|
Critical Thinking The careful and reflective process of evaluating claims and argument – attempting to form or evaluate judgements through the use of relevant and reliable considerations, and not be deflected by extraneous or untrustworthy considerations. Thinking critically is an active and systematic cognitive strategy to examine, evaluate, and understand events, solve problems, and make decisions on the basis of effective reasoning and well-scrutinized evidence, involving such things as:
Ümaintaining an attitude which is both openminded and sceptical; Üidentifying and questioning underlying assumptions and preconceptions ; Üeschewing oversimplifications, overgeneralizations, and overinterpretations; Üdeveloping a tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity; Üexploring alternative perspectives and explanations;
People in their differing judgements are informed by contrasting views of what constitutes ’proof’, they are influenced by their beliefs about what evidence is needed to establish a claim, and are limited by the amount of knowledge they have of the methods used to gather evidence to decide claims. Actors also vary in the skill they show in thinking about an issue, analyzing it, looking at it from many sides, and weighing whether there is sufficient evidence of adequate quality to warrant a decision in favour of a proposition, hypothesis, etc.
When exhorting people to think critically in the sense given here it is a suggestion about how to think, not of what to think.
Examples of critical questions:
rWhat, precisely, is being claimed? rHas evidence been adduced in support of what is being claimed? rIs there sufficient support warranting acceptance of the particular claim? rIf there is not sufficient support, what then? (reject the claim? accept it on a tentative basis? suspend judgement pending fresh, further, better evidence? etc.)
Critical thinking is a rational process which includes taking effective steps so that our preconceptions and biases do not substantially hinder us from gathering evidence and evaluating alternatives in an effort to reach a competent conclusion on the matter before us. Is this easy, simple, or straightforward to ‘pull off’? Usually not.
Some of the errors people make include: nFailing to adapt: The environment in which people act changes constantly – any continued reliance upon expectations and behaviours which have worked in the past when there is clear evidence that they are unlikely to work now must be considered an error. The critical thinker recognizes crucial changes and seeks to adapt to them, but without abandoning proper reasoning principles, clear-headed epistemic† values, or a deliberative, evidence-based approach in striving to come to grips with claims, issues, and problems. nNeglecting disconfirmation: There are many circumstances in which actors fail to adequately consider evidence which would disconfirm a preferred hypothesis – this confirmation bias is robust and instances of it may sometimes go unrecognized. Critical thinkers must be alert to this pitfall. nOverlooking reasons: Related to the previous point: often people cannot think of reasons why their preferred hypothesis might be wrong – critical thinkers ought to employ appropriate strategies such as counter-arguing and considering the opposite in an effort to counteract such tendencies. nNot considering differences: Research has shown how explanations of events are stored in people’s memories, in a way similar to other well-learned responses. Instead of being constructed from scratch based upon the facts at hand in the present situation, a stored explanation is applied without necessarily fully taking account of possible differences between the event to be explained and those which led to the explanation drawn from memory. Critical thinkers must resist the inclination which arises to overestimate the similarity between the earlier situation and the present one and to make a concerted effort to generate explanations which meaningfully address the situation now before us.
Self-reflection is a willingness to consider the ways in which our expectations, beliefs, preconceptions, and biases can influence our evaluation of the thinking and reasoning of others, and equally these effects on our own thinking; also, a recognition of the fallibility of one’s own views, of the probability of some bias in those views, and of the dangers of weighting evidence in accordance with one’s personal preferences when evaluating claims and argument. (see also: clarity of thinking, self-correction, counter-argument, keys to clear-headed argument, civility, language, quality of evidence, science, scientific approach, pseudo-science, systematic evidence, evolution, anecdotal evidence, (conceptual) models, operational definition, theory (scientific), falsifiability, testability, intelligence and belief, language, possibilities, and Critical thinking)
Back to: Glossary A-C, Glossary D-H, Glossary I-P, Glossary Q-S, Glossary T-Z
Glossary of selected Judgement & Decision-making, Belief-related, and other Psychology terms A-Z »
Labels:
'critical thinking', critical thinking, thinking critically, clear thinking, thinking clearly, careful and reflective evaluation of claims and argument, claims and argument - careful and reflective process of evaluation, self-reflection, competency and clear thinking, obstacles to clear thinking, obstacles to thinking critically, obstacles to critical thinking, errors people make, thinking errors, metathinking, meta-thinking |