"Thinking is not an automatic function. In any hour and issue of his life, man is free to think or to evade that effort. Thinking requires a state of full, focused awareness. The act of focusing one's consciousness is volitional. Man can focus his mind to a full, active, purposefully directed awareness of reality—or he can unfocus it and let himself drift in a semiconscious daze, merely reacting to any chance stimulus of the immediate moment, at the mercy of his undirected sensory-perceptual mechanism and of any random, associational connections it might happen to make."
VS: In this regard, I do not agree with Ayn. She seems to be saying that you are thinking or you are not — which is simpy not true. Clearly there are different degrees of thinking.
John, I wrote a lengthly response to your post, but it has not appeared. I'm not going to re-type it. My concern is with K-12 education, in particular. Students have been purposely deprived of knowledge since the 1920s because the education professors at Columbia Teachers' College didn't believe it was important. They called it "rote memorization." Consequently, we are left with students with empty heads and lots of opinions, enough opinions that they feel compelled to protest, or riot, in the streets over things of which they know next to nothing. I'm thinking of those supporting the Palestinians and vilifying the Jews, shouting "From the River to the Sea." But when asked what river and what sea, they haven't a clue.
In 2018, Arne Duncan, Obama's Education Sectary, wrote a book entitled "How Schools Work." One quote, in particular, explains why they don't work. He wrote: "We don't need rote knowledge anymore: we have the Internet and Wikipedia for that. What we need are kids who can learn anything and continue to be able to learn anything for the rest of their lives. We need kids who can think, not just recall." I can't think of a more ignorant thing to say. One needs instant recall of relevant information. that can be instantly summoned and sifted to engage in critical thinking. To suggest that one should use Wikipedia and the Internet as a substitute for acquired knowledge is a reflection of 100 years of "progressive education,." and the sorry results are all around us, not only in the big citie, but suburban communities as well. I live in one of them, where 25% of our students are not proficient in reading and 34% are not proficient in math.
When I feel that I need some help with a word or phrase, such as “critical thinking,” I often turn to the dictionary as a starting point. But not just any dictionary. My favorite is the Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, which is unsullied by 21st century trends.
When I looked up “critical,” I was surprised that the first four definitions included “nice” or “nicely, such as:
1) Nicely exact;
2) Having the skill or power nicely to distinguish beauties from blemishes; 3) Making nice distinctions; accurate; as critical rules; and
4) Capable of judging with accuracy; discerning beauties and faults; nicely judicious.
4. Requiring scrupulous exactness; as a nice point.
5. Perceiving the smallest difference; distinguishing accurately and minutely by perception; as a person of nice taste; hence,
6. Perceiving accurately the smallest faults, errors or irregularities; distinguishing and judging with exactness; as a nice judge of a subject; nice discernment.
Perhaps critical thinking begins with nice—not in the sense of kindness or amiability, but rather a scrupulous, perceptive discernment, regardless of the common thinking. It takes a nice amount of courage to apply critical thinking in this conformist, secular world.
Kimball: In this case I'd say the old dictionary is using some terms whose time has passed. Maybe it's technically correct, but I doubt that most people will resonate with what it is saying here...
Sad indeed, that we are losing the richness of language. When I dig into the roots of our lexicon, it often helps me dissect ideas more clearly—and isn’t that the very beginning of critical thinking? To move beyond the surface, beyond the commonly accepted?
Sometimes the more we know (or think we know), the less inclined we are to question. This trap can happen even with our language. Comfort can dull curiosity, and even scholars can fall into patterns of uncritical repetition—which ties into your point about PhDs.
John, for my part, I enjoy exploring the earlier forms of English because they prompt me to think differently, to see familiar ideas from unfamiliar angles. In that way, the old dictionaries don’t just preserve language—they all but act like scripture—not in dogma, but in their ability to ground thought and draw the mind toward careful reflection. And that, my friend, seems foundational to critical thinking.
To Kendall before I forget; Critical Thinking is the beginning. It requires inquisitiveness, a neutral attitude, an instinct to want greater context and all suffused by a healthy, expanding, extending skepticism. Any subject, even one where one lacks initial knowledge, can be explored with Critical Thinking. The domain will be learned following patience and determination. Perhaps most importantly, as one must do what one must do to solve a puzzle, do a personal review and identify what one knows and what one believes, separate them and keep them separate. Then one can engage the problem. From the text John Droz Jr. offered: "Critical thinking, in contrast, is always active. It involves assessing the credibility of sources, identifying biases, and weighing evidence before drawing conclusions," Critical Thinking begins with skepticism. I also see that, in a way, it begins with love, a respect for being and all that is. This is that quiet place of neutrality I mentioned and from there one engages one's whole being. If you're lucky you can jump in joyfully. I think that instance may be the time when one's Critical Thinking powers are the strongest. Critical Thinking is a joyful extension of oneself into the universe in search for truth and the light it emits.
Steve: a fascinating reply — but not exactly sure how you are applying it to this commentary... Please explain.
Also, you have enough material here to write a guest commentary for me. How about writing about your golf experiences and how you got to be a scratch player?
It is important to remember that critical thinking is largely domain specific. It requires specific prior knowledge about facts, concepts, procedures, etc. relevant to that domain of knowledge for it to be effective.
Kendall: I've heard variations of the "domain" argument, and I do not agree. Of course, a person with more knowledge on a topic POTENTIALLY can do a better job in critical thinking about it, but that is not a requirement for Critical Thinking. (See Paul's good comments above).
Another observation is that I easily know 1000+ PhDs, and the percentage of these who are Critical Thinkers is not noticeably different from the percentage of the general population who are Critical Thinkers. What this informal data seem to indicate is that more knowledge and Critical Thnking do not appear to be directly connected.
Also, what the "domain" case is essentially implying is that you need to be an expert in a particular subject before you can do competent critical thinking about it. That is simply not true.
BTW, that is basically the argument people like Dr. Fauci used when anyone questioned him (e.g., on COVID-19 vaccines) — "I'm more of an expert than you are, so your critical thinking (analysis) of vaccines will never arise to my level."
"Thinking is not an automatic function. In any hour and issue of his life, man is free to think or to evade that effort. Thinking requires a state of full, focused awareness. The act of focusing one's consciousness is volitional. Man can focus his mind to a full, active, purposefully directed awareness of reality—or he can unfocus it and let himself drift in a semiconscious daze, merely reacting to any chance stimulus of the immediate moment, at the mercy of his undirected sensory-perceptual mechanism and of any random, associational connections it might happen to make."
— Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, 1964
VS: In this regard, I do not agree with Ayn. She seems to be saying that you are thinking or you are not — which is simpy not true. Clearly there are different degrees of thinking.
John, I wrote a lengthly response to your post, but it has not appeared. I'm not going to re-type it. My concern is with K-12 education, in particular. Students have been purposely deprived of knowledge since the 1920s because the education professors at Columbia Teachers' College didn't believe it was important. They called it "rote memorization." Consequently, we are left with students with empty heads and lots of opinions, enough opinions that they feel compelled to protest, or riot, in the streets over things of which they know next to nothing. I'm thinking of those supporting the Palestinians and vilifying the Jews, shouting "From the River to the Sea." But when asked what river and what sea, they haven't a clue.
In 2018, Arne Duncan, Obama's Education Sectary, wrote a book entitled "How Schools Work." One quote, in particular, explains why they don't work. He wrote: "We don't need rote knowledge anymore: we have the Internet and Wikipedia for that. What we need are kids who can learn anything and continue to be able to learn anything for the rest of their lives. We need kids who can think, not just recall." I can't think of a more ignorant thing to say. One needs instant recall of relevant information. that can be instantly summoned and sifted to engage in critical thinking. To suggest that one should use Wikipedia and the Internet as a substitute for acquired knowledge is a reflection of 100 years of "progressive education,." and the sorry results are all around us, not only in the big citie, but suburban communities as well. I live in one of them, where 25% of our students are not proficient in reading and 34% are not proficient in math.
Kendall
When I feel that I need some help with a word or phrase, such as “critical thinking,” I often turn to the dictionary as a starting point. But not just any dictionary. My favorite is the Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, which is unsullied by 21st century trends.
When I looked up “critical,” I was surprised that the first four definitions included “nice” or “nicely, such as:
1) Nicely exact;
2) Having the skill or power nicely to distinguish beauties from blemishes; 3) Making nice distinctions; accurate; as critical rules; and
4) Capable of judging with accuracy; discerning beauties and faults; nicely judicious.
I then looked up “nice.”
3. Accurate; exact; precise; as nice proportions; nice symmetry; nice workmanship; nice rules.
4. Requiring scrupulous exactness; as a nice point.
5. Perceiving the smallest difference; distinguishing accurately and minutely by perception; as a person of nice taste; hence,
6. Perceiving accurately the smallest faults, errors or irregularities; distinguishing and judging with exactness; as a nice judge of a subject; nice discernment.
Perhaps critical thinking begins with nice—not in the sense of kindness or amiability, but rather a scrupulous, perceptive discernment, regardless of the common thinking. It takes a nice amount of courage to apply critical thinking in this conformist, secular world.
Kimball: In this case I'd say the old dictionary is using some terms whose time has passed. Maybe it's technically correct, but I doubt that most people will resonate with what it is saying here...
Sad indeed, that we are losing the richness of language. When I dig into the roots of our lexicon, it often helps me dissect ideas more clearly—and isn’t that the very beginning of critical thinking? To move beyond the surface, beyond the commonly accepted?
Sometimes the more we know (or think we know), the less inclined we are to question. This trap can happen even with our language. Comfort can dull curiosity, and even scholars can fall into patterns of uncritical repetition—which ties into your point about PhDs.
John, for my part, I enjoy exploring the earlier forms of English because they prompt me to think differently, to see familiar ideas from unfamiliar angles. In that way, the old dictionaries don’t just preserve language—they all but act like scripture—not in dogma, but in their ability to ground thought and draw the mind toward careful reflection. And that, my friend, seems foundational to critical thinking.
Some times less explanation is more understanding. A dandelion is, after all, also a flower with highly nutritious leaves.
Chris: I agree with what you are saying, but not sure with its connection ction with the commentary above...
To Kendall before I forget; Critical Thinking is the beginning. It requires inquisitiveness, a neutral attitude, an instinct to want greater context and all suffused by a healthy, expanding, extending skepticism. Any subject, even one where one lacks initial knowledge, can be explored with Critical Thinking. The domain will be learned following patience and determination. Perhaps most importantly, as one must do what one must do to solve a puzzle, do a personal review and identify what one knows and what one believes, separate them and keep them separate. Then one can engage the problem. From the text John Droz Jr. offered: "Critical thinking, in contrast, is always active. It involves assessing the credibility of sources, identifying biases, and weighing evidence before drawing conclusions," Critical Thinking begins with skepticism. I also see that, in a way, it begins with love, a respect for being and all that is. This is that quiet place of neutrality I mentioned and from there one engages one's whole being. If you're lucky you can jump in joyfully. I think that instance may be the time when one's Critical Thinking powers are the strongest. Critical Thinking is a joyful extension of oneself into the universe in search for truth and the light it emits.
Paul: Well said.
1. Life
I am Steve Heins, eighty-one years, a spark in the vast fire of being,
No college degrees to hang on my wall, no parchment to claim my worth,
Yet Columbia whispered, two French courses shy, and I learned from the world’s own books.
I have been a small-town boy, dirt under my nails from golf, chasing greased pigs through county fairs,
Six times I won, the crowd roaring, the mud my crown, my youth a wild, unbridled song.
I have swung clubs as a scratch golfer, danced on basketball courts, my body a rhythm of motion,
I have drifted, interstate highways my veins, truck stops my temples, high plains and low my congregation.
Then, Big-city man, I claimed the NYC neon pulse, skyscrapers my stars,
Yet I wandered, self-indulgent, a distant father, my heart sometimes lost in the haze.
Auto-didact, I stormed Ivy halls, no gatekeeper to bar my way,
Scholar, student, historian, I devoured books, art, music—pages my kin, symphonies my breath.
I have been a poet, words my chisel, carving truth from the stone of days,
A poetry aficionado, lover of verses that sing the soul’s quiet and its storms.
Lost soul, I’ve roamed, yet found my place in the vastness,
Eighty-one years, I stand, a blizzard of one, my life a canvas of collisions, still painting.
2. Career
I am a business writer, economist, my pen a torch in the dark of markets,
Researcher, communicator, I weave stories for the weary, the hopeful, the seeking.
Wall Street knew me, mutual fund communications, shaping wealth’s pulse,
I spoke to traders, to dreamers, my words a bridge between chaos and clarity.
I am the Blizzard of One, storming broadband’s gates, defying Goliath’s shadow,
Internet Open Access my banner, freedom my cry, a digital dawn for every voice.
Practical environmentalist, I named myself, no dogma to chain my sight,
Energy efficiency my craft, lighting the world with a realist’s spark.
Chicago Climate Exchange, I was there, building markets for carbon’s weight,
Paris, I stood in its ancient halls, speaking to the EU’s schemers, my vision for emissions a map.
Lobbyist, I walked fifty states, D.C.’s marble my battleground,
For natural gas, for nuclear’s hum, I fought, my voice a gadfly’s sting.
Technology theorist, I dreamed in clouds, saw the future in circuits and code,
Bakken Basin, I spoke, The Weekly Word my stage, Professor Heins my name.
With experts—geologists, physicists, skeptics—they joined me, their truths a chorus,
We broke the noise, our podcast a fire, burning for sane energy, for human thriving.
ESG I weigh, fair and balanced, my skeptic’s eye unfooled by greenwashed hymns,
Political organizer, pain in the ass, I stir the pot, I wake the sleeping.
Tens of thousand articles, my ink a river, The Word Merchant’s flood across nations,
Curator, I gather truths, feeding allies—scientists, journalists—with light against the dark.
Self-financed, unbowed, at eighty-one, I am the storm that never quiets,
Sane energy my job, my cause, my heart’s unyielding vow.
This is my confession, my map, my open book,
Steve Heins, poet, fighter, a life of words and wars, still singing.
Steve: a fascinating reply — but not exactly sure how you are applying it to this commentary... Please explain.
Also, you have enough material here to write a guest commentary for me. How about writing about your golf experiences and how you got to be a scratch player?
It is important to remember that critical thinking is largely domain specific. It requires specific prior knowledge about facts, concepts, procedures, etc. relevant to that domain of knowledge for it to be effective.
Kendall: I've heard variations of the "domain" argument, and I do not agree. Of course, a person with more knowledge on a topic POTENTIALLY can do a better job in critical thinking about it, but that is not a requirement for Critical Thinking. (See Paul's good comments above).
Another observation is that I easily know 1000+ PhDs, and the percentage of these who are Critical Thinkers is not noticeably different from the percentage of the general population who are Critical Thinkers. What this informal data seem to indicate is that more knowledge and Critical Thnking do not appear to be directly connected.
Also, what the "domain" case is essentially implying is that you need to be an expert in a particular subject before you can do competent critical thinking about it. That is simply not true.
BTW, that is basically the argument people like Dr. Fauci used when anyone questioned him (e.g., on COVID-19 vaccines) — "I'm more of an expert than you are, so your critical thinking (analysis) of vaccines will never arise to my level."
Thanks for the wine vs water example!
I glanced up up at our O. Wells plaque stating this- "Wines of extraordinary good taste" as I finished reading your insightful post!
Mark: Not familiar with that plaque, but it seems to be relevant.