The need and role of critical thinking

[Dr B]

Our brains are biased to process information in a particular way - this aids fast effective decision making. However, this often leads to error in decision. Good examples are things like, heuristics, chance-baseline shifts, chance and random perception, etc.

For me critical thinking helps overcome the shortcomings of heuristics and natural cognitive biases. However, we need to be sure we do not fall into the trap of being critical for critical sake.

Let me give an example. Anyone who has ever tried to get a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal of high standing will know that some reviewers talk bollocks :D Some criticisms are just ridiculous and have no bearing on the systematic effects one might be trying to report. However, reviewers often feel they 'simply have to be critical'. This is not strictly true. If the study is good (good methods, evidence, data, analyses, premises, logic, reason) with a good interpretation - then thinking critically also means acknowledging that!!!!!

Critical thinking is not just about identifying fallacies - but spotting good sound work as well (or thats how I approach it when i review the work of others for journals or grant bodies). Lets have balance here!!!! O0

Has anyone here got any good examples of when critical thinking many have been applied inappropriately????

[Admin]

I think that 'critical thinking' is another label that gets misinterpreted. It gets confused with criticism and also with debunking. Not that there's anything wrong with either of those. ;)

Critical thinking is not about criticising things for the sake of it, it's a mode of thought that, ideally, leads to the truth in matters. It's about the intelligent processing of information rather than simply accepting information.

It's a wide area without a single, easy definition, but I think it's the use of rationalism, logic, recognising logical fallacies, evaluating and explaining ideas and information.

Skepticism is about finding the truth in matters, so critical thinking is an essential piece of kit in the skeptic's toolbox.

A skeptic: some who looks both ways before crossing a one way street. 8)

[Nucular]

Has anyone here got any good examples of when critical thinking many have been applied inappropriately????


What about when bleevers are suddenly confronted with sound and rational argument? Suddenly standards of evidence and logic increase in stringency, and from "look, people have told me it's true, why would they lie?" it's "well where did you read that? How do you know it's true? Why would you believe what the drug companies say?" Et cetera ad nauseam.

So yes, not applied inappropriately, but certainly selectively ;)

[Admin]

Conspiracy theorists are another group who can be very good at spotting inconsistencies and fallacies in 'official' reports etc. It's just a shame they aren't so good at applying the same logic to their own ideas.

[Dr B]

After many meetings and fights (not literally of course....I am a nice guy...honest....) I have managed to get a specific Critical Thinking course on the undergrad degree at my uni.

It will be based around the document I wrote (John and Teek have a copy if anyone wants to take a look). So far its just going to be a 1-hour lecture, a seminar, some further reading, and my document - but it is a start!!!!

Departments have reduced modules like this in recent years so we are going against the trend - it is also a bit more teaching work for me - but hey, this is one thing I do feel strongly about in our science education courses.... 8)

Onwards and upwards.....

[tkingdoll]

Yay! Well done Dr B - can I come and sit in on the class? :D

[Admin]

We could also use it if/when we get around to putting a short course together. O0

The critical thinking factsheet will be available soon.

[Dr B]

Teek - you are more than welcome....as long as you keep nodding in a "yes...that all makes sense" kind of way 8)

John - I would be delighted to help out with future courses.....as long as time allows......

[Admin]

John - I would be delighted to help out with future courses.....as long as time allows......


Excellent O0

We're still sorting out getting on our feet really but it's definitely something I would like to do.

[tkingdoll]

Teek - you are more than welcome....as long as you keep nodding in a "yes...that all makes sense" kind of way 8)



I would wear my Randi beard and stroke it knowingly. I also do a good line in saying "I concur"

[vbloke]

Maybe once I've graduated, I could offer courses in Homeopathy ;D

[Mongrel]

Maybe once I've graduated, I could offer courses in Homeopathy ;D


"Hi, Thanks for coming. It's B*******!. £200 please, cheques payable to ......"

[vbloke]

you read my mind...

[Dr B]

The good news is the students have really enjoyed the lecture and the support materials I have provided. The staff are also reacting in a positive manner. It may be that we will soon be putting CT (thats critical thinking btw) back on the undergrad programme more substantially and more formally.

I have heard a rumour that some staff are discussing coming and seeing me about developing it further - what can I say - I'm chuffed - but also really impressed that most decent students have risen to it......I feel a 'Mr Chips' moment coming on.... ::)

[Araneus]

Critical thinking is the sort of subject that can theoretically be made very interesting, with real-life examples, puzzles and so on. I suspect if it was made more widely available it could potentially become quite popular.

[Alexburton]

I don't know if this is off topic, but for the second part of my A-levels I am going to take Critical Thinking as an AS extra. I do Philosophy too and I was told that the two subjects go well together (by my lecturer).

I think critical thinking should be taught at a much younger age though. Although, i think I remember reading some news article or something about how its going to be implemented at a younger age in schools...it may have been practical ethics or something though. I can't quite recall.

I think its highly likely that CT will become more widespread and popular in the future.

I find it hard, but it becomes easier with real-life examples, puzzles, situations et cetera.

[huw-l]

I don't know if this is off topic, but for the second part of my A-levels I am going to take Critical Thinking as an AS extra. I do Philosophy too and I was told that the two subjects go well together (by my lecturer).

I find the fact that an AS in Critical Thinking even exists to be quite cheering. I'd be interested to find out exactly what they teach you.

[Araneus]

I would like to see not only Critical Thinking made a compulsory core subject along with English and Maths, but qualification in the subject made a pre-requisite for joining the electoral register, so that the credulous and gullible were not allowed to influence government policy.

[Jocky]

I am going to take Critical Thinking as an AS extra

Hi Alex, and a very warm welcome to UKS :)

You'll find a lot of people here who strongly support the need for Critical Thinking to be taught in schools, and would be very interested to hear more about your experiences with it. You might well find a few things here that can help with the coursework, too O0

[Admin]

Here's a quiz: http://www.theskepticexpress.com/StartQuiz.htm

See how embarrassingly badly you score on that!! ;D

[huw-l]

33%

I would miserably fail A-level Critical Thinking.

I blame lack of caffeine

[Jocky]

81% - I got an A 8)

Some of those were a bit tricky though - cross with myself at being caught out :-[

[Cuddles]

93% O0

I blame David Beckham for it not being 100%.

[vbloke]

83%
yay me!

[Dr B]

I know some of the questions already...so its not viable for me.....However, in the latest publication from ASKE they have some reasoning puzzles and of the 5 or so provided I got 4 right :-*

[median]

85% ???

The Beckham question might even have fooled Spock because a) Spock is only half- Vulcan and b) his human side would have given way to the urge to regard Beckham as a twat ;D

[Dr B]

I do think some questions can be too clever (linguistically) for their own good and do not really assess your natural spontaneous ability to reason about things.

Of course we all need to cut through the nonsense to get at the argument....that is part of the skill........but there is even an argument against some of the 'heavier' examples (or so I have read) as an index of basic reasoning.

Heavier examples tap into more complex thought processes.......not simple basic reasoning.

[median]

Of course we all need to cut through the nonsense to get at the argument....that is part of the skill........but there is even an argument against some of the 'heavier' examples (or so I have read) as an index of basic reasoning.


So are we thinking more in terms of basic mathematical reasoning a bit like Euclidean proofs (if anyone can remember them) ;)

[Araneus]

I do think some questions can be too clever (linguistically) for their own good and do not really assess your natural spontaneous ability to reason about things.

That's precisely my feeling regarding that test too. I consider myself reasonably competent at critical thinking but I found that test extremely difficult. Now it could simply be that I am in fact not that good at critical thinking, but I do think there is a large extent to which the test focusses on verbal gymnastics and the ability to answer the question precisely WITHOUT reasoning any further, which while a valuable skill, is not the whole essence of critical thought.

The one that sticks in my mind was the badger culling question -- I took the option along the lines of "Badgers should not be culled unless a better reason was found" which was considered wrong because the author had not indicated that he would have supported badger culling even if a better reason did exist. However my linguistic interpretation of that particular answer does not require that the author would have supported badger culling in any circumstance, merely that the reason given was not strong enough to support it.

[Melanie]

I'm glad it's not just me. I gave that badger answer as well, thought the alternative answer just a tad too pendantic, and lost interest.

[Dr B]

I even think there is an argument against one of the 'correct' answers as well....but i cannot remember which one it was..... :D

I am reminded about Piaget's experiments on logical reasoning for children where he claimed specific time periods in development for certain logical concepts to evolve. If you change the language of the test, and even the context of it, many children who would have failed...passed!!! This showed a crucial role of language and context in the presentation of problems that do not really relate to the problem itself.....seems relevant at least to me. O0

[Araneus]

If you change the language of the test, and even the context of it, many children who would have failed...passed!!!

That reminds me of some test that my mother was introduced to at an educational conference, which supposedly is used for measuring the intelligence of children. One of the questions was something like "What is the similarity between a cat and a mouse?" and the only correct answer was "They are both animals".

Seriously, WTF? If a child says they are both homeothermic quadrupeds, that means he's less intelligent because he got the answer "wrong"?

[Jocky]

I'm glad it's not just me. I gave that badger answer as well, thought the alternative answer just a tad too pendantic, and lost interest.

Yes, I fell for that one, too. But as a dyed-in-the-wool pedant myself, I can recognise when I've been out-pedanted, and even rather enjoy it! :-[


If you change the language of the test, and even the context of it, many children who would have failed...passed!!! This showed a crucial role of language and context in the presentation of problems that do not really relate to the problem itself

Maybe students studying for this are taught a technique for breaking down linguistically complex arguments into their logical components prior to analysing the logic itself? Maybe if we'd taken the time to do this properly, we'd have been less likey to fall into the badger trap.

[tablemonkey]

I got 70%. :)

To use critical thinking in those questions, I suppose you have to put aside any of your own preconceived ideas and just take in the information they give you.




If you change the language of the test, and even the context of it, many children who would have failed...passed!!!

That reminds me of some test that my mother was introduced to at an educational conference, which supposedly is used for measuring the intelligence of children. One of the questions was something like "What is the similarity between a cat and a mouse?" and the only correct answer was "They are both animals".

Seriously, WTF? If a child says they are both homeothermic quadrupeds, that means he's less intelligent because he got the answer "wrong"?


??? That is strange. It's a worry really, when you read things like that. I would hate to think my children's intelligence is tested that way.

:) Hello, by the way!

[Cuddles]

??? That is strange. It's a worry really, when you read things like that. I would hate to think my children's intelligence is tested that way.

:) Hello, by the way!

Welcome monkey.

Yes, it's rather sad, but that is actually the way children are tested, and not just at lower levels. Even at A-level there are lists of "key words" that you have to know. If a question asks for an explanation of something and expects you to use 5 particular words you could write and entire PhD thesis on it and still not get any marks if you didn't use those exact words. And equally, if you simply write those 5 words with no explanation, according the marking schemes you should get full marks (although admittedly most teachers won't go quite that far). It is completely ridiculous, but this is what we've ended up with after Blair's constant meddling with the system.

[Admin]

100% 8)

Mind you, I did it last year and got a couple wrong so I probably remembered my mistakes. ;D

I tend to see critical thinking along the lines of the last two questions. Where we have to draw conclusions from data or information. It's quite easy to overstate what data is telling us and it's a CT skill to be able to draw only conclusions that the data supports rather than what we want to see.

CT is also about assessing arguments however. The case of the badgers (which I think I got wrong first time around) is a good one. The answer "Badgers should not be culled until clear evidence is given linking them to tuberculosis in cattle" would be the conclusion we would make if asked to form a position based on the information given; but, the question asks us about the author's conclusion.

I think the badger question is a good lesson in itself. How often do we argue against someone's position because of what we assume they are saying rather than what they actually are saying?

And, how often do we use someone's argument to support our points because we assume that their conclusion is the same as ours?

As for the Beckham question...

It's a poorly worded one. Beckham cannot bend a ball because he is intelligent. I think that really confuses the question.

[Allo Allo]

Here's a quiz: http://www.theskepticexpress.com/StartQuiz.htm

See how embarrassingly badly you score on that!! ;D


I have done this test TWICE - (with different answers) and got 100% each time... I assume there is something wrong with it. Has it "expired"? ???

M

[Jocky]

I have done this test TWICE - (with different answers) and got 100% each time... I assume there is something wrong with it.

So you were sufficiently doubtful of your first 100% score to go back and do it again with different answers? You HAVE become skeptical in your old age :)

I wonder if John tried that with his 100% score :D

[Admin]

I wonder if John tried that with his 100% score :D


Oh no.

My suspicion that I'm a genius has been confirmed and no longer needs to be tested. ;D

[Dr B]

Since I started providing a critical thinking lecture, my department has decided to extend its crtitical thinking for undergrads (and adding a critical writing course). This is a step in the right direction and shows that their is an appetite out there.

I have found a number of members of staff who are all for it as well, so this may develop even further over the coming year.

[Grislygherkin]

Some people have a natural ability to think critically; some do not. I struggle very hard with it as I tend to have random, disconnected thoughts which can cause difficulties in discussions and arguments. Often when natural critics argue with others with less ability, the critics dismiss the claims and arguments proffered by their adversaries. This is unfair when based purely on their inability to argue succinctly. I flounder in arguments because, as mentioned, my thoughts are often random and my mind works slowly so there are delays in 'pennies dropping'. I am much more comfortable with discussions like on here where an immediate response is unnecessary.

[median]

I am much more comfortable with discussions like on here where an immediate response is unnecessary.

A valid point Grisly.
In many cases it is better to reflect and ruminate rather than wade in with all guns blazing so to speak.O0O0