Critical thinking needs to be taught everywhere, not only in K-12 science programs. I learned to spot things like straw man arguments, proof by reference to authority, proof by intimidation, proof by vigorous handwaving... in debate lessons in English and Social Studies classes, back when Pasadena CA schools were among the best (1961-1964).
I attended the same schools that all the black (and Japanese) kids attended. I had classes in physics, chemistry, two years of calculus, and three years of Russian. I could have chosen from six language classes: Latin, French, German, Spanish, Russian, and Mandarin Chinese. The all-white school across town offered trigonometry and two languages, so it was obviously a superior school and the system had to be demolished because the black kids were getting an inferior education. My alma mater almost lost accreditation recently. Now Pasadena schools are near the bottom of mediocre California, thanks to a busing lawsuit (Spangler v. Board of Education, brought by the parents of a student at the all-white school) and the system having been run by a Federal judge (Manuel Real) for twelve years
The need for critical thinking skills arises in making inferences about the outcomes of the events of the future for the physical system that is being modelled. Aristotle's three Laws of Thought provide a sound basis for making these inferences under complete information for a deductive conclusion to be reached by the argument made by a model of this system but not to making these inferences under incomplete information. In the latter case, Aristotle's Laws are replaced by the rule that the induced generalization represents all of the available information but no more.
Terry: TY for the good historical context... Getting complete (adequate) information is difficult. One part of the problem is that much of the "information" floating around is simply false, so a subtraction needs to be done.
David: There is an element of truth in that, but as my commentary explains, it's more than that. Specifically the opposit of Critical Thinking is distorted thinking — and there ten examples of those above...
I agree with you that thinking needs to be taught and is not done by most these days. The examples you give of "distorted" thinking seem to me to be examples of not thinking - emotion, impulse, dogma, circularity, insult and so on. I learned to think from Jane Austen at high school and later from philosophers but overall I learned to think by learning to read. I have failed to teach our children to read. I cannot compete with the phone. Good post, thanks.
Critical thinking must also allow for the "unsure, don't know" outcome, where we delay making a decision because we recognise the "insufficient evidence" situation. That's tricky too, because what is "sufficient"? Beyond reasonable doubt? But then, what is "reasonable"? "Reasonable" means "arguable by reasoning" implying the application of evidence to logic. In the end, everything is one's personal judgement, and "don't know" is a reasonable outcome.
The opposite of Critical Thinking is "Social Emotional Learning".
The purpose of Critical Thinking is to remove subjective bias and noise in the search for objective truth (aka, Scientific Method).
The purpose of Social Emotional Learning is to INJECT "subjective truth" (an oxymoron) into the narrative to avoid vectoring toward objective truth that might "offend" somebody.
For me, 1 - 9 in the list are easily shown to be uncritical. #10 is tricky. Johns says: Closed-mindedness is Refusing to consider new ideas or perspectives that challenge existing beliefs". Modern closed-mindedness, claims to be open-minded by refusing to condemn anything apart from authority. Hence: drug-taking and homelessness flourish in liberal California. Transmania a drag-queen story hour are lauded in schools. All done in the name of open-mindedness, inclusiveness and diversity. Mordern open-mindedness is actually a new kind of closed-mindedness which refuses to look at what fails, and is blind to why things fail.
So - what about
11: Does not work or fails. Uncritical thinking fails. Critical thinking must work.
CT is not about knocking down everything or the West - to clear the ground for some new pseudo-Marxist Utopia. Because no pseudo-Marxist Utopia ever worked. CT must look for _specific faults_ - so that they can be repairted. Pseudo-CT, or UCT finds fault with everything Western - so that it can be annihilated.
Today's illuminati are so open minded that their brains have fallen out.
Mussolini and Gramsci analyzed communism and exposed its internal contradictions. They insisted that fascism is the logical conclusion of socialism. When you hear "far right" you're expected to subvocalise "fascisn." Keep in mind what Mussolini and Gramsci had to say about it.
Critical thinking needs to be taught everywhere, not only in K-12 science programs. I learned to spot things like straw man arguments, proof by reference to authority, proof by intimidation, proof by vigorous handwaving... in debate lessons in English and Social Studies classes, back when Pasadena CA schools were among the best (1961-1964).
I attended the same schools that all the black (and Japanese) kids attended. I had classes in physics, chemistry, two years of calculus, and three years of Russian. I could have chosen from six language classes: Latin, French, German, Spanish, Russian, and Mandarin Chinese. The all-white school across town offered trigonometry and two languages, so it was obviously a superior school and the system had to be demolished because the black kids were getting an inferior education. My alma mater almost lost accreditation recently. Now Pasadena schools are near the bottom of mediocre California, thanks to a busing lawsuit (Spangler v. Board of Education, brought by the parents of a student at the all-white school) and the system having been run by a Federal judge (Manuel Real) for twelve years
The need for critical thinking skills arises in making inferences about the outcomes of the events of the future for the physical system that is being modelled. Aristotle's three Laws of Thought provide a sound basis for making these inferences under complete information for a deductive conclusion to be reached by the argument made by a model of this system but not to making these inferences under incomplete information. In the latter case, Aristotle's Laws are replaced by the rule that the induced generalization represents all of the available information but no more.
Terry Oldberg
Engineer/Scientist/Public Policy Researcher
Los Altos Hills, Calfifornia, USA
terry_oldberg@yahoo.com
Terry: TY for the good historical context... Getting complete (adequate) information is difficult. One part of the problem is that much of the "information" floating around is simply false, so a subtraction needs to be done.
Great description of what the opposite of critical thinking is!
Stephanie: TY. I'm sure you've seen most opf these ten examples on display when industrial wind energy was being promoted in your area.
The opposite of critical thinking is not thinking.
David: There is an element of truth in that, but as my commentary explains, it's more than that. Specifically the opposit of Critical Thinking is distorted thinking — and there ten examples of those above...
I agree with you that thinking needs to be taught and is not done by most these days. The examples you give of "distorted" thinking seem to me to be examples of not thinking - emotion, impulse, dogma, circularity, insult and so on. I learned to think from Jane Austen at high school and later from philosophers but overall I learned to think by learning to read. I have failed to teach our children to read. I cannot compete with the phone. Good post, thanks.
Critical thinking must also allow for the "unsure, don't know" outcome, where we delay making a decision because we recognise the "insufficient evidence" situation. That's tricky too, because what is "sufficient"? Beyond reasonable doubt? But then, what is "reasonable"? "Reasonable" means "arguable by reasoning" implying the application of evidence to logic. In the end, everything is one's personal judgement, and "don't know" is a reasonable outcome.
Jim: Yes that is a good point.
The opposite of Critical Thinking is "Social Emotional Learning".
The purpose of Critical Thinking is to remove subjective bias and noise in the search for objective truth (aka, Scientific Method).
The purpose of Social Emotional Learning is to INJECT "subjective truth" (an oxymoron) into the narrative to avoid vectoring toward objective truth that might "offend" somebody.
Mike: Yes, SEL is an education scourge that is not consistent with Critical Thinking. Check the Archives for several articles I've written on SEL.
#10:
For me, 1 - 9 in the list are easily shown to be uncritical. #10 is tricky. Johns says: Closed-mindedness is Refusing to consider new ideas or perspectives that challenge existing beliefs". Modern closed-mindedness, claims to be open-minded by refusing to condemn anything apart from authority. Hence: drug-taking and homelessness flourish in liberal California. Transmania a drag-queen story hour are lauded in schools. All done in the name of open-mindedness, inclusiveness and diversity. Mordern open-mindedness is actually a new kind of closed-mindedness which refuses to look at what fails, and is blind to why things fail.
So - what about
11: Does not work or fails. Uncritical thinking fails. Critical thinking must work.
CT is not about knocking down everything or the West - to clear the ground for some new pseudo-Marxist Utopia. Because no pseudo-Marxist Utopia ever worked. CT must look for _specific faults_ - so that they can be repairted. Pseudo-CT, or UCT finds fault with everything Western - so that it can be annihilated.
Today's illuminati are so open minded that their brains have fallen out.
Mussolini and Gramsci analyzed communism and exposed its internal contradictions. They insisted that fascism is the logical conclusion of socialism. When you hear "far right" you're expected to subvocalise "fascisn." Keep in mind what Mussolini and Gramsci had to say about it.