Defining Critical Thinking
Michelle Malsbury, BSBM, MM
May 06, 2010
Defining Critical Thinking
Kirby, Goodpaster, and Levine (1999, p. 5) define thinking as brain activity leading to communication, written or spoken. Thought says Ruggiero (2004, Ch. 2, p. 17) is a deliberate mental pursuit targeted at problem solving, decision making, gaining understanding, or steering activities. The act of thinking critically according to Ruggiero investigates allegations and arguments to ascertain if there is merit or value. This investigative action looks for answers where none appear readily available. Using these explanations and definitions as a basis for critical thought and moving ahead one step we will examine the effect that background knowledge and open dialogue has on the critical thought process. Schwarze and Lape (2001, preface) state that ones regular reasoning stems from considering the probability of what may occur or what has already occurred. Rational people, according to Schwarze and Lape (2001, p. 1), engage others in discussion about their thoughts, beliefs, and alternative solutions to problems posed. Therefore, as Schwarze and Lape suggest, the larger the pool of background knowledge one has the better decisions they are likely to make.
Comparison and Contrast
Kirby, Goodpaster, and Levine (1999, p. 10) rank the ability to think critically above that of making money in terms of importance. They specify three examples (p. 2) human rational thought and they are: to make plans and have purpose, to project accurate expectations or outcomes, and to be able to plan for their futures. Ruggiero (2004, Chapter 1, p. 5) finds time and place to also be determining factors in how one perceives or views things and arrives at viable solutions from critical thought. For purposes of simplification the following chart (taken from Ruggiero, 2004, chapter 2, p. 19) will provide generalizations regarding the differences and similarities between critical or rational thought and uncritical or irrational thought. Afterward, various examples will be submitted for further discussion.
Critical or Rational Thought
Uncritical or Irrational Thought
Honest about what is known and unknown Assume to know more than they do
Consider problems challenges
Problems viewed as a threat or nuisance
Want to be understood and to understand Prefer confusion to understanding: impatient with complex issues
Act based on evidence or facts: corrects or revises actions to reflect new pools of evidence or facts as they are revealed Clings to ones own viewpoint: usually goes on gut reaction
Interested in others ideas: listens attentively Preoccupied with self: listens to no one
Controls feelings
Acts on impulse and follows feelings
Examples
Schwarze and Lape (2001, p. 91) state than an argument can be found most any place. Proper arguments are founded on premises that support their conclusions. These arguments can be deductive or inductive, sufficient or necessary, valid, logical, empirical or foundational, or take many other forms and fashions depending on what is intended. In analyzing an argument Schwarze and Lape (p. 66) suggest trying to ascertain what is to be proven and then looking for substantiating evidence or loopholes in that logic that might, in turn, present anther argument. Some examples of arguments are provided next.
Empirical (Schwarze and Lape, 2001, p. 54) arguments are wrong because they assume statements made can be justified by use of visual, audible, or tactile data. Foundational arguments are wrong because they assume that some statements are self-warranting. Socrates (p. 16) stated that statements moved in a circle. Therefore, some had no correct responses or replies. Kierkegaard (p. 27) said that choices are a "leap of faith". Therefore, no choice is rational. Thomas and Gould (p. 32) said that experiences are not impartial, but are shaped by ones beliefs. Therefore, these experiences vary from one person to another and from moment to moment or day to day. Thomas and Gould (p. 40) also believed that whatever one sees or perceives is what they have been educated or schooled to see. Therefore, ones beliefs influence or impact their experiences. Deductive reasoning (p. 71) assumes that if the argument given is valid and if the premises are accepted as factual and valid then one can also assume that the conclusion is factual and valid. Inductive reasoning states that if the premises are mostly factual and valid then the conclusion will more than likely be valid and factual. Argument by analogy (p. 72) believes that if two or more premises share a number of facts that are relevant then they must also have more things in common.
Potential Barriers to Critical Thought
Kirby, etal. (1999, p. 13) states that thinking is an individual process. How and where one was reared or currently resides might determine what an individual fears, how or what the individual believes, what emotions that individual might exhibit, whether that individual is optimistic or pessimist. The places (p. 14) a person works can create barriers to rational thought because this platform exposes them to workplace ethics, personal conduct, and dress code. Religion is another source where potential barriers might be cultivated that could infringe upon the critical thought process. (p. 15-16) Ones concept (p. 19) of self can either hinder or direct their critical thought. It is this combination of genetic and cultural forces that can create a barrier to a person´s critical thinking. Being attuned to these potential barriers can help one to overcome them thus producing a sound and rational thinker.
Conclusion
A lot more goes into critical or rational thought and good decision making than one might realize. Ruggiero (2004, Chapter 2, p. 19) said that rational thinkers direct their thoughts and not vice versa. Critical thinkers (p. 21) investigate the evidence presented to ascertain its relevance or lack thereof, they interpret that information to see if it is reasonable or valid and supports the premises, they use their best judgment to reach a conclusion via testing the logic presented, and they (p. 22) engage in discussion that can help them to understand and further promote problem solving and good decision making. Habits for the critical thinker include: having a good concept of self, keeping an open mind, being honest in what one knows or does not know, listening to the ideas and input of others, and seeking solutions based on factual or valid evidence can help one form a solid basis for critical thought that leads to greater problem solving and rational decision making.
Reference
Kirby, Gary, Goodpaster, Jeffrey, and Levine, Marvin (1999) Critical thinking (2nd Edition) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Ruggiero, Vincent Ryan (2004) Beyond feelings: A guide to critical thinking. (7th Edition) Boston: McGraw-Hill
Schwarze, Sharon and Lape, Harvey (2001) Thinking Socratically: Critical thinking about everyday issues (2nd Edition) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Kirby, Goodpaster, and Levine (1999, p. 5) define thinking as brain activity leading to communication, written or spoken. Thought says Ruggiero (2004, Ch. 2, p. 17) is a deliberate mental pursuit targeted at problem solving, decision making, gaining understanding, or steering activities. The act of thinking critically according to Ruggiero investigates allegations and arguments to ascertain if there is merit or value. This investigative action looks for answers where none appear readily available. Using these explanations and definitions as a basis for critical thought and moving ahead one step we will examine the effect that background knowledge and open dialogue has on the critical thought process. Schwarze and Lape (2001, preface) state that ones regular reasoning stems from considering the probability of what may occur or what has already occurred. Rational people, according to Schwarze and Lape (2001, p. 1), engage others in discussion about their thoughts, beliefs, and alternative solutions to problems posed. Therefore, as Schwarze and Lape suggest, the larger the pool of background knowledge one has the better decisions they are likely to make.
Comparison and Contrast
Kirby, Goodpaster, and Levine (1999, p. 10) rank the ability to think critically above that of making money in terms of importance. They specify three examples (p. 2) human rational thought and they are: to make plans and have purpose, to project accurate expectations or outcomes, and to be able to plan for their futures. Ruggiero (2004, Chapter 1, p. 5) finds time and place to also be determining factors in how one perceives or views things and arrives at viable solutions from critical thought. For purposes of simplification the following chart (taken from Ruggiero, 2004, chapter 2, p. 19) will provide generalizations regarding the differences and similarities between critical or rational thought and uncritical or irrational thought. Afterward, various examples will be submitted for further discussion.
Critical or Rational Thought
Uncritical or Irrational Thought
Honest about what is known and unknown Assume to know more than they do
Consider problems challenges
Problems viewed as a threat or nuisance
Want to be understood and to understand Prefer confusion to understanding: impatient with complex issues
Act based on evidence or facts: corrects or revises actions to reflect new pools of evidence or facts as they are revealed Clings to ones own viewpoint: usually goes on gut reaction
Interested in others ideas: listens attentively Preoccupied with self: listens to no one
Controls feelings
Acts on impulse and follows feelings
Examples
Schwarze and Lape (2001, p. 91) state than an argument can be found most any place. Proper arguments are founded on premises that support their conclusions. These arguments can be deductive or inductive, sufficient or necessary, valid, logical, empirical or foundational, or take many other forms and fashions depending on what is intended. In analyzing an argument Schwarze and Lape (p. 66) suggest trying to ascertain what is to be proven and then looking for substantiating evidence or loopholes in that logic that might, in turn, present anther argument. Some examples of arguments are provided next.
Empirical (Schwarze and Lape, 2001, p. 54) arguments are wrong because they assume statements made can be justified by use of visual, audible, or tactile data. Foundational arguments are wrong because they assume that some statements are self-warranting. Socrates (p. 16) stated that statements moved in a circle. Therefore, some had no correct responses or replies. Kierkegaard (p. 27) said that choices are a "leap of faith". Therefore, no choice is rational. Thomas and Gould (p. 32) said that experiences are not impartial, but are shaped by ones beliefs. Therefore, these experiences vary from one person to another and from moment to moment or day to day. Thomas and Gould (p. 40) also believed that whatever one sees or perceives is what they have been educated or schooled to see. Therefore, ones beliefs influence or impact their experiences. Deductive reasoning (p. 71) assumes that if the argument given is valid and if the premises are accepted as factual and valid then one can also assume that the conclusion is factual and valid. Inductive reasoning states that if the premises are mostly factual and valid then the conclusion will more than likely be valid and factual. Argument by analogy (p. 72) believes that if two or more premises share a number of facts that are relevant then they must also have more things in common.
Potential Barriers to Critical Thought
Kirby, etal. (1999, p. 13) states that thinking is an individual process. How and where one was reared or currently resides might determine what an individual fears, how or what the individual believes, what emotions that individual might exhibit, whether that individual is optimistic or pessimist. The places (p. 14) a person works can create barriers to rational thought because this platform exposes them to workplace ethics, personal conduct, and dress code. Religion is another source where potential barriers might be cultivated that could infringe upon the critical thought process. (p. 15-16) Ones concept (p. 19) of self can either hinder or direct their critical thought. It is this combination of genetic and cultural forces that can create a barrier to a person´s critical thinking. Being attuned to these potential barriers can help one to overcome them thus producing a sound and rational thinker.
Conclusion
A lot more goes into critical or rational thought and good decision making than one might realize. Ruggiero (2004, Chapter 2, p. 19) said that rational thinkers direct their thoughts and not vice versa. Critical thinkers (p. 21) investigate the evidence presented to ascertain its relevance or lack thereof, they interpret that information to see if it is reasonable or valid and supports the premises, they use their best judgment to reach a conclusion via testing the logic presented, and they (p. 22) engage in discussion that can help them to understand and further promote problem solving and good decision making. Habits for the critical thinker include: having a good concept of self, keeping an open mind, being honest in what one knows or does not know, listening to the ideas and input of others, and seeking solutions based on factual or valid evidence can help one form a solid basis for critical thought that leads to greater problem solving and rational decision making.
Reference
Kirby, Gary, Goodpaster, Jeffrey, and Levine, Marvin (1999) Critical thinking (2nd Edition) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Ruggiero, Vincent Ryan (2004) Beyond feelings: A guide to critical thinking. (7th Edition) Boston: McGraw-Hill
Schwarze, Sharon and Lape, Harvey (2001) Thinking Socratically: Critical thinking about everyday issues (2nd Edition) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Print
Email
