Hi John -- a starting definition of critical thinking might be, 'appraisal of foundational assumptions in light of science, fact, and reason.'
Virtually every advance in science can be traced back to a critical appraisal of the assumptions underlying a previous framework of interpretation.
As every scientific theory begins as a falsifiable hypothesis, then critical thinking includes deriving a new hypothesis that excludes a specific assumption, followed by analytically deducing the consequences therefrom. The hypothesis stands or falls on corroboration, or not, of the deduced consequences, and so does the assumption.
Every advance in science is correspondingly an advance in objective knowledge. So, one is led to unify the two statements into a general conclusion that critical thinking is the only route to objective knowledge.
I'm a medical doctor and the sad truth is that medical school does not require or encourage critical thinking. Patients may think that their doctors are intelligent. While that may or may not be true, it is completely irrelevant. The number one trait among medical students and medical doctors is robotic conformity. This is the exact opposite of critical thinking, but it assures blind adherence to the prescribed protocols. This explains how easily medicine has been hijacked from above and turned into the Medical Industrial Complex.
Lawdog: Thank you for the insider insight. What you say was on vivid display during COVID, where very few medical practitioners took a position regarding COVID therapies based on Science. Instead they capitulated to political science.
Excellent definition of critical thinking, which should be instilled in all young children in grade school.
What's that saying? If I were meant to be like everyone else, I would never have been given the gift of thought, because to follow the crowd takes no thought at all.
Could mother's be at the root of the blind obedience problem? Kids ask "but why?" over and over again until in frustration the mother says: "Because I said so!"
The "I know it when I see it" comment was from Potter Stewart. Some have described him as one of the dumbest-ever Supreme court justices, obviously before Sotomayor and Jackson.
Reporters used to be taught to ask the 5 W's: Who, what, when, were, why. Editors also insisted they had to have at least two independent sources. Now they just repeat what they're fed by politicians.
Teaching critical thinking should start well before students have formal science classes. I remember wishing, about seven decades ago, for instruction on how to think. I had to develop the skill on my own.
I was eventually warned, in math and physics classes, about proof by reference to authority, proof by intimidation, straw man arguments, proof by vigorous handwaving, ....
Well done! I've been of the opinion the study of logical fallacies starting in Jr. High School, and continued through their senior year would remarkably enhance children's ability to think. That way when they enter the propaganda halls of academia they can readily defeat the insanity being taught there. At any rate, that's my suggestion.
Entirely too few people in government made hard challenges questioning Kissinger, and while I was not impressed with Kissinger or Nixon, no one cared what I thought.
Thank you for the link to your excellent list. Every child should be taught this! And also, thank you for all you do to love your country and your countrymen, and for doing everything in your power to make us better citizens for a better country!
Conversations and critical thinking are needed about the use of the words “energy transition”.
The switch to wind and solar renewables is ONLY for occasional ELECTRICITY generation !
Most politicians and policymakers are oblivious to the reality that wind and solar can ONLY generate “electricity”, as they CANNOT make any products for society.
Energy literacy starts with the knowledge that crude oil is the basis of our materialistic society.
Conversations are needed to discuss the difference between just “ELECTRICITY” from renewables, and the “PRODUCTS” that are the basis of society’s materialistic world.
All the parts for wind turbines and solar panels are themselves MADE from oil derivatives, and only generate occasional electricity from favorable weather conditions but manufacture NOTHING for society.
What politicians and policymakers really mean when they refer to “energy transition” is ONLY a transition to occasional electricity generated from wind and solar !
Hi John -- a starting definition of critical thinking might be, 'appraisal of foundational assumptions in light of science, fact, and reason.'
Virtually every advance in science can be traced back to a critical appraisal of the assumptions underlying a previous framework of interpretation.
As every scientific theory begins as a falsifiable hypothesis, then critical thinking includes deriving a new hypothesis that excludes a specific assumption, followed by analytically deducing the consequences therefrom. The hypothesis stands or falls on corroboration, or not, of the deduced consequences, and so does the assumption.
Every advance in science is correspondingly an advance in objective knowledge. So, one is led to unify the two statements into a general conclusion that critical thinking is the only route to objective knowledge.
thanks for the nice column
here are some useful connections to make to the several good points you made:
1. some of what you are saying is: "Stick to The Scientific Method", even when it may not be very easy
1b. going further, you are adding some depth on that, and this has been very nicely handled
by philosophers of science like Popper, who emphasized the crucial importance of testing
hypotheses by comparing against experimental data, and the necessity of FALSIFIABLE
propositions
2. what you refer to as deeper thinking is beautifully described by Tom Sowell in some of
his Applied Economics books, as Thinking Beyond Stage One.
3. many many have written on Confirmation Bias, most recently Steve Pinker. that is
so widespread it merits its own special section
all of those high profile big shots are saying some similar things to you, they happen to
be very widely read, and justifiably influential/famous. so always helpful to make those
connections.
Keep up the good work
Dr. M: TY for your good observations. Your comments nudged me to add a new paragraph (above) where I've included a new one-page list of resources on Critical Thinking <https://c19science.info/Education/Critical_Thinking_References.pdf>.
I'm a medical doctor and the sad truth is that medical school does not require or encourage critical thinking. Patients may think that their doctors are intelligent. While that may or may not be true, it is completely irrelevant. The number one trait among medical students and medical doctors is robotic conformity. This is the exact opposite of critical thinking, but it assures blind adherence to the prescribed protocols. This explains how easily medicine has been hijacked from above and turned into the Medical Industrial Complex.
Lawdog: Thank you for the insider insight. What you say was on vivid display during COVID, where very few medical practitioners took a position regarding COVID therapies based on Science. Instead they capitulated to political science.
Excellent definition of critical thinking, which should be instilled in all young children in grade school.
What's that saying? If I were meant to be like everyone else, I would never have been given the gift of thought, because to follow the crowd takes no thought at all.
Could mother's be at the root of the blind obedience problem? Kids ask "but why?" over and over again until in frustration the mother says: "Because I said so!"
The "I know it when I see it" comment was from Potter Stewart. Some have described him as one of the dumbest-ever Supreme court justices, obviously before Sotomayor and Jackson.
Reporters used to be taught to ask the 5 W's: Who, what, when, were, why. Editors also insisted they had to have at least two independent sources. Now they just repeat what they're fed by politicians.
Teaching critical thinking should start well before students have formal science classes. I remember wishing, about seven decades ago, for instruction on how to think. I had to develop the skill on my own.
I was eventually warned, in math and physics classes, about proof by reference to authority, proof by intimidation, straw man arguments, proof by vigorous handwaving, ....
Well done! I've been of the opinion the study of logical fallacies starting in Jr. High School, and continued through their senior year would remarkably enhance children's ability to think. That way when they enter the propaganda halls of academia they can readily defeat the insanity being taught there. At any rate, that's my suggestion.
History is everything, but it's of little value if people can't reason correctly, or don't want to view it correctly for their own ends, and in my view, Henry Kissinger was a prime example. "Henry Kissinger, the Tallyrand of the Twentieth Century", https://paradigmsanddemographics.blogspot.com/2024/02/henry-kissinger-tallyrand-of-twentieth.html
Entirely too few people in government made hard challenges questioning Kissinger, and while I was not impressed with Kissinger or Nixon, no one cared what I thought.
Rich: That's another indication of a non-critically thinking person: deference to authority...
Excellent! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Thank you for your support!
Thank you for the link to your excellent list. Every child should be taught this! And also, thank you for all you do to love your country and your countrymen, and for doing everything in your power to make us better citizens for a better country!
TY again, as those are some of my objectives. Please get other open-minded people to sign up!
Will do! Substack is one of the last bastions of free speech! Thankful I found you here!
Conversations and critical thinking are needed about the use of the words “energy transition”.
The switch to wind and solar renewables is ONLY for occasional ELECTRICITY generation !
Most politicians and policymakers are oblivious to the reality that wind and solar can ONLY generate “electricity”, as they CANNOT make any products for society.
Energy literacy starts with the knowledge that crude oil is the basis of our materialistic society.
Conversations are needed to discuss the difference between just “ELECTRICITY” from renewables, and the “PRODUCTS” that are the basis of society’s materialistic world.
All the parts for wind turbines and solar panels are themselves MADE from oil derivatives, and only generate occasional electricity from favorable weather conditions but manufacture NOTHING for society.
What politicians and policymakers really mean when they refer to “energy transition” is ONLY a transition to occasional electricity generated from wind and solar !
Ron: 100% agree, but this commentary is about coming to an agreement as to what "Critical Thinking" actually is...