Critical Thinking for Transformative Justice
Critical Thinking for Transformative Justice
Critical Thinking for Transformative Justice
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
The e-Advocate<br />
Quarterly Magazine<br />
<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong><br />
<strong>for</strong> Trans<strong>for</strong>mative <strong>Justice</strong><br />
1 Timothy 1:1-11<br />
“Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities<br />
Achieve Their Full Potential”<br />
Vol. VI, Issue XXIII – Q-1 January| February| March 2020
The Advocacy Foundation, Inc.<br />
Preparing Individuals, Organizations & Communities<br />
to Achieve Their Full Potential<br />
<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong><br />
<strong>for</strong> Trans<strong>for</strong>mative <strong>Justice</strong><br />
1735 Market Street, Suite 3750 | 100 Edgewood Avenue, Suite 1690<br />
Philadelphia, PA 19102 Atlanta, GA 30303<br />
John C Johnson III, Esq.<br />
Founder & CEO<br />
(855) ADVOC8.0<br />
(855) 238-6280 § (215) 486-2120<br />
www.TheAdvocacyFoundation.org<br />
Page 2 of 45
Page 3 of 45
Biblical Authority<br />
1 Timothy 1:1-11 (AMP)<br />
1 Paul, an apostle (special messenger) of Christ Jesus by appointment and command of God our<br />
Savior and of Christ Jesus (the Messiah), our Hope,<br />
2<br />
To Timothy, my true son in the faith: Grace (spiritual blessing and favor), mercy, and [heart]<br />
peace [be yours] from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.<br />
3<br />
As I urged you when I was on my way to Macedonia, stay on where you are at Ephesus in order<br />
that you may warn and admonish and charge certain individuals not to teach any different<br />
doctrine,<br />
4<br />
Nor to give importance to or occupy themselves with legends<br />
(fables, myths) and endless<br />
genealogies, which foster and<br />
promote useless speculations and questionings rather<br />
than acceptance in faith of<br />
God’s administration and<br />
the divine training that is in<br />
faith ( [a] in that leaning of<br />
the entire human personality on God in<br />
absolute trust and confidence)—<br />
5<br />
Whereas the object and purpose of our<br />
instruction and charge is<br />
love, which springs<br />
from a pure heart and a good (clear)<br />
conscience and sincere<br />
(unfeigned) faith.<br />
6<br />
But certain individuals have missed the mark<br />
on this very matter [and]<br />
have wandered away<br />
into vain arguments and discussions and<br />
purposeless talk.<br />
7<br />
They are ambitious to be doctors of the Law (teachers of the Mosaic ritual), but they have no<br />
understanding either of the words and terms they use or of the subjects about which they make<br />
[such] dogmatic assertions.<br />
8<br />
Now we recognize and know that the Law is good if anyone uses it lawfully [<strong>for</strong> the purpose<br />
<strong>for</strong> which it was designed],<br />
9<br />
Knowing and understanding this: that the Law is not enacted <strong>for</strong> the righteous (the upright and<br />
just, who are in right standing with God), but <strong>for</strong> the lawless and unruly, <strong>for</strong> the ungodly and<br />
sinful, <strong>for</strong> the irreverent and profane, <strong>for</strong> those who strike and beat and [even] murder fathers<br />
and strike and beat and [even] murder mothers, <strong>for</strong> manslayers,<br />
Page 4 of 45
10<br />
[For] impure and immoral persons, those who abuse themselves with men, kidnapers, liars,<br />
perjurers—and whatever else is opposed to wholesome teaching and sound doctrine<br />
11<br />
As laid down by the glorious Gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.<br />
Page 5 of 45
Page 6 of 45
Table of Contents<br />
______<br />
Biblical Authority<br />
I. Introduction<br />
II. Fundamentals of <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong><br />
III. Deductive Reasoning<br />
IV. Inductive Reasoning<br />
V. Logic<br />
VI. <strong>Critical</strong> Social Theory<br />
VII. The Critique of Ideology<br />
VIII.Enlightenment<br />
______<br />
Attachment A: <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: What It Is<br />
and Why It Counts<br />
Attachment B: The Miniature Guide<br />
to <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong><br />
Page 7 of 45
Page 8 of 45
noun<br />
<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong><br />
1. disciplined thinking that is clear,<br />
rational, open-minded, and in<strong>for</strong>med by<br />
evidence<br />
- Dictionary.com<br />
<strong>Critical</strong> thinking...the awakening of the intellect to<br />
the study of itself.<br />
<strong>Critical</strong> thinking is a rich<br />
concept that has been<br />
developing throughout the<br />
past 2500 years. The term<br />
"critical thinking" has its roots<br />
in the mid-late 20th century.<br />
We offer here overlapping<br />
definitions, together which<br />
<strong>for</strong>m a substantive, transdisciplinary<br />
conception of<br />
critical thinking.<br />
<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong> as Defined<br />
by the National Council <strong>for</strong><br />
Excellence<br />
in <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>, 1987<br />
A statement by Michael Scriven &<br />
Richard Paul, presented at the 8th Annual<br />
International Conference on <strong>Critical</strong><br />
<strong>Thinking</strong> and Education Re<strong>for</strong>m,<br />
Summer 1987.<br />
<strong>Critical</strong> thinking is the intellectually<br />
disciplined process of actively and<br />
skillfully conceptualizing, applying,<br />
analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation gathered from, or generated<br />
by, observation, experience, reflection,<br />
Introduction<br />
The National Council <strong>for</strong><br />
Excellence in <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong><br />
defines it as the intellectually disciplined<br />
process of actively and skillfully<br />
conceptualizing, applying, analyzing,<br />
synthesizing, and/or evaluating<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation gathered from, or generated<br />
by, observation, experience, reflection,<br />
reasoning, or communication, as a guide<br />
to belief and action.<br />
______<br />
reasoning, or communication, as a guide<br />
to belief and action. In its<br />
exemplary <strong>for</strong>m, it is based<br />
on universal intellectual<br />
values that transcend subject<br />
matter divisions: clarity,<br />
accuracy, precision,<br />
consistency, relevance,<br />
sound evidence, good<br />
reasons, depth, breadth, and<br />
fairness.<br />
It entails the examination of<br />
those structures or elements<br />
of thought implicit in all<br />
reasoning: purpose,<br />
problem, or question-atissue;<br />
assumptions; concepts; empirical<br />
grounding; reasoning leading to<br />
conclusions; implications and<br />
consequences; objections from alternative<br />
viewpoints; and frame of reference.<br />
<strong>Critical</strong> thinking — in being responsive to<br />
variable subject matter, issues, and<br />
purposes — is incorporated in a family of<br />
interwoven modes of thinking, among<br />
them: scientific thinking, mathematical<br />
thinking, historical thinking,<br />
anthropological thinking, economic<br />
Page 9 of 45
thinking, moral thinking, and<br />
philosophical thinking.<br />
<strong>Critical</strong><br />
thinking can<br />
be seen as<br />
having two<br />
components:<br />
1) a set of<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation<br />
and belief<br />
generating<br />
and<br />
processing<br />
skills, and 2)<br />
the habit, based on intellectual<br />
commitment, of using those skills to<br />
guide behavior. It is thus to be contrasted<br />
with: 1) the mere acquisition and<br />
retention of in<strong>for</strong>mation alone, because it<br />
involves a particular way in which<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation is sought and treated; 2) the<br />
mere possession of a set of skills, because<br />
it involves the continual use of them; and<br />
3) the mere use of those skills ("as an<br />
exercise") without acceptance of their<br />
results.<br />
<strong>Critical</strong> thinking varies according to the<br />
motivation underlying it. When grounded<br />
in selfish motives, it is often manifested in<br />
the skillful manipulation of ideas in<br />
service of one’s own, or one's groups’,<br />
vested interest. As such it is typically<br />
intellectually flawed, however<br />
pragmatically successful it might be.<br />
When grounded in fairmindedness and<br />
intellectual integrity, it is typically of a<br />
higher order intellectually, though subject<br />
to the charge of "idealism" by those<br />
habituated to its selfish use.<br />
<strong>Critical</strong> thinking of any kind is never<br />
universal in any individual; everyone is<br />
subject to episodes of undisciplined or<br />
irrational thought. Its quality is there<strong>for</strong>e<br />
typically a matter of degree and<br />
dependent on, among other things, the<br />
quality and depth of experience in a<br />
given domain of thinking or with respect<br />
to a particular class of questions. No one<br />
is a critical thinker through-and-through,<br />
but only to such-and-such a degree, with<br />
such-and-such insights and blind spots,<br />
subject to such-and-such tendencies<br />
towards self-delusion. For this reason, the<br />
development of critical thinking skills and<br />
dispositions is a life-long endeavor.<br />
Another Brief Conceptualization of<br />
<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong><br />
<strong>Critical</strong> thinking is self-guided, selfdisciplined<br />
thinking which attempts to<br />
reason at the highest level of quality in a<br />
fair-minded way. People who think<br />
critically consistently attempt to live<br />
rationally, reasonably, empathically.<br />
They are keenly aware of the inherently<br />
flawed nature of human thinking when<br />
left unchecked. They strive to diminish<br />
the power of their egocentric and<br />
sociocentric tendencies. They use the<br />
intellectual tools that critical thinking<br />
offers – concepts and principles that<br />
enable them to analyze, assess, and<br />
improve thinking. They work diligently<br />
to develop the intellectual virtues of<br />
intellectual integrity, intellectual humility,<br />
intellectual civility, intellectual empathy,<br />
intellectual sense of justice and<br />
confidence in reason. They realize that<br />
no matter how skilled they are as<br />
thinkers, they can always improve their<br />
reasoning abilities and they will at times<br />
fall prey to mistakes in reasoning, human<br />
irrationality, prejudices, biases,<br />
distortions, uncritically accepted social<br />
rules and taboos, self-interest, and vested<br />
interest. They strive to improve the<br />
Page 10 of 45
world in whatever ways they can and<br />
contribute to a more rational, civilized<br />
society. At the same time, they<br />
recognize the complexities often inherent<br />
in doing so. They avoid thinking<br />
simplistically about complicated issues<br />
and strive to<br />
appropriately<br />
consider the rights<br />
and needs of<br />
relevant others.<br />
They recognize the<br />
complexities in developing as thinkers,<br />
and commit themselves to life-long<br />
practice toward self-improvement. They<br />
embody the Socratic principle: The<br />
unexamined life is not worth living ,<br />
because they realize that many<br />
unexamined lives together result in an<br />
uncritical, unjust, dangerous world.<br />
~ Linda Elder, September, 2007<br />
______<br />
The Problem<br />
Why <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>?<br />
Everyone thinks; it is our nature to do so.<br />
But much of our thinking, left to itself, is<br />
biased, distorted, partial, unin<strong>for</strong>med or<br />
down-right prejudiced. Yet the quality of<br />
our life and that of what we produce,<br />
make, or build depends precisely on the<br />
quality of our thought. Shoddy thinking<br />
is costly, both in money and in quality of<br />
life. Excellence in thought, however,<br />
must be systematically cultivated.<br />
A Definition<br />
<strong>Critical</strong> thinking is that mode of thinking<br />
- about any subject, content, or problem -<br />
in which the thinker improves the quality<br />
of his or her thinking by skillfully taking<br />
charge of the structures inherent in<br />
thinking and imposing intellectual<br />
standards upon them.<br />
The Result<br />
A well cultivated critical thinker:<br />
• raises vital questions and<br />
problems, <strong>for</strong>mulating them<br />
clearly and precisely;<br />
• gathers and assesses relevant<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation, using abstract ideas<br />
to interpret it effectively comes to<br />
well-reasoned conclusions and<br />
solutions, testing them against<br />
relevant criteria and standards;<br />
• thinks openmindedly within<br />
alternative systems of thought,<br />
recognizing and assessing, as need<br />
be, their assumptions,<br />
implications, and practical<br />
consequences; and<br />
• communicates effectively with<br />
others in figuring out solutions to<br />
complex problems.<br />
<strong>Critical</strong> thinking is, in short, self-directed,<br />
self-disciplined, self-monitored, and selfcorrective<br />
thinking. It presupposes assent<br />
to rigorous standards of excellence and<br />
mindful command of their use. It entails<br />
effective communication and problem<br />
solving abilities and a commitment to<br />
overcome our native egocentrism and<br />
sociocentrism.<br />
(Taken from Richard Paul and Linda<br />
Elder, The Miniature Guide to <strong>Critical</strong><br />
<strong>Thinking</strong> Concepts and Tools, Foundation<br />
<strong>for</strong> <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong> Press, 2008)<br />
Page 11 of 45
<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong> Defined<br />
by Edward Glaser<br />
In a seminal study on critical thinking<br />
and education in 1941, Edward Glaser<br />
defines critical thinking as follows “The<br />
ability to think critically, as conceived in<br />
this volume, involves three things: ( 1 )<br />
an attitude of being disposed to consider<br />
in a thoughtful way the problems and<br />
subjects that come within the range of<br />
one's experiences, (2) knowledge of the<br />
methods of logical inquiry and reasoning,<br />
and (3) some skill in applying those<br />
methods. <strong>Critical</strong> thinking calls <strong>for</strong> a<br />
persistent ef<strong>for</strong>t to examine any belief or<br />
supposed <strong>for</strong>m of knowledge in the light<br />
of the evidence that supports it and the<br />
further conclusions to which it tends. It<br />
also generally requires ability to recognize<br />
problems, to find workable means <strong>for</strong><br />
meeting those problems, to gather and<br />
marshal pertinent in<strong>for</strong>mation, to<br />
recognize unstated assumptions and<br />
values, to comprehend and use language<br />
with accuracy, clarity, and discrimination,<br />
to interpret data, to appraise evidence<br />
and evaluate arguments, to recognize the<br />
existence (or non-existence) of logical<br />
relationships between propositions, to<br />
draw warranted conclusions and<br />
generalizations, to put to test the<br />
conclusions and generalizations at which<br />
one arrives, to reconstruct one's patterns<br />
of beliefs on the basis of wider<br />
experience, and to render accurate<br />
judgments about specific things and<br />
qualities in everyday life.<br />
(Edward M. Glaser, An Experiment in the<br />
Development of <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>,<br />
Teacher’s College, Columbia University,<br />
1941)<br />
Page 12 of 45
Fundamentals of <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong><br />
No one always acts purely objectively and rationally. We connive <strong>for</strong> selfish interests. We gossip, boast,<br />
exaggerate, and equivocate. It is "only human" to wish to validate our prior knowledge, to vindicate our<br />
prior decisions, or to sustain our earlier beliefs. In the process of satisfying our ego, however, we can often<br />
deny ourselves intellectual growth and opportunity. We may not always want to apply critical thinking skills,<br />
but we should have those skills available to be employed when needed.<br />
<strong>Critical</strong> thinking includes a complex combination of skills. Among the main characteristics are the<br />
following:<br />
Rationality<br />
We are thinking critically when we<br />
• rely on reason rather than emotion,<br />
• require evidence, ignore no known evidence, and follow evidence where it leads, and<br />
• are concerned more with finding the best explanation than being right analyzing apparent confusion<br />
and asking questions.<br />
Self-awareness<br />
We are thinking critically when we<br />
• weigh the influences of motives and bias, and<br />
• recognize our own assumptions, prejudices, biases, or point of view.<br />
Honesty<br />
We are thinking critically when we recognize emotional impulses, selfish motives, nefarious purposes, or<br />
other modes of self-deception.<br />
Open-Mindedness<br />
We are thinking critically when we<br />
• evaluate all reasonable inferences<br />
• consider a variety of possible viewpoints or perspectives,<br />
• remain open to alternative interpretations<br />
• accept a new explanation, model, or paradigm because it explains the evidence better, is simpler, or<br />
has fewer inconsistencies or covers more data<br />
• accept new priorities in response to a reevaluation of the evidence or reassessment of our real<br />
interests, and<br />
• do not reject unpopular views out of hand.<br />
Discipline<br />
We are thinking critically when we<br />
• are precise, meticulous, comprehensive, and exhaustive<br />
• resist manipulation and irrational appeals, and<br />
• avoid snap judgments.<br />
Page 13 of 45
Judgment<br />
We are thinking critically when we<br />
In sum,<br />
• recognize the relevance and/or merit of alternative assumptions and perspectives<br />
• recognize the extent and weight of evidence<br />
• <strong>Critical</strong> thinkers are by nature skeptical. They approach texts with the same skepticism and<br />
suspicion as they approach spoken remarks.<br />
• <strong>Critical</strong> thinkers are active, not passive. They ask questions and analyze. They consciously apply<br />
tactics and strategies to uncover meaning or assure their understanding.<br />
• <strong>Critical</strong> thinkers do not take an egotistical view of the world. They are open to new ideas and<br />
perspectives. They are willing to challenge their beliefs and investigate competing evidence.<br />
<strong>Critical</strong> thinking enables us to recognize a wide range of subjective analyses of otherwise objective data, and<br />
to evaluate how well each analysis might meet our needs. Facts may be facts, but how we interpret them may<br />
vary.<br />
By contrast, passive, non-critical thinkers take a simplistic view of the world.<br />
• They see things in black and white, as either-or, rather than recognizing a variety of possible<br />
understanding.<br />
• They see questions as yes or no with no subtleties.<br />
• They fail to see linkages and complexities.<br />
• They fail to recognize related elements.<br />
Non-critical thinkers take an egotistical view of the world<br />
• They take their facts as the only relevant ones.<br />
• They take their own perspective as the only sensible one.<br />
• They take their goal as the only valid one.<br />
Page 14 of 45
Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic<br />
or logical deduction or, in<strong>for</strong>mally, "topdown"<br />
logic, is the process of reasoning<br />
from one or more statements (premises) to<br />
reach a logically certain conclusion.<br />
Deductive Reasoning<br />
then states that<br />
"Socrates" must be<br />
"mortal" because he<br />
inherits this attribute<br />
from<br />
his<br />
classification as a<br />
"man".<br />
Deductive reasoning links premises with<br />
conclusions. If all premises are true, the<br />
terms are clear, and the rules of deductive<br />
logic are followed, then the conclusion<br />
reached is necessarily true.<br />
Deductive reasoning (top-down logic)<br />
contrasts with inductive reasoning (bottomup<br />
logic) in the following way: In deductive<br />
reasoning, a conclusion is reached<br />
reductively by applying general rules that<br />
hold over the entirety of a closed domain of<br />
discourse, narrowing the range under<br />
consideration until only the conclusion is<br />
left. In inductive reasoning, the conclusion is<br />
reached by generalizing or extrapolating<br />
from initial in<strong>for</strong>mation. As a result,<br />
induction can be used even in an open<br />
domain, one where there is epistemic<br />
uncertainty. Note, however, that the<br />
inductive reasoning mentioned here is not<br />
the same as induction used in mathematical<br />
proofs – mathematical induction is actually a<br />
<strong>for</strong>m of deductive reasoning.<br />
An example of a deductive argument:<br />
1. All men are mortal.<br />
2. Socrates is a man.<br />
3. There<strong>for</strong>e, Socrates is mortal.<br />
The first premise states that all objects<br />
classified as "men" have the attribute<br />
"mortal". The second premise states that<br />
"Socrates" is classified as a "man" – a<br />
member of the set "men". The conclusion<br />
The law of<br />
detachment (also known as affirming the<br />
antecedent and Modus ponens) is the first<br />
<strong>for</strong>m of deductive reasoning. A single<br />
conditional statement is made, and a<br />
hypothesis (P) is stated. The conclusion (Q)<br />
is then deduced from the statement and the<br />
hypothesis. The most basic <strong>for</strong>m is listed<br />
below:<br />
1. P → Q (conditional statement)<br />
2. P (hypothesis stated)<br />
3. Q (conclusion deduced)<br />
In deductive reasoning, we can conclude Q<br />
from P by using the law of detachment.<br />
However, if the conclusion (Q) is given<br />
instead of the hypothesis (P) then there is no<br />
definitive conclusion.<br />
The following is an example of an argument<br />
using the law of detachment in the <strong>for</strong>m of<br />
an if-then statement:<br />
1. If an angle satisfies 90° < A < 180°,<br />
then A is an obtuse angle.<br />
2. A = 120°.<br />
3. A is an obtuse angle.<br />
Since the measurement of angle A is greater<br />
than 90° and less than 180°, we can deduce<br />
that A is an obtuse angle.<br />
The law of Syllogism takes two<br />
conditional statements and <strong>for</strong>ms a<br />
conclusion by combining the hypothesis of<br />
Page 15 of 45
one statement with the conclusion of<br />
another. Here is the general <strong>for</strong>m:<br />
1. P → Q<br />
2. Q → R<br />
3. There<strong>for</strong>e, P → R.<br />
The following is an example:<br />
1. If Larry is sick, then he will be<br />
absent.<br />
2. If Larry is absent, then he will miss<br />
his classwork.<br />
3. There<strong>for</strong>e, if Larry is sick, then he<br />
will miss his classwork.<br />
We deduced the final statement by<br />
combining the hypothesis of the first<br />
statement with the conclusion of the second<br />
statement. We also allow that this could be a<br />
false statement. This is an example of the<br />
Transitive Property in mathematics. The<br />
Transitive Property is sometimes phrased in<br />
this <strong>for</strong>m:<br />
1. A = B.<br />
2. B = C.<br />
3. There<strong>for</strong>e A = C.<br />
The law of Contrapositive states that, in<br />
a conditional, if the conclusion is false, then<br />
the hypothesis must be false also. The<br />
general <strong>for</strong>m is the following:<br />
1. P → Q.<br />
2. ~Q.<br />
3. There<strong>for</strong>e we can conclude ~P.<br />
The following are examples:<br />
1. If it is raining, then there are clouds<br />
in the sky.<br />
2. There are no clouds in the sky.<br />
3. Thus, it is not raining.<br />
Deductive arguments are evaluated in terms<br />
of their Validity and Soundness.<br />
An argument is valid if it is impossible <strong>for</strong><br />
its premises to be true while its conclusion is<br />
false. In other words, the conclusion must be<br />
true if the premises are true. An argument<br />
can be valid even though the premises are<br />
false.<br />
An argument is sound if it is valid and the<br />
premises are true.<br />
It is possible to have a deductive argument<br />
that is logically valid but is not sound.<br />
Fallacious arguments often take that <strong>for</strong>m.<br />
The following is an example of an argument<br />
that is valid, but not sound:<br />
1. Everyone who eats carrots is a<br />
quarterback.<br />
2. John eats carrots.<br />
3. There<strong>for</strong>e, John is a quarterback.<br />
The example's first premise is false – there<br />
are people who eat carrots and are not<br />
quarterbacks – but the conclusion must be<br />
true, so long as the premises are true (i.e. it<br />
is impossible <strong>for</strong> the premises to be true and<br />
the conclusion false). There<strong>for</strong>e the<br />
argument is valid, but not sound.<br />
Generalizations are often used to make<br />
invalid arguments, such as "everyone who<br />
eats carrots is a quarterback." Not everyone<br />
who eats carrots is a quarterback, thus<br />
proving the flaw of such arguments.<br />
In this example, the first statement uses<br />
categorical reasoning, saying that all carroteaters<br />
are definitely quarterbacks. This<br />
theory of deductive reasoning – also known<br />
as term logic – was developed by Aristotle,<br />
but was superseded by propositional<br />
(sentential) logic and predicate logic.<br />
Page 16 of 45
Deductive reasoning can be contrasted with<br />
inductive reasoning, in regards to validity<br />
and soundness. In cases of inductive<br />
reasoning, even though the premises are true<br />
and the argument is "valid", it is possible <strong>for</strong><br />
the conclusion to be false (determined to be<br />
false with a counterexample or other<br />
means).<br />
teaching or training. As a result of this<br />
belief, deductive reasoning skills are not<br />
taught in secondary schools, where students<br />
are expected to use reasoning more often<br />
and at a higher level. It is in high school, <strong>for</strong><br />
example, that students have an abrupt<br />
introduction to mathematical proofs – which<br />
rely heavily on deductive reasoning.<br />
Deductive reasoning is generally thought of<br />
as a skill that develops without any <strong>for</strong>mal<br />
Page 17 of 45
Page 18 of 45
Inductive Reasoning<br />
Inductive reasoning (as opposed to<br />
deductive reasoning) is reasoning in which<br />
the premises seek to supply strong evidence<br />
<strong>for</strong> (not absolute proof of) the truth of the<br />
conclusion. While the conclusion of a<br />
deductive argument is supposed to be<br />
certain, the truth of the conclusion of an<br />
inductive argument is supposed to be<br />
probable, based upon the evidence given.<br />
The philosophical definition of inductive<br />
reasoning is more nuanced than simple<br />
progression from particular/individual<br />
instances to broader generalizations.<br />
Rather, the premises of an<br />
inductive logical argument<br />
indicate some degree of support<br />
(inductive probability) <strong>for</strong> the<br />
conclusion but do not entail<br />
it; that is, they suggest<br />
truth but do not ensure it. In<br />
this manner, there is the<br />
possibility of moving from<br />
general statements to individual<br />
instances (<strong>for</strong> example,<br />
statistical syllogisms, discussed<br />
below).<br />
Many dictionaries define inductive<br />
reasoning as reasoning that derives general<br />
principles from specific observations,<br />
though some sources disagree with this<br />
usage.<br />
Inductive reasoning is inherently uncertain.<br />
It only deals in degrees to which, given the<br />
premises, the conclusion is credible<br />
according to some theory of evidence.<br />
Examples include a many-valued logic,<br />
Dempster–Shafer Theory, or<br />
probability theory with rules <strong>for</strong> inference<br />
such as Bayes' rule. Unlike deductive<br />
reasoning, it does not rely on universals<br />
holding over a closed domain of discourse to<br />
draw conclusions, so it can be applicable<br />
even in cases of epistemic uncertainty<br />
(technical issues with this may arise<br />
however; <strong>for</strong> example, the second axiom of<br />
probability is a closed-world assumption).<br />
A statistical syllogism is an example of<br />
inductive reasoning:<br />
1. Almost all people are taller than<br />
26 inches<br />
2. Gareth is a person<br />
3. There<strong>for</strong>e, Gareth is<br />
almost certainly taller<br />
than 26 inches<br />
As a stronger example:<br />
100% of biological life<br />
<strong>for</strong>ms that we know of depend<br />
on liquid water to exist.<br />
There<strong>for</strong>e, if we discover a<br />
new biological life <strong>for</strong>m it will<br />
probably depend on liquid water to exist.<br />
This argument could have been made every<br />
time a new biological life <strong>for</strong>m was found,<br />
and would have been correct every time;<br />
however, it is still possible that in the future<br />
a biological life <strong>for</strong>m not requiring water<br />
could be discovered.<br />
As a result, the argument may be stated less<br />
<strong>for</strong>mally as:<br />
All biological life <strong>for</strong>ms that we<br />
know of depend on liquid water to<br />
exist.<br />
Page 19 of 45
All biological life probably depends<br />
on liquid water to exist.<br />
Inductive v. Deductive Reasoning<br />
Unlike deductive arguments, inductive<br />
reasoning allows <strong>for</strong> the possibility that the<br />
conclusion is false, even if all of the<br />
premises are true. Instead of being valid or<br />
invalid, inductive arguments are either<br />
strong or weak, which describes how<br />
probable it is that the conclusion is true.<br />
A classical example of an incorrect<br />
inductive argument was presented by John<br />
Vickers:<br />
All of the swans we have seen are<br />
white.<br />
There<strong>for</strong>e, all swans are white.<br />
Note that this definition of inductive<br />
reasoning excludes mathematical induction,<br />
which is a <strong>for</strong>m of deductive reasoning.<br />
Criticism & Biases<br />
Although the use of inductive reasoning<br />
demonstrates considerable success, its<br />
application has been questionable.<br />
Recognizing this, Hume highlighted the fact<br />
that our mind draws uncertain conclusions<br />
from relatively limited experiences. In<br />
deduction, the truth value of the conclusion<br />
is based on the truth of the premise. In<br />
induction, however, the dependence on the<br />
premise is always uncertain. As an example,<br />
let's assume "all ravens are black." The fact<br />
that there are numerous black ravens<br />
supports the assumption. However, the<br />
assumption becomes inconsistent with the<br />
fact that there are white ravens. There<strong>for</strong>e,<br />
the general rule of "all ravens are black" is<br />
inconsistent with the existence of the white<br />
raven. Hume further argued that it is<br />
impossible to justify inductive reasoning:<br />
specifically, that it cannot be justified<br />
deductively, so our only option is to justify<br />
it inductively. Since this is circular he<br />
concluded that our use of induction is<br />
unjustifiable with the help of "Hume's<br />
Fork".<br />
However, Hume then stated that even if<br />
induction were proved unreliable, we would<br />
still have to rely on it. So instead of a<br />
position of severe skepticism, Hume<br />
advocated a practical skepticism based on<br />
common sense, where the inevitability of<br />
induction is accepted.<br />
Biases<br />
Inductive reasoning is also known as<br />
hypothesis construction because any<br />
conclusions made are based on current<br />
knowledge and predictions. As with<br />
deductive arguments, biases can distort the<br />
proper application of inductive argument,<br />
thereby preventing the reasoner from<br />
<strong>for</strong>ming the most logical conclusion based<br />
on the clues. Examples of these biases<br />
include the availability heuristic,<br />
confirmation bias, and the predictable-world<br />
bias.<br />
The availability heuristic causes the reasoner<br />
to depend primarily upon in<strong>for</strong>mation that is<br />
readily available to him/her. People have a<br />
tendency to rely on in<strong>for</strong>mation that is easily<br />
accessible in the world around them. For<br />
example, in surveys, when people are asked<br />
to estimate the percentage of people who<br />
died from various causes, most respondents<br />
would choose the causes that have been<br />
most prevalent in the media such as<br />
terrorism, and murders, and airplane<br />
accidents rather than causes such as disease<br />
and traffic accidents, which have been<br />
technically "less accessible" to the<br />
individual since they are not emphasized as<br />
heavily in the world around him/her.<br />
Page 20 of 45
The confirmation bias is based on the<br />
natural tendency to confirm rather than to<br />
deny a current hypothesis. Research has<br />
demonstrated that people are inclined to<br />
seek solutions to problems that are more<br />
consistent with known hypotheses rather<br />
than attempt to refute those hypotheses.<br />
Often, in experiments, subjects will ask<br />
questions that seek answers that fit<br />
established hypotheses, thus confirming<br />
these hypotheses. For example, if it is<br />
hypothesized that Sally is a sociable<br />
individual, subjects will naturally seek to<br />
confirm the premise by asking questions that<br />
would produce answers confirming that<br />
Sally is in fact a sociable individual.<br />
The predictable-world bias revolves around<br />
the inclination to perceive order where it has<br />
not been proved to exist, either at all or at a<br />
particular level of abstraction. Gambling, <strong>for</strong><br />
example, is one of the most popular<br />
examples of predictable-world bias.<br />
Gamblers often begin to think that they see<br />
simple and obvious patterns in the outcomes<br />
and, there<strong>for</strong>e, believe that they are able to<br />
predict outcomes based upon what they have<br />
witnessed. In reality, however, the outcomes<br />
of these games are difficult to predict and<br />
highly complex in nature. However, in<br />
general, people tend to seek some type of<br />
simplistic order to explain or justify their<br />
beliefs and experiences, and it is often<br />
difficult <strong>for</strong> them to realize that their<br />
perceptions of order may be entirely<br />
different from the truth.<br />
Page 21 of 45
Page 22 of 45
Logic<br />
Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική,<br />
logike) is the use and study of valid<br />
reasoning. The study of logic features most<br />
prominently in the subjects of philosophy,<br />
mathematics, and computer science.<br />
Logic was studied in several ancient<br />
civilizations, including India, China, Persia<br />
and Greece. In the West, logic was<br />
established as a <strong>for</strong>mal discipline by<br />
Aristotle, who gave it a fundamental place in<br />
philosophy. The study of<br />
logic was part of the<br />
classical trivium, which<br />
also included grammar and<br />
rhetoric. Logic was further<br />
extended by Al-Farabi<br />
who categorized it into<br />
two separate groups (idea<br />
and proof). Later,<br />
Avicenna revived the study of logic and<br />
developed relationship between temporalis<br />
and the implication. In the East, logic was<br />
developed by Buddhists and Jains.<br />
Logic is often divided into three parts:<br />
inductive reasoning, abductive reasoning,<br />
and deductive reasoning.<br />
The concept of logical <strong>for</strong>m is central to<br />
logic, it being held that the validity of an<br />
argument is determined by its logical <strong>for</strong>m,<br />
not by its content. Traditional Aristotelian<br />
syllogistic logic and modern symbolic logic<br />
are examples of <strong>for</strong>mal logics.<br />
• In<strong>for</strong>mal logic is the study of natural<br />
language arguments. The study of<br />
fallacies is an especially important<br />
branch of in<strong>for</strong>mal logic. The<br />
dialogues of Plato are good examples<br />
of in<strong>for</strong>mal logic.<br />
• Formal logic is the study of<br />
inference with purely <strong>for</strong>mal content.<br />
An inference possesses a purely<br />
<strong>for</strong>mal content if it can be expressed<br />
as a particular application of a<br />
wholly abstract rule, that is, a rule<br />
that is not about any particular thing<br />
or property. The works of Aristotle<br />
contain the earliest known <strong>for</strong>mal<br />
study of logic. Modern <strong>for</strong>mal logic<br />
follows and expands on Aristotle. In<br />
many definitions of logic, logical<br />
inference and<br />
inference<br />
with purely<br />
<strong>for</strong>mal<br />
content are<br />
the same.<br />
This does not<br />
render the<br />
notion of<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mal logic vacuous, because no<br />
<strong>for</strong>mal logic captures all of the<br />
nuances of natural language.<br />
• Symbolic logic is the study of<br />
symbolic abstractions that capture<br />
the <strong>for</strong>mal features of logical<br />
inference. Symbolic logic is often<br />
divided into two branches:<br />
propositional logic and predicate<br />
logic.<br />
• Mathematical logic is an extension<br />
of symbolic logic into other areas, in<br />
particular to the study of model<br />
theory, proof theory, set theory, and<br />
recursion theory.<br />
Logical <strong>for</strong>m<br />
Main article: Logical <strong>for</strong>m<br />
Page 23 of 45
Logic is generally considered <strong>for</strong>mal when<br />
it analyzes and represents the <strong>for</strong>m of any<br />
valid argument type. The <strong>for</strong>m of an<br />
argument is displayed by representing its<br />
sentences in the <strong>for</strong>mal grammar and<br />
symbolism of a logical language to make its<br />
content usable in <strong>for</strong>mal inference. If one<br />
considers the notion of <strong>for</strong>m too<br />
philosophically loaded, one could say that<br />
<strong>for</strong>malizing simply means translating<br />
English sentences into the language of logic.<br />
This is called showing the logical <strong>for</strong>m of<br />
the argument. It is necessary because<br />
indicative sentences of ordinary language<br />
show a considerable variety of <strong>for</strong>m and<br />
complexity that makes their use in inference<br />
impractical. It requires, first, ignoring those<br />
grammatical features irrelevant to logic<br />
(such as gender and declension, if the<br />
argument is in Latin), replacing conjunctions<br />
irrelevant to logic (such as "but") with<br />
logical conjunctions like "and" and<br />
replacing ambiguous, or alternative logical<br />
expressions ("any", "every", etc.) with<br />
expressions of a standard type (such as "all",<br />
or the universal quantifier ∀).<br />
Second, certain parts of the sentence must be<br />
replaced with schematic letters. Thus, <strong>for</strong><br />
example, the expression "all As are Bs"<br />
shows the logical <strong>for</strong>m common to the<br />
sentences "all men are mortals", "all cats are<br />
carnivores", "all Greeks are philosophers",<br />
and so on.<br />
That the concept of <strong>for</strong>m is fundamental to<br />
logic was already recognized in ancient<br />
times. Aristotle uses variable letters to<br />
represent valid inferences in Prior Analytics,<br />
leading Jan Łukasiewicz to say that the<br />
introduction of variables was "one of<br />
Aristotle's greatest inventions". According<br />
to the followers of Aristotle (such as<br />
Ammonius), only the logical principles<br />
stated in schematic terms belong to logic,<br />
not those given in concrete terms. The<br />
concrete terms "man", "mortal", etc., are<br />
analogous to the substitution values of the<br />
schematic placeholders A, B, C, which were<br />
called the "matter" (Greek hyle) of the<br />
inference.<br />
The fundamental difference between modern<br />
<strong>for</strong>mal logic and traditional, or Aristotelian<br />
logic, lies in their differing analysis of the<br />
logical <strong>for</strong>m of the sentences they treat.<br />
• In the traditional view, the <strong>for</strong>m of<br />
the sentence consists of (1) a subject<br />
(e.g., "man") plus a sign of quantity<br />
("all" or "some" or "no"); (2) the<br />
copula, which is of the <strong>for</strong>m "is" or<br />
"is not"; (3) a predicate (e.g.,<br />
"mortal"). Thus: all men are mortal.<br />
The logical constants such as "all",<br />
"no" and so on, plus sentential<br />
connectives such as "and" and "or"<br />
were called "syncategorematic"<br />
terms (from the Greek kategorei – to<br />
predicate, and syn – together with).<br />
This is a fixed scheme, where each<br />
judgment has an identified quantity<br />
and copula, determining the logical<br />
<strong>for</strong>m of the sentence.<br />
• According to the modern view, the<br />
fundamental <strong>for</strong>m of a simple<br />
sentence is given by a recursive<br />
schema, involving logical<br />
connectives, such as a quantifier with<br />
its bound variable, which are joined<br />
by juxtaposition to other sentences,<br />
which in turn may have logical<br />
structure.<br />
• The modern view is more complex,<br />
since a single judgement of<br />
Aristotle's system involves two or<br />
more logical connectives. For<br />
example, the sentence "All men are<br />
mortal" involves, in term logic, two<br />
non-logical terms "is a man" (here<br />
Page 24 of 45
M) and "is mortal" (here D): the<br />
sentence is given by the judgement<br />
A(M,D). In predicate logic, the<br />
sentence involves the same two nonlogical<br />
concepts, here analyzed as<br />
and<br />
, and the sentence is<br />
given by ,<br />
involving the logical connectives <strong>for</strong><br />
universal quantification and<br />
implication.<br />
• But equally, the modern view is<br />
more powerful. Medieval logicians<br />
recognized the problem of multiple<br />
generality, where Aristotelian logic<br />
is unable to satisfactorily render such<br />
sentences as "Some guys have all the<br />
luck", because both quantities "all"<br />
and "some" may be relevant in an<br />
inference, but the fixed scheme that<br />
Aristotle used allows only one to<br />
govern the inference. Just as linguists<br />
recognize recursive structure in<br />
natural languages, it appears that<br />
logic needs recursive structure.<br />
Deductive and inductive reasoning,<br />
and abductive inference<br />
Deductive reasoning concerns what follows<br />
necessarily from given premises (if a, then<br />
b). However, inductive reasoning—the<br />
process of deriving a reliable generalization<br />
from observations—has sometimes been<br />
included in the study of logic. Similarly, it is<br />
important to distinguish deductive validity<br />
and inductive validity (called "cogency").<br />
An inference is deductively valid if and only<br />
if there is no possible situation in which all<br />
the premises are true but the conclusion<br />
false. An inductive argument can be neither<br />
valid nor invalid; its premises give only<br />
some degree of probability, but not<br />
certainty, to its conclusion.<br />
The notion of deductive validity can be<br />
rigorously stated <strong>for</strong> systems of <strong>for</strong>mal logic<br />
in terms of the well-understood notions of<br />
semantics. Inductive validity on the other<br />
hand requires us to define a reliable<br />
generalization of<br />
some set of<br />
observations. The<br />
task of providing<br />
this definition may<br />
be approached in<br />
various ways, some<br />
less <strong>for</strong>mal than<br />
others; some of<br />
these definitions<br />
may use mathematical models of<br />
probability. For the most part this discussion<br />
of logic deals only with deductive logic.<br />
Abduction is a <strong>for</strong>m of logical inference that<br />
goes from observation to a hypothesis that<br />
accounts <strong>for</strong> the reliable data (observation)<br />
and seeks to explain relevant evidence. The<br />
American philosopher Charles Sanders<br />
Peirce (1839–1914) first introduced the term<br />
as "guessing". Peirce said that to abduce a<br />
hypothetical explanation from an observed<br />
surprising circumstance is to surmise that<br />
may be true because then would be a<br />
matter of course. Thus, to abduce from<br />
involves determining that is sufficient (or<br />
nearly sufficient), but not necessary, <strong>for</strong> .<br />
Consistency, validity, soundness, and<br />
completeness<br />
Among the important properties that logical<br />
systems can have:<br />
• Consistency, which means that no<br />
theorem of the system contradicts<br />
another.<br />
• Validity, which means that the<br />
system's rules of proof never allow a<br />
false inference from true premises. A<br />
logical system has the property of<br />
Page 25 of 45
soundness when the logical system<br />
has the property of validity and uses<br />
only premises that prove true (or, in<br />
the case of axioms, are true by<br />
definition).<br />
• Completeness, of a logical system,<br />
which means that if a <strong>for</strong>mula is true,<br />
it can be proven (if it is true, it is a<br />
theorem of the system).<br />
• Soundness, the term soundness has<br />
multiple separate meanings, which<br />
creates a bit of confusion throughout<br />
the literature. Most commonly,<br />
soundness refers to logical systems,<br />
which means that if some <strong>for</strong>mula<br />
can be proven in a system, then it is<br />
true in the relevant model/structure<br />
(if A is a theorem, it is true). This is<br />
the converse of completeness. A<br />
distinct, peripheral use of soundness<br />
refers to arguments, which means<br />
that the premises of a valid argument<br />
are true in the actual world.<br />
Some logical systems do not have all four<br />
properties. As an example, Kurt Gödel's<br />
incompleteness theorems show that<br />
sufficiently complex <strong>for</strong>mal systems of<br />
arithmetic cannot be consistent and<br />
complete; however, first-order predicate<br />
logics not extended by specific axioms to be<br />
arithmetic <strong>for</strong>mal systems with equality can<br />
be complete and consistent.<br />
Rival conceptions of logic<br />
Main article: Definitions of logic<br />
Logic arose (see below) from a concern with<br />
correctness of argumentation. Modern<br />
logicians usually wish to ensure that logic<br />
studies just those arguments that arise from<br />
appropriately general <strong>for</strong>ms of inference.<br />
For example, Thomas Hofweber writes in<br />
the Stan<strong>for</strong>d Encyclopedia of Philosophy<br />
that logic "does not, however, cover good<br />
reasoning as a whole. That is the job of the<br />
theory of rationality. Rather it deals with<br />
inferences whose validity can be traced back<br />
to the <strong>for</strong>mal features of the representations<br />
that are involved in that inference, be they<br />
linguistic, mental, or other representations".<br />
By contrast, Immanuel Kant argued that<br />
logic should be conceived as the science of<br />
judgement, an idea taken up in Gottlob<br />
Frege's logical and philosophical work. But<br />
Frege's work is ambiguous in the sense that<br />
it is both concerned with the "laws of<br />
thought" as well as with the "laws of truth",<br />
i.e. it both treats logic in the context of a<br />
theory of the mind, and treats logic as the<br />
study of abstract <strong>for</strong>mal structures.<br />
Page 26 of 45
Page 27 of 45
<strong>Critical</strong> Social Theory<br />
The Frankfurt School<br />
The Frankfurt School (German:<br />
Frankfurter Schule) is a school of neo-<br />
Marxist interdisciplinary social theory<br />
associated in part with the Institute <strong>for</strong><br />
Social Research at the Goethe University<br />
in Frankfurt, Germany. The school<br />
initially consisted of dissident Marxists<br />
who believed that some of<br />
Marx's followers had<br />
come to parrot a narrow<br />
selection of Marx's ideas,<br />
usually in defense of<br />
orthodox Communist<br />
parties. Meanwhile, many<br />
of these theorists believed<br />
that traditional Marxist<br />
theory could not<br />
adequately explain the<br />
turbulent and unexpected<br />
development of capitalist<br />
societies in the twentieth century. <strong>Critical</strong><br />
of both capitalism and Soviet socialism,<br />
their writings pointed to the possibility of<br />
an alternative path to social development.<br />
Although sometimes only loosely<br />
affiliated, Frankfurt School theorists<br />
spoke with a common paradigm in mind,<br />
thus sharing the same assumptions and<br />
being preoccupied with similar questions.<br />
In order to fill in the perceived omissions<br />
of traditional Marxism, they sought to<br />
draw answers from other schools of<br />
thought, hence using the insights of<br />
antipositivist sociology, psychoanalysis,<br />
existential philosophy, and other<br />
disciplines. The school's main figures<br />
sought to learn from and synthesize the<br />
works of such varied thinkers as Kant,<br />
Hegel, Marx, Freud, Weber and Lukács.<br />
Following Marx, they were concerned<br />
with the conditions that allow <strong>for</strong> social<br />
change and the establishment of rational<br />
institutions. Their emphasis on the<br />
"critical" component of theory was<br />
derived significantly from their attempt<br />
to overcome the limits of positivism,<br />
materialism and<br />
determinism by returning<br />
to Kant's critical<br />
philosophy and its<br />
successors in German<br />
idealism, principally<br />
Hegel's philosophy, with<br />
its emphasis on dialectic<br />
and contradiction as<br />
inherent properties of<br />
human reality.<br />
Since the 1960s,<br />
Frankfurt School critical theory has<br />
increasingly been guided by Jürgen<br />
Habermas's work on communicative<br />
reason, linguistic intersubjectivity and<br />
what Habermas calls "the philosophical<br />
discourse of modernity" More recently,<br />
critical theorists such as Raymond Geuss<br />
and Nikolas Kompridis have voiced<br />
opposition to Habermas, claiming that he<br />
has undermined the aspirations <strong>for</strong> social<br />
change which originally gave purpose to<br />
critical theory's various projects—<strong>for</strong><br />
example the problem of what reason<br />
should mean, the analysis and<br />
enlargement of "conditions of possibility"<br />
<strong>for</strong> social emancipation, and the critique<br />
of modern capitalism.<br />
Page 28 of 45
Page 29 of 45
The Critique of Ideology<br />
The Frankfurt School's work cannot be<br />
fully comprehended without equally<br />
understanding the aims and objectives of<br />
critical theory. Initially outlined by Max<br />
Horkheimer in his Traditional and<br />
<strong>Critical</strong> Theory (1937), critical theory<br />
may be defined as a self-conscious social<br />
critique that is aimed at change and<br />
emancipation through enlightenment,<br />
and does not cling dogmatically to its<br />
own doctrinal assumptions. The original<br />
aim of critical theory was to analyze the<br />
true significance of "the ruling<br />
understandings" generated in bourgeois<br />
society, in order to show how they<br />
misrepresented actual human interaction<br />
in the real world, and in so doing<br />
functioned to justify or legitimize the<br />
domination of people by capitalism. A<br />
certain sort of story (a narrative) was<br />
provided to explain what was happening<br />
in society, but the story concealed as<br />
much as it revealed. The Frankfurt<br />
theorists generally assumed that their<br />
own task was mainly to interpret all the<br />
other areas of society which Marx had<br />
not dealt with, especially in the<br />
superstructure of society.<br />
Horkheimer opposed it to "traditional<br />
theory", which refers to theory in the<br />
positivistic, scientistic, or purely<br />
observational mode – that is, which<br />
derives generalizations or "laws" about<br />
different aspects of the world. Drawing<br />
upon Max Weber, Horkheimer argued<br />
that the social sciences are different from<br />
the natural sciences, inasmuch as<br />
generalizations cannot be easily made<br />
from so-called experiences, because the<br />
understanding of a "social" experience<br />
itself is always fashioned by ideas that are<br />
in the researchers themselves. What the<br />
researcher does not realize is that he is<br />
caught in a historical context in which<br />
ideologies shape the thinking; thus theory<br />
would be con<strong>for</strong>ming to the ideas in the<br />
mind of the researcher rather than the<br />
experience itself:<br />
“<br />
The<br />
facts which<br />
our senses<br />
present to us<br />
are socially<br />
per<strong>for</strong>med in<br />
two ways:<br />
through the<br />
historical<br />
character of the<br />
object perceived<br />
and through the<br />
historical<br />
character of the<br />
perceiving<br />
organ. Both are<br />
not simply<br />
natural; they<br />
are shaped by<br />
human activity,<br />
and yet the<br />
individual<br />
perceives<br />
himself as<br />
receptive and<br />
passive in the<br />
act of<br />
perception.<br />
”<br />
For Horkheimer, approaches to<br />
understanding in the social sciences<br />
cannot simply imitate those in the natural<br />
Page 30 of 45
sciences. Although various theoretical<br />
approaches would come close to breaking<br />
out of the ideological constraints which<br />
restricted them, such as positivism,<br />
pragmatism, neo-Kantianism and<br />
phenomenology, Horkheimer would<br />
argue that they failed, because all were<br />
subject to a "logico-mathematical"<br />
prejudice which separates theoretical<br />
activity from actual life (meaning that all<br />
these schools sought to find a logic which<br />
would always remain true, independently<br />
of and without consideration <strong>for</strong> ongoing<br />
human activities). According to<br />
Horkheimer, the appropriate response to<br />
this dilemma is the development of a<br />
critical theory.<br />
The problem, Horkheimer argued, is<br />
epistemological: we should not merely<br />
reconsider the scientist but the knowing<br />
individual in general. [19] Unlike orthodox<br />
Marxism, which merely applies a readymade<br />
"template" to both critique and<br />
action, critical theory seeks to be selfcritical<br />
and rejects any pretensions to<br />
absolute truth. <strong>Critical</strong> theory defends the<br />
primacy of neither matter (materialism)<br />
nor consciousness (idealism), arguing that<br />
both epistemologies distort reality to the<br />
benefit, eventually, of some small group.<br />
What critical theory attempts to do is to<br />
place itself outside of philosophical<br />
strictures and the confines of existing<br />
structures. However, as a way of thinking<br />
and "recovering" humanity's selfknowledge,<br />
critical theory often looks to<br />
Marxism <strong>for</strong> its methods and tools.<br />
Horkheimer maintained that critical<br />
theory should be directed at the totality<br />
of society in its historical specificity (i.e.<br />
how it came to be configured at a specific<br />
point in time), just as it should improve<br />
understanding of society by integrating<br />
all the major social sciences, including<br />
geography, economics, sociology, history,<br />
political science, anthropology, and<br />
psychology. While critical theory must at<br />
all times be self-critical, Horkheimer<br />
insisted that a theory is only critical if it is<br />
explanatory. <strong>Critical</strong> theory must<br />
there<strong>for</strong>e combine practical and<br />
normative thinking in order to "explain<br />
what is wrong with current social reality,<br />
identify actors to change it, and provide<br />
clear norms <strong>for</strong> criticism and practical<br />
goals <strong>for</strong> the future." Whereas traditional<br />
theory can only mirror and explain<br />
reality as it presently is, critical theory's<br />
purpose is to change it; in Horkheimer's<br />
words the goal of critical theory is "the<br />
emancipation of human beings from the<br />
circumstances that enslave them".<br />
Frankfurt<br />
School<br />
theorists<br />
were<br />
explicitly<br />
linking up<br />
with the<br />
critical<br />
philosophy of Immanuel Kant, where the<br />
term critique meant philosophical<br />
reflection on the limits of claims made <strong>for</strong><br />
certain kinds of knowledge and a direct<br />
connection between such critique and the<br />
emphasis on moral autonomy – as<br />
opposed to traditionally deterministic<br />
and static theories of human action. In an<br />
intellectual context defined by dogmatic<br />
positivism and scientism on the one hand<br />
and dogmatic "scientific socialism" on the<br />
other, critical theorists intended to<br />
rehabilitate Marx's ideas through a<br />
philosophically critical approach.<br />
Page 31 of 45
Whereas both Marxist-Leninist and<br />
Social-Democratic orthodox thinkers<br />
viewed Marxism as a new kind of<br />
positive science, Frankfurt School<br />
theorists, such as Horkheimer, rather<br />
based their work on the epistemological<br />
base of Karl Marx's work, which<br />
presented itself as critique, as in Marx's<br />
Capital: A Critique of Political Economy.<br />
They thus emphasized that Marx was<br />
attempting to create a new kind of critical<br />
analysis oriented toward the unity of<br />
theory and revolutionary practice rather<br />
than a new kind of positive science.<br />
Critique, in this Marxian sense, meant<br />
taking the ideology of a society – e.g. the<br />
belief in individual freedom or free<br />
market under capitalism – and critiquing<br />
it by comparing it with the social reality<br />
of that very society – e.g. social inequality<br />
and exploitation. The methodology on<br />
which Frankfurt School theorists<br />
grounded this critique came to be what<br />
had be<strong>for</strong>e been established by Hegel and<br />
Marx, namely the dialectical method.<br />
Page 32 of 45
Page 33 of 45
Enlightenment refers to the "full<br />
comprehension of a situation". It is<br />
commonly used to denote the Age of<br />
Enlightenment, but is also used in Western<br />
cultures in a religious context. It translates<br />
several Buddhist terms and concepts, most<br />
notably bodhi, kensho and satori. Related<br />
terms from Asian religions are moksha<br />
(liberation) in Hinduism, Kevala Jnana in<br />
Jainism and ushta in Zoroastrianism.<br />
Enlightenment<br />
Christian interest in eastern spirituality has<br />
grown throughout the 20th century. Notable<br />
Christians, such as Hugo Enomiya-Lassalle<br />
and AMA Samy, have participated in<br />
Buddhist training and even become<br />
Buddhist teachers themselves. In a few<br />
places Eastern contemplative techniques<br />
have been integrated in Christian practices,<br />
such as centering prayer. But this integration<br />
has also raised questions about the borders<br />
between these traditions.<br />
In Christianity, the word "enlightenment" is<br />
rarely used, except to refer to the Age of<br />
Enlightenment and its influence on<br />
Christianity. Roughly equivalent terms in<br />
Christianity may be illumination, kenosis,<br />
metanoia, revelation and conversion.<br />
Perennialists and Universalists view<br />
enlightenment and mysticism as equivalent<br />
terms <strong>for</strong> religious or spiritual insight.<br />
Christianity<br />
See also: Religious conversion and<br />
Divinization<br />
The word "enlightenment" is not generally<br />
used in Christian contexts <strong>for</strong> religious<br />
understanding or insight. More commonly<br />
used terms in the Christian tradition are<br />
religious conversion and revelation.<br />
Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871–1952), one of<br />
the founders of Dispensationalism, uses the<br />
word "illuminism". Christians who are<br />
"illuminated" are of two groups, those who<br />
have experienced true illuminism (biblical)<br />
and those who experienced false illuminism<br />
(not from the Holy Spirit).<br />
Western esotericism and mysticism<br />
Main articles:<br />
Mysticism,<br />
Western<br />
esotericism<br />
and Perennial<br />
philosophy<br />
Western and<br />
Mediterranean culture has a rich tradition of<br />
esotericism and mysticism. The Perennial<br />
philosophy, basic to the New Age<br />
understanding of the world, regards those<br />
traditions as akin to Eastern religions which<br />
aim at awakening/ enlightenment and<br />
developing wisdom. All mystical traditions<br />
possibly share a "common core", a<br />
hypothesis which is central to New Age, but<br />
contested by a diversity of scientists like<br />
Katz and Proudfoot.<br />
Judaism includes the mystical tradition of<br />
Kabbalah. Islam includes the mystical<br />
tradition of Sufism. In the Fourth Way<br />
teaching, enlightenment is the highest state<br />
of Man (humanity).<br />
Page 34 of 45
Nondualism<br />
Main articles: Nondualism, New Age,<br />
Syncretism and Neo-Advaita<br />
A popular western understanding sees<br />
"enlightenment" as "nondual<br />
consciousness", "a primordial, natural<br />
awareness without subject or object". It is<br />
used interchangeably with Neo-Advaita.<br />
This nondual consciousness is seen as a<br />
common stratum to different religions.<br />
Several definitions or meanings are<br />
combined in this approach, which makes it<br />
possible to recognize various traditions as<br />
having the same essence. According to<br />
Renard, many <strong>for</strong>ms of religion are based on<br />
an experiential or intuitive understanding of<br />
"the Real"<br />
This idea of nonduality as "the central<br />
essence" is part of a modern mutual<br />
exchange and synthesis of ideas between<br />
western spiritual and esoteric traditions and<br />
Asian religious revival and re<strong>for</strong>m<br />
movements. Western predecessors are,<br />
among others, New Age, Wilber's synthesis<br />
of western psychology and Asian<br />
spirituality, the idea of a Perennial<br />
Philosophy, and Theosophy. Eastern<br />
influences are the Hindu re<strong>for</strong>m movements<br />
such as Aurobindo's Integral Yoga and<br />
Vivekananda's Neo-Vedanta, the Vipassana<br />
movement, and Buddhist modernism. A<br />
truly syncretistic influence is Osho and the<br />
Rajneesh movement, a hybrid of eastern and<br />
western ideas and teachings, and a mainly<br />
western group of followers.<br />
______<br />
The second phase of Frankfurt School<br />
critical theory centres principally on two<br />
works: Adorno and Horkheimer's<br />
Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944) and<br />
Adorno's Minima Moralia (1951). The<br />
authors wrote both works during the<br />
Institute's exile in America. While<br />
retaining much of a Marxian analysis, in<br />
these works critical theory shifted its<br />
emphasis. The critique of capitalism<br />
turned into a critique of Western<br />
civilization as a whole. Indeed, the<br />
Dialectic of Enlightenment uses the<br />
Odyssey as a paradigm <strong>for</strong> the analysis of<br />
bourgeois consciousness. Horkheimer<br />
and Adorno already present in these<br />
works many themes that have come to<br />
dominate the social thought of recent<br />
years; indeed, their exposition of the<br />
domination of nature as a central<br />
characteristic of instrumental rationality<br />
in Western civilization was made long<br />
be<strong>for</strong>e ecology and environmentalism had<br />
become popular concerns.<br />
The analysis of reason now goes one<br />
stage further. The rationality of Western<br />
civilization appears as a fusion of<br />
domination and of technological<br />
rationality, bringing all of external and<br />
internal nature under the power of the<br />
human subject. In the process, however,<br />
the subject itself gets swallowed up, and<br />
no social <strong>for</strong>ce analogous to the<br />
proletariat can be identified that will<br />
enable the subject to emancipate itself.<br />
Hence the subtitle of Minima Moralia:<br />
"Reflections from Damaged Life". In<br />
Adorno's words,<br />
“<br />
For<br />
since the<br />
overwhelming<br />
”<br />
objectivity of<br />
historical<br />
movement in its<br />
present phase<br />
Page 35 of 45
consists so far<br />
only in the<br />
dissolution of<br />
the subject,<br />
without yet<br />
giving rise to a<br />
new one,<br />
individual<br />
experience<br />
necessarily<br />
bases itself on<br />
the old subject,<br />
now historically<br />
condemned,<br />
which is still<br />
<strong>for</strong>-itself, but<br />
no longer initself.<br />
The<br />
subject still feels<br />
sure of its<br />
autonomy, but<br />
the nullity<br />
demonstrated<br />
to subjects by<br />
the<br />
concentration<br />
camp is already<br />
overtaking the<br />
<strong>for</strong>m of<br />
subjectivity<br />
itself.<br />
Consequently, at a time when it appears<br />
that reality itself has become the basis <strong>for</strong><br />
ideology, the greatest contribution that<br />
critical theory can make is to explore the<br />
dialectical contradictions of individual<br />
subjective experience on the one hand,<br />
and to preserve the truth of theory on the<br />
other. Even dialectical progress is put<br />
into doubt: "its truth or untruth is not<br />
inherent in the method itself, but in its<br />
intention in the historical process." This<br />
intention must be oriented toward<br />
integral freedom and happiness: "the only<br />
philosophy which can be responsibly<br />
practiced in face of despair is the attempt<br />
to contemplate all things as they would<br />
present themselves from the standpoint<br />
of redemption". Adorno goes on to<br />
distance himself from the "optimism" of<br />
orthodox Marxism: "beside the demand<br />
thus placed on thought, the question of<br />
the reality or unreality of redemption [i.e.<br />
human emancipation] itself hardly<br />
matters."<br />
From a sociological point of view, both<br />
Horkheimer's and Adorno's works<br />
contain a certain ambivalence concerning<br />
the ultimate source or foundation of<br />
social domination, an ambivalence which<br />
gave rise to the "pessimism" of the new<br />
critical theory over the possibility of<br />
human emancipation and freedom. This<br />
ambivalence was rooted, of course, in the<br />
historical circumstances in which the<br />
work was originally produced, in<br />
particular, the rise of National Socialism,<br />
state capitalism, and mass culture as<br />
entirely new <strong>for</strong>ms of social domination<br />
that could not be adequately explained<br />
within the terms of traditional Marxist<br />
sociology. For Adorno and Horkheimer,<br />
state intervention in the economy had<br />
effectively abolished the tension in<br />
capitalism between the "relations of<br />
production" and "material productive<br />
<strong>for</strong>ces of society"—a tension which,<br />
according to traditional Marxist theory,<br />
constituted the primary contradiction<br />
within capitalism. The previously "free"<br />
market (as an "unconscious" mechanism<br />
<strong>for</strong> the distribution of goods) and<br />
"irrevocable" private property of Marx's<br />
epoch have gradually been replaced by<br />
the centralized state planning and<br />
Page 36 of 45
socialized ownership of the means of<br />
production in contemporary Western<br />
societies. [35] The dialectic through which<br />
Marx predicted the emancipation of<br />
modern society is thus suppressed,<br />
effectively being subjugated to a positivist<br />
rationality of domination.<br />
Of this second "phase" of the Frankfurt<br />
School, philosopher and critical theorist<br />
Nikolas Kompridis writes that:<br />
“<br />
According<br />
to<br />
the now<br />
canonical view<br />
of its history,<br />
Frankfurt<br />
School critical<br />
theory began in<br />
the 1930s as a<br />
fairly confident<br />
interdisciplinary<br />
and materialist<br />
research<br />
program, the<br />
general aim of<br />
which was to<br />
connect<br />
normative<br />
social criticism<br />
to the<br />
emancipatory<br />
potential latent<br />
in concrete<br />
historical<br />
processes. Only<br />
a decade or so<br />
later, however,<br />
”<br />
having revisited<br />
the premises of<br />
their<br />
philosophy of<br />
history,<br />
Horkheimer<br />
and Adorno's<br />
Dialectic of<br />
Enlightenment<br />
steered the<br />
whole<br />
enterprise,<br />
provocatively<br />
and selfconsciously,<br />
into a skeptical<br />
cul-de-sac. As a<br />
result they got<br />
stuck in the<br />
irresolvable<br />
dilemmas of the<br />
"philosophy of<br />
the subject,"<br />
and the original<br />
program was<br />
shrunk to a<br />
negativistic<br />
practice of<br />
critique that<br />
eschewed the<br />
very normative<br />
ideals on which<br />
it implicitly<br />
depended.<br />
Kompridis claims that this "sceptical culde-sac"<br />
was arrived at with "a lot of help<br />
from the once unspeakable and<br />
unprecedented barbarity of European<br />
fascism," and could not be gotten out of<br />
without "some well-marked [exit or]<br />
Ausgang, showing the way out of the<br />
ever-recurring nightmare in which<br />
Enlightenment hopes and Holocaust<br />
horrors are fatally entangled." However,<br />
this Ausgang, according to Kompridis,<br />
Page 37 of 45
would not come until later – purportedly<br />
in the <strong>for</strong>m of Jürgen Habermas's work<br />
on the intersubjective bases of<br />
communicative rationality.<br />
Page 38 of 45
Page 39 of 45
References<br />
______<br />
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<strong>Critical</strong>_thinking<br />
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School<br />
3. http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766<br />
4. http://www.criticalreading.com/critical_thinking.htm<br />
5. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/critical+thinking<br />
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning<br />
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning<br />
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic<br />
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_%28spiritual%29#Western_culture<br />
Page 40 of 45
Attachment A<br />
<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: What It Is and Why It Counts<br />
Page 41 of 45
<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>:<br />
What It Is and Why It Counts<br />
Peter A. Facione<br />
The late George Carlin worked<br />
“critical thinking” into one of his comedic<br />
monologue rants on the perils of trusting our<br />
lives and <strong>for</strong>tunes to the decision-making of<br />
people who were gullible, unin<strong>for</strong>med, and<br />
unreflective. Had he lived to experience the<br />
economic collapse of 2008 and 2009, he<br />
would have surely added more to his<br />
caustic but accurate assessments regarding<br />
how failing to anticipate the consequences<br />
of one’s decisions often leads to disastrous<br />
results not only <strong>for</strong> the decision maker, but<br />
<strong>for</strong> many other people as well.<br />
After years of viewing higher<br />
education as more of a private good which<br />
benefits only the student, we are again<br />
beginning to appreciate higher education as<br />
being also a public good which benefits<br />
society. Is it not a wiser social policy to<br />
invest in the education of the future<br />
work<strong>for</strong>ce, rather than to suffer the financial<br />
costs and endure the fiscal and social<br />
burdens associated with economic<br />
weakness, public health problems, crime,<br />
and avoidable poverty? Perhaps that<br />
realization, along with its obvious<br />
advantages <strong>for</strong> high level strategic decision<br />
making, is what lead the Chairman of the<br />
Joint Chiefs of Staff to comment on critical<br />
thinking in his commencement address to a<br />
graduating class of military officers.<br />
Teach people to make good<br />
decisions and you equip them to improve<br />
© 1992, 1998, 2004, 2006, 2011 Peter A. Facione, Measured Reasons and The Cali<strong>for</strong>nia Academic Press, Millbrae, CA<br />
Permission to Reprint <strong>for</strong> Non-Commercial Uses<br />
This essay is published by Insight Assessment. The original appeared in 1992 and has been updated many times over the years.<br />
Although the author and the publisher hold all copyrights, in the interests of advancing education and improving critical thinking,<br />
permission is hereby granted <strong>for</strong> paper, electronic, or digital copies to be made in unlimited amounts, provided that their distribution<br />
is free of charge provided that whenever material from this essay is cited or extracted in whole or in part that appropriate citation is<br />
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.<br />
For permission <strong>for</strong> reprints intended <strong>for</strong> sale contact Insight Assessment by phone at 650-697-5628 or by email to<br />
jmorante@insightassessment.com. ISBN 13: 978-1-891557-07-1.<br />
To support the expenses of making this essay available free <strong>for</strong> non-commercial uses, the publisher has inserted in<strong>for</strong>mation about<br />
its critical thinking testing instruments. These tools assess the critical thinking skills and habits of mind described in this essay. To<br />
build critical thinking skills and habits of mind use Dr. Facione’s newest book THINK_<strong>Critical</strong>ly, Pearson Education 2011.
their own futures and become contributing<br />
members of society, rather than burdens on<br />
society. Becoming educated and practicing<br />
good judgment does not absolutely<br />
guarantee a life of happiness, virtue, or<br />
economic success, but it surely offers a<br />
better chance at those things. And it is<br />
clearly better than enduring the<br />
consequences of making bad decisions and<br />
better than burdening friends, family, and all<br />
the rest of us with the unwanted and<br />
avoidable consequences of those poor<br />
choices.<br />
Defining “<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>”<br />
Yes, surely we have all heard<br />
business executives, policy makers, civic<br />
leaders, and educators talking about critical<br />
thinking. At times we found ourselves<br />
wondering exactly what critical thinking was<br />
and why is it considered so useful and<br />
important. This essay takes a deeper look at<br />
these questions.<br />
But, rather than beginning with an<br />
abstract definition – as if critical thinking<br />
were about memorization, which is not the<br />
case – give this thought experiment a try:<br />
Imagine you have been invited to a movie<br />
by a friend. But it’s not a movie you want to<br />
see. So, your friend asks you why. You<br />
give your honest reason. The movie<br />
offends your sense of decency. Your friend<br />
asks you to clarify your reason by explaining<br />
what bothers you about the film. You reply<br />
that it is not the language used or the<br />
sexuality portrayed, but you find the<br />
violence in the film offensive.<br />
Sure, that should be a good enough<br />
answer. But suppose your friend, perhaps<br />
being a bit philosophically inclined or simply<br />
curious or argumentative, pursues the<br />
matter further by asking you to define what<br />
you mean by “offensive violence.”<br />
Take a minute and give it a try.<br />
How would you define “offensive violence”<br />
as it applies to movies? Can you write a<br />
characterization which captures what this<br />
commonly used concept contains? Take<br />
care, though, we would not want to make<br />
the definition so broad that all movie<br />
violence would be automatically “offensive.”<br />
And check to be sure your way of defining<br />
“offensive violence” fits with how the rest of<br />
the people who know and use English<br />
would understand the term. Otherwise they<br />
will not be able to understand what you<br />
mean when you use that expression.<br />
Did you come up with a definition<br />
that works? How do you know?<br />
What you just did with the<br />
expression “offensive violence” is very much<br />
the same as what had to be done with the<br />
expression “critical thinking.” At one level<br />
we all know what “critical thinking” means —<br />
it means good thinking, almost the opposite<br />
of illogical, irrational, thinking. But when we<br />
test our understanding further, we run into<br />
questions. For example, is critical thinking<br />
the same as creative thinking, are they<br />
different, or is one part of the other? How<br />
do critical thinking and native intelligence or<br />
scholastic aptitude relate? Does critical<br />
thinking focus on the subject matter or<br />
content that you know or on the process you<br />
use when you reason about that content?<br />
It might not hurt at all if you <strong>for</strong>med<br />
some tentative preliminary ideas about the<br />
questions we just raised. We humans learn<br />
better when we stop frequently to reflect,<br />
rather than just plowing from the top of the<br />
page to the bottom without coming up <strong>for</strong><br />
air.<br />
Fine. So how would you propose we<br />
go about defining “critical thinking.” You do<br />
not really want a definition plopped on the<br />
page <strong>for</strong> you to memorize, do you? That<br />
would be silly, almost counterproductive.<br />
The goal here is to help you sharpen your<br />
critical thinking skills and cultivate your<br />
critical thinking spirit. While memorization<br />
definitely has many valuable uses, fostering<br />
critical thinking is not among them. So, let’s<br />
look back at what you might have done to<br />
define “offensive violence” and see if we<br />
can learn from you. Did you think of some<br />
Facione, PA, “<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 2
scenes in movies that were offensively<br />
violent, and did you contrast them with other<br />
scenes that were either not violent or not<br />
offensively violent? If you did, good. That is<br />
one (but not the only) way to approach the<br />
problem. Technically it is called finding<br />
paradigm cases. Happily, like many things<br />
in life, you do not have to know its name to<br />
do it well.<br />
when a person or a group of people decides<br />
important matters without pausing first to<br />
think things through.<br />
Back to critical thinking – let’s ask<br />
ourselves to come up with possible<br />
examples of strong critical thinking? How<br />
about the adroit and clever questioning of<br />
Socrates or a good attorney or interviewer?<br />
Or, what about the clever investigative<br />
approaches used by police detectives and<br />
crime scene analysts? Would we not want<br />
to also include people working together to<br />
solve a problem as they consider and<br />
discuss their options? How about someone<br />
who is good at listening to all sides of a<br />
dispute, considering all the facts, and then<br />
deciding what is relevant and what is not,<br />
and then rendering a thoughtful judgment?<br />
And maybe too, someone who is able to<br />
summarize complex ideas clearly with<br />
fairness to all sides, or a person who can<br />
come up with the most coherent and<br />
justifiable explanation of what a passage of<br />
written material means? Or the person who<br />
can readily devise sensible alternatives to<br />
explore, but who does not become<br />
defensive about abandoning them if they do<br />
not work? And also the person who can<br />
explain exactly how a particular conclusion<br />
was reached, or why certain criteria apply?<br />
Or, considering the concept of<br />
critical thinking from the opposite direction,<br />
we might ask what the consequences of<br />
failing to use our critical thinking might be.<br />
Imagine <strong>for</strong> a moment what could happen<br />
Expert Opinion<br />
An international group of experts<br />
was asked to try to <strong>for</strong>m a consensus about<br />
the meaning of critical thinking. 1 One of the<br />
first things they did was to ask themselves<br />
the question: Who are the best critical<br />
thinkers we know and what is it about them<br />
that leads us to consider them the best?<br />
So, who are the best critical thinkers you<br />
know? Why do you think they are strong<br />
critical thinkers? Can you draw from those<br />
examples a description that is more<br />
abstract? For example, consider effective<br />
trial lawyers, apart from how they conduct<br />
their personal lives or whether their client is<br />
really guilty or innocent, just look at how the<br />
lawyers develop their cases in court. They<br />
use reasons to try to convince the judge and<br />
jury of their client’s claim to guilt or<br />
innocence. They offer evidence and<br />
evaluate the significance of the evidence<br />
presented by the opposition lawyers. They<br />
interpret testimony. They analyze and<br />
evaluate the arguments advanced by the<br />
other side.<br />
1 Many useful characterizations of critical thinking by noted<br />
theorists and teachers are captured in Conversations with<br />
<strong>Critical</strong> Thinkers , John Esterle and Dan Clurman (Eds.).<br />
Whitman Institute. San Francisco, CA. 1993<br />
Facione, PA, “<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 3
Now, consider the example of the<br />
team of people trying to solve a problem.<br />
The team members, unlike the courtroom’s<br />
adversarial situation, try to collaborate. The<br />
members of an effective team do not<br />
compete against each other. They work in<br />
concert, like colleagues, <strong>for</strong> the common<br />
goal. Unless they solve the problem, none<br />
of them has won. When they find the way<br />
to solve the problem, they all have won. So,<br />
from analyzing just two examples we can<br />
generalize something very important: critical<br />
thinking is thinking that has a purpose<br />
(proving a point, interpreting what<br />
something means, solving a problem), but<br />
critical thinking can be a collaborative,<br />
noncompetitive endeavor. And, by the way,<br />
even lawyers collaborate. They can work<br />
together on a common defense or a joint<br />
prosecution, and they can also cooperate<br />
with each other to get at the truth so that<br />
justice is done.<br />
We will come to a more precise<br />
definition of critical thinking soon enough.<br />
But first, there is something else we can<br />
learn from paradigm examples. When you<br />
were thinking about “offensive violence” did<br />
you come up with any examples that were<br />
tough to classify? Borderline cases, as it<br />
were — an example that one person might<br />
consider offensive but another might<br />
reasonably regard as non-offensive. Yes,<br />
well, so did we. This is going to happen<br />
with all abstract concepts. It happens with<br />
the concept of critical thinking as well.<br />
There are people of whom we would say, on<br />
certain occasions this person is a good<br />
thinker, clear, logical, thoughtful, attentive to<br />
the facts, open to alternatives, but, wow, at<br />
other times, look out! When you get this<br />
person on such-and-such a topic, well it is<br />
all over then. You have pushed some kind<br />
of button and the person does not want to<br />
hear what anybody else has to say. The<br />
person’s mind is made up ahead of time.<br />
New facts are pushed aside. No other point<br />
of view is tolerated.<br />
Do you know any people that might<br />
fit that general description?<br />
Good. What can we learn about<br />
critical thinking from such a case? Maybe<br />
more than we can learn from just looking at<br />
the easy cases. For when a case is on the<br />
borderline, it <strong>for</strong>ces us to make important<br />
distinctions. It confronts us and demands a<br />
decision: In or Out! And not just that, but<br />
why? So, our friend who is fair-minded<br />
about some things, but close-minded about<br />
others, what to do? Let’s take the parts we<br />
approve of because they seem to us to<br />
contribute to acting rationally and logically<br />
and include those in the concept of critical<br />
thinking, and let’s take the parts that work<br />
against reason, that close the mind to the<br />
possibility of new and relevant in<strong>for</strong>mation,<br />
that blindly deny even the possibility that the<br />
other side might have merit, and call those<br />
poor, counterproductive, or uncritical<br />
thinking.<br />
Now, <strong>for</strong>mulate a list of cases —<br />
people that are clearly strong critical<br />
thinkers and clearly weak critical thinkers<br />
and some who are on the borderline.<br />
Considering all those cases, what is it about<br />
them that led you to decide which were<br />
which? Suggestion: What can the strong<br />
critical thinkers do (what mental abilities do<br />
they have), that the weak critical thinkers<br />
have trouble doing? What skills or<br />
approaches do the strong critical thinkers<br />
2 Spoken by the Vampire Marius in Ann Rice’s book The<br />
Vampire Lestat Ballantine Books. New York, NY. 1985.<br />
2<br />
Facione, PA, “<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 4
habitually seem to exhibit which the weak<br />
critical thinkers seem not to possess?<br />
Core <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong> Skills<br />
Above we suggested you look <strong>for</strong> a<br />
list of mental skills and habits of mind, the<br />
experts, when faced with the same problem<br />
you are working on, refer to their lists as<br />
including cognitive skills and dispositions.<br />
As to the cognitive skills here is what<br />
the experts include as being at the very core<br />
of critical thinking: interpretation, analysis,<br />
evaluation, inference, explanation, and selfregulation.<br />
(We will get to the dispositions<br />
in just a second.) Did any of these words or<br />
ideas come up when you tried to<br />
characterize the cognitive skills — mental<br />
abilities — involved in critical thinking?<br />
Quoting from the consensus<br />
statement of the national panel of experts:<br />
interpretation is “to comprehend and<br />
express the meaning or significance of a<br />
wide variety of experiences, situations, data,<br />
events, judgments, conventions, beliefs,<br />
rules, procedures, or criteria.” 3 Interpretation<br />
3 The findings of expert consensus cited or reported<br />
in this essay are published in <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: A<br />
Statement of Expert Consensus <strong>for</strong> Purposes of<br />
Educational Assessment and Instruction. Peter A.<br />
Facione, principle investigator, The Cali<strong>for</strong>nia<br />
Academic Press, Millbrae, CA, 1990. (ERIC ED 315<br />
423). In 1993/94 the Center <strong>for</strong> the Study of Higher<br />
includes the sub-skills of categorization,<br />
decoding significance, and clarifying<br />
meaning. Can you think of examples of<br />
interpretation? How about recognizing a<br />
problem and describing it without bias?<br />
How about reading a person’s intentions in<br />
the expression on her face; distinguishing a<br />
main idea from subordinate ideas in a text;<br />
constructing a tentative categorization or<br />
way of organizing something you are<br />
studying; paraphrasing someone’s ideas in<br />
your own words; or, clarifying what a sign,<br />
chart or graph means? What about<br />
identifying an author’s purpose, theme, or<br />
point of view? How about what you did<br />
above when you clarified what “offensive<br />
violence” meant?<br />
Again from the experts: analysis is<br />
“to identify the intended and actual<br />
inferential relationships among statements,<br />
questions, concepts, descriptions, or other<br />
<strong>for</strong>ms of representation intended to express<br />
belief, judgment, experiences, reasons,<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation, or opinions.” The experts<br />
include examining ideas, detecting<br />
arguments, and analyzing arguments as<br />
sub-skills of analysis. Again, can you come<br />
up with some examples of analysis? What<br />
about identifying the similarities and<br />
differences between two approaches to the<br />
solution of a given problem? What about<br />
picking out the main claim made in a<br />
newspaper editorial and tracing back the<br />
various reasons the editor offers in support<br />
of that claim? Or, what about identifying<br />
unstated assumptions; constructing a way<br />
to represent a main conclusion and the<br />
various reasons given to support or criticize<br />
it; sketching the relationship of sentences or<br />
paragraphs to each other and to the main<br />
Education at The Pennsylvania State University<br />
undertook a study of 200 policy-makers, employers,<br />
and faculty members from two-year and four-year<br />
colleges to determine what this group took to be the<br />
core critical thinking skills and habits of mind. The<br />
Pennsylvania State University Study, under the<br />
direction of Dr. Elizabeth Jones, was funded by the<br />
US Department of Education Office of Educational<br />
Research and Instruction. The Penn State study<br />
findings, published in 1994, confirmed the expert<br />
consensus described in this paper.<br />
Facione, PA, “<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 5
purpose of the passage? What about<br />
graphically organizing this essay, in your<br />
own way, knowing that its purpose is to give<br />
a preliminary idea about what critical<br />
thinking means?<br />
The experts define evaluation as<br />
meaning “to assess the credibility of<br />
statements or other representations which<br />
are accounts or descriptions of a person’s<br />
perception, experience, situation, judgment,<br />
belief, or opinion; and to assess the logical<br />
strength of the actual or intended inferential<br />
relationships among statements,<br />
descriptions, questions or other <strong>for</strong>ms of<br />
representation.” Your examples? How<br />
about judging an author’s or speaker’s<br />
credibility, comparing the strengths and<br />
weaknesses of alternative interpretations,<br />
determining the credibility of a source of<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation, judging if two statements<br />
contradict each other, or judging if the<br />
evidence at hand supports the conclusion<br />
being drawn? Among the examples the<br />
experts propose are these: “recognizing the<br />
factors which make a person a credible<br />
witness regarding a given event or a<br />
credible authority with regard to a given<br />
topic,” “judging if an argument’s conclusion<br />
follows either with certainty or with a high<br />
level of confidence from its premises,”<br />
“judging the logical strength of arguments<br />
based on hypothetical situations,” “judging if<br />
a given argument is relevant or applicable<br />
or has implications <strong>for</strong> the situation at hand.”<br />
Do the people you regard as strong<br />
critical thinkers have the three cognitive<br />
skills described so far? Are they good at<br />
interpretation, analysis, and evaluation?<br />
What about the next three? And your<br />
examples of weak critical thinkers, are they<br />
lacking in these cognitive skills? All, or just<br />
some?<br />
To the experts inference means “to<br />
identify and secure elements needed to<br />
draw reasonable conclusions; to <strong>for</strong>m<br />
conjectures and hypotheses; to consider<br />
relevant in<strong>for</strong>mation and to educe the<br />
consequences flowing from data,<br />
statements, principles, evidence,<br />
judgments, beliefs, opinions, concepts,<br />
descriptions, questions, or other <strong>for</strong>ms of<br />
representation.” As sub-skills of inference<br />
the experts list querying evidence,<br />
conjecturing alternatives, and drawing<br />
conclusions. Can you think of some<br />
examples of inference? You might suggest<br />
things like seeing the implications of the<br />
position someone is advocating, or drawing<br />
out or constructing meaning from the<br />
elements in a reading. You may suggest<br />
that predicting what will happen next based<br />
what is known about the <strong>for</strong>ces at work in a<br />
given situation, or <strong>for</strong>mulating a synthesis of<br />
related ideas into a coherent perspective.<br />
How about this: after judging that it would<br />
be useful to you to resolve a given<br />
uncertainty, developing a workable plan to<br />
gather that in<strong>for</strong>mation? Or, when faced<br />
with a problem, developing a set of options<br />
<strong>for</strong> addressing it. What about, conducting a<br />
controlled experiment scientifically and<br />
applying the proper statistical methods to<br />
attempt to confirm or disconfirm an<br />
empirical hypothesis?<br />
Beyond being able to interpret,<br />
analyze, evaluate and infer, strong critical<br />
thinkers can do two more things. They can<br />
explain what they think and how they<br />
arrived at that judgment. And, they can<br />
apply their powers of critical thinking to<br />
themselves and improve on their previous<br />
opinions. These two skills are called<br />
“explanation” and “self-regulation.”<br />
The experts define explanation as<br />
being able to present in a cogent and<br />
coherent way the results of one’s reasoning.<br />
This means to be able to give someone a<br />
full look at the big picture: both “to state and<br />
to justify that reasoning in terms of the<br />
evidential, conceptual, methodological,<br />
criteriological, and contextual considerations<br />
upon which one’s results were based; and<br />
to present one’s reasoning in the <strong>for</strong>m of<br />
cogent arguments.” The sub-skills under<br />
explanation are describing methods and<br />
results, justifying procedures, proposing and<br />
defending with good reasons one’s causal<br />
Facione, PA, “<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 6
and conceptual explanations of events or<br />
points of view, and presenting full and wellreasoned,<br />
arguments in the context of<br />
seeking the best understandings possible.<br />
Your examples first, please... Here are<br />
some more: to construct a chart which<br />
organizes one’s findings, to write down <strong>for</strong><br />
future reference your current thinking on<br />
some important and complex matter, to cite<br />
the standards and contextual factors used<br />
to judge the quality of an interpretation of a<br />
text, to state research results and describe<br />
the methods and criteria used to achieve<br />
those results, to appeal to established<br />
criteria as a way of showing the<br />
reasonableness of a given judgment, to<br />
design a graphic display which accurately<br />
represents the subordinate and superordinate<br />
relationship among concepts or<br />
ideas, to cite the evidence that led you to<br />
accept or reject an author’s position on an<br />
issue, to list the factors that were<br />
considered in assigning a final course<br />
grade.<br />
Maybe the most remarkable<br />
cognitive skill of all, however, is this next<br />
one. This one is remarkable because it<br />
allows strong critical thinkers to improve<br />
their own thinking. In a sense this is critical<br />
thinking applied to itself. Because of that<br />
some people want to call this “metacognition,”<br />
meaning it raises thinking to<br />
another level. But “another level” really<br />
does not fully capture it, because at that<br />
next level up what self-regulation does is<br />
look back at all the dimensions of critical<br />
thinking and double check itself. Selfregulation<br />
is like a recursive function in<br />
mathematical terms, which means it can<br />
apply to everything, including itself. You<br />
can monitor and correct an interpretation<br />
you offered. You can examine and correct<br />
an inference you have drawn. You can<br />
review and re<strong>for</strong>mulate one of your own<br />
explanations. You can even examine and<br />
correct your ability to examine and correct<br />
yourself! How? It is as simple as stepping<br />
back and saying to yourself, “How am I<br />
doing? Have I missed anything important?<br />
Let me double check be<strong>for</strong>e I go further.”<br />
The experts define self-regulation<br />
to mean “self-consciously to monitor one’s<br />
cognitive activities, the elements used in<br />
those activities, and the results educed,<br />
particularly by applying skills in analysis,<br />
and evaluation to one’s own inferential<br />
judgments with a view toward questioning,<br />
confirming, validating, or correcting either<br />
one’s reasoning or one’s results.” The two<br />
sub-skills here are self-examination and<br />
self-correction. Examples? Easy — to<br />
examine your views on a controversial issue<br />
with sensitivity to the possible influences of<br />
your personal biases or self-interest, to<br />
check yourself when listening to a speaker<br />
in order to be sure you are understanding<br />
what the person is really saying without<br />
introducing your own ideas, to monitor how<br />
well you seem to be understanding or<br />
comprehending what you are reading or<br />
experiencing, to remind yourself to separate<br />
your personal opinions and assumptions<br />
from those of the author of a passage or<br />
text, to double check yourself by<br />
recalculating the figures, to vary your<br />
reading speed and method mindful of the<br />
type of material and your purpose <strong>for</strong><br />
reading, to reconsider your interpretation or<br />
judgment in view of further analysis of the<br />
facts of the case, to revise your answers in<br />
view of the errors you discovered in your<br />
work, to change your conclusion in view of<br />
the realization that you had misjudged the<br />
importance of certain factors when coming<br />
to your earlier decision. 4<br />
4 The Cali<strong>for</strong>nia <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong> Skills Test, and the<br />
Test of Everyday Reasoning, the Health Science<br />
Reasoning Test, the Military and Defense Reasoning<br />
Profile, The Business <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong> Skills Test,<br />
and the Legal Studies Reasoning Profile along with<br />
other testing instruments authored by Dr. Facione and<br />
his research team <strong>for</strong> people in K-12, college, and<br />
graduate / professional work target the core critical<br />
thinking skills identified here. These instruments are<br />
published in English and several authorized<br />
translations exclusively by Insight Assessment.<br />
Facione, PA, “<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 7
The Delphi Research Method<br />
The panel of experts we keep<br />
referring to included <strong>for</strong>ty-six men and<br />
women from throughout the United States<br />
and Canada. They represented many<br />
different scholarly disciplines in the<br />
humanities, sciences, social sciences, and<br />
education. They participated in a research<br />
project that lasted two years and was<br />
conducted on behalf of the American<br />
Philosophical Association. Their work was<br />
published under the title <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: A<br />
Statement of Expert Consensus <strong>for</strong><br />
Purposes of Educational Assessment and<br />
Instruction. (The Cali<strong>for</strong>nia Academic<br />
Press, Millbrae, CA, 1990). You may<br />
download the executive summary of that<br />
report free. Visit<br />
http://www.insightassessment.com<br />
You might be wondering how such a<br />
large group of people could collaborate on<br />
Facione, PA, “<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 8
this project over that long a period of time<br />
and at those distances and still come to<br />
consensus. Good question. Remember<br />
we’re talking the days be<strong>for</strong>e e-mail.<br />
Not only did the group have to rely<br />
on snail mail during their two-year<br />
collaboration; they also relied on a method<br />
of interaction, known as the Delphi Method,<br />
which was developed precisely to enable<br />
experts to think effectively about something<br />
over large spans of distance and time. In<br />
the Delphi Method a central investigator<br />
organizes the group and feeds them an<br />
initial question. [In this case it had to do<br />
with how college level critical thinking<br />
should be defined so that people teaching at<br />
that level would know which skills and<br />
dispositions to cultivate in their students.]<br />
The central investigator receives all<br />
responses, summarizes them, and transmits<br />
them back to all the panelists <strong>for</strong> reactions,<br />
replies, and additional questions.<br />
Wait a minute! These are all wellknown<br />
experts, so what do you do if people<br />
disagree? And what about the possible<br />
influence of a big name person? Good<br />
points. First, the central investigator takes<br />
precautions to remove names so that the<br />
panelists are not told who said what. They<br />
know who is on the panel, of course. But<br />
that is as far as it goes. After that each<br />
experts’ argument has to stand on its own<br />
merits. Second, an expert is only as good<br />
as the arguments she or he gives. So, the<br />
central investigator summarizes the<br />
arguments and lets the panelists decide if<br />
they accept them or not. When consensus<br />
appears to be at hand, the central<br />
investigator proposes this and asks if<br />
people agree. If not, then points of<br />
disagreement among the experts are<br />
registered. We want to share with you one<br />
important example of each of these. First<br />
we will describe the expert consensus view<br />
of the dispositions which are absolutely vital<br />
to strong critical thinking. Then we will note<br />
a point of separation among the experts.<br />
Facione, PA, “<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 9
The Disposition Toward <strong>Critical</strong><br />
<strong>Thinking</strong><br />
What kind of a person would be apt<br />
to use their critical thinking skills? The<br />
experts poetically describe such a person<br />
as having “a critical spirit.” Having a critical<br />
spirit does not mean that the person is<br />
always negative and hypercritical of<br />
everyone and everything.<br />
The experts use the metaphorical<br />
phrase critical spirit in a positive sense. By<br />
it they mean “a probing inquisitiveness, a<br />
keenness of mind, a zealous dedication<br />
to reason, and a hunger or eagerness <strong>for</strong><br />
reliable in<strong>for</strong>mation.”<br />
Almost sounds like Supreme Court<br />
<strong>Justice</strong> Sandra Day O’Connor or Sherlock<br />
Holmes The kind of person being described<br />
here is the kind that always wants to ask<br />
“Why?” or “How?” or “What happens if?”.<br />
The one key difference, however, is that in<br />
fiction Sherlock always solves the mystery,<br />
while in the real world there is no guarantee.<br />
<strong>Critical</strong> thinking is about how you approach<br />
problems, questions, issues. It is the best<br />
way we know of to get to the truth. But!<br />
There still are no guarantees — no answers<br />
in the back of the book of real life. Does<br />
this characterization, that strong critical<br />
thinkers possess a “critical spirit, a probing<br />
inquisitiveness, a keenness of mind...” fit<br />
with your examples of people you would call<br />
strong critical thinkers?<br />
But, you might say, I know people<br />
who have skills but do not use them. We<br />
cannot call someone a strong critical thinker<br />
just because she or he has these cognitive<br />
skills, however important they might be,<br />
because what if they just do not bother to<br />
apply them?<br />
One response is to say that it is hard<br />
to imagine an accomplished dancer who<br />
never dances. After working to develop<br />
those skills it seems such a shame to let<br />
them grow weak with lack of practice. But<br />
dancers get tired. And they surrender to the<br />
stiffness of age or the fear of injury. In the<br />
case of critical thinking skills, we might<br />
argue that not using them once you have<br />
them is hard to imagine. It’s hard to<br />
imagine a person deciding not to think.<br />
Considered as a <strong>for</strong>m of thoughtful<br />
judgment or reflective decision-making, in a<br />
very real sense critical thinking is<br />
pervasive. There is hardly a time or a<br />
place where it would not seem to be of<br />
potential value. As long as people have<br />
purposes in mind and wish to judge how to<br />
accomplish them, as long as people wonder<br />
what is true and what is not, what to believe<br />
and what to reject, strong critical thinking is<br />
going to be necessary.<br />
And yet weird things happen, so it is<br />
probably true that some people might let<br />
their thinking skills grow dull. It is easier to<br />
imagine times when people are just too<br />
tired, too lax, or too frightened. But imagine<br />
it you can, Young Skywalker, so there has<br />
to be more to critical thinking than just the<br />
list of cognitive skills. Human beings are<br />
more than thinking machines. And this<br />
brings us back to those all-important<br />
attitudes which the experts called<br />
“dispositions.”<br />
The experts were persuaded that<br />
critical thinking is a pervasive and<br />
purposeful human phenomenon. The ideal<br />
critical thinker can be characterized not<br />
merely by her or his cognitive skills but also<br />
by how she or he approaches life and living<br />
in general. This is a bold claim. <strong>Critical</strong><br />
Facione, PA, “<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 10
thinking goes way beyond the classroom.<br />
In fact, many of the experts fear that some<br />
of the things people experience in school<br />
are actually harmful to the development and<br />
cultivation of strong critical thinking. <strong>Critical</strong><br />
thinking came be<strong>for</strong>e schooling was ever<br />
invented, it lies at the very roots of<br />
civilization. It is a corner stone in the<br />
journey human kind is taking from beastly<br />
savagery to global sensitivity. Consider<br />
what life would be like without the things on<br />
this list and we think you will understand.<br />
The approaches to life and living which<br />
characterize critical thinking include:<br />
* inquisitiveness with regard to a wide range of<br />
issues,<br />
* concern to become and remain well-in<strong>for</strong>med,<br />
* alertness to opportunities to use critical thinking,<br />
* trust in the processes of reasoned inquiry,<br />
* self-confidence in one’s own abilities to reason,<br />
* open-mindedness regarding divergent world views,<br />
* flexibility in considering alternatives and opinions<br />
* understanding of the opinions of other people,<br />
* fair-mindedness in appraising reasoning,<br />
* honesty in facing one’s own biases, prejudices,<br />
stereotypes, or egocentric tendencies,<br />
* prudence in suspending, making or altering<br />
judgments,<br />
* willingness to reconsider and revise views where<br />
honest reflection suggests that change is<br />
warranted.<br />
What would someone be like who<br />
lacked those dispositions?<br />
It might be someone who does not<br />
care about much of anything, is not<br />
interested in the facts, prefers not to think,<br />
mistrusts reasoning as a way of finding<br />
things out or solving problems, holds his or<br />
her own reasoning abilities in low esteem, is<br />
close-minded, inflexible, insensitive, cannot<br />
understand what others think, is unfair when<br />
it comes to judging the quality of arguments,<br />
denies his or her own biases, jumps to<br />
conclusions or delays too long in making<br />
judgments, and never is willing to<br />
reconsider an opinion. Not someone<br />
prudent people would want to ask to<br />
manage their investments!<br />
The experts went beyond<br />
approaches to life and living in general to<br />
emphasize that strong critical thinkers can<br />
also be described in terms of how they<br />
approach specific issues, questions, or<br />
problems. The experts said you would find<br />
these sorts of characteristics:<br />
* clarity in stating the question or concern,<br />
* orderliness in working with complexity,<br />
* diligence in seeking relevant in<strong>for</strong>mation,<br />
* reasonableness in selecting and applying criteria,<br />
* care in focusing attention on the concern at hand,<br />
* persistence though difficulties are encountered,<br />
* precision to the degree permitted by the subject and<br />
the circumstances.<br />
So, how would a weak critical thinker<br />
approach specific problems or issues?<br />
Obviously, by being muddle-headed about<br />
what he or she is doing, disorganized and<br />
overly simplistic, spotty about getting the<br />
facts, apt to apply unreasonable criteria,<br />
easily distracted, ready to give up at the<br />
least hint of difficulty, intent on a solution<br />
that is more detailed than is possible, or<br />
being satisfied with an overly generalized<br />
and uselessly vague response. Remind you<br />
of anyone you know?<br />
Someone positively disposed toward<br />
using critical thinking would probably agree<br />
with statements like these:<br />
“I hate talk shows where people shout their<br />
opinions but never give any reasons at all.”<br />
“Figuring out what people really mean by<br />
what they say is important to me."<br />
“I always do better in jobs where I'm<br />
expected to think things out <strong>for</strong> myself.”<br />
“I hold off making decisions until I have<br />
thought through my options.”<br />
“Rather than relying on someone else's<br />
notes, I prefer to read the material myself.”<br />
“I try to see the merit in another’s opinion,<br />
even if I reject it later.”<br />
“Even if a problem is tougher than I<br />
expected, I will keep working on it.”<br />
“Making intelligent decisions is more<br />
important than winning arguments.”<br />
Facione, PA, “<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 11
A person disposed to be averse or<br />
hostile toward using critical thinking<br />
would probably disagree with the<br />
statements above but be likely to agree with<br />
these:<br />
“I prefer jobs where the supervisor says<br />
exactly what to do and exactly how to do it."<br />
“No matter how complex the problem, you<br />
can bet there will be a simple solution.”<br />
"I don't waste time looking things up."<br />
“I hate when teachers discuss problems<br />
instead of just giving the answers.”<br />
“If my belief is truly sincere, evidence to the<br />
contrary is irrelevant."<br />
“Selling an idea is like selling cars, you say<br />
whatever works."<br />
We used the expression “strong<br />
critical thinker” to contrast with the<br />
expression “weak critical thinker.” But you<br />
will find people who drop the adjective<br />
“strong” (or “good”) and just say that<br />
someone is a “critical thinker” or not. It is<br />
like saying that a soccer (European<br />
“football”) player is a “defender” or “not a<br />
defender”, instead of saying the player’s<br />
skills at playing defense are strong or weak.<br />
People use the word “defender” in place of<br />
the phrase “is good at playing defense.”<br />
Similarly, people use “critical thinker” in<br />
place of “is a strong critical thinker” or “has<br />
strong critical thinking skills.” This is not<br />
only a helpful conversational shortcut, it<br />
suggests that to many people “critical<br />
thinker” has a laudatory sense. The word<br />
can be used to praise someone at the same<br />
time that it identifies the person, as in “Look<br />
at that play. That’s what I call a defender!”<br />
“If we were compelled to make a<br />
choice between these personal<br />
attributes and knowledge about<br />
the principles of logical<br />
reasoning together with some<br />
degree of technical skill in<br />
manipulating special logical<br />
processes, we should decide <strong>for</strong><br />
the <strong>for</strong>mer.”<br />
John Dewey, How We Think, 1909. Republished as<br />
How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of<br />
Reflective <strong>Thinking</strong> to the Educational Process. D. C.<br />
Heath Publishing. Lexington, MA. 1933.<br />
We said the experts did not come to<br />
full agreement on something. That thing<br />
has to do with the concept of a “strong<br />
critical thinker.” This time the emphasis is<br />
on the word “good” because of a crucial<br />
Facione, PA, “<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 12
ambiguity it contains. A person can be<br />
good at critical thinking, meaning that the<br />
person can have the appropriate<br />
dispositions and be adept at the cognitive<br />
processes, while still not being a good (in<br />
the moral sense) critical thinker. For<br />
example, a person can be adept at<br />
developing arguments and then, unethically,<br />
use this skill to mislead and exploit a gullible<br />
person, perpetrate a fraud, or deliberately<br />
confuse and confound, and frustrate a<br />
project.<br />
The experts were faced with an<br />
interesting problem. Some, a minority,<br />
would prefer to think that critical thinking, by<br />
its very nature, is inconsistent with the kinds<br />
of unethical and deliberately<br />
counterproductive examples given. They<br />
find it hard to imagine a person who was<br />
good at critical thinking not also being good<br />
in the broader personal and social sense.<br />
In other words, if a person were “really” a<br />
“strong critical thinker” in the procedural<br />
sense and if the person had all the<br />
appropriate dispositions, then the person<br />
simply would not do those kinds of<br />
exploitive and aggravating things.<br />
This self-rating <strong>for</strong>m also appears in Chapter 3 of Think <strong>Critical</strong>ly, Pearson Education, 2011. For a fuller and more<br />
robust measure of critical thinking dispositions see the Cali<strong>for</strong>nia <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong> Disposition Inventory (CCTDI) by<br />
Facione and Facione, published in 1992, by Insight Assessment.<br />
Facione, PA, “<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 13
The large majority, however, hold<br />
the opposite judgment. They are firm in the<br />
view that strong critical thinking has nothing<br />
to do with any given set of cultural beliefs,<br />
religious tenants, ethical values, social<br />
mores, political orientations, or orthodoxies<br />
of any kind. Rather, the commitment one<br />
makes as a strong critical thinker is to<br />
always seek the truth with objectivity,<br />
integrity, and fair-mindedness. The majority<br />
of experts maintain that critical thinking<br />
conceived of as we have described it above,<br />
is, regrettably, not inconsistent with abusing<br />
one’s knowledge, skills, or power. There<br />
have been people with superior thinking<br />
skills and strong habits of mind who,<br />
un<strong>for</strong>tunately, have used their talents <strong>for</strong><br />
ruthless, horrific, and immoral purposes.<br />
Would that it were not so! Would that<br />
experience, knowledge, mental horsepower,<br />
and ethical virtue were all one and the<br />
same. But from the time of Socrates, if not<br />
thousands of years be<strong>for</strong>e that, humans<br />
have known that many of us have one or<br />
more of these without having the full set.<br />
Any tool, any approach to situations,<br />
can go either way, ethically speaking,<br />
depending on the character, integrity, and<br />
principles of the persons who possess<br />
them. So, in the final analysis the majority<br />
of experts maintained that we cannot say a<br />
person is not thinking critically simply<br />
because we disapprove ethically of what the<br />
person is doing. The majority concluded<br />
that, “what ‘critical thinking’ means, why it is<br />
of value, and the ethics of its use are best<br />
regarded as three distinct concerns.”<br />
Perhaps this realization <strong>for</strong>ms part of<br />
the basis <strong>for</strong> why people these days are<br />
demanding a broader range of learning<br />
outcomes from our schools and colleges.<br />
“Knowledge and skills,” the staples of the<br />
educational philosophy of the mid-twentieth<br />
century, are not sufficient. We must look to<br />
a broader set of outcomes including habits<br />
of mind and dispositions, such as civic<br />
engagement, concern <strong>for</strong> the common<br />
good, and social responsibility.<br />
“<strong>Thinking</strong>” in Popular Culture<br />
We have said so many good things<br />
about critical thinking that you might have<br />
the impression that “critical thinking” and<br />
“good thinking” mean the same thing. But<br />
that is not what the experts said. They see<br />
critical thinking as making up part of what<br />
we mean by good thinking, but not as being<br />
the only kind of good thinking. For example,<br />
they would have included creative thinking<br />
as part of good thinking.<br />
Creative or innovative thinking is the<br />
kind of thinking that leads to new insights,<br />
novel approaches, fresh perspectives,<br />
whole new ways of understanding and<br />
conceiving of things. The products of<br />
creative thought include some obvious<br />
things like music, poetry, dance, dramatic<br />
literature, inventions, and technical<br />
innovations. But there are some not so<br />
obvious examples as well, such as ways of<br />
putting a question that expand the horizons<br />
of possible solutions, or ways of conceiving<br />
of relationships which challenge<br />
presuppositions and lead one to see the<br />
world in imaginative and different ways.<br />
The experts working on the concept<br />
of critical thinking wisely left open the entire<br />
question of what the other <strong>for</strong>ms good<br />
thinking might take. Creative thinking is<br />
only one example. There is a kind of<br />
purposive, kinetic thinking that instantly<br />
coordinates movement and intention as, <strong>for</strong><br />
example, when an athlete dribbles a soccer<br />
ball down the field during a match. There is<br />
a kind of meditative thinking which may<br />
lead to a sense of inner peace or to<br />
profound insights about human existence.<br />
In contrast, there is a kind of hyper-alert,<br />
instinctive thinking needed by soldiers in<br />
battle. In the context of popular culture one<br />
finds people proposing all kinds of thinking<br />
or this-kind of intelligence or that-kind of<br />
intelligence. Some times it is hard to sort out<br />
the science from the pseudo-science – the<br />
kernel of enduring truth from the latest<br />
cocktail party banter.<br />
Facione, PA, “<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 14
“<strong>Thinking</strong>” in Cognitive Science<br />
Theories emerging from more scientific<br />
studies of human thinking and decisionmaking<br />
in recent years propose that thinking<br />
is more integrated and less dualistic than<br />
the notions in popular culture suggest. We<br />
should be cautious about proposals<br />
suggesting oversimplified ways of<br />
understanding how humans think. We<br />
should avoid harsh, rigid dichotomies such<br />
as “reason vs. emotion,” “intuitive vs. linear,”<br />
“creativity vs. criticality,” “right brained vs.<br />
left brained,” “as on Mars vs. as on Venus.”<br />
There is often a kernel of wisdom in<br />
popular beliefs, and perhaps that gem this<br />
time is the realization that some times we<br />
decide things very quickly almost as<br />
spontaneous, intuitive, reactions to the<br />
situation at hand. Many accidents on the<br />
freeways of this nation are avoided<br />
precisely because drivers are able to see<br />
and react to dangerous situations so<br />
quickly. Many good decisions which feel<br />
intuitive are really the fruit of expertise.<br />
Decisions good drivers make in those<br />
moments of crisis, just like the decisions<br />
which practiced athletes make in the flow of<br />
a game or the decisions that a gifted<br />
teacher makes as she or he interacts with<br />
students, are borne of expertise, training,<br />
and practice.<br />
At the same time that we are<br />
immersed in the world around us and in our<br />
daily lives, constantly making decisions<br />
unreflectively, we may also be thinking quite<br />
reflectively about something. Perhaps we’re<br />
worried about a decision which we have to<br />
make about an important project at work, or<br />
about a personal relationship, or about a<br />
legal matter, whatever. We gather<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation, consider our options, explore<br />
Facione, PA, “<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 15
possibilities, <strong>for</strong>mulate some thoughts about<br />
what we propose to do and why this choice<br />
is the right one. In other words, we make a<br />
purposeful, reflective judgment about what<br />
to believe or what to do – precisely the kind<br />
of judgment which is the focus of critical<br />
thinking.<br />
Recent integrative models of human<br />
decision-making propose that the thinking<br />
processes of our species is not best<br />
described as a conflictive duality as in<br />
“intuitive vs. reflective” but rather an<br />
integrative functioning of two mutually<br />
supportive systems “intuitive and reflective.”<br />
These two systems of thinking are present<br />
in all of us and can act in parallel to process<br />
cognitively the matters over which we are<br />
deciding.<br />
One system is more intuitive,<br />
reactive, quick and holistic. So as not to<br />
confuse things with the notions of thinking in<br />
popular culture, cognitive scientists often<br />
name this system, “System 1.” The other<br />
(yes, you can guess its name) is more<br />
deliberative, reflective, computational and<br />
rule governed. You are right, it is called<br />
“System 2.”<br />
In System 1 thinking, one relies<br />
heavily on a number of heuristics (cognitive<br />
maneuvers), key situational characteristics,<br />
readily associated ideas, and vivid<br />
memories to arrive quickly and confidently<br />
at a judgment. System 1 thinking is<br />
particularly helpful in familiar situations<br />
when time is short and immediate action is<br />
required.<br />
While System 1 is functioning,<br />
another powerful system is also at work,<br />
that is, unless we shut it down by abusing<br />
alcohol or drugs, or with fear or indifference.<br />
Called “System 2,” this is our more<br />
reflective thinking system. It is useful <strong>for</strong><br />
making judgments when you find yourself in<br />
unfamiliar situations and have more time to<br />
figure things out. It allows us to process<br />
abstract concepts, to deliberate, to plan<br />
ahead, to consider options carefully, to<br />
review and revise our work in the light of<br />
relevant guidelines or standards or rules of<br />
procedure. While System 2 decisions are<br />
also influenced by the correct or incorrect<br />
application of heuristic maneuvers, this is<br />
the system which relies on well articulated<br />
reasons and more fully developed evidence.<br />
It is reasoning based on what we have<br />
learned through careful analysis, evaluation,<br />
explanation, and self-correction. This is the<br />
system which values intellectual honesty,<br />
analytically anticipating what happens next,<br />
maturity of judgment, fair-mindedness,<br />
elimination of biases, and truth-seeking.<br />
This is the system which we rely on to think<br />
carefully trough complex, novel, highstakes,<br />
and highly integrative problems. 5<br />
Educators urge us to improve our<br />
critical thinking skills and to rein<strong>for</strong>ce our<br />
disposition to use those skills because that<br />
is perhaps the best way to develop and<br />
refine our System 2 reasoning.<br />
System 1 and System 2 are both<br />
believed to be vital decision-making tools<br />
when stakes are high and when uncertainty<br />
is an issue. Each of these two cognitive<br />
systems are believed to be capable of<br />
functioning to monitor and potentially<br />
override the other. This is one of the ways<br />
our species reduces the chance of making<br />
foolish, sub-optimal or even dangerous<br />
errors in judgment. Human thinking is far<br />
from perfect. Even a good thinker makes<br />
both System 1 and 2 errors. At times we<br />
misinterpret things, or we get our facts<br />
wrong, and we make mistakes as a result.<br />
5 Chapters 9 and 10 of Think <strong>Critical</strong>ly, Pearson<br />
Education, 2011, locate critical thinking within this<br />
integrative model of thinking. The cognitive heuristics,<br />
which will be described next, and the human capacity<br />
to derive sustained confidence decisions (right or<br />
wrong),-- known as “dominance structuring,” – are<br />
presented there too. There are lots of useful exercises<br />
and examples in that book. You may also wish to<br />
consult the references listed at the end of this essay.<br />
The material presented in this section is derived from<br />
these books and related publications by many of<br />
these same authors and others working to<br />
scientifically explain how humans actually make<br />
decisions.<br />
Facione, PA, “<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 16
But often our errors are directly related to<br />
the influences and misapplications of<br />
cognitive heuristics. Because we share the<br />
propensity to use these heuristics as we<br />
make decisions, let’s examine how some of<br />
them influence us.<br />
Cognitive heuristics are thinking<br />
maneuvers which, at times, appear to be<br />
almost hardwired into our species. They<br />
influence both systems of thinking, the<br />
intuitive thinking of System 1 and the<br />
reflective reasoning of System 2. Five<br />
heuristics often seem to be more frequently<br />
operating in our System 1 reasoning are<br />
known as availability, affect, association,<br />
simulation, and similarity.<br />
Availability, the coming to mind of a<br />
story or vivid memory of something that<br />
happened to you or to someone close to<br />
you, inclines a person make inaccurate<br />
estimates of the likelihood of that thing’s<br />
happening again. People tell stories of<br />
things that happened to themselves or their<br />
friends all the time as a way of explaining<br />
their own decisions. The stories may not be<br />
scientifically representative, the events may<br />
be mistaken, misunderstood, or<br />
misinterpreted. But all that aside, the power<br />
of the story is to guide, often in a good way,<br />
the decision toward one choice rather than<br />
another.<br />
The Affect heuristic operates when<br />
you have an immediate positive or an<br />
negative reaction to some idea, proposal,<br />
person, object, whatever. Sometimes called<br />
a “gut reaction” this affective response sets<br />
up an initial orientation in us, positive or<br />
negative, toward the object. It takes a lot of<br />
System 2 reasoning to overcome a powerful<br />
affective response to an idea, but it can be<br />
done. And at times it should be, because<br />
there is no guarantee that your gut reaction<br />
is always right.<br />
The Association heuristic is<br />
operating when one word or idea reminds<br />
us of something else. For example, some<br />
people associate the word “cancer” with<br />
“death.” Some associate “sunshine” with<br />
“happiness.” These kinds of associational<br />
reasoning responses can be helpful at<br />
times, as <strong>for</strong> example if associating cancer<br />
with death leads you not to smoke and to go<br />
in <strong>for</strong> regular checkups. At other times the<br />
same association may influence a person to<br />
make an unwise decision, as <strong>for</strong> example if<br />
associating “cancer” with “death” were to<br />
lead you to be so fearful and pessimistic<br />
that you do not seek diagnosis and<br />
treatment of a worrisome cancer symptom<br />
until it was really too late to do anything.<br />
The Simulation heuristic is working<br />
when you are imagining how various<br />
scenarios will unfold. People often imagine<br />
how a conversation will go, or how they will<br />
be treated by someone else when they<br />
meet the person, or what their friends or<br />
boss or lover will say and do when they<br />
have to address some difficult issue. These<br />
simulations, like movies in our heads, help<br />
us prepare and do a better job when the<br />
difficult moment arrives. But they can also<br />
lead us to have mistaken expectations.<br />
People may not respond as we imagined,<br />
things may go much differently. Our<br />
preparations may fail us because the ease<br />
of our simulation misled us into thinking that<br />
things would have to go as we had<br />
imagined them. And they did not.<br />
The Similarity heuristic operates<br />
when we notice some way in which we are<br />
like someone else and infer that what<br />
Facione, PA, “<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 17
happened to that person is there<strong>for</strong>e more<br />
likely to happen to us. The similarity<br />
heuristic functions much like an analogical<br />
argument or metaphorical model. The<br />
similarity we focus on might be fundamental<br />
and relevant, which would make the<br />
inference more warranted. For example, the<br />
boss fired your coworker <strong>for</strong> missing sales<br />
targets and you draw the reasonable<br />
conclusion that if you miss your sales<br />
targets you’ll be fired too. Or the similarity<br />
that comes to mind might be superficial or<br />
not connected with the outcome, which<br />
would make the inference unwarranted. For<br />
example you see a TV commercial showing<br />
trim-figured young people enjoying fattening<br />
fast foods and infer that because you’re<br />
young too you can indulge your cravings <strong>for</strong><br />
fast foods without gaining a lot of excess<br />
unsightly poundage.<br />
Heuristics and biases often<br />
appearing to be somewhat more associated<br />
with System 2 thinking include: satisficing,<br />
risk/loss aversion, anchoring with<br />
adjustment, and the illusion of control.<br />
Satisficing occurs as we consider<br />
our alternatives. When we come to one<br />
which is good enough to fulfill our objectives<br />
we often regard ourselves as having<br />
completed our deliberations. We have<br />
satisficed. And why not? The choice is,<br />
after all, good enough. It may not be<br />
perfect, it may not be optimal, it may not<br />
even be the best among the options<br />
available. But it is good enough. Time to<br />
decide and move <strong>for</strong>ward.<br />
The running mate of satisficing is<br />
temporizing. Temporizing is deciding that<br />
the option which we have come to is “good<br />
enough <strong>for</strong> now.” We often move through<br />
life satisficing and temporizing. At times we<br />
look back on our situations and wonder why<br />
it is that we have settled <strong>for</strong> far less than we<br />
might have. If we had only studied harder,<br />
worked out a little more, taken better care of<br />
ourselves and our relationships, perhaps we<br />
would not be living as we are now. But, at<br />
the time each of the decisions along the<br />
way was “good enough <strong>for</strong> the time being.”<br />
We are by nature a species that is<br />
averse to risk and loss. Often we make<br />
decisions on the basis of what we are too<br />
worried about losing, rather than on the<br />
basis of what we might gain. This works out<br />
to be a rather serviceable approach in many<br />
circumstances. People do not want to lose<br />
control, they do not want to lose their<br />
freedom, they do not want to lose their lives,<br />
their families, their jobs, their possessions.<br />
High stakes gambling is best left to those<br />
who can af<strong>for</strong>d to lose the money. Las<br />
Vegas didn’t build all those multi-million<br />
dollar casino hotels because vacationers<br />
are winning all the time! And so, in real life,<br />
we take precautions. We avoid<br />
unnecessary risks. The odds may not be<br />
stacked against us, but the consequences<br />
of losing at times are so great that we would<br />
prefer to <strong>for</strong>ego the possibilities of gain in<br />
order not to lose what we have. And yet, on<br />
occasion this can be a most un<strong>for</strong>tunate<br />
decision too. History has shown time and<br />
time again that businesses which avoid<br />
risks often are unable to compete<br />
successfully with those willing to move more<br />
boldly into new markets or into new product<br />
lines.<br />
Any heuristic is only a maneuver,<br />
perhaps a shortcut or impulse to think or act<br />
in one way rather than another, but certainly<br />
not a failsafe rule. It may work out well<br />
much of the time to rely on the heuristic, but<br />
it will not work out <strong>for</strong> the best all of the<br />
time.<br />
For example, people with something<br />
to lose tend toward conservative choices<br />
politically as well as economically. Nothing<br />
wrong with that necessarily. Just an<br />
observation about the influence of Loss<br />
Aversion heuristic on actual decision<br />
making. We are more apt to endure the<br />
status quo, even as it slowly deteriorates,<br />
than we are to call <strong>for</strong> “radical” change.<br />
Regrettably, however, when the call <strong>for</strong><br />
change comes, it often requires a far<br />
Facione, PA, “<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 18
greater upheaval to make the necessary<br />
trans<strong>for</strong>mations, or, on occasion, the<br />
situation has deteriorated beyond the point<br />
of no return. In those situations we find<br />
ourselves wondering why we waited so long<br />
be<strong>for</strong>e doing something.<br />
The heuristic known as Anchoring<br />
with Adjustment is operative when we find<br />
ourselves making evaluative judgments.<br />
The natural thing <strong>for</strong> us to do is to locate or<br />
anchor our evaluation at some point along<br />
whatever scale we are using. For example,<br />
a professor says that the student’s paper is<br />
a C+. Then, as other in<strong>for</strong>mation comes our<br />
way, we may adjust that judgment. The<br />
professor, <strong>for</strong> example, may decide that the<br />
paper is as good as some others that were<br />
given a B-, and so adjust the grade upward.<br />
The interesting thing about this heuristic, is<br />
that we do not normally start over with a<br />
fresh evaluation. We have dropped anchor<br />
and we may drag it upward or downward a<br />
bit, but we do not pull it off the bottom of the<br />
sea to relocate our evaluation. First<br />
impressions, as the saying goes, cannot be<br />
undone. The good thing about this heuristic<br />
is that it permits us to move on. We have<br />
done the evaluation; there are other papers<br />
to grade, other projects to do, other things in<br />
life that need attention. We could not long<br />
endure if we had to constantly re-evaluate<br />
every thing anew. The un<strong>for</strong>tunate thing<br />
about this heuristic is that we sometimes<br />
drop anchor in the wrong place; we have a<br />
hard time giving people a second chance at<br />
making a good first impression.<br />
The heuristic known as Illusion of<br />
Control is evident in many situations. Many<br />
of us over-estimate our abilities to control<br />
what will happen. We make plans <strong>for</strong> how<br />
we are going to do this or that, say this or<br />
that, manipulate the situation this way or<br />
that way, share or not share this in<strong>for</strong>mation<br />
or that possibility, all the time thinking that<br />
some how our petty plans will enable us to<br />
control what happens. We act as if others<br />
are dancing on the ends of the strings that<br />
we are pulling, when in actuality the<br />
influences our words or actions have on<br />
future events may be quite negligible. At<br />
times we do have some measure of control.<br />
For example we may exercise, not smoke,<br />
and watch our diet in order to be more fit<br />
and healthy. We are careful not to drink if<br />
we are planning to drive so that we reduce<br />
the risks of being involved in a traffic<br />
accident. But at times we simply are<br />
mistaken about our ability to actually<br />
exercise full control over a situation. Sadly<br />
we might become ill even if we do work hard<br />
to take good care of ourselves. Or we may<br />
be involved in an accident even if we are<br />
sober. Our business may fail even if we<br />
work very hard to make it a success. We<br />
may not do as well on an exam as we might<br />
hope even if we study hard.<br />
Related to the Illusion of Control<br />
heuristic is the tendency to misconstrue our<br />
personal influence or responsibility <strong>for</strong> past<br />
events. This is called Hindsight Bias. We<br />
may over-estimate the influence our actions<br />
have had on events when things go right, or<br />
we may underestimate our responsibility or<br />
culpability when things go wrong. We have<br />
all heard people bragging about how they<br />
did this and how they did that and, as a<br />
result, such and such wonderful things<br />
happened. We made these great plans and<br />
look how well our business did financially.<br />
Which may be true when the economy is<br />
strong; but not when the economy is failing.<br />
It is not clear how much of that success<br />
came from the planning and how much<br />
came from the general business<br />
environment. Or, we have all been in the<br />
room when it was time to own up <strong>for</strong> some<br />
thing that went wrong and thought to<br />
ourselves, hey, I may have had some part in<br />
this, but it was not entirely my fault. “It<br />
wasn’t my fault the children were late <strong>for</strong><br />
school, hey I was dressed and ready to go<br />
at the regular time.” As if seeing that the<br />
family was running late I had no<br />
responsibility to take some initiative and<br />
help out.<br />
Facione, PA, “<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 19
“Insanity is doing the same<br />
thing over and over again while<br />
expecting a different outcome.”<br />
Albert Einstein<br />
Research on our shared heuristic<br />
patterns of decision-making does not aim to<br />
evaluate these patterns as necessarily good<br />
or bad patterns of thinking. I fear that my<br />
wording of them above may not have been<br />
as entirely neutral and descriptive as<br />
perhaps it should have been. In truth,<br />
reliance on heuristics can be an efficient<br />
ways of deciding things, given how very<br />
complicated our lives are. We cannot<br />
devote maximal cognitive resources to<br />
every single decision we make.<br />
Those of us who study these<br />
heuristic thinking phenomena are simply<br />
trying to document how we humans do<br />
think. There are many useful purposes <strong>for</strong><br />
doing this. For example, if we find that<br />
people repeatedly make a given kind of<br />
mistake when thinking about a commonly<br />
experienced problem, then we might find<br />
ways to intervene and to help ourselves not<br />
repeat that error over and over again.<br />
This research on the actual patterns<br />
of thinking used by individuals and by<br />
groups might prove particularly valuable to<br />
those who seek interventions which could<br />
improve how we make our own heath care<br />
decisions, how we make business<br />
decisions, how we lead teams of people to<br />
work more effectively in collaborative<br />
settings, and the like.<br />
Popular culture offers one other<br />
myth about decision-making which is worth<br />
questioning. And that is the belief that when<br />
we make reflective decisions we carefully<br />
weigh each of our options, giving due<br />
consideration to all of them in turn, be<strong>for</strong>e<br />
deciding which we will adopt. Although<br />
perhaps it should be, research on human<br />
decision-making shows that this simply is<br />
not what happens. 6 When seeking to<br />
explain how people decide on an option with<br />
such conviction that they stick to their<br />
decision over time and with such confidence<br />
that they act on that decision, the concept<br />
that what we do is build a Dominance<br />
Structure has been put <strong>for</strong>th. In a nutshell<br />
this theory suggests that when we settle on<br />
a particular option which is good enough we<br />
tend to elevate its merits and diminish its<br />
flaws relative to the other options. We raise<br />
it up in our minds until it becomes <strong>for</strong> us the<br />
dominant option. In this way, as our<br />
decision takes shape, we gain confidence in<br />
our choice and we feel justified in<br />
dismissing the other options, even though<br />
the objective distance between any of them<br />
and our dominant option may not be very<br />
great at all. But we become invested in our<br />
dominant option to the extent that we are<br />
able to put the other possibilities aside and<br />
act on the basis of our choice. In fact, it<br />
comes to dominate the other options in our<br />
minds so much that we are able to sustain<br />
our decision to act over a period of time,<br />
rather than going back to re-evaluate or<br />
reconsider constantly. Understanding the<br />
natural phenomenon of dominance<br />
structuring can help us appreciate why it<br />
can be so difficult <strong>for</strong> us to get others to<br />
change their minds, or why it seems that our<br />
reasons <strong>for</strong> our decisions are so much<br />
better than any of the objections which<br />
others might make to our decisions. This is<br />
not to say that we are right or wrong.<br />
Rather, this is only to observe that human<br />
beings are capable of unconsciously<br />
building up defenses around their choices<br />
which can result in the warranted or<br />
unwarranted confidence to act on the basis<br />
of those choices.<br />
6 Henry Montgomery, “From cognition to action: The<br />
search <strong>for</strong> dominance in decision making.” In Process<br />
and Structure in Human Decision-Making,<br />
Montgomery H, Svenson O (Eds). John Wiley & Sons:<br />
Chichester, UK, 1989. For a more accessible<br />
description along with reflective exercises on how to<br />
avoid becoming “locked in” to a poor decision<br />
prematurely, see chapter 10 of Think <strong>Critical</strong>ly.<br />
Facione, PA, “<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 20
Realizing the power of dominance<br />
structuring, one can only be more<br />
committed to the importance of education<br />
and critical thinking. We should do all that<br />
we can to in<strong>for</strong>m ourselves fully and to<br />
reflect carefully on our choices be<strong>for</strong>e we<br />
make them, because we are, after all,<br />
human and we are as likely as the next<br />
person to believe that we are right and they<br />
are wrong once the dominance structure<br />
begins to be erected. Breaking through that<br />
to fix bad decisions, which is possible, can<br />
be much harder than getting things right in<br />
the first place.<br />
There are more heuristics than only<br />
those mentioned above. There is more to<br />
learn about dominance structuring as it<br />
occurs in groups as well as in individuals,<br />
and how to mitigate the problems which<br />
may arise by prematurely settling on a<br />
“good enough” option, or about how to craft<br />
educational programs or interventions which<br />
help people be more effective in their<br />
System 1 and System 2 thinking. There is<br />
much to learn about human thinking and<br />
how to optimize it in individuals of different<br />
ages; how to optimize the thinking of groups<br />
of peers and groups where organizational<br />
hierarchies influence interpersonal<br />
dynamics. And, happily, there is a lot we<br />
know today about human thinking and<br />
decision-making that we did not know a few<br />
years ago.<br />
Why critical thinking?<br />
Let us start with you first. Why<br />
would critical thinking be of value to you to<br />
have the cognitive skills of interpretation,<br />
analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation,<br />
and self-regulation?<br />
Apart from, or maybe in light of, what<br />
we said at the beginning of this essay about<br />
the utility of positive critical thinking and<br />
about the problems that failures of critical<br />
thinking contribute to, why would it be of<br />
value to you to learn to approach life and to<br />
approach specific concerns with the critical<br />
thinking dispositions listed above? Would<br />
you have greater success in your work?<br />
Would you get better grades?<br />
Actually the answer to the grades<br />
question, scientifically speaking, is very<br />
possibly, Yes! A study of over 1100 college<br />
students shows that scores on a college<br />
level critical thinking skills test significantly<br />
correlated with college GPA. 7 It has also<br />
been shown that critical thinking skills can<br />
be learned, which suggests that as one<br />
learns them one’s GPA might well improve.<br />
In further support of this hypothesis is the<br />
significant correlation between critical<br />
thinking and reading comprehension.<br />
Improvements in the one are paralleled by<br />
improvements in the other. Now if you can<br />
read better and think better, might you not<br />
do better in your classes, learn more, and<br />
get better grades. It is, to say the least,<br />
very plausible.<br />
Learning, <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>, and Our<br />
Nation’s Future<br />
“The future now belongs to societies<br />
that organize themselves <strong>for</strong> learning...<br />
nations that want high incomes and full<br />
employment must develop policies that<br />
emphasize the acquisition of knowledge<br />
and skills by everyone, not just a select<br />
few.”<br />
Ray Marshall & Marc Tucker, <strong>Thinking</strong> For A Living:<br />
Education And The Wealth of Nations, Basic Books. New<br />
York. 1992.<br />
But what a limited benefit — better<br />
grades. Who really cares in the long run?<br />
Two years after college, five years out, what<br />
does GPA really mean? Right now college<br />
7<br />
Findings regarding the effectiveness of critical<br />
thinking instruction, and correlations with GPA and<br />
reading ability are reported in “Technical Report #1,<br />
Experimental Validation and Content Validity” (ERIC<br />
ED 327 549), “Technical Report #2, Factors<br />
Predictive of CT Skills” (ERIC ED 327 550), and<br />
“Gender, Ethnicity, Major, CT Self-Esteem, and the<br />
Cali<strong>for</strong>nia <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong> Skills Test” (ERIC ED 326<br />
584). These findings remain consistent in research<br />
using the tools in the Cali<strong>for</strong>nia <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong> Skills<br />
Test family of instruments published by Insight<br />
Assessment.<br />
Facione, PA, “<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 21
level technical and professional programs<br />
have a half-life of about four years, which<br />
means that the technical content is<br />
expanding so fast and changing so much<br />
that in about four years after graduation<br />
your professional training will be in serious<br />
need of renewal. So, if the only thing a<br />
college is good <strong>for</strong> is to get the entry level<br />
training and the credential needed <strong>for</strong> some<br />
job, then college would be a time-limited<br />
value.<br />
The APA Delphi Report,<br />
<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: A Statement of Expert<br />
Consensus <strong>for</strong> Purposes of Educational<br />
Assessment and Instruction<br />
1990 ERIC Doc. NO.: ED 315 423<br />
Is that the whole story? A job is a<br />
good thing, but is that what a college<br />
education is all about, getting started in a<br />
good job? Maybe some cannot see its<br />
further value, but many do. A main<br />
purpose, if not the main purpose, of the<br />
collegiate experience, at either the two-year<br />
or the four-year level, is to achieve what<br />
people have called a “liberal education.”<br />
Not liberal in the sense of a smattering of<br />
this and that <strong>for</strong> no particular purpose<br />
except to fulfill the unit requirement. But<br />
liberal in the sense of “liberating.” And who<br />
is being liberated? You! Liberated from a<br />
kind of slavery. But from whom?<br />
From professors. Actually from<br />
dependence on professors so that they no<br />
longer stand as infallible authorities<br />
delivering opinions beyond our capacity to<br />
challenge, question, and dissent. In fact,<br />
this is exactly what the professors want.<br />
They want their students to excel on their<br />
own, to go beyond what is currently known,<br />
to make their own contributions to<br />
knowledge and to society. [Being a<br />
professor is a curious job — the more<br />
effective you are as a teacher, less your<br />
students require your aid in learning.]<br />
Liberal education is about learning<br />
to learn, which means learning to think <strong>for</strong><br />
yourself on your own and in collaboration<br />
with others.<br />
Liberal education leads us away<br />
from naive acceptance of authority, above<br />
self-defeating relativism, and beyond<br />
ambiguous contextualism. It culminates in<br />
principled reflective judgment. Learning<br />
critical thinking, cultivating the critical spirit,<br />
is not just a means to this end, it is part of<br />
the goal itself. People who are weak critical<br />
thinkers, who lack the dispositions and skills<br />
described, cannot be said to be liberally<br />
educated, regardless of the academic<br />
degrees they may hold.<br />
Yes, there is much more to a liberal<br />
education, than critical thinking. There is an<br />
understanding of the methods, principles,<br />
theories and ways of achieving knowledge<br />
which are proper to the different intellectual<br />
realms. There is an encounter with the<br />
cultural, artistic and spiritual dimensions of<br />
life. There is the evolution of one’s decision<br />
making to the level of principled integrity<br />
and concern <strong>for</strong> the common good and<br />
social justice. There is the realization of the<br />
ways all our lives are shaped by global as<br />
well as local political, social, psychological,<br />
economic, environmental, and physical<br />
<strong>for</strong>ces. There is the growth that comes from<br />
the interaction with cultures, languages,<br />
ethnic groups, religions, nationalities, and<br />
social classes other than one’s own. There<br />
is the refinement of one’s humane<br />
sensibilities through reflection on the<br />
recurring questions of human existence,<br />
meaning, love, life and death. There is the<br />
sensitivity, appreciation and critical<br />
Facione, PA, “<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 22
appraisal of all that is good and all that is<br />
bad in the human condition. As the mind<br />
awakens and matures, and the proper<br />
nurturing and educational nourishment is<br />
provided, these others central parts of a<br />
liberal education develop as well. <strong>Critical</strong><br />
thinking plays an essential role in achieving<br />
these purposes.<br />
Any thing else? What about going<br />
beyond the individual to the community?<br />
scale economic disaster would become<br />
extremely likely. So, given a society that<br />
does not value and cultivate critical thinking,<br />
we might reasonably expect that in time the<br />
judicial system and the economic system<br />
would collapse. And, in such a society, one<br />
that does not liberate its citizens by teaching<br />
them to think critically <strong>for</strong> themselves, it<br />
would be madness to advocate democratic<br />
<strong>for</strong>ms of government.<br />
The experts say critical thinking is<br />
fundamental to, if not essential <strong>for</strong>, “a<br />
rational and democratic society.” What<br />
might the experts mean by this?<br />
Well, how wise would democracy be<br />
if people abandoned critical thinking?<br />
Imagine an electorate that cared not <strong>for</strong> the<br />
facts, that did not wish to consider the pros<br />
and cons of the issues, or if they did, had<br />
not the brain power to do so. Imagine your<br />
life and the lives of your friends and family<br />
placed in the hands of juries and judges<br />
who let their biases and stereotypes govern<br />
their decisions, who do not attend to the<br />
evidence, who are not interested in<br />
reasoned inquiry, who do not know how to<br />
draw an inference or evaluate one. Without<br />
critical thinking people would be more easily<br />
exploited not only politically but<br />
economically. The impact of abandoning<br />
critical thinking would not be confined to the<br />
micro-economics of the household checking<br />
account. Suppose the people involved in<br />
international commerce were lacking in<br />
critical thinking skills, they would be unable<br />
to analyze and interpret the market trends,<br />
evaluate the implications of interest<br />
fluctuations, or explain the potential impact<br />
of those factors which influence large scale<br />
production and distribution of goods and<br />
materials. Suppose these people were<br />
unable to draw the proper inferences from<br />
the economic facts, or unable to properly<br />
evaluate the claims made by the<br />
unscrupulous and misin<strong>for</strong>med. In such a<br />
situation serious economic mistakes would<br />
be made. Whole sectors of the economy<br />
would become unpredictable and large<br />
Is it any wonder that business and<br />
civic leaders are maybe even more<br />
interested in critical thinking than<br />
educators? <strong>Critical</strong> thinking employed by an<br />
in<strong>for</strong>med citizenry is a necessary condition<br />
<strong>for</strong> the success of democratic institutions<br />
and <strong>for</strong> competitive free-market economic<br />
enterprise. These values are so important<br />
that it is in the national interest that we<br />
should try to educate all citizens so that they<br />
can learn to think critically. Not just <strong>for</strong> their<br />
personal good, but <strong>for</strong> the good of the rest<br />
of us too.<br />
Generalizing, imagine a society, say,<br />
<strong>for</strong> example, the millions of people living in<br />
the Los Angeles basin, or in New York and<br />
along the east coast, or in Chicago, or<br />
Mexico City, Cairo, Rome, Tokyo, Baghdad,<br />
Moscow, Beijing, or Hong Kong. They are,<br />
de facto, entirely dependent upon one<br />
another, and on hundreds of thousands of<br />
other people as well <strong>for</strong> their external<br />
supplies of food and water, <strong>for</strong> their survival.<br />
Now imagine that these millions permitted<br />
their schools and colleges to stop teaching<br />
people how to think critically and effectively.<br />
Facione, PA, “<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 23
Imagine that because of war, or AIDS, or<br />
famine, or religious conviction, parents<br />
could not or would not teach their children<br />
how to think critically. Imagine the social<br />
and political strife, the falling apart of<br />
fundamental systems of public safety and<br />
public health, the loss of any scientific<br />
understanding of disease control or<br />
agricultural productivity, the emergence of<br />
paramilitary gangs, strong men, and petty<br />
warlords seeking to protect themselves and<br />
their own by acquiring control over what<br />
food and resources they can and destroying<br />
those who stand in their path.<br />
Look at what has happened around<br />
the world in places devastated by economic<br />
embargoes, one-sided warfare, or the<br />
HIV/AIDS epidemic. Or, consider the<br />
problem of global climate change, and how<br />
important it is <strong>for</strong> all of us to cooperate with<br />
ef<strong>for</strong>ts to curtail our uses of fossil fuels in<br />
order to reduce emissions of harmful<br />
greenhouse gases.<br />
Consider the “cultural revolutions”<br />
undertaken by totalitarian rulers. Notice how<br />
in virtually every case absolutist and<br />
dictatorial despots seek ever more severe<br />
limitations on free expression. They label<br />
“liberal” intellectuals “dangers to society”<br />
and expel “radical” professors from teaching<br />
posts because they might “corrupt the<br />
youth.” Some use the power of their<br />
governmental or religious authority to crush<br />
not only their opposition but the moderates<br />
as well -- all in the name of maintaining the<br />
purity of their movement. They intimidate<br />
journalists and those media outlets which<br />
dare to comment “negatively” on their<br />
political and cultural goals or their heavy<br />
handed methods.<br />
The historical evidence is there <strong>for</strong><br />
us to see what happens when schools are<br />
closed or converted from places of<br />
education to places <strong>for</strong> indoctrination. We<br />
know what happens when children are no<br />
longer being taught truth-seeking, the skills<br />
of good reasoning, or the lessons of human<br />
history and basic science: Cultures<br />
disintegrate; communities collapse; the<br />
machinery of civilization fails; massive<br />
numbers of people die; and sooner or later<br />
social and political chaos ensues.<br />
Or, imagine a media, a religious or<br />
political hegemony which cultivated, instead<br />
of critical thinking, all the opposite<br />
dispositions? Or consider if that hegemony<br />
rein<strong>for</strong>ced uncritical, impulsive decision<br />
making and the “ready-shoot-aim” approach<br />
to executive action. Imagine governmental<br />
structures, administrators, and community<br />
leaders who, instead of encouraging critical<br />
thinking, were content to make knowingly<br />
irrational, illogical, prejudicial, unreflective,<br />
short-sighted, and unreasonable decisions.<br />
How long might it take <strong>for</strong> the people<br />
in this society which does not value critical<br />
thinking to be at serious risk of foolishly<br />
harming themselves and each other?<br />
The news too often reports about<br />
hate groups, wanton shooting, terrorists and<br />
Facione, PA, “<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 24
violently extreme religious zealots.<br />
Education which includes a good measure<br />
of critical thinking skills and dispositions like<br />
truth-seeking and open-mindedness, is a<br />
problem <strong>for</strong> terrorists and extremists of<br />
every stripe because terrorists and<br />
extremists want to control of what people<br />
think. They are ideologists of the worst kind.<br />
Their methods include indoctrination,<br />
intimidation, and the strictest authoritarian<br />
orthodoxy. In the “black-and-white” world of<br />
“us vs. them” a good education would mean<br />
that the people might begin to think <strong>for</strong><br />
themselves. And that is something these<br />
extremists do not want.<br />
History shows that assaults on<br />
learning, whether by book burning, exile of<br />
intellectuals, or regulations aimed at<br />
suppressing research and frustrating the<br />
fair-minded, evidence-based, and unfettered<br />
pursuit of knowledge, can happen wherever<br />
and whenever people are not vigilant<br />
defenders of open, objective, and<br />
independent inquiry.<br />
Does this mean that society should place a<br />
very high value on critical thinking?<br />
Absolutely!<br />
Does this mean society has the right to<br />
<strong>for</strong>ce someone to learn to think critically?<br />
Maybe. But, really, should we have to?<br />
Facione, PA, “<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 25
EXPERT CONSENSUS STATEMENT REGARDING CRITICAL<br />
THINKING AND THE IDEAL CRITICAL THINKER<br />
“We understand critical thinking to be purposeful, self-regulatory judgment<br />
which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well<br />
as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological,<br />
or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based. CT is<br />
essential as a tool of inquiry. As such, CT is a liberating <strong>for</strong>ce in education<br />
and a powerful resource in one’s personal and civic life. While not<br />
synonymous with good thinking, CT is a pervasive and self-rectifying<br />
human phenomenon. The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, wellin<strong>for</strong>med,<br />
trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded in<br />
evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments,<br />
willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters,<br />
diligent in seeking relevant in<strong>for</strong>mation, reasonable in the selection of<br />
criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as<br />
precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit. Thus,<br />
educating strong critical thinkers means working toward this ideal. It<br />
combines developing CT skills with nurturing those dispositions which<br />
consistently yield useful insights and which are the basis of a rational and<br />
democratic society.”<br />
READINGS and REFERENCES<br />
American Philosophical Association, <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: A Statement of Expert Consensus <strong>for</strong> Purposes of Educational Assessment<br />
and Instruction. "The Delphi Report," Committee on Pre-College Philosophy. (ERIC Doc. No. ED 315 423). 1990<br />
Brookfield, Stephen D.: Developing <strong>Critical</strong> Thinkers: Challenging Adults to Explore Alternative Ways of <strong>Thinking</strong> and Acting. Josey-<br />
Bass Publishers. San-Francisco, CA. 1987.<br />
Browne, M. Neil, and Keeley, Stuart M.: Asking the Right Questions. Prentice-Hall Publishers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 2003.<br />
Costa, Arthur L., & Lowery, l Lawrence F.: Techniques <strong>for</strong> Teaching <strong>Thinking</strong>. <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong> Press and Software. Pacific Grove,<br />
CA. 1989.<br />
Facione, Noreen C, and Facione Peter A.: <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong> and Clinical Judgment in the Health Sciences - An International<br />
Teaching Anthology. The Cali<strong>for</strong>nia Academic Press, Millbrae CA. 2008.<br />
Facione, Noreen C. and Facione, Peter A. : <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong> Assessment and Nursing Education Programs: An Aggregate Data<br />
Analysis. The Cali<strong>for</strong>nia Academic Press. Millbrae, CA 1997.<br />
Facione, Noreen. C., and Facione, Peter A., Analyzing Explanations <strong>for</strong> Seemingly Irrational Choices, International Journal of<br />
Applied Philosophy, Vol. 15 No. 2 (2001) 267-86.<br />
Facione, Peter A and Noreen C,: <strong>Thinking</strong> and Reasoning in Human Decision Making. The Cali<strong>for</strong>nia Academic Press. Millbrae CA,<br />
2007<br />
Facione, Peter A, Think <strong>Critical</strong>ly, Pearson Education: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 2011.<br />
Facione, P.A., Facione, N.C., Talking <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>, Change: The Magazine of Higher Education, March-April, 2007.<br />
Facione, P.A., Facione N. C., and Giancarlo, C: The Disposition Toward <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: Its Character, Measurement, and<br />
Relationship to <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong> Skills, Journal of In<strong>for</strong>mal Logic, Vol. 20 No. 1 (2000) 61-84.<br />
Facione, PA, “<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: 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<br />
University Press. 2002.<br />
Goldstein, William, and Hogarth, Robin M. (Eds.): Research on Judgment and Decision Making. Cambridge University Press. 1997.<br />
Esterle, John, and Clurman, Dan: Conversations with <strong>Critical</strong> Thinkers. The Whitman Institute. San Francisco, CA. 1993.<br />
Janis, I.L. and Mann, L: Decision-Making. The Free Press, New York. 1977.<br />
Kahneman, Daniel; Slovic, Paul; and Tversky, Amos: Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University<br />
Press. 1982.<br />
Kahneman Daniel: Knetsch, J.L.; and Thaler, R.H.: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic<br />
Perspectives. 1991, 5;193-206.<br />
King, Patricia M. & Kitchener, Karen Strohm: Developing Reflective Judgment. Josey-Bass Publishers. San Francisco, CA. 1994<br />
Kurfiss, Joanne G., <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: Theory, Research, Practice and Possibilities, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report # 2,<br />
Washington DC, 1988.<br />
Marshall, Ray, and Tucker, Marc, <strong>Thinking</strong> <strong>for</strong> a Living: Education and the Wealth of Nations, Basic Books. New York, NY. 1992.<br />
Resnick, L. W., Education and Learning to Think, National Academy Press, 1987.<br />
Rubenfeld, M. Gaie, & Scheffer, Barbara K., <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong> in Nursing: An Interactive Approach. J. B. Lippincott Company.<br />
Philadelphia PA, 1995.<br />
Siegel, Harvey: Educating Reason: Rationality, CT and Education. Routledge Publishing. New York. 1989.<br />
Sternberg, Robert J.: <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: Its Nature, Measurement, and Improvement. National Institute of Education, Washington DC,<br />
1986.<br />
Toulmin, Stephen: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, 1969.<br />
Wade, Carole, and Tavris, Carol: <strong>Critical</strong> & Creative <strong>Thinking</strong>: The Case of Love and War. Harper Collins College Publisher. New<br />
York. NY 1993.<br />
GOVERNMENT REPORTS<br />
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center <strong>for</strong> Educational<br />
Statistics (NCES) Documents National Assessment of College Student Learning: Getting Started, A Summary of Beginning<br />
Activities. NCES 93-116.<br />
National Assessment of College Student Learning: Identification of the Skills to Be Taught, Learned, and Assessed, A<br />
Report on the Proceedings of the Second Design Workshop, November 1992. NCES 94-286.<br />
National Assessment of College Student Learning: Identifying College Graduates' Essential Skills in Writing, Speech and<br />
Listening, and <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>. NCES 95-001.<br />
About the Author<br />
Dr. Peter A. Facione and his co-investigators have been engaged in research and teaching about reasoning,<br />
decision-making, and effective individual and group thinking processes since 1967. Over the years they developed<br />
instruments to measure the core skills and habits of mind of effective thinking, these instruments are now in use in<br />
many different languages throughout the world. Since 1992 Dr. Facione has presented hundreds of workshops about<br />
effective teaching <strong>for</strong> thinking and about leadership, decision-making, leadership development, planning and<br />
budgeting, and learning outcomes assessment at national and international professional association meetings and on<br />
college and university throughout the nation. Dr. Facione, is a principal of the research and consulting firm,<br />
Measured Reasons, and a Senior Researcher with Insight Assessment. He earned his Ph.D. at Michigan State in<br />
1971, and in subsequent years chaired the Department of Philosophy at Bowling Green State University, served as<br />
Dean of the School of Human Development and Community Service at Cali<strong>for</strong>nia State University Fullerton, Dean of<br />
the College of Arts and Sciences at Santa Clara University, and Provost of Loyola University Chicago. In 1999-2000<br />
Dr. Facione was Chair of the American Conference of Academic Deans. He has been on many boards and panels,<br />
including the Cali<strong>for</strong>nia Commission on Teacher Credentialing and the ACE Presidents’ Task Force on Education. He<br />
Facione, PA, “<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: 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<br />
Liberal Education. With Dr. Noreen Facione he co-authored <strong>Thinking</strong> and Reasoning in Human Decision Making<br />
(2007) and <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong> and Clinical Judgment in the Health Sciences (2008). From 1988 through 1990 Dr.<br />
Facione was the principal investigator <strong>for</strong> the American Philosophical Association research project which culminated<br />
in the Delphi Report – An Expert Consensus Conceptualization of <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>. The executive summary of that<br />
report is available free of charge from Insight Assessment. His email is pfacione@measuredreasons.com Visit his<br />
website www.measuredreasons.com and the Insight Assessment website, www.insightassessment.com<br />
Facione, PA, “<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>: What It is and Why it Counts” 2011 update Page 28
Attachment B<br />
The Miniature Guide to <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong><br />
Page 42 of 45
LIMITED DOWNLOAD COPY<br />
The Miniature Guide<br />
to<br />
<strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong><br />
Concepts and Tools<br />
By Dr. Richard Paul<br />
and<br />
Dr. Linda Elder<br />
The Foundation <strong>for</strong> <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong><br />
www.criticalthinking.org<br />
707-878-9100<br />
cct@criticalthinking.org
LIMITED DOWNLOAD COPY<br />
Why A <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong> Mini-Guide?<br />
This miniature guide focuses on of the essence of critical thinking concepts and<br />
tools distilled into pocket size. For faculty it provides a shared concept of critical<br />
thinking. For students it is a critical thinking supplement to any textbook <strong>for</strong> any<br />
course. Faculty can use it to design instruction, assignments, and tests in any subject.<br />
Students can use it to improve their learning in any content area.<br />
Its generic skills apply to all subjects. For example, critical thinkers are clear as to the<br />
purpose at hand and the question at issue. They question in<strong>for</strong>mation, conclusions,<br />
and points of view. They strive to be clear, accurate, precise, and relevant. They seek<br />
to think beneath the surface, to be logical, and fair. They apply these skills to their<br />
reading and writing as well as to their speaking and listening. They apply them in<br />
history, science, math, philosophy, and the arts; in<br />
professional and personal life.<br />
When this guide is used as a supplement to the textbook in multiple courses,<br />
students begin to perceive the usefulness of critical thinking in every domain of<br />
learning. And if their instructors provide examples of the application of the subject<br />
to daily life, students begin to see that education is a tool <strong>for</strong> improving the quality<br />
of their lives.<br />
If you are a student using this mini-guide, get in the habit of carrying it with<br />
you to every class. Consult it frequently in analyzing and synthesizing what you are<br />
learning. Aim <strong>for</strong> deep internalization of the principles you find in it—until using<br />
them becomes second nature.<br />
If successful, this guide will serve faculty, students, and the educational program<br />
simultaneously.<br />
Richard Paul<br />
Center <strong>for</strong> <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong><br />
Linda Elder<br />
Foundation <strong>for</strong> <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>
LIMITED DOWNLOAD COPY<br />
The Miniature Guide to <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong> Concepts and Tools<br />
<br />
Contents<br />
Why <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>? 4<br />
The Elements of Thought 5<br />
A Checklist <strong>for</strong> Reasoning 6<br />
Questions Using the Elements of Thought 8<br />
The Problem of Egocentric <strong>Thinking</strong> 9<br />
Universal Intellectual Standards 10<br />
Template <strong>for</strong> Analyzing the Logic of Articles and Textbooks 13<br />
Criteria <strong>for</strong> Evaluating Reasoning 14<br />
Essential Intellectual Traits 15<br />
Three Kinds of Questions 18<br />
A Template <strong>for</strong> Problem-Solving 19<br />
Analyzing and Assessing Research 20<br />
What <strong>Critical</strong> Thinkers Routinely Do 21<br />
Stages of <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong> Development 22<br />
Fourth Edition © 2006 Foundation <strong>for</strong> <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong> www.criticalthinking.org
LIMITED DOWNLOAD COPY<br />
<br />
The Miniature Guide to <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong> Concepts and Tools<br />
Why <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong>?<br />
The Problem:<br />
Everyone thinks; it is our nature to do so. But much of our thinking, left to<br />
itself, is biased, distorted, partial, unin<strong>for</strong>med or down-right prejudiced. Yet<br />
the quality of our life and that of what we produce, make, or build depends<br />
precisely on the quality of our thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in<br />
money and in quality of life. Excellence in thought, however, must be systematically<br />
cultivated.<br />
A Definition:<br />
<strong>Critical</strong> thinking is the art of analyzing and evaluating thinking with a view to<br />
improving it.<br />
The Result:<br />
A well cultivated critical thinker:<br />
• raises vital questions and problems, <strong>for</strong>mulating them clearly and precisely;<br />
• gathers and assesses relevant in<strong>for</strong>mation, using abstract ideas to interpret it<br />
effectively;<br />
• comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against<br />
relevant criteria and standards;<br />
• thinks openmindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing<br />
and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical<br />
consequences; and<br />
• communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex<br />
problems.<br />
<strong>Critical</strong> thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored,<br />
and self-corrective thinking. It requires rigorous standards of excellence<br />
and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and<br />
problem solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism<br />
and sociocentrism.<br />
© 2006 Foundation <strong>for</strong> <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong> www.criticalthinking.org
LIMITED DOWNLOAD COPY<br />
The Miniature Guide to <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong> Concepts and Tools<br />
<br />
The Elements of Thought<br />
Implications and<br />
Consequences<br />
Point of View<br />
frame of reference,<br />
perspective,<br />
orientation<br />
Purpose<br />
goal,<br />
objective<br />
Question at issue<br />
problem, issue<br />
Assumptions<br />
presupposition,<br />
taking <strong>for</strong> granted<br />
Concepts<br />
theories,<br />
definitions, axioms,<br />
laws, principles,<br />
models<br />
Interpretation<br />
and inference<br />
conclusions,<br />
solutions<br />
In<strong>for</strong>mation<br />
data, facts,<br />
observations,<br />
experiences<br />
Used With Sensitivity to Universal Intellectual Standards<br />
Clarity Accuracy Depth Breadth Significance<br />
Precision<br />
Relevance<br />
© 2006 Foundation <strong>for</strong> <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong> www.criticalthinking.org
LIMITED DOWNLOAD COPY<br />
12<br />
The Miniature Guide to <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong> Concepts and Tools<br />
Clarity<br />
Accuracy<br />
Precision<br />
Relevance<br />
Depth<br />
Breadth<br />
Logic<br />
Significance<br />
Fairness<br />
Could you elaborate further?<br />
Could you give me an example?<br />
Could you illustrate what you mean?<br />
How could we check on that?<br />
How could we find out if that is true?<br />
How could we verify or test that?<br />
Could you be more specific?<br />
Could you give me more details?<br />
Could you be more exact?<br />
How does that relate to the problem?<br />
How does that bear on the question?<br />
How does that help us with the issue?<br />
What factors make this a difficult problem?<br />
What are some of the complexities of this question?<br />
What are some of the difficulties we need to deal with?<br />
Do we need to look at this from another perspective?<br />
Do we need to consider another point of view?<br />
Do we need to look at this in other ways?<br />
Does all this make sense together?<br />
Does your first paragraph fit in with your last?<br />
Does what you say follow from the evidence?<br />
Is this the most important problem to consider?<br />
Is this the central idea to focus on?<br />
Which of these facts are most important?<br />
Do I have any vested interest in this issue?<br />
Am I sympathetically representing the viewpoints<br />
of others?<br />
© 2006 Foundation <strong>for</strong> <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong> www.criticalthinking.org
LIMITED DOWNLOAD COPY<br />
The Miniature Guide to <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong> Concepts and Tools 15<br />
Intellectual<br />
Autonomy<br />
Intellectual<br />
Integrity<br />
Intellectual<br />
Humility<br />
Intellectual<br />
Empathy<br />
Intellectual<br />
Traits or Virtues<br />
Confidence<br />
in Reason<br />
Intellectual<br />
Courage<br />
Fairmindedness<br />
Intellectual<br />
Perseverance<br />
© 2006 Foundation <strong>for</strong> <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong> www.criticalthinking.org
LIMITED DOWNLOAD COPY<br />
The Miniature Guide to <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong> Concepts and Tools 21<br />
<strong>Critical</strong> thinkers routinely apply the intellectual standards to the<br />
elements of reasoning in order to develop intellectual traits.<br />
T h e Sta n da r d s<br />
Clarity<br />
Precision<br />
Accuracy<br />
Significance<br />
Relevance Completeness<br />
Logicalness Fairness<br />
Breadth<br />
Depth<br />
Must be<br />
applied to<br />
As we learn<br />
to develop<br />
T h e Elements<br />
Purposes<br />
Inferences<br />
Questions Concepts<br />
Points of view Implications<br />
In<strong>for</strong>mation Assumptions<br />
I n t e l l e c t ua l Traits<br />
Intellectual Humility<br />
Intellectual Autonomy<br />
Intellectual Integrity<br />
Intellectual Courage<br />
Intellectual Perseverance<br />
Confidence in Reason<br />
Intellectual Empathy<br />
Fairmindedness<br />
© 2006 Foundation <strong>for</strong> <strong>Critical</strong> <strong>Thinking</strong> www.criticalthinking.org
Notes<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
____________________________________________________________________________<br />
Page 43 of 45
Notes<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
____________________________________________________________________________<br />
Page 44 of 45
Page 45 of 45