quantity
and copula, determining the logical
form of the sentence.
• According to the modern view, the
fundamental form of a simple
sentence is given by a recursive
schema, involving logical
connectives, such as a quantifier with
its bound variable, which are joined
by juxtaposition to other sentences,
which in turn may have logical
structure.
• The modern view is more complex,
since a single judgement of
Aristotle's system involves two or
more logical connectives. For
example, the sentence "All men are
mortal" involves, in term logic, two
non-logical terms "is a man" (here
Page 24 of 45

M) and "is mortal" (here D): the
sentence is given by the judgement
A(M,D). In predicate logic, the
sentence involves the same two nonlogical
concepts, here analyzed as
and
, and the sentence is
given by ,
involving the logical connectives for
universal quantification and
implication.
• But equally, the modern view is
more powerful. Medieval logicians
recognized the problem of multiple
generality, where Aristotelian logic
is unable to satisfactorily render such
sentences as "Some guys have all the
luck", because both quantities "all"
and "some" may be relevant in an
inference, but the fixed scheme that
Aristotle used allows only one to
govern the inference. Just as linguists
recognize recursive structure in
natural languages, it appears that
logic needs recursive structure.
Deductive and inductive reasoning,
and abductive inference
Deductive reasoning concerns what follows
necessarily from given premises (if a, then
b). However, inductive reasoning—the
process of deriving a reliable generalization
from observations—has sometimes been
included in the study of logic. Similarly, it is
important to distinguish deductive validity
and inductive validity (called "cogency").
An inference is deductively valid if and only
if there is no possible situation in which all
the premises are true but the conclusion
false. An inductive argument can be neither
valid nor invalid; its premises give only
some degree of probability, but not
certainty, to its conclusion.
The notion of deductive validity can be
rigorously stated for systems of formal logic
in terms of the well-understood notions of
semantics. Inductive validity on the other
hand requires us to define a reliable
generalization of
some set of
observations. The
task of providing
this definition may
be approached in
various ways, some
less formal than
others; some of
these definitions
may use mathematical models of
probability. For the most part this discussion
of logic deals only with deductive logic.
Abduction is a form of logical inference that
goes from observation to a hypothesis that
accounts for the reliable data (observation)
and seeks to explain relevant evidence. The
American philosopher Charles Sanders
Peirce (1839–1914) first introduced the term
as "guessing". Peirce said that to abduce a
hypothetical explanation from an observed
surprising circumstance is to surmise that
may be true because then would be a
matter of course. Thus, to abduce from
involves determining that is sufficient (or
nearly sufficient), but not necessary, for .
Consistency, validity, soundness, and
completeness
Among the important properties that logical
systems can have:
• Consistency, which means that no
theorem of the system contradicts
another.
• Validity, which means that the
system's rules of proof never allow a
false inference from true premises. A
logical system has the property of
Page 25 of 45

soundness when the logical system
has the property of validity and uses
only premises that prove true (or, in
the case of axioms, are true by
definition).
• Completeness, of a logical system,
which means that if a formula is true,
it can be proven (if it is true, it is a
theorem of the system).
• Soundness, the term soundness has
multiple separate meanings, which
creates a bit of confusion throughout
the literature. Most commonly,
soundness refers to logical systems,
which means that if some formula
can be proven in a system, then it is
true in the relevant model/structure
(if A is a theorem, it is true). This is
the converse of completeness. A
distinct, peripheral use of soundness
refers to arguments, which means
that the premises of a valid argument
are true in the actual world.
Some logical systems do not have all four
properties. As an example, Kurt Gödel's
incompleteness theorems show that
sufficiently complex formal systems of
arithmetic cannot be consistent and
complete; however, first-order predicate
logics not extended by specific axioms to be
arithmetic formal systems with equality can
be complete and consistent.
Rival conceptions of logic
Main article: Definitions of logic
Logic arose (see below) from a concern with
correctness of argumentation. Modern
logicians usually wish to ensure that logic
studies just those arguments that arise from
appropriately general forms of inference.
For example, Thomas Hofweber writes in
the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
that logic "does not, however, cover good
reasoning as a whole. That is the job of the
theory of rationality. Rather it deals with
inferences whose validity can be traced back
to the formal features of the representations
that are involved in that inference, be they
linguistic, mental, or other representations".
By contrast, Immanuel Kant argued that
logic should be conceived as the science of
judgement, an idea taken up in Gottlob
Frege's logical and philosophical work. But
Frege's work is ambiguous in the sense that
it is both concerned with the "laws of
thought" as well as with the "laws of truth",
i.e. it both treats logic in the context of a
theory of the mind, and treats logic as the
study of abstract formal structures.
Page 26 of 45

Page 27 of 45

Critical Social Theory
The Frankfurt School
The Frankfurt School (German:
Frankfurter Schule) is a school of neo-
Marxist interdisciplinary social theory
associated in part with the Institute for
Social Research at the Goethe University
in Frankfurt, Germany. The school
initially consisted of dissident Marxists
who believed that some of
Marx's followers had
come to parrot a narrow
selection of Marx's ideas,
usually in defense of
orthodox Communist
parties. Meanwhile, many
of these theorists believed
that traditional Marxist
theory could not
adequately explain the
turbulent and unexpected
development of capitalist
societies in the twentieth century. Critical
of both capitalism and Soviet socialism,
their writings pointed to the possibility of
an alternative path to social development.
Although sometimes only loosely
affiliated, Frankfurt School theorists
spoke with a common paradigm in mind,
thus sharing the same assumptions and
being preoccupied with similar questions.
In order to fill in the perceived omissions
of traditional Marxism, they sought to
draw answers from other schools of
thought, hence using the insights of
antipositivist sociology, psychoanalysis,
existential philosophy, and other
disciplines. The school's main figures
sought to learn from and synthesize the
works of such varied thinkers as Kant,
Hegel, Marx, Freud, Weber and Lukács.
Following Marx, they were concerned
with the conditions that allow for social
change and the establishment of rational
institutions. Their emphasis on the
"critical" component of theory was
derived significantly from their attempt
to overcome the limits of positivism,
materialism and
determinism by returning
to Kant's critical
philosophy and its
successors in German
idealism, principally
Hegel's philosophy, with
its emphasis on dialectic
and contradiction as
inherent properties of
human reality.
Since the 1960s,
Frankfurt School critical theory has
increasingly been guided by Jürgen
Habermas's work on communicative
reason, linguistic intersubjectivity and
what Habermas calls "the philosophical
discourse of modernity" More recently,
critical theorists such as Raymond Geuss
and Nikolas Kompridis have voiced
opposition to Habermas, claiming that he
has undermined the aspirations for social
change which originally gave purpose to
critical theory's various projects—for
example the problem of what reason
should mean, the analysis and
enlargement of "conditions of possibility"
for social emancipation, and the critique
of modern capitalism.
Page 28 of 45

Page 29 of 45

The Critique of Ideology
The Frankfurt School's work cannot be
fully comprehended without equally
understanding the aims and objectives of
critical theory. Initially outlined by Max
Horkheimer in his Traditional and
Critical Theory (1937), critical theory
may be defined as a self-conscious social
critique that is aimed at change and
emancipation through enlightenment,
and does not cling dogmatically to its
own doctrinal assumptions. The original
aim of critical theory was to analyze the
true significance of "the ruling
understandings" generated in bourgeois
society, in order to show how they
misrepresented actual human interaction
in the real world, and in so doing
functioned to justify or legitimize the
domination of people by capitalism. A
certain sort of story (a narrative) was
provided to explain what was happening
in society, but the story concealed as
much as it revealed. The Frankfurt
theorists generally assumed that their
own task was mainly to interpret all the
other areas of society which Marx had
not dealt with, especially in the
superstructure of society.
Horkheimer opposed it to "traditional
theory", which refers to theory in the
positivistic, scientistic, or purely
observational mode – that is, which
derives generalizations or "laws" about
different aspects of the world. Drawing
upon Max Weber, Horkheimer argued
that the social sciences are different from
the natural sciences, inasmuch as
generalizations cannot be easily made
from so-called experiences, because the
understanding of a "social" experience
itself is always fashioned by ideas that are
in the researchers themselves. What the
researcher does not realize is that he is
caught in a historical context in which
ideologies shape the thinking; thus theory
would be conforming to the ideas in the
mind of the researcher rather than the
experience itself:
“
The
facts which
our senses
present to us
are socially
performed in
two ways:
through the
historical
character of the
object perceived
and through the
historical
character of the
perceiving
organ. Both are
not simply
natural; they
are shaped by
human activity,
and yet the
individual
perceives
himself as
receptive and
passive in the
act of
perception.
”
For Horkheimer, approaches to
understanding in the social sciences
cannot simply imitate those in the natural
Page 30 of 45

sciences. Although various theoretical
approaches would come close to breaking
out of the ideological constraints which
restricted them, such as positivism,
pragmatism, neo-Kantianism and
phenomenology, Horkheimer would
argue that they failed, because all were
subject to a "logico-mathematical"
prejudice which separates theoretical
activity from actual life (meaning that all
these schools sought to find a logic which
would always remain true, independently
of and without consideration for ongoing
human activities). According to
Horkheimer, the appropriate response to
this dilemma is the development of a
critical theory.
The problem, Horkheimer argued, is
epistemological: we should not merely
reconsider the scientist but the knowing
individual in general. [19] Unlike orthodox
Marxism, which merely applies a readymade
"template" to both critique and
action, critical theory seeks to be selfcritical
and rejects any pretensions to
absolute truth. Critical theory defends the
primacy of neither matter (materialism)
nor consciousness (idealism), arguing that
both epistemologies distort reality to the
benefit, eventually, of some small group.
What critical theory attempts to do is to
place itself outside of philosophical
strictures and the confines of existing
structures. However, as a way of thinking
and "recovering" humanity's selfknowledge,
critical theory often looks to
Marxism for its methods and tools.
Horkheimer maintained that critical
theory should be directed at the totality
of society in its historical specificity (i.e.
how it came to be configured at a specific
point in time), just as it should improve
understanding of society by integrating
all the major social sciences, including
geography, economics, sociology, history,
political science, anthropology, and
psychology. While critical theory must at
all times be self-critical, Horkheimer
insisted that a theory is only critical if it is
explanatory. Critical theory must
therefore combine practical and
normative thinking in order to "explain
what is wrong with current social reality,
identify actors to change it, and provide
clear norms for criticism and practical
goals for the future." Whereas traditional
theory can only mirror and explain
reality as it presently is, critical theory's
purpose is to change it; in Horkheimer's
words the goal of critical theory is "the
emancipation of human beings from the
circumstances that enslave them".
Frankfurt
School
theorists
were
explicitly
linking up
with the
critical
philosophy of Immanuel Kant, where the
term critique meant philosophical
reflection on the limits of claims made for
certain kinds of knowledge and a direct
connection between such critique and the
emphasis on moral autonomy – as
opposed to traditionally deterministic
and static theories of human action. In an
intellectual context defined by dogmatic
positivism and scientism on the one hand
and dogmatic "scientific socialism" on the
other, critical theorists intended to
rehabilitate Marx's ideas through a
philosophically critical approach.
Page 31 of 45

Whereas both Marxist-Leninist and
Social-Democratic orthodox thinkers
viewed Marxism as a new kind of
positive science, Frankfurt School
theorists, such as Horkheimer, rather
based their work on the epistemological
base of Karl Marx's work, which
presented itself as critique, as in Marx's
Capital: A Critique of Political Economy.
They thus emphasized that Marx was
attempting to create a new kind of critical
analysis oriented toward the unity of
theory and revolutionary practice rather
than a new kind of positive science.
Critique, in this Marxian sense, meant
taking the ideology of a society – e.g. the
belief in individual freedom or free
market under capitalism – and critiquing
it by comparing it with the social reality
of that very society – e.g. social inequality
and exploitation. The methodology on
which Frankfurt School theorists
grounded this critique came to be what
had before been established by Hegel and
Marx, namely the dialectical method.
Page 32 of 45

Page 33 of 45

Enlightenment refers to the "full
comprehension of a situation". It is
commonly used to denote the Age of
Enlightenment, but is also used in Western
cultures in a religious context. It translates
several Buddhist terms and concepts, most
notably bodhi, kensho and satori. Related
terms from Asian religions are moksha
(liberation) in Hinduism, Kevala Jnana in
Jainism and ushta in Zoroastrianism.
Enlightenment
Christian interest in eastern spirituality has
grown throughout the 20th century. Notable
Christians, such as Hugo Enomiya-Lassalle
and AMA Samy, have participated in
Buddhist training and even become
Buddhist teachers themselves. In a few
places Eastern contemplative techniques
have been integrated in Christian practices,
such as centering prayer. But this integration
has also raised questions about the borders
between these traditions.
In Christianity, the word "enlightenment" is
rarely used, except to refer to the Age of
Enlightenment and its influence on
Christianity. Roughly equivalent terms in
Christianity may be illumination, kenosis,
metanoia, revelation and conversion.
Perennialists and Universalists view
enlightenment and mysticism as equivalent
terms for religious or spiritual insight.
Christianity
See also: Religious conversion and
Divinization
The word "enlightenment" is not generally
used in Christian contexts for religious
understanding or insight. More commonly
used terms in the Christian tradition are
religious conversion and revelation.
Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871–1952), one of
the founders of Dispensationalism, uses the
word "illuminism". Christians who are
"illuminated" are of two groups, those who
have experienced true illuminism (biblical)
and those who experienced false illuminism
(not from the Holy Spirit).
Western esotericism and mysticism
Main articles:
Mysticism,
Western
esotericism
and Perennial
philosophy
Western and
Mediterranean culture has a rich tradition of
esotericism and mysticism. The Perennial
philosophy, basic to the New Age
understanding of the world, regards those
traditions as akin to Eastern religions which
aim at awakening/ enlightenment and
developing wisdom. All mystical traditions
possibly share a "common core", a
hypothesis which is central to New Age, but
contested by a diversity of scientists like
Katz and Proudfoot.
Judaism includes the mystical tradition of
Kabbalah. Islam includes the mystical
tradition of Sufism. In the Fourth Way
teaching, enlightenment is the highest state
of Man (humanity).
Page 34 of 45

Nondualism
Main articles: Nondualism, New Age,
Syncretism and Neo-Advaita
A popular western understanding sees
"enlightenment" as "nondual
consciousness", "a primordial, natural
awareness without subject or object". It is
used interchangeably with Neo-Advaita.
This nondual consciousness is seen as a
common stratum to different religions.
Several definitions or meanings are
combined in this approach, which makes it
possible to recognize various traditions as
having the same essence. According to
Renard, many forms of religion are based on
an experiential or intuitive understanding of
"the Real"
This idea of nonduality as "the central
essence" is part of a modern mutual
exchange and synthesis of ideas between
western spiritual and esoteric traditions and
Asian religious revival and reform
movements. Western predecessors are,
among others, New Age, Wilber's synthesis
of western psychology and Asian
spirituality, the idea of a Perennial
Philosophy, and Theosophy. Eastern
influences are the Hindu reform movements
such as Aurobindo's Integral Yoga and
Vivekananda's Neo-Vedanta, the Vipassana
movement, and Buddhist modernism. A
truly syncretistic influence is Osho and the
Rajneesh movement, a hybrid of eastern and
western ideas and teachings, and a mainly
western group of followers.
______
The second phase of Frankfurt School
critical theory centres principally on two
works: Adorno and Horkheimer's
Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944) and
Adorno's Minima Moralia (1951). The
authors wrote both works during the
Institute's exile in America. While
retaining much of a Marxian analysis, in
these works critical theory shifted its
emphasis. The critique of capitalism
turned into a critique of Western
civilization as a whole. Indeed, the
Dialectic of Enlightenment uses the
Odyssey as a paradigm for the analysis of
bourgeois consciousness. Horkheimer
and Adorno already present in these
works many themes that have come to
dominate the social thought of recent
years; indeed, their exposition of the
domination of nature as a central
characteristic of instrumental rationality
in Western civilization was made long
before ecology and environmentalism had
become popular concerns.
The analysis of reason now goes one
stage further. The rationality of Western
civilization appears as a fusion of
domination and of technological
rationality, bringing all of external and
internal nature under the power of the
human subject. In the process, however,
the subject itself gets swallowed up, and
no social force analogous to the
proletariat can be identified that will
enable the subject to emancipate itself.
Hence the subtitle of Minima Moralia:
"Reflections from Damaged Life". In
Adorno's words,
“
For
since the
overwhelming
”
objectivity of
historical
movement in its
present phase
Page 35 of 45

consists so far
only in the
dissolution of
the subject,
without yet
giving rise to a
new one,
individual
experience
necessarily
bases itself on
the old subject,
now historically
condemned,
which is still
for-itself, but
no longer initself.
The
subject still feels
sure of its
autonomy, but
the nullity
demonstrated
to subjects by
the
concentration
camp is already
overtaking the
form of
subjectivity
itself.
Consequently, at a time when it appears
that reality itself has become the basis for
ideology, the greatest contribution that
critical theory can make is to explore the
dialectical contradictions of individual
subjective experience on the one hand,
and to preserve the truth of theory on the
other. Even dialectical progress is put
into doubt: "its truth or untruth is not
inherent in the method itself, but in its
intention in the historical process." This
intention must be oriented toward
integral freedom and happiness: "the only
philosophy which can be responsibly
practiced in face of despair is the attempt
to contemplate all things as they would
present themselves from the standpoint
of redemption". Adorno goes on to
distance himself from the "optimism" of
orthodox Marxism: "beside the demand
thus placed on thought, the question of
the reality or unreality of redemption [i.e.
human emancipation] itself hardly
matters."
From a sociological point of view, both
Horkheimer's and Adorno's works
contain a certain ambivalence concerning
the ultimate source or foundation of
social domination, an ambivalence which
gave rise to the "pessimism" of the new
critical theory over the possibility of
human emancipation and freedom. This
ambivalence was rooted, of course, in the
historical circumstances in which the
work was originally produced, in
particular, the rise of National Socialism,
state capitalism, and mass culture as
entirely new forms of social domination
that could not be adequately explained
within the terms of traditional Marxist
sociology. For Adorno and Horkheimer,
state intervention in the economy had
effectively abolished the tension in
capitalism between the "relations of
production" and "material productive
forces of society"—a tension which,
according to traditional Marxist theory,
constituted the primary contradiction
within capitalism. The previously "free"
market (as an "unconscious" mechanism
for the distribution of goods) and
"irrevocable" private property of Marx's
epoch have gradually been replaced by
the centralized state planning and
Page 36 of 45

socialized ownership of the means of
production in contemporary Western
societies. [35] The dialectic through which
Marx predicted the emancipation of
modern society is thus suppressed,
effectively being subjugated to a positivist
rationality of domination.
Of this second "phase" of the Frankfurt
School, philosopher and critical theorist
Nikolas Kompridis writes that:
“
According
to
the now
canonical view
of its history,
Frankfurt
School critical
theory began in
the 1930s as a
fairly confident
interdisciplinary
and materialist
research
program, the
general aim of
which was to
connect
normative
social criticism
to the
emancipatory
potential latent
in concrete
historical
processes. Only
a decade or so
later, however,
”
having revisited
the premises of
their
philosophy of
history,
Horkheimer
and Adorno's
Dialectic of
Enlightenment
steered the
whole
enterprise,
provocatively
and selfconsciously,
into a skeptical
cul-de-sac. As a
result they got
stuck in the
irresolvable
dilemmas of the
"philosophy of
the subject,"
and the original
program was
shrunk to a
negativistic
practice of
critique that
eschewed the
very normative
ideals on which
it implicitly
depended.
Kompridis claims that this "sceptical culde-sac"
was arrived at with "a lot of help
from the once unspeakable and
unprecedented barbarity of European
fascism," and could not be gotten out of
without "some well-marked [exit or]
Ausgang, showing the way out of the
ever-recurring nightmare in which
Enlightenment hopes and Holocaust
horrors are fatally entangled." However,
this Ausgang, according to Kompridis,
Page 37 of 45

would not come until later – purportedly
in the form of Jürgen Habermas's work
on the intersubjective bases of
communicative rationality.
Page 38 of 45

Page 39 of 45

References
______
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School
3. http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766
4. http://www.criticalreading.com/critical_thinking.htm
5. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/critical+thinking
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_%28spiritual%29#Western_culture
Page 40 of 45

Attachment A
Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts
Page 41 of 45

Critical Thinking:
What It Is and Why It Counts
Peter A. Facione
The late George Carlin worked
“critical thinking” into one of his comedic
monologue rants on the perils of trusting our
lives and fortunes to the decision-making of
people who were gullible, uninformed, and
unreflective. Had he lived to experience the
economic collapse of 2008 and 2009, he
would have surely added more to his
caustic but accurate assessments regarding
how failing to anticipate the consequences
of one’s decisions often leads to disastrous
results not only for the decision maker, but
for many other people as well.
After years of viewing higher
education as more of a private good which
benefits only the student, we are again
beginning to appreciate higher education as
being also a public good which benefits
society. Is it not a wiser social policy to
invest in the education of the future
workforce, rather than to suffer the financial
costs and endure the fiscal and social
burdens associated with economic
weakness, public health problems, crime,
and avoidable poverty? Perhaps that
realization, along with its obvious
advantages for high level strategic decision
making, is what lead the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff to comment on critical
thinking in his commencement address to a
graduating class of military officers.
Teach people to make good
decisions and you equip them to improve
© 1992, 1998, 2004, 2006, 2011 Peter A. Facione, Measured Reasons and The California Academic Press, Millbrae, CA
Permission to Reprint for Non-Commercial Uses
This essay is published by Insight Assessment. The original appeared in 1992 and has been updated many times over the years.
Although the author and the publisher hold all copyrights, in the interests of advancing education and improving critical thinking,
permission is hereby granted for paper, electronic, or digital copies to be made in unlimited amounts, provided that their distribution
is free of charge provided that whenever material from this essay is cited or extracted in whole or in part that appropriate citation is
made by indicating this essay’s full title, author’s name, publisher’s name, year, and page or pages where it appears in this edition.
For permission for reprints intended for sale contact Insight Assessment by phone at 650-697-5628 or by email to
jmorante@insightassessment.com. ISBN 13: 978-1-891557-07-1.
To support the expenses of making this essay available free for non-commercial uses, the publisher has inserted information about
its critical thinking testing instruments. These tools assess the critical thinking skills and habits of mind described in this essay. To
build critical thinking skills and habits of mind use Dr. Facione’s newest book THINK_Critically, Pearson Education 2011.

their own futures and become contributing
members of society, rather than burdens on
society. Becoming educated and practicing
good judgment does not absolutely
guarantee a life of happiness, virtue, or
economic success, but it surely offers a
better chance at those things. And it is
clearly better than enduring the
consequences of making bad decisions and
better than burdening friends, family, and all
the rest of us with the unwanted and
avoidable consequences of those poor
choices.
Defining “Critical Thinking”
Yes, surely we have all heard
business executives, policy makers, civic
leaders, and educators talking about critical
thinking. At times we found ourselves
wondering exactly what critical thinking was
and why is it considered so useful and
important. This essay takes a deeper look at
these questions.
But, rather than beginning with an
abstract definition – as if critical thinking
were about memorization, which is not the
case – give this thought experiment a try:
Imagine you have been invited to a movie
by a friend. But it’s not a movie you want to
see. So, your friend asks you why. You
give your honest reason. The movie
offends your sense of decency. Your friend
asks you to clarify your reason by explaining
what bothers you about the film. You reply
that it is not the language used or the
sexuality portrayed, but you find the
violence in the film offensive.
Sure, that should be a good enough
answer. But suppose your friend, perhaps
being a bit philosophically inclined or simply
curious or argumentative, pursues the
matter further by asking you to define what
you mean by “offensive violence.”
Take a minute and give it a try.
How would you define “offensive violence”
as it applies to movies? Can you write a
characterization which captures what this
commonly used concept contains? Take
care, though, we would not want to make
the definition so broad that all movie
violence would be automatically “offensive.”
And check to be sure your way of defining
“offensive violence” fits with how the rest of
the people who know and use English
would understand the term. Otherwise they
will not be able to understand what you
mean when you use that expression.
Did you come up with a definition
that works? How do you know?
What you just did with the
expression “offensive violence” is very much
the same as what had to be done with the
expression “critical thinking.” At one level
we all know what “critical thinking” means —
it means good thinking, almost the opposite
of illogical, irrational, thinking. But when we
test our understanding further, we run into
questions. For example, is critical thinking
the same as creative thinking, are they
different, or is one part of the other? How
do critical thinking and native intelligence or
scholastic aptitude relate? Does critical
thinking focus on the subject matter or
content that you know or on the process you
use when you reason about that content?
It might not hurt at all if you formed
some tentative preliminary ideas about the
questions we just raised. We humans learn
better when we stop frequently to reflect,
rather than just plowing from the top of the
page to the bottom without coming up for
air.
Fine. So how would you propose we
go about defining “critical thinking.” You do
not really want a definition plopped on the
page for you to memorize, do you? That
would be silly, almost counterproductive.
The goal here is to help you sharpen your
critical thinking skills and cultivate your
critical thinking spirit. While memorization
definitely has many valuable uses, fostering
critical thinking is not among them. So, let’s
look back at what you might have done to
define “offensive violence” and see if we
can learn from you. Did you think of some
Facione, PA, “Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 2

scenes in movies that were offensively
violent, and did you contrast them with other
scenes that were either not violent or not
offensively violent? If you did, good. That is
one (but not the only) way to approach the
problem. Technically it is called finding
paradigm cases. Happily, like many things
in life, you do not have to know its name to
do it well.
when a person or a group of people decides
important matters without pausing first to
think things through.
Back to critical thinking – let’s ask
ourselves to come up with possible
examples of strong critical thinking? How
about the adroit and clever questioning of
Socrates or a good attorney or interviewer?
Or, what about the clever investigative
approaches used by police detectives and
crime scene analysts? Would we not want
to also include people working together to
solve a problem as they consider and
discuss their options? How about someone
who is good at listening to all sides of a
dispute, considering all the facts, and then
deciding what is relevant and what is not,
and then rendering a thoughtful judgment?
And maybe too, someone who is able to
summarize complex ideas clearly with
fairness to all sides, or a person who can
come up with the most coherent and
justifiable explanation of what a passage of
written material means? Or the person who
can readily devise sensible alternatives to
explore, but who does not become
defensive about abandoning them if they do
not work? And also the person who can
explain exactly how a particular conclusion
was reached, or why certain criteria apply?
Or, considering the concept of
critical thinking from the opposite direction,
we might ask what the consequences of
failing to use our critical thinking might be.
Imagine for a moment what could happen
Expert Opinion
An international group of experts
was asked to try to form a consensus about
the meaning of critical thinking. 1 One of the
first things they did was to ask themselves
the question: Who are the best critical
thinkers we know and what is it about them
that leads us to consider them the best?
So, who are the best critical thinkers you
know? Why do you think they are strong
critical thinkers? Can you draw from those
examples a description that is more
abstract? For example, consider effective
trial lawyers, apart from how they conduct
their personal lives or whether their client is
really guilty or innocent, just look at how the
lawyers develop their cases in court. They
use reasons to try to convince the judge and
jury of their client’s claim to guilt or
innocence. They offer evidence and
evaluate the significance of the evidence
presented by the opposition lawyers. They
interpret testimony. They analyze and
evaluate the arguments advanced by the
other side.
1 Many useful characterizations of critical thinking by noted
theorists and teachers are captured in Conversations with
Critical Thinkers , John Esterle and Dan Clurman (Eds.).
Whitman Institute. San Francisco, CA. 1993
Facione, PA, “Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 3

Now, consider the example of the
team of people trying to solve a problem.
The team members, unlike the courtroom’s
adversarial situation, try to collaborate. The
members of an effective team do not
compete against each other. They work in
concert, like colleagues, for the common
goal. Unless they solve the problem, none
of them has won. When they find the way
to solve the problem, they all have won. So,
from analyzing just two examples we can
generalize something very important: critical
thinking is thinking that has a purpose
(proving a point, interpreting what
something means, solving a problem), but
critical thinking can be a collaborative,
noncompetitive endeavor. And, by the way,
even lawyers collaborate. They can work
together on a common defense or a joint
prosecution, and they can also cooperate
with each other to get at the truth so that
justice is done.
We will come to a more precise
definition of critical thinking soon enough.
But first, there is something else we can
learn from paradigm examples. When you
were thinking about “offensive violence” did
you come up with any examples that were
tough to classify? Borderline cases, as it
were — an example that one person might
consider offensive but another might
reasonably regard as non-offensive. Yes,
well, so did we. This is going to happen
with all abstract concepts. It happens with
the concept of critical thinking as well.
There are people of whom we would say, on
certain occasions this person is a good
thinker, clear, logical, thoughtful, attentive to
the facts, open to alternatives, but, wow, at
other times, look out! When you get this
person on such-and-such a topic, well it is
all over then. You have pushed some kind
of button and the person does not want to
hear what anybody else has to say. The
person’s mind is made up ahead of time.
New facts are pushed aside. No other point
of view is tolerated.
Do you know any people that might
fit that general description?
Good. What can we learn about
critical thinking from such a case? Maybe
more than we can learn from just looking at
the easy cases. For when a case is on the
borderline, it forces us to make important
distinctions. It confronts us and demands a
decision: In or Out! And not just that, but
why? So, our friend who is fair-minded
about some things, but close-minded about
others, what to do? Let’s take the parts we
approve of because they seem to us to
contribute to acting rationally and logically
and include those in the concept of critical
thinking, and let’s take the parts that work
against reason, that close the mind to the
possibility of new and relevant information,
that blindly deny even the possibility that the
other side might have merit, and call those
poor, counterproductive, or uncritical
thinking.
Now, formulate a list of cases —
people that are clearly strong critical
thinkers and clearly weak critical thinkers
and some who are on the borderline.
Considering all those cases, what is it about
them that led you to decide which were
which? Suggestion: What can the strong
critical thinkers do (what mental abilities do
they have), that the weak critical thinkers
have trouble doing? What skills or
approaches do the strong critical thinkers
2 Spoken by the Vampire Marius in Ann Rice’s book The
Vampire Lestat Ballantine Books. New York, NY. 1985.
2
Facione, PA, “Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 4

habitually seem to exhibit which the weak
critical thinkers seem not to possess?
Core Critical Thinking Skills
Above we suggested you look for a
list of mental skills and habits of mind, the
experts, when faced with the same problem
you are working on, refer to their lists as
including cognitive skills and dispositions.
As to the cognitive skills here is what
the experts include as being at the very core
of critical thinking: interpretation, analysis,
evaluation, inference, explanation, and selfregulation.
(We will get to the dispositions
in just a second.) Did any of these words or
ideas come up when you tried to
characterize the cognitive skills — mental
abilities — involved in critical thinking?
Quoting from the consensus
statement of the national panel of experts:
interpretation is “to comprehend and
express the meaning or significance of a
wide variety of experiences, situations, data,
events, judgments, conventions, beliefs,
rules, procedures, or criteria.” 3 Interpretation
3 The findings of expert consensus cited or reported
in this essay are published in Critical Thinking: A
Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of
Educational Assessment and Instruction. Peter A.
Facione, principle investigator, The California
Academic Press, Millbrae, CA, 1990. (ERIC ED 315
423). In 1993/94 the Center for the Study of Higher
includes the sub-skills of categorization,
decoding significance, and clarifying
meaning. Can you think of examples of
interpretation? How about recognizing a
problem and describing it without bias?
How about reading a person’s intentions in
the expression on her face; distinguishing a
main idea from subordinate ideas in a text;
constructing a tentative categorization or
way of organizing something you are
studying; paraphrasing someone’s ideas in
your own words; or, clarifying what a sign,
chart or graph means? What about
identifying an author’s purpose, theme, or
point of view? How about what you did
above when you clarified what “offensive
violence” meant?
Again from the experts: analysis is
“to identify the intended and actual
inferential relationships among statements,
questions, concepts, descriptions, or other
forms of representation intended to express
belief, judgment, experiences, reasons,
information, or opinions.” The experts
include examining ideas, detecting
arguments, and analyzing arguments as
sub-skills of analysis. Again, can you come
up with some examples of analysis? What
about identifying the similarities and
differences between two approaches to the
solution of a given problem? What about
picking out the main claim made in a
newspaper editorial and tracing back the
various reasons the editor offers in support
of that claim? Or, what about identifying
unstated assumptions; constructing a way
to represent a main conclusion and the
various reasons given to support or criticize
it; sketching the relationship of sentences or
paragraphs to each other and to the main
Education at The Pennsylvania State University
undertook a study of 200 policy-makers, employers,
and faculty members from two-year and four-year
colleges to determine what this group took to be the
core critical thinking skills and habits of mind. The
Pennsylvania State University Study, under the
direction of Dr. Elizabeth Jones, was funded by the
US Department of Education Office of Educational
Research and Instruction. The Penn State study
findings, published in 1994, confirmed the expert
consensus described in this paper.
Facione, PA, “Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 5

purpose of the passage? What about
graphically organizing this essay, in your
own way, knowing that its purpose is to give
a preliminary idea about what critical
thinking means?
The experts define evaluation as
meaning “to assess the credibility of
statements or other representations which
are accounts or descriptions of a person’s
perception, experience, situation, judgment,
belief, or opinion; and to assess the logical
strength of the actual or intended inferential
relationships among statements,
descriptions, questions or other forms of
representation.” Your examples? How
about judging an author’s or speaker’s
credibility, comparing the strengths and
weaknesses of alternative interpretations,
determining the credibility of a source of
information, judging if two statements
contradict each other, or judging if the
evidence at hand supports the conclusion
being drawn? Among the examples the
experts propose are these: “recognizing the
factors which make a person a credible
witness regarding a given event or a
credible authority with regard to a given
topic,” “judging if an argument’s conclusion
follows either with certainty or with a high
level of confidence from its premises,”
“judging the logical strength of arguments
based on hypothetical situations,” “judging if
a given argument is relevant or applicable
or has implications for the situation at hand.”
Do the people you regard as strong
critical thinkers have the three cognitive
skills described so far? Are they good at
interpretation, analysis, and evaluation?
What about the next three? And your
examples of weak critical thinkers, are they
lacking in these cognitive skills? All, or just
some?
To the experts inference means “to
identify and secure elements needed to
draw reasonable conclusions; to form
conjectures and hypotheses; to consider
relevant information and to educe the
consequences flowing from data,
statements, principles, evidence,
judgments, beliefs, opinions, concepts,
descriptions, questions, or other forms of
representation.” As sub-skills of inference
the experts list querying evidence,
conjecturing alternatives, and drawing
conclusions. Can you think of some
examples of inference? You might suggest
things like seeing the implications of the
position someone is advocating, or drawing
out or constructing meaning from the
elements in a reading. You may suggest
that predicting what will happen next based
what is known about the forces at work in a
given situation, or formulating a synthesis of
related ideas into a coherent perspective.
How about this: after judging that it would
be useful to you to resolve a given
uncertainty, developing a workable plan to
gather that information? Or, when faced
with a problem, developing a set of options
for addressing it. What about, conducting a
controlled experiment scientifically and
applying the proper statistical methods to
attempt to confirm or disconfirm an
empirical hypothesis?
Beyond being able to interpret,
analyze, evaluate and infer, strong critical
thinkers can do two more things. They can
explain what they think and how they
arrived at that judgment. And, they can
apply their powers of critical thinking to
themselves and improve on their previous
opinions. These two skills are called
“explanation” and “self-regulation.”
The experts define explanation as
being able to present in a cogent and
coherent way the results of one’s reasoning.
This means to be able to give someone a
full look at the big picture: both “to state and
to justify that reasoning in terms of the
evidential, conceptual, methodological,
criteriological, and contextual considerations
upon which one’s results were based; and
to present one’s reasoning in the form of
cogent arguments.” The sub-skills under
explanation are describing methods and
results, justifying procedures, proposing and
defending with good reasons one’s causal
Facione, PA, “Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 6

and conceptual explanations of events or
points of view, and presenting full and wellreasoned,
arguments in the context of
seeking the best understandings possible.
Your examples first, please... Here are
some more: to construct a chart which
organizes one’s findings, to write down for
future reference your current thinking on
some important and complex matter, to cite
the standards and contextual factors used
to judge the quality of an interpretation of a
text, to state research results and describe
the methods and criteria used to achieve
those results, to appeal to established
criteria as a way of showing the
reasonableness of a given judgment, to
design a graphic display which accurately
represents the subordinate and superordinate
relationship among concepts or
ideas, to cite the evidence that led you to
accept or reject an author’s position on an
issue, to list the factors that were
considered in assigning a final course
grade.
Maybe the most remarkable
cognitive skill of all, however, is this next
one. This one is remarkable because it
allows strong critical thinkers to improve
their own thinking. In a sense this is critical
thinking applied to itself. Because of that
some people want to call this “metacognition,”
meaning it raises thinking to
another level. But “another level” really
does not fully capture it, because at that
next level up what self-regulation does is
look back at all the dimensions of critical
thinking and double check itself. Selfregulation
is like a recursive function in
mathematical terms, which means it can
apply to everything, including itself. You
can monitor and correct an interpretation
you offered. You can examine and correct
an inference you have drawn. You can
review and reformulate one of your own
explanations. You can even examine and
correct your ability to examine and correct
yourself! How? It is as simple as stepping
back and saying to yourself, “How am I
doing? Have I missed anything important?
Let me double check before I go further.”
The experts define self-regulation
to mean “self-consciously to monitor one’s
cognitive activities, the elements used in
those activities, and the results educed,
particularly by applying skills in analysis,
and evaluation to one’s own inferential
judgments with a view toward questioning,
confirming, validating, or correcting either
one’s reasoning or one’s results.” The two
sub-skills here are self-examination and
self-correction. Examples? Easy — to
examine your views on a controversial issue
with sensitivity to the possible influences of
your personal biases or self-interest, to
check yourself when listening to a speaker
in order to be sure you are understanding
what the person is really saying without
introducing your own ideas, to monitor how
well you seem to be understanding or
comprehending what you are reading or
experiencing, to remind yourself to separate
your personal opinions and assumptions
from those of the author of a passage or
text, to double check yourself by
recalculating the figures, to vary your
reading speed and method mindful of the
type of material and your purpose for
reading, to reconsider your interpretation or
judgment in view of further analysis of the
facts of the case, to revise your answers in
view of the errors you discovered in your
work, to change your conclusion in view of
the realization that you had misjudged the
importance of certain factors when coming
to your earlier decision. 4
4 The California Critical Thinking Skills Test, and the
Test of Everyday Reasoning, the Health Science
Reasoning Test, the Military and Defense Reasoning
Profile, The Business Critical Thinking Skills Test,
and the Legal Studies Reasoning Profile along with
other testing instruments authored by Dr. Facione and
his research team for people in K-12, college, and
graduate / professional work target the core critical
thinking skills identified here. These instruments are
published in English and several authorized
translations exclusively by Insight Assessment.
Facione, PA, “Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 7

The Delphi Research Method
The panel of experts we keep
referring to included forty-six men and
women from throughout the United States
and Canada. They represented many
different scholarly disciplines in the
humanities, sciences, social sciences, and
education. They participated in a research
project that lasted two years and was
conducted on behalf of the American
Philosophical Association. Their work was
published under the title Critical Thinking: A
Statement of Expert Consensus for
Purposes of Educational Assessment and
Instruction. (The California Academic
Press, Millbrae, CA, 1990). You may
download the executive summary of that
report free. Visit
http://www.insightassessment.com
You might be wondering how such a
large group of people could collaborate on
Facione, PA, “Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 8

this project over that long a period of time
and at those distances and still come to
consensus. Good question. Remember
we’re talking the days before e-mail.
Not only did the group have to rely
on snail mail during their two-year
collaboration; they also relied on a method
of interaction, known as the Delphi Method,
which was developed precisely to enable
experts to think effectively about something
over large spans of distance and time. In
the Delphi Method a central investigator
organizes the group and feeds them an
initial question. [In this case it had to do
with how college level critical thinking
should be defined so that people teaching at
that level would know which skills and
dispositions to cultivate in their students.]
The central investigator receives all
responses, summarizes them, and transmits
them back to all the panelists for reactions,
replies, and additional questions.
Wait a minute! These are all wellknown
experts, so what do you do if people
disagree? And what about the possible
influence of a big name person? Good
points. First, the central investigator takes
precautions to remove names so that the
panelists are not told who said what. They
know who is on the panel, of course. But
that is as far as it goes. After that each
experts’ argument has to stand on its own
merits. Second, an expert is only as good
as the arguments she or he gives. So, the
central investigator summarizes the
arguments and lets the panelists decide if
they accept them or not. When consensus
appears to be at hand, the central
investigator proposes this and asks if
people agree. If not, then points of
disagreement among the experts are
registered. We want to share with you one
important example of each of these. First
we will describe the expert consensus view
of the dispositions which are absolutely vital
to strong critical thinking. Then we will note
a point of separation among the experts.
Facione, PA, “Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 9

The Disposition Toward Critical
Thinking
What kind of a person would be apt
to use their critical thinking skills? The
experts poetically describe such a person
as having “a critical spirit.” Having a critical
spirit does not mean that the person is
always negative and hypercritical of
everyone and everything.
The experts use the metaphorical
phrase critical spirit in a positive sense. By
it they mean “a probing inquisitiveness, a
keenness of mind, a zealous dedication
to reason, and a hunger or eagerness for
reliable information.”
Almost sounds like Supreme Court
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor or Sherlock
Holmes The kind of person being described
here is the kind that always wants to ask
“Why?” or “How?” or “What happens if?”.
The one key difference, however, is that in
fiction Sherlock always solves the mystery,
while in the real world there is no guarantee.
Critical thinking is about how you approach
problems, questions, issues. It is the best
way we know of to get to the truth. But!
There still are no guarantees — no answers
in the back of the book of real life. Does
this characterization, that strong critical
thinkers possess a “critical spirit, a probing
inquisitiveness, a keenness of mind...” fit
with your examples of people you would call
strong critical thinkers?
But, you might say, I know people
who have skills but do not use them. We
cannot call someone a strong critical thinker
just because she or he has these cognitive
skills, however important they might be,
because what if they just do not bother to
apply them?
One response is to say that it is hard
to imagine an accomplished dancer who
never dances. After working to develop
those skills it seems such a shame to let
them grow weak with lack of practice. But
dancers get tired. And they surrender to the
stiffness of age or the fear of injury. In the
case of critical thinking skills, we might
argue that not using them once you have
them is hard to imagine. It’s hard to
imagine a person deciding not to think.
Considered as a form of thoughtful
judgment or reflective decision-making, in a
very real sense critical thinking is
pervasive. There is hardly a time or a
place where it would not seem to be of
potential value. As long as people have
purposes in mind and wish to judge how to
accomplish them, as long as people wonder
what is true and what is not, what to believe
and what to reject, strong critical thinking is
going to be necessary.
And yet weird things happen, so it is
probably true that some people might let
their thinking skills grow dull. It is easier to
imagine times when people are just too
tired, too lax, or too frightened. But imagine
it you can, Young Skywalker, so there has
to be more to critical thinking than just the
list of cognitive skills. Human beings are
more than thinking machines. And this
brings us back to those all-important
attitudes which the experts called
“dispositions.”
The experts were persuaded that
critical thinking is a pervasive and
purposeful human phenomenon. The ideal
critical thinker can be characterized not
merely by her or his cognitive skills but also
by how she or he approaches life and living
in general. This is a bold claim. Critical
Facione, PA, “Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 10

thinking goes way beyond the classroom.
In fact, many of the experts fear that some
of the things people experience in school
are actually harmful to the development and
cultivation of strong critical thinking. Critical
thinking came before schooling was ever
invented, it lies at the very roots of
civilization. It is a corner stone in the
journey human kind is taking from beastly
savagery to global sensitivity. Consider
what life would be like without the things on
this list and we think you will understand.
The approaches to life and living which
characterize critical thinking include:
* inquisitiveness with regard to a wide range of
issues,
* concern to become and remain well-informed,
* alertness to opportunities to use critical thinking,
* trust in the processes of reasoned inquiry,
* self-confidence in one’s own abilities to reason,
* open-mindedness regarding divergent world views,
* flexibility in considering alternatives and opinions
* understanding of the opinions of other people,
* fair-mindedness in appraising reasoning,
* honesty in facing one’s own biases, prejudices,
stereotypes, or egocentric tendencies,
* prudence in suspending, making or altering
judgments,
* willingness to reconsider and revise views where
honest reflection suggests that change is
warranted.
What would someone be like who
lacked those dispositions?
It might be someone who does not
care about much of anything, is not
interested in the facts, prefers not to think,
mistrusts reasoning as a way of finding
things out or solving problems, holds his or
her own reasoning abilities in low esteem, is
close-minded, inflexible, insensitive, cannot
understand what others think, is unfair when
it comes to judging the quality of arguments,
denies his or her own biases, jumps to
conclusions or delays too long in making
judgments, and never is willing to
reconsider an opinion. Not someone
prudent people would want to ask to
manage their investments!
The experts went beyond
approaches to life and living in general to
emphasize that strong critical thinkers can
also be described in terms of how they
approach specific issues, questions, or
problems. The experts said you would find
these sorts of characteristics:
* clarity in stating the question or concern,
* orderliness in working with complexity,
* diligence in seeking relevant information,
* reasonableness in selecting and applying criteria,
* care in focusing attention on the concern at hand,
* persistence though difficulties are encountered,
* precision to the degree permitted by the subject and
the circumstances.
So, how would a weak critical thinker
approach specific problems or issues?
Obviously, by being muddle-headed about
what he or she is doing, disorganized and
overly simplistic, spotty about getting the
facts, apt to apply unreasonable criteria,
easily distracted, ready to give up at the
least hint of difficulty, intent on a solution
that is more detailed than is possible, or
being satisfied with an overly generalized
and uselessly vague response. Remind you
of anyone you know?
Someone positively disposed toward
using critical thinking would probably agree
with statements like these:
“I hate talk shows where people shout their
opinions but never give any reasons at all.”
“Figuring out what people really mean by
what they say is important to me."
“I always do better in jobs where I'm
expected to think things out for myself.”
“I hold off making decisions until I have
thought through my options.”
“Rather than relying on someone else's
notes, I prefer to read the material myself.”
“I try to see the merit in another’s opinion,
even if I reject it later.”
“Even if a problem is tougher than I
expected, I will keep working on it.”
“Making intelligent decisions is more
important than winning arguments.”
Facione, PA, “Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 11

A person disposed to be averse or
hostile toward using critical thinking
would probably disagree with the
statements above but be likely to agree with
these:
“I prefer jobs where the supervisor says
exactly what to do and exactly how to do it."
“No matter how complex the problem, you
can bet there will be a simple solution.”
"I don't waste time looking things up."
“I hate when teachers discuss problems
instead of just giving the answers.”
“If my belief is truly sincere, evidence to the
contrary is irrelevant."
“Selling an idea is like selling cars, you say
whatever works."
We used the expression “strong
critical thinker” to contrast with the
expression “weak critical thinker.” But you
will find people who drop the adjective
“strong” (or “good”) and just say that
someone is a “critical thinker” or not. It is
like saying that a soccer (European
“football”) player is a “defender” or “not a
defender”, instead of saying the player’s
skills at playing defense are strong or weak.
People use the word “defender” in place of
the phrase “is good at playing defense.”
Similarly, people use “critical thinker” in
place of “is a strong critical thinker” or “has
strong critical thinking skills.” This is not
only a helpful conversational shortcut, it
suggests that to many people “critical
thinker” has a laudatory sense. The word
can be used to praise someone at the same
time that it identifies the person, as in “Look
at that play. That’s what I call a defender!”
“If we were compelled to make a
choice between these personal
attributes and knowledge about
the principles of logical
reasoning together with some
degree of technical skill in
manipulating special logical
processes, we should decide for
the former.”
John Dewey, How We Think, 1909. Republished as
How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of
Reflective Thinking to the Educational Process. D. C.
Heath Publishing. Lexington, MA. 1933.
We said the experts did not come to
full agreement on something. That thing
has to do with the concept of a “strong
critical thinker.” This time the emphasis is
on the word “good” because of a crucial
Facione, PA, “Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 12

ambiguity it contains. A person can be
good at critical thinking, meaning that the
person can have the appropriate
dispositions and be adept at the cognitive
processes, while still not being a good (in
the moral sense) critical thinker. For
example, a person can be adept at
developing arguments and then, unethically,
use this skill to mislead and exploit a gullible
person, perpetrate a fraud, or deliberately
confuse and confound, and frustrate a
project.
The experts were faced with an
interesting problem. Some, a minority,
would prefer to think that critical thinking, by
its very nature, is inconsistent with the kinds
of unethical and deliberately
counterproductive examples given. They
find it hard to imagine a person who was
good at critical thinking not also being good
in the broader personal and social sense.
In other words, if a person were “really” a
“strong critical thinker” in the procedural
sense and if the person had all the
appropriate dispositions, then the person
simply would not do those kinds of
exploitive and aggravating things.
This self-rating form also appears in Chapter 3 of Think Critically, Pearson Education, 2011. For a fuller and more
robust measure of critical thinking dispositions see the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI) by
Facione and Facione, published in 1992, by Insight Assessment.
Facione, PA, “Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 13

The large majority, however, hold
the opposite judgment. They are firm in the
view that strong critical thinking has nothing
to do with any given set of cultural beliefs,
religious tenants, ethical values, social
mores, political orientations, or orthodoxies
of any kind. Rather, the commitment one
makes as a strong critical thinker is to
always seek the truth with objectivity,
integrity, and fair-mindedness. The majority
of experts maintain that critical thinking
conceived of as we have described it above,
is, regrettably, not inconsistent with abusing
one’s knowledge, skills, or power. There
have been people with superior thinking
skills and strong habits of mind who,
unfortunately, have used their talents for
ruthless, horrific, and immoral purposes.
Would that it were not so! Would that
experience, knowledge, mental horsepower,
and ethical virtue were all one and the
same. But from the time of Socrates, if not
thousands of years before that, humans
have known that many of us have one or
more of these without having the full set.
Any tool, any approach to situations,
can go either way, ethically speaking,
depending on the character, integrity, and
principles of the persons who possess
them. So, in the final analysis the majority
of experts maintained that we cannot say a
person is not thinking critically simply
because we disapprove ethically of what the
person is doing. The majority concluded
that, “what ‘critical thinking’ means, why it is
of value, and the ethics of its use are best
regarded as three distinct concerns.”
Perhaps this realization forms part of
the basis for why people these days are
demanding a broader range of learning
outcomes from our schools and colleges.
“Knowledge and skills,” the staples of the
educational philosophy of the mid-twentieth
century, are not sufficient. We must look to
a broader set of outcomes including habits
of mind and dispositions, such as civic
engagement, concern for the common
good, and social responsibility.
“Thinking” in Popular Culture
We have said so many good things
about critical thinking that you might have
the impression that “critical thinking” and
“good thinking” mean the same thing. But
that is not what the experts said. They see
critical thinking as making up part of what
we mean by good thinking, but not as being
the only kind of good thinking. For example,
they would have included creative thinking
as part of good thinking.
Creative or innovative thinking is the
kind of thinking that leads to new insights,
novel approaches, fresh perspectives,
whole new ways of understanding and
conceiving of things. The products of
creative thought include some obvious
things like music, poetry, dance, dramatic
literature, inventions, and technical
innovations. But there are some not so
obvious examples as well, such as ways of
putting a question that expand the horizons
of possible solutions, or ways of conceiving
of relationships which challenge
presuppositions and lead one to see the
world in imaginative and different ways.
The experts working on the concept
of critical thinking wisely left open the entire
question of what the other forms good
thinking might take. Creative thinking is
only one example. There is a kind of
purposive, kinetic thinking that instantly
coordinates movement and intention as, for
example, when an athlete dribbles a soccer
ball down the field during a match. There is
a kind of meditative thinking which may
lead to a sense of inner peace or to
profound insights about human existence.
In contrast, there is a kind of hyper-alert,
instinctive thinking needed by soldiers in
battle. In the context of popular culture one
finds people proposing all kinds of thinking
or this-kind of intelligence or that-kind of
intelligence. Some times it is hard to sort out
the science from the pseudo-science – the
kernel of enduring truth from the latest
cocktail party banter.
Facione, PA, “Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 14

“Thinking” in Cognitive Science
Theories emerging from more scientific
studies of human thinking and decisionmaking
in recent years propose that thinking
is more integrated and less dualistic than
the notions in popular culture suggest. We
should be cautious about proposals
suggesting oversimplified ways of
understanding how humans think. We
should avoid harsh, rigid dichotomies such
as “reason vs. emotion,” “intuitive vs. linear,”
“creativity vs. criticality,” “right brained vs.
left brained,” “as on Mars vs. as on Venus.”
There is often a kernel of wisdom in
popular beliefs, and perhaps that gem this
time is the realization that some times we
decide things very quickly almost as
spontaneous, intuitive, reactions to the
situation at hand. Many accidents on the
freeways of this nation are avoided
precisely because drivers are able to see
and react to dangerous situations so
quickly. Many good decisions which feel
intuitive are really the fruit of expertise.
Decisions good drivers make in those
moments of crisis, just like the decisions
which practiced athletes make in the flow of
a game or the decisions that a gifted
teacher makes as she or he interacts with
students, are borne of expertise, training,
and practice.
At the same time that we are
immersed in the world around us and in our
daily lives, constantly making decisions
unreflectively, we may also be thinking quite
reflectively about something. Perhaps we’re
worried about a decision which we have to
make about an important project at work, or
about a personal relationship, or about a
legal matter, whatever. We gather
information, consider our options, explore
Facione, PA, “Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 15

possibilities, formulate some thoughts about
what we propose to do and why this choice
is the right one. In other words, we make a
purposeful, reflective judgment about what
to believe or what to do – precisely the kind
of judgment which is the focus of critical
thinking.
Recent integrative models of human
decision-making propose that the thinking
processes of our species is not best
described as a conflictive duality as in
“intuitive vs. reflective” but rather an
integrative functioning of two mutually
supportive systems “intuitive and reflective.”
These two systems of thinking are present
in all of us and can act in parallel to process
cognitively the matters over which we are
deciding.
One system is more intuitive,
reactive, quick and holistic. So as not to
confuse things with the notions of thinking in
popular culture, cognitive scientists often
name this system, “System 1.” The other
(yes, you can guess its name) is more
deliberative, reflective, computational and
rule governed. You are right, it is called
“System 2.”
In System 1 thinking, one relies
heavily on a number of heuristics (cognitive
maneuvers), key situational characteristics,
readily associated ideas, and vivid
memories to arrive quickly and confidently
at a judgment. System 1 thinking is
particularly helpful in familiar situations
when time is short and immediate action is
required.
While System 1 is functioning,
another powerful system is also at work,
that is, unless we shut it down by abusing
alcohol or drugs, or with fear or indifference.
Called “System 2,” this is our more
reflective thinking system. It is useful for
making judgments when you find yourself in
unfamiliar situations and have more time to
figure things out. It allows us to process
abstract concepts, to deliberate, to plan
ahead, to consider options carefully, to
review and revise our work in the light of
relevant guidelines or standards or rules of
procedure. While System 2 decisions are
also influenced by the correct or incorrect
application of heuristic maneuvers, this is
the system which relies on well articulated
reasons and more fully developed evidence.
It is reasoning based on what we have
learned through careful analysis, evaluation,
explanation, and self-correction. This is the
system which values intellectual honesty,
analytically anticipating what happens next,
maturity of judgment, fair-mindedness,
elimination of biases, and truth-seeking.
This is the system which we rely on to think
carefully trough complex, novel, highstakes,
and highly integrative problems. 5
Educators urge us to improve our
critical thinking skills and to reinforce our
disposition to use those skills because that
is perhaps the best way to develop and
refine our System 2 reasoning.
System 1 and System 2 are both
believed to be vital decision-making tools
when stakes are high and when uncertainty
is an issue. Each of these two cognitive
systems are believed to be capable of
functioning to monitor and potentially
override the other. This is one of the ways
our species reduces the chance of making
foolish, sub-optimal or even dangerous
errors in judgment. Human thinking is far
from perfect. Even a good thinker makes
both System 1 and 2 errors. At times we
misinterpret things, or we get our facts
wrong, and we make mistakes as a result.
5 Chapters 9 and 10 of Think Critically, Pearson
Education, 2011, locate critical thinking within this
integrative model of thinking. The cognitive heuristics,
which will be described next, and the human capacity
to derive sustained confidence decisions (right or
wrong),-- known as “dominance structuring,” – are
presented there too. There are lots of useful exercises
and examples in that book. You may also wish to
consult the references listed at the end of this essay.
The material presented in this section is derived from
these books and related publications by many of
these same authors and others working to
scientifically explain how humans actually make
decisions.
Facione, PA, “Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 16

But often our errors are directly related to
the influences and misapplications of
cognitive heuristics. Because we share the
propensity to use these heuristics as we
make decisions, let’s examine how some of
them influence us.
Cognitive heuristics are thinking
maneuvers which, at times, appear to be
almost hardwired into our species. They
influence both systems of thinking, the
intuitive thinking of System 1 and the
reflective reasoning of System 2. Five
heuristics often seem to be more frequently
operating in our System 1 reasoning are
known as availability, affect, association,
simulation, and similarity.
Availability, the coming to mind of a
story or vivid memory of something that
happened to you or to someone close to
you, inclines a person make inaccurate
estimates of the likelihood of that thing’s
happening again. People tell stories of
things that happened to themselves or their
friends all the time as a way of explaining
their own decisions. The stories may not be
scientifically representative, the events may
be mistaken, misunderstood, or
misinterpreted. But all that aside, the power
of the story is to guide, often in a good way,
the decision toward one choice rather than
another.
The Affect heuristic operates when
you have an immediate positive or an
negative reaction to some idea, proposal,
person, object, whatever. Sometimes called
a “gut reaction” this affective response sets
up an initial orientation in us, positive or
negative, toward the object. It takes a lot of
System 2 reasoning to overcome a powerful
affective response to an idea, but it can be
done. And at times it should be, because
there is no guarantee that your gut reaction
is always right.
The Association heuristic is
operating when one word or idea reminds
us of something else. For example, some
people associate the word “cancer” with
“death.” Some associate “sunshine” with
“happiness.” These kinds of associational
reasoning responses can be helpful at
times, as for example if associating cancer
with death leads you not to smoke and to go
in for regular checkups. At other times the
same association may influence a person to
make an unwise decision, as for example if
associating “cancer” with “death” were to
lead you to be so fearful and pessimistic
that you do not seek diagnosis and
treatment of a worrisome cancer symptom
until it was really too late to do anything.
The Simulation heuristic is working
when you are imagining how various
scenarios will unfold. People often imagine
how a conversation will go, or how they will
be treated by someone else when they
meet the person, or what their friends or
boss or lover will say and do when they
have to address some difficult issue. These
simulations, like movies in our heads, help
us prepare and do a better job when the
difficult moment arrives. But they can also
lead us to have mistaken expectations.
People may not respond as we imagined,
things may go much differently. Our
preparations may fail us because the ease
of our simulation misled us into thinking that
things would have to go as we had
imagined them. And they did not.
The Similarity heuristic operates
when we notice some way in which we are
like someone else and infer that what
Facione, PA, “Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 17

happened to that person is therefore more
likely to happen to us. The similarity
heuristic functions much like an analogical
argument or metaphorical model. The
similarity we focus on might be fundamental
and relevant, which would make the
inference more warranted. For example, the
boss fired your coworker for missing sales
targets and you draw the reasonable
conclusion that if you miss your sales
targets you’ll be fired too. Or the similarity
that comes to mind might be superficial or
not connected with the outcome, which
would make the inference unwarranted. For
example you see a TV commercial showing
trim-figured young people enjoying fattening
fast foods and infer that because you’re
young too you can indulge your cravings for
fast foods without gaining a lot of excess
unsightly poundage.
Heuristics and biases often
appearing to be somewhat more associated
with System 2 thinking include: satisficing,
risk/loss aversion, anchoring with
adjustment, and the illusion of control.
Satisficing occurs as we consider
our alternatives. When we come to one
which is good enough to fulfill our objectives
we often regard ourselves as having
completed our deliberations. We have
satisficed. And why not? The choice is,
after all, good enough. It may not be
perfect, it may not be optimal, it may not
even be the best among the options
available. But it is good enough. Time to
decide and move forward.
The running mate of satisficing is
temporizing. Temporizing is deciding that
the option which we have come to is “good
enough for now.” We often move through
life satisficing and temporizing. At times we
look back on our situations and wonder why
it is that we have settled for far less than we
might have. If we had only studied harder,
worked out a little more, taken better care of
ourselves and our relationships, perhaps we
would not be living as we are now. But, at
the time each of the decisions along the
way was “good enough for the time being.”
We are by nature a species that is
averse to risk and loss. Often we make
decisions on the basis of what we are too
worried about losing, rather than on the
basis of what we might gain. This works out
to be a rather serviceable approach in many
circumstances. People do not want to lose
control, they do not want to lose their
freedom, they do not want to lose their lives,
their families, their jobs, their possessions.
High stakes gambling is best left to those
who can afford to lose the money. Las
Vegas didn’t build all those multi-million
dollar casino hotels because vacationers
are winning all the time! And so, in real life,
we take precautions. We avoid
unnecessary risks. The odds may not be
stacked against us, but the consequences
of losing at times are so great that we would
prefer to forego the possibilities of gain in
order not to lose what we have. And yet, on
occasion this can be a most unfortunate
decision too. History has shown time and
time again that businesses which avoid
risks often are unable to compete
successfully with those willing to move more
boldly into new markets or into new product
lines.
Any heuristic is only a maneuver,
perhaps a shortcut or impulse to think or act
in one way rather than another, but certainly
not a failsafe rule. It may work out well
much of the time to rely on the heuristic, but
it will not work out for the best all of the
time.
For example, people with something
to lose tend toward conservative choices
politically as well as economically. Nothing
wrong with that necessarily. Just an
observation about the influence of Loss
Aversion heuristic on actual decision
making. We are more apt to endure the
status quo, even as it slowly deteriorates,
than we are to call for “radical” change.
Regrettably, however, when the call for
change comes, it often requires a far
Facione, PA, “Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 18

greater upheaval to make the necessary
transformations, or, on occasion, the
situation has deteriorated beyond the point
of no return. In those situations we find
ourselves wondering why we waited so long
before doing something.
The heuristic known as Anchoring
with Adjustment is operative when we find
ourselves making evaluative judgments.
The natural thing for us to do is to locate or
anchor our evaluation at some point along
whatever scale we are using. For example,
a professor says that the student’s paper is
a C+. Then, as other information comes our
way, we may adjust that judgment. The
professor, for example, may decide that the
paper is as good as some others that were
given a B-, and so adjust the grade upward.
The interesting thing about this heuristic, is
that we do not normally start over with a
fresh evaluation. We have dropped anchor
and we may drag it upward or downward a
bit, but we do not pull it off the bottom of the
sea to relocate our evaluation. First
impressions, as the saying goes, cannot be
undone. The good thing about this heuristic
is that it permits us to move on. We have
done the evaluation; there are other papers
to grade, other projects to do, other things in
life that need attention. We could not long
endure if we had to constantly re-evaluate
every thing anew. The unfortunate thing
about this heuristic is that we sometimes
drop anchor in the wrong place; we have a
hard time giving people a second chance at
making a good first impression.
The heuristic known as Illusion of
Control is evident in many situations. Many
of us over-estimate our abilities to control
what will happen. We make plans for how
we are going to do this or that, say this or
that, manipulate the situation this way or
that way, share or not share this information
or that possibility, all the time thinking that
some how our petty plans will enable us to
control what happens. We act as if others
are dancing on the ends of the strings that
we are pulling, when in actuality the
influences our words or actions have on
future events may be quite negligible. At
times we do have some measure of control.
For example we may exercise, not smoke,
and watch our diet in order to be more fit
and healthy. We are careful not to drink if
we are planning to drive so that we reduce
the risks of being involved in a traffic
accident. But at times we simply are
mistaken about our ability to actually
exercise full control over a situation. Sadly
we might become ill even if we do work hard
to take good care of ourselves. Or we may
be involved in an accident even if we are
sober. Our business may fail even if we
work very hard to make it a success. We
may not do as well on an exam as we might
hope even if we study hard.
Related to the Illusion of Control
heuristic is the tendency to misconstrue our
personal influence or responsibility for past
events. This is called Hindsight Bias. We
may over-estimate the influence our actions
have had on events when things go right, or
we may underestimate our responsibility or
culpability when things go wrong. We have
all heard people bragging about how they
did this and how they did that and, as a
result, such and such wonderful things
happened. We made these great plans and
look how well our business did financially.
Which may be true when the economy is
strong; but not when the economy is failing.
It is not clear how much of that success
came from the planning and how much
came from the general business
environment. Or, we have all been in the
room when it was time to own up for some
thing that went wrong and thought to
ourselves, hey, I may have had some part in
this, but it was not entirely my fault. “It
wasn’t my fault the children were late for
school, hey I was dressed and ready to go
at the regular time.” As if seeing that the
family was running late I had no
responsibility to take some initiative and
help out.
Facione, PA, “Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 19

“Insanity is doing the same
thing over and over again while
expecting a different outcome.”
Albert Einstein
Research on our shared heuristic
patterns of decision-making does not aim to
evaluate these patterns as necessarily good
or bad patterns of thinking. I fear that my
wording of them above may not have been
as entirely neutral and descriptive as
perhaps it should have been. In truth,
reliance on heuristics can be an efficient
ways of deciding things, given how very
complicated our lives are. We cannot
devote maximal cognitive resources to
every single decision we make.
Those of us who study these
heuristic thinking phenomena are simply
trying to document how we humans do
think. There are many useful purposes for
doing this. For example, if we find that
people repeatedly make a given kind of
mistake when thinking about a commonly
experienced problem, then we might find
ways to intervene and to help ourselves not
repeat that error over and over again.
This research on the actual patterns
of thinking used by individuals and by
groups might prove particularly valuable to
those who seek interventions which could
improve how we make our own heath care
decisions, how we make business
decisions, how we lead teams of people to
work more effectively in collaborative
settings, and the like.
Popular culture offers one other
myth about decision-making which is worth
questioning. And that is the belief that when
we make reflective decisions we carefully
weigh each of our options, giving due
consideration to all of them in turn, before
deciding which we will adopt. Although
perhaps it should be, research on human
decision-making shows that this simply is
not what happens. 6 When seeking to
explain how people decide on an option with
such conviction that they stick to their
decision over time and with such confidence
that they act on that decision, the concept
that what we do is build a Dominance
Structure has been put forth. In a nutshell
this theory suggests that when we settle on
a particular option which is good enough we
tend to elevate its merits and diminish its
flaws relative to the other options. We raise
it up in our minds until it becomes for us the
dominant option. In this way, as our
decision takes shape, we gain confidence in
our choice and we feel justified in
dismissing the other options, even though
the objective distance between any of them
and our dominant option may not be very
great at all. But we become invested in our
dominant option to the extent that we are
able to put the other possibilities aside and
act on the basis of our choice. In fact, it
comes to dominate the other options in our
minds so much that we are able to sustain
our decision to act over a period of time,
rather than going back to re-evaluate or
reconsider constantly. Understanding the
natural phenomenon of dominance
structuring can help us appreciate why it
can be so difficult for us to get others to
change their minds, or why it seems that our
reasons for our decisions are so much
better than any of the objections which
others might make to our decisions. This is
not to say that we are right or wrong.
Rather, this is only to observe that human
beings are capable of unconsciously
building up defenses around their choices
which can result in the warranted or
unwarranted confidence to act on the basis
of those choices.
6 Henry Montgomery, “From cognition to action: The
search for dominance in decision making.” In Process
and Structure in Human Decision-Making,
Montgomery H, Svenson O (Eds). John Wiley & Sons:
Chichester, UK, 1989. For a more accessible
description along with reflective exercises on how to
avoid becoming “locked in” to a poor decision
prematurely, see chapter 10 of Think Critically.
Facione, PA, “Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 20

Realizing the power of dominance
structuring, one can only be more
committed to the importance of education
and critical thinking. We should do all that
we can to inform ourselves fully and to
reflect carefully on our choices before we
make them, because we are, after all,
human and we are as likely as the next
person to believe that we are right and they
are wrong once the dominance structure
begins to be erected. Breaking through that
to fix bad decisions, which is possible, can
be much harder than getting things right in
the first place.
There are more heuristics than only
those mentioned above. There is more to
learn about dominance structuring as it
occurs in groups as well as in individuals,
and how to mitigate the problems which
may arise by prematurely settling on a
“good enough” option, or about how to craft
educational programs or interventions which
help people be more effective in their
System 1 and System 2 thinking. There is
much to learn about human thinking and
how to optimize it in individuals of different
ages; how to optimize the thinking of groups
of peers and groups where organizational
hierarchies influence interpersonal
dynamics. And, happily, there is a lot we
know today about human thinking and
decision-making that we did not know a few
years ago.
Why critical thinking?
Let us start with you first. Why
would critical thinking be of value to you to
have the cognitive skills of interpretation,
analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation,
and self-regulation?
Apart from, or maybe in light of, what
we said at the beginning of this essay about
the utility of positive critical thinking and
about the problems that failures of critical
thinking contribute to, why would it be of
value to you to learn to approach life and to
approach specific concerns with the critical
thinking dispositions listed above? Would
you have greater success in your work?
Would you get better grades?
Actually the answer to the grades
question, scientifically speaking, is very
possibly, Yes! A study of over 1100 college
students shows that scores on a college
level critical thinking skills test significantly
correlated with college GPA. 7 It has also
been shown that critical thinking skills can
be learned, which suggests that as one
learns them one’s GPA might well improve.
In further support of this hypothesis is the
significant correlation between critical
thinking and reading comprehension.
Improvements in the one are paralleled by
improvements in the other. Now if you can
read better and think better, might you not
do better in your classes, learn more, and
get better grades. It is, to say the least,
very plausible.
Learning, Critical Thinking, and Our
Nation’s Future
“The future now belongs to societies
that organize themselves for learning...
nations that want high incomes and full
employment must develop policies that
emphasize the acquisition of knowledge
and skills by everyone, not just a select
few.”
Ray Marshall & Marc Tucker, Thinking For A Living:
Education And The Wealth of Nations, Basic Books. New
York. 1992.
But what a limited benefit — better
grades. Who really cares in the long run?
Two years after college, five years out, what
does GPA really mean? Right now college
7
Findings regarding the effectiveness of critical
thinking instruction, and correlations with GPA and
reading ability are reported in “Technical Report #1,
Experimental Validation and Content Validity” (ERIC
ED 327 549), “Technical Report #2, Factors
Predictive of CT Skills” (ERIC ED 327 550), and
“Gender, Ethnicity, Major, CT Self-Esteem, and the
California Critical Thinking Skills Test” (ERIC ED 326
584). These findings remain consistent in research
using the tools in the California Critical Thinking Skills
Test family of instruments published by Insight
Assessment.
Facione, PA, “Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 21

level technical and professional programs
have a half-life of about four years, which
means that the technical content is
expanding so fast and changing so much
that in about four years after graduation
your professional training will be in serious
need of renewal. So, if the only thing a
college is good for is to get the entry level
training and the credential needed for some
job, then college would be a time-limited
value.
The APA Delphi Report,
Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert
Consensus for Purposes of Educational
Assessment and Instruction
1990 ERIC Doc. NO.: ED 315 423
Is that the whole story? A job is a
good thing, but is that what a college
education is all about, getting started in a
good job? Maybe some cannot see its
further value, but many do. A main
purpose, if not the main purpose, of the
collegiate experience, at either the two-year
or the four-year level, is to achieve what
people have called a “liberal education.”
Not liberal in the sense of a smattering of
this and that for no particular purpose
except to fulfill the unit requirement. But
liberal in the sense of “liberating.” And who
is being liberated? You! Liberated from a
kind of slavery. But from whom?
From professors. Actually from
dependence on professors so that they no
longer stand as infallible authorities
delivering opinions beyond our capacity to
challenge, question, and dissent. In fact,
this is exactly what the professors want.
They want their students to excel on their
own, to go beyond what is currently known,
to make their own contributions to
knowledge and to society. [Being a
professor is a curious job — the more
effective you are as a teacher, less your
students require your aid in learning.]
Liberal education is about learning
to learn, which means learning to think for
yourself on your own and in collaboration
with others.
Liberal education leads us away
from naive acceptance of authority, above
self-defeating relativism, and beyond
ambiguous contextualism. It culminates in
principled reflective judgment. Learning
critical thinking, cultivating the critical spirit,
is not just a means to this end, it is part of
the goal itself. People who are weak critical
thinkers, who lack the dispositions and skills
described, cannot be said to be liberally
educated, regardless of the academic
degrees they may hold.
Yes, there is much more to a liberal
education, than critical thinking. There is an
understanding of the methods, principles,
theories and ways of achieving knowledge
which are proper to the different intellectual
realms. There is an encounter with the
cultural, artistic and spiritual dimensions of
life. There is the evolution of one’s decision
making to the level of principled integrity
and concern for the common good and
social justice. There is the realization of the
ways all our lives are shaped by global as
well as local political, social, psychological,
economic, environmental, and physical
forces. There is the growth that comes from
the interaction with cultures, languages,
ethnic groups, religions, nationalities, and
social classes other than one’s own. There
is the refinement of one’s humane
sensibilities through reflection on the
recurring questions of human existence,
meaning, love, life and death. There is the
sensitivity, appreciation and critical
Facione, PA, “Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 22

appraisal of all that is good and all that is
bad in the human condition. As the mind
awakens and matures, and the proper
nurturing and educational nourishment is
provided, these others central parts of a
liberal education develop as well. Critical
thinking plays an essential role in achieving
these purposes.
Any thing else? What about going
beyond the individual to the community?
scale economic disaster would become
extremely likely. So, given a society that
does not value and cultivate critical thinking,
we might reasonably expect that in time the
judicial system and the economic system
would collapse. And, in such a society, one
that does not liberate its citizens by teaching
them to think critically for themselves, it
would be madness to advocate democratic
forms of government.
The experts say critical thinking is
fundamental to, if not essential for, “a
rational and democratic society.” What
might the experts mean by this?
Well, how wise would democracy be
if people abandoned critical thinking?
Imagine an electorate that cared not for the
facts, that did not wish to consider the pros
and cons of the issues, or if they did, had
not the brain power to do so. Imagine your
life and the lives of your friends and family
placed in the hands of juries and judges
who let their biases and stereotypes govern
their decisions, who do not attend to the
evidence, who are not interested in
reasoned inquiry, who do not know how to
draw an inference or evaluate one. Without
critical thinking people would be more easily
exploited not only politically but
economically. The impact of abandoning
critical thinking would not be confined to the
micro-economics of the household checking
account. Suppose the people involved in
international commerce were lacking in
critical thinking skills, they would be unable
to analyze and interpret the market trends,
evaluate the implications of interest
fluctuations, or explain the potential impact
of those factors which influence large scale
production and distribution of goods and
materials. Suppose these people were
unable to draw the proper inferences from
the economic facts, or unable to properly
evaluate the claims made by the
unscrupulous and misinformed. In such a
situation serious economic mistakes would
be made. Whole sectors of the economy
would become unpredictable and large
Is it any wonder that business and
civic leaders are maybe even more
interested in critical thinking than
educators? Critical thinking employed by an
informed citizenry is a necessary condition
for the success of democratic institutions
and for competitive free-market economic
enterprise. These values are so important
that it is in the national interest that we
should try to educate all citizens so that they
can learn to think critically. Not just for their
personal good, but for the good of the rest
of us too.
Generalizing, imagine a society, say,
for example, the millions of people living in
the Los Angeles basin, or in New York and
along the east coast, or in Chicago, or
Mexico City, Cairo, Rome, Tokyo, Baghdad,
Moscow, Beijing, or Hong Kong. They are,
de facto, entirely dependent upon one
another, and on hundreds of thousands of
other people as well for their external
supplies of food and water, for their survival.
Now imagine that these millions permitted
their schools and colleges to stop teaching
people how to think critically and effectively.
Facione, PA, “Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 23

Imagine that because of war, or AIDS, or
famine, or religious conviction, parents
could not or would not teach their children
how to think critically. Imagine the social
and political strife, the falling apart of
fundamental systems of public safety and
public health, the loss of any scientific
understanding of disease control or
agricultural productivity, the emergence of
paramilitary gangs, strong men, and petty
warlords seeking to protect themselves and
their own by acquiring control over what
food and resources they can and destroying
those who stand in their path.
Look at what has happened around
the world in places devastated by economic
embargoes, one-sided warfare, or the
HIV/AIDS epidemic. Or, consider the
problem of global climate change, and how
important it is for all of us to cooperate with
efforts to curtail our uses of fossil fuels in
order to reduce emissions of harmful
greenhouse gases.
Consider the “cultural revolutions”
undertaken by totalitarian rulers. Notice how
in virtually every case absolutist and
dictatorial despots seek ever more severe
limitations on free expression. They label
“liberal” intellectuals “dangers to society”
and expel “radical” professors from teaching
posts because they might “corrupt the
youth.” Some use the power of their
governmental or religious authority to crush
not only their opposition but the moderates
as well -- all in the name of maintaining the
purity of their movement. They intimidate
journalists and those media outlets which
dare to comment “negatively” on their
political and cultural goals or their heavy
handed methods.
The historical evidence is there for
us to see what happens when schools are
closed or converted from places of
education to places for indoctrination. We
know what happens when children are no
longer being taught truth-seeking, the skills
of good reasoning, or the lessons of human
history and basic science: Cultures
disintegrate; communities collapse; the
machinery of civilization fails; massive
numbers of people die; and sooner or later
social and political chaos ensues.
Or, imagine a media, a religious or
political hegemony which cultivated, instead
of critical thinking, all the opposite
dispositions? Or consider if that hegemony
reinforced uncritical, impulsive decision
making and the “ready-shoot-aim” approach
to executive action. Imagine governmental
structures, administrators, and community
leaders who, instead of encouraging critical
thinking, were content to make knowingly
irrational, illogical, prejudicial, unreflective,
short-sighted, and unreasonable decisions.
How long might it take for the people
in this society which does not value critical
thinking to be at serious risk of foolishly
harming themselves and each other?
The news too often reports about
hate groups, wanton shooting, terrorists and
Facione, PA, “Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 24

violently extreme religious zealots.
Education which includes a good measure
of critical thinking skills and dispositions like
truth-seeking and open-mindedness, is a
problem for terrorists and extremists of
every stripe because terrorists and
extremists want to control of what people
think. They are ideologists of the worst kind.
Their methods include indoctrination,
intimidation, and the strictest authoritarian
orthodoxy. In the “black-and-white” world of
“us vs. them” a good education would mean
that the people might begin to think for
themselves. And that is something these
extremists do not want.
History shows that assaults on
learning, whether by book burning, exile of
intellectuals, or regulations aimed at
suppressing research and frustrating the
fair-minded, evidence-based, and unfettered
pursuit of knowledge, can happen wherever
and whenever people are not vigilant
defenders of open, objective, and
independent inquiry.
Does this mean that society should place a
very high value on critical thinking?
Absolutely!
Does this mean society has the right to
force someone to learn to think critically?
Maybe. But, really, should we have to?
Facione, PA, “Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 25

EXPERT CONSENSUS STATEMENT REGARDING CRITICAL
THINKING AND THE IDEAL CRITICAL THINKER
“We understand critical thinking to be purposeful, self-regulatory judgment
which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well
as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological,
or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based. CT is
essential as a tool of inquiry. As such, CT is a liberating force in education
and a powerful resource in one’s personal and civic life. While not
synonymous with good thinking, CT is a pervasive and self-rectifying
human phenomenon. The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, wellinformed,
trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded in
evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments,
willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters,
diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of
criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as
precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit. Thus,
educating strong critical thinkers means working toward this ideal. It
combines developing CT skills with nurturing those dispositions which
consistently yield useful insights and which are the basis of a rational and
democratic society.”
READINGS and REFERENCES
American Philosophical Association, Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment
and Instruction. "The Delphi Report," Committee on Pre-College Philosophy. (ERIC Doc. No. ED 315 423). 1990
Brookfield, Stephen D.: Developing Critical Thinkers: Challenging Adults to Explore Alternative Ways of Thinking and Acting. Josey-
Bass Publishers. San-Francisco, CA. 1987.
Browne, M. Neil, and Keeley, Stuart M.: Asking the Right Questions. Prentice-Hall Publishers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 2003.
Costa, Arthur L., & Lowery, l Lawrence F.: Techniques for Teaching Thinking. Critical Thinking Press and Software. Pacific Grove,
CA. 1989.
Facione, Noreen C, and Facione Peter A.: Critical Thinking and Clinical Judgment in the Health Sciences - An International
Teaching Anthology. The California Academic Press, Millbrae CA. 2008.
Facione, Noreen C. and Facione, Peter A. : Critical Thinking Assessment and Nursing Education Programs: An Aggregate Data
Analysis. The California Academic Press. Millbrae, CA 1997.
Facione, Noreen. C., and Facione, Peter A., Analyzing Explanations for Seemingly Irrational Choices, International Journal of
Applied Philosophy, Vol. 15 No. 2 (2001) 267-86.
Facione, Peter A and Noreen C,: Thinking and Reasoning in Human Decision Making. The California Academic Press. Millbrae CA,
2007
Facione, Peter A, Think Critically, Pearson Education: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 2011.
Facione, P.A., Facione, N.C., Talking Critical Thinking, Change: The Magazine of Higher Education, March-April, 2007.
Facione, P.A., Facione N. C., and Giancarlo, C: The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and
Relationship to Critical Thinking Skills, Journal of Informal Logic, Vol. 20 No. 1 (2000) 61-84.
Facione, PA, “Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 26

Gilovich, Thomas; Griffin, Dale; and Kahneman, Daniel: Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge
University Press. 2002.
Goldstein, William, and Hogarth, Robin M. (Eds.): Research on Judgment and Decision Making. Cambridge University Press. 1997.
Esterle, John, and Clurman, Dan: Conversations with Critical Thinkers. The Whitman Institute. San Francisco, CA. 1993.
Janis, I.L. and Mann, L: Decision-Making. The Free Press, New York. 1977.
Kahneman, Daniel; Slovic, Paul; and Tversky, Amos: Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University
Press. 1982.
Kahneman Daniel: Knetsch, J.L.; and Thaler, R.H.: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic
Perspectives. 1991, 5;193-206.
King, Patricia M. & Kitchener, Karen Strohm: Developing Reflective Judgment. Josey-Bass Publishers. San Francisco, CA. 1994
Kurfiss, Joanne G., Critical Thinking: Theory, Research, Practice and Possibilities, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report # 2,
Washington DC, 1988.
Marshall, Ray, and Tucker, Marc, Thinking for a Living: Education and the Wealth of Nations, Basic Books. New York, NY. 1992.
Resnick, L. W., Education and Learning to Think, National Academy Press, 1987.
Rubenfeld, M. Gaie, & Scheffer, Barbara K., Critical Thinking in Nursing: An Interactive Approach. J. B. Lippincott Company.
Philadelphia PA, 1995.
Siegel, Harvey: Educating Reason: Rationality, CT and Education. Routledge Publishing. New York. 1989.
Sternberg, Robert J.: Critical Thinking: Its Nature, Measurement, and Improvement. National Institute of Education, Washington DC,
1986.
Toulmin, Stephen: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, 1969.
Wade, Carole, and Tavris, Carol: Critical & Creative Thinking: The Case of Love and War. Harper Collins College Publisher. New
York. NY 1993.
GOVERNMENT REPORTS
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Educational
Statistics (NCES) Documents National Assessment of College Student Learning: Getting Started, A Summary of Beginning
Activities. NCES 93-116.
National Assessment of College Student Learning: Identification of the Skills to Be Taught, Learned, and Assessed, A
Report on the Proceedings of the Second Design Workshop, November 1992. NCES 94-286.
National Assessment of College Student Learning: Identifying College Graduates' Essential Skills in Writing, Speech and
Listening, and Critical Thinking. NCES 95-001.
About the Author
Dr. Peter A. Facione and his co-investigators have been engaged in research and teaching about reasoning,
decision-making, and effective individual and group thinking processes since 1967. Over the years they developed
instruments to measure the core skills and habits of mind of effective thinking, these instruments are now in use in
many different languages throughout the world. Since 1992 Dr. Facione has presented hundreds of workshops about
effective teaching for thinking and about leadership, decision-making, leadership development, planning and
budgeting, and learning outcomes assessment at national and international professional association meetings and on
college and university throughout the nation. Dr. Facione, is a principal of the research and consulting firm,
Measured Reasons, and a Senior Researcher with Insight Assessment. He earned his Ph.D. at Michigan State in
1971, and in subsequent years chaired the Department of Philosophy at Bowling Green State University, served as
Dean of the School of Human Development and Community Service at California State University Fullerton, Dean of
the College of Arts and Sciences at Santa Clara University, and Provost of Loyola University Chicago. In 1999-2000
Dr. Facione was Chair of the American Conference of Academic Deans. He has been on many boards and panels,
including the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing and the ACE Presidents’ Task Force on Education. He
Facione, PA, “Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 27

has contributed articles to The Chronicle of Higher Education, Change - The Magazine of Higher Education, and
Liberal Education. With Dr. Noreen Facione he co-authored Thinking and Reasoning in Human Decision Making
(2007) and Critical Thinking and Clinical Judgment in the Health Sciences (2008). From 1988 through 1990 Dr.
Facione was the principal investigator for the American Philosophical Association research project which culminated
in the Delphi Report – An Expert Consensus Conceptualization of Critical Thinking. The executive summary of that
report is available free of charge from Insight Assessment. His email is pfacione@measuredreasons.com Visit his
website www.measuredreasons.com and the Insight Assessment website, www.insightassessment.com
Facione, PA, “Critical Thinking: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 28

Attachment B
The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking
Page 42 of 45

LIMITED DOWNLOAD COPY
The Miniature Guide
to
Critical Thinking
Concepts and Tools
By Dr. Richard Paul
and
Dr. Linda Elder
The Foundation for Critical Thinking
www.criticalthinking.org
707-878-9100
cct@criticalthinking.org

LIMITED DOWNLOAD COPY
Why A Critical Thinking Mini-Guide?
This miniature guide focuses on of the essence of critical thinking concepts and
tools distilled into pocket size. For faculty it provides a shared concept of critical
thinking. For students it is a critical thinking supplement to any textbook for any
course. Faculty can use it to design instruction, assignments, and tests in any subject.
Students can use it to improve their learning in any content area.
Its generic skills apply to all subjects. For example, critical thinkers are clear as to the
purpose at hand and the question at issue. They question information, conclusions,
and points of view. They strive to be clear, accurate, precise, and relevant. They seek
to think beneath the surface, to be logical, and fair. They apply these skills to their
reading and writing as well as to their speaking and listening. They apply them in
history, science, math, philosophy, and the arts; in
professional and personal life.
When this guide is used as a supplement to the textbook in multiple courses,
students begin to perceive the usefulness of critical thinking in every domain of
learning. And if their instructors provide examples of the application of the subject
to daily life, students begin to see that education is a tool for improving the quality
of their lives.
If you are a student using this mini-guide, get in the habit of carrying it with
you to every class. Consult it frequently in analyzing and synthesizing what you are
learning. Aim for deep internalization of the principles you find in it—until using
them becomes second nature.
If successful, this guide will serve faculty, students, and the educational program
simultaneously.
Richard Paul
Center for Critical Thinking
Linda Elder
Foundation for Critical Thinking

LIMITED DOWNLOAD COPY
The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools
Contents
Why Critical Thinking? 4
The Elements of Thought 5
A Checklist for Reasoning 6
Questions Using the Elements of Thought 8
The Problem of Egocentric Thinking 9
Universal Intellectual Standards 10
Template for Analyzing the Logic of Articles and Textbooks 13
Criteria for Evaluating Reasoning 14
Essential Intellectual Traits 15
Three Kinds of Questions 18
A Template for Problem-Solving 19
Analyzing and Assessing Research 20
What Critical Thinkers Routinely Do 21
Stages of Critical Thinking Development 22
Fourth Edition © 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking www.criticalthinking.org

LIMITED DOWNLOAD COPY
The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools
Why Critical Thinking?
The Problem:
Everyone thinks; it is our nature to do so. But much of our thinking, left to
itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed or down-right prejudiced. Yet
the quality of our life and that of what we produce, make, or build depends
precisely on the quality of our thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in
money and in quality of life. Excellence in thought, however, must be systematically
cultivated.
A Definition:
Critical thinking is the art of analyzing and evaluating thinking with a view to
improving it.
The Result:
A well cultivated critical thinker:
• raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely;
• gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it
effectively;
• comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against
relevant criteria and standards;
• thinks openmindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing
and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical
consequences; and
• communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex
problems.
Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored,
and self-corrective thinking. It requires rigorous standards of excellence
and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and
problem solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism
and sociocentrism.
© 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking www.criticalthinking.org

LIMITED DOWNLOAD COPY
The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools
The Elements of Thought
Implications and
Consequences
Point of View
frame of reference,
perspective,
orientation
Purpose
goal,
objective
Question at issue
problem, issue
Assumptions
presupposition,
taking for granted
Concepts
theories,
definitions, axioms,
laws, principles,
models
Interpretation
and inference
conclusions,
solutions
Information
data, facts,
observations,
experiences
Used With Sensitivity to Universal Intellectual Standards
Clarity Accuracy Depth Breadth Significance
Precision
Relevance
© 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking www.criticalthinking.org

LIMITED DOWNLOAD COPY
12
The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools
Clarity
Accuracy
Precision
Relevance
Depth
Breadth
Logic
Significance
Fairness
Could you elaborate further?
Could you give me an example?
Could you illustrate what you mean?
How could we check on that?
How could we find out if that is true?
How could we verify or test that?
Could you be more specific?
Could you give me more details?
Could you be more exact?
How does that relate to the problem?
How does that bear on the question?
How does that help us with the issue?
What factors make this a difficult problem?
What are some of the complexities of this question?
What are some of the difficulties we need to deal with?
Do we need to look at this from another perspective?
Do we need to consider another point of view?
Do we need to look at this in other ways?
Does all this make sense together?
Does your first paragraph fit in with your last?
Does what you say follow from the evidence?
Is this the most important problem to consider?
Is this the central idea to focus on?
Which of these facts are most important?
Do I have any vested interest in this issue?
Am I sympathetically representing the viewpoints
of others?
© 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking www.criticalthinking.org

LIMITED DOWNLOAD COPY
The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools 15
Intellectual
Autonomy
Intellectual
Integrity
Intellectual
Humility
Intellectual
Empathy
Intellectual
Traits or Virtues
Confidence
in Reason
Intellectual
Courage
Fairmindedness
Intellectual
Perseverance
© 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking www.criticalthinking.org

LIMITED DOWNLOAD COPY
The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools 21
Critical thinkers routinely apply the intellectual standards to the
elements of reasoning in order to develop intellectual traits.
T h e Sta n da r d s
Clarity
Precision
Accuracy
Significance
Relevance Completeness
Logicalness Fairness
Breadth
Depth
Must be
applied to
As we learn
to develop
T h e Elements
Purposes
Inferences
Questions Concepts
Points of view Implications
Information Assumptions
I n t e l l e c t ua l Traits
Intellectual Humility
Intellectual Autonomy
Intellectual Integrity
Intellectual Courage
Intellectual Perseverance
Confidence in Reason
Intellectual Empathy
Fairmindedness
© 2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking www.criticalthinking.org

Notes
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Page 43 of 45

Notes
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Page 44 of 45

Page 45 of 45