chapter 2 towards an understanding of critical thinking

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

Knowledge Base
Working with sources
What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

Published on May 30, 2022 by Eoghan Ryan . Revised on May 31, 2023.

Critical thinking is the ability to effectively analyze information and form a judgment .

To think critically, you must be aware of your own biases and assumptions when encountering information, and apply consistent standards when evaluating sources .

Critical thinking skills help you to:

Identify credible sources
Evaluate and respond to arguments
Assess alternative viewpoints
Test hypotheses against relevant criteria

Why is critical thinking important, critical thinking examples, how to think critically, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about critical thinking.

Critical thinking is important for making judgments about sources of information and forming your own arguments. It emphasizes a rational, objective, and self-aware approach that can help you to identify credible sources and strengthen your conclusions.

Critical thinking is important in all disciplines and throughout all stages of the research process . The types of evidence used in the sciences and in the humanities may differ, but critical thinking skills are relevant to both.

In academic writing , critical thinking can help you to determine whether a source:

Is free from research bias
Provides evidence to support its research findings
Considers alternative viewpoints

Outside of academia, critical thinking goes hand in hand with information literacy to help you form opinions rationally and engage independently and critically with popular media.

Scribbr Citation Checker New

The AI-powered Citation Checker helps you avoid common mistakes such as:

Missing commas and periods
Incorrect usage of “et al.”
Ampersands (&) in narrative citations
Missing reference entries

chapter 2 towards an understanding of critical thinking

Critical thinking can help you to identify reliable sources of information that you can cite in your research paper . It can also guide your own research methods and inform your own arguments.

Outside of academia, critical thinking can help you to be aware of both your own and others’ biases and assumptions.

Academic examples

However, when you compare the findings of the study with other current research, you determine that the results seem improbable. You analyze the paper again, consulting the sources it cites.

You notice that the research was funded by the pharmaceutical company that created the treatment. Because of this, you view its results skeptically and determine that more independent research is necessary to confirm or refute them. Example: Poor critical thinking in an academic context You’re researching a paper on the impact wireless technology has had on developing countries that previously did not have large-scale communications infrastructure. You read an article that seems to confirm your hypothesis: the impact is mainly positive. Rather than evaluating the research methodology, you accept the findings uncritically.

Nonacademic examples

However, you decide to compare this review article with consumer reviews on a different site. You find that these reviews are not as positive. Some customers have had problems installing the alarm, and some have noted that it activates for no apparent reason.

You revisit the original review article. You notice that the words “sponsored content” appear in small print under the article title. Based on this, you conclude that the review is advertising and is therefore not an unbiased source. Example: Poor critical thinking in a nonacademic context You support a candidate in an upcoming election. You visit an online news site affiliated with their political party and read an article that criticizes their opponent. The article claims that the opponent is inexperienced in politics. You accept this without evidence, because it fits your preconceptions about the opponent.

There is no single way to think critically. How you engage with information will depend on the type of source you’re using and the information you need.

However, you can engage with sources in a systematic and critical way by asking certain questions when you encounter information. Like the CRAAP test , these questions focus on the currency , relevance , authority , accuracy , and purpose of a source of information.

When encountering information, ask:

Who is the author? Are they an expert in their field?
What do they say? Is their argument clear? Can you summarize it?
When did they say this? Is the source current?
Where is the information published? Is it an academic article? Is it peer-reviewed ?
Why did the author publish it? What is their motivation?
How do they make their argument? Is it backed up by evidence? Does it rely on opinion, speculation, or appeals to emotion ? Do they address alternative arguments?

Critical thinking also involves being aware of your own biases, not only those of others. When you make an argument or draw your own conclusions, you can ask similar questions about your own writing:

Am I only considering evidence that supports my preconceptions?
Is my argument expressed clearly and backed up with credible sources?
Would I be convinced by this argument coming from someone else?

If you want to know more about ChatGPT, AI tools , citation , and plagiarism , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

ChatGPT vs human editor
ChatGPT citations
Is ChatGPT trustworthy?
Using ChatGPT for your studies
What is ChatGPT?
Chicago style
Paraphrasing

Plagiarism

Types of plagiarism
Self-plagiarism
Avoiding plagiarism
Academic integrity
Consequences of plagiarism
Common knowledge

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

Critical thinking skills include the ability to:

You can assess information and arguments critically by asking certain questions about the source. You can use the CRAAP test , focusing on the currency , relevance , authority , accuracy , and purpose of a source of information.

Ask questions such as:

Who is the author? Are they an expert?
How do they make their argument? Is it backed up by evidence?

A credible source should pass the CRAAP test and follow these guidelines:

The information should be up to date and current.
The author and publication should be a trusted authority on the subject you are researching.
The sources the author cited should be easy to find, clear, and unbiased.
For a web source, the URL and layout should signify that it is trustworthy.

Information literacy refers to a broad range of skills, including the ability to find, evaluate, and use sources of information effectively.

Being information literate means that you:

Know how to find credible sources
Use relevant sources to inform your research
Understand what constitutes plagiarism
Know how to cite your sources correctly

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search, interpret, and recall information in a way that aligns with our pre-existing values, opinions, or beliefs. It refers to the ability to recollect information best when it amplifies what we already believe. Relatedly, we tend to forget information that contradicts our opinions.

Although selective recall is a component of confirmation bias, it should not be confused with recall bias.

On the other hand, recall bias refers to the differences in the ability between study participants to recall past events when self-reporting is used. This difference in accuracy or completeness of recollection is not related to beliefs or opinions. Rather, recall bias relates to other factors, such as the length of the recall period, age, and the characteristics of the disease under investigation.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Ryan, E. (2023, May 31). What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved March 20, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/working-with-sources/critical-thinking/

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

Other students also liked, student guide: information literacy | meaning & examples, what are credible sources & how to spot them | examples, applying the craap test & evaluating sources, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

1 Introduction to Critical Thinking

I. what is c ritical t hinking [1].

Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally about what to do or what to believe. It includes the ability to engage in reflective and independent thinking. Someone with critical thinking skills is able to do the following:

Understand the logical connections between ideas.
Identify, construct, and evaluate arguments.
Detect inconsistencies and common mistakes in reasoning.
Solve problems systematically.
Identify the relevance and importance of ideas.
Reflect on the justification of one’s own beliefs and values.

Critical thinking is not simply a matter of accumulating information. A person with a good memory and who knows a lot of facts is not necessarily good at critical thinking. Critical thinkers are able to deduce consequences from what they know, make use of information to solve problems, and to seek relevant sources of information to inform themselves.

Critical thinking should not be confused with being argumentative or being critical of other people. Although critical thinking skills can be used in exposing fallacies and bad reasoning, critical thinking can also play an important role in cooperative reasoning and constructive tasks. Critical thinking can help us acquire knowledge, improve our theories, and strengthen arguments. We can also use critical thinking to enhance work processes and improve social institutions.

Some people believe that critical thinking hinders creativity because critical thinking requires following the rules of logic and rationality, whereas creativity might require breaking those rules. This is a misconception. Critical thinking is quite compatible with thinking “out-of-the-box,” challenging consensus views, and pursuing less popular approaches. If anything, critical thinking is an essential part of creativity because we need critical thinking to evaluate and improve our creative ideas.

II. The I mportance of C ritical T hinking

Critical thinking is a domain-general thinking skill. The ability to think clearly and rationally is important whatever we choose to do. If you work in education, research, finance, management or the legal profession, then critical thinking is obviously important. But critical thinking skills are not restricted to a particular subject area. Being able to think well and solve problems systematically is an asset for any career.

Critical thinking is very important in the new knowledge economy. The global knowledge economy is driven by information and technology. One has to be able to deal with changes quickly and effectively. The new economy places increasing demands on flexible intellectual skills, and the ability to analyze information and integrate diverse sources of knowledge in solving problems. Good critical thinking promotes such thinking skills, and is very important in the fast-changing workplace.

Critical thinking enhances language and presentation skills. Thinking clearly and systematically can improve the way we express our ideas. In learning how to analyze the logical structure of texts, critical thinking also improves comprehension abilities.

Critical thinking promotes creativity. To come up with a creative solution to a problem involves not just having new ideas. It must also be the case that the new ideas being generated are useful and relevant to the task at hand. Critical thinking plays a crucial role in evaluating new ideas, selecting the best ones and modifying them if necessary.

Critical thinking is crucial for self-reflection. In order to live a meaningful life and to structure our lives accordingly, we need to justify and reflect on our values and decisions. Critical thinking provides the tools for this process of self-evaluation.

Good critical thinking is the foundation of science and democracy. Science requires the critical use of reason in experimentation and theory confirmation. The proper functioning of a liberal democracy requires citizens who can think critically about social issues to inform their judgments about proper governance and to overcome biases and prejudice.

Critical thinking is a metacognitive skill . What this means is that it is a higher-level cognitive skill that involves thinking about thinking. We have to be aware of the good principles of reasoning, and be reflective about our own reasoning. In addition, we often need to make a conscious effort to improve ourselves, avoid biases, and maintain objectivity. This is notoriously hard to do. We are all able to think but to think well often requires a long period of training. The mastery of critical thinking is similar to the mastery of many other skills. There are three important components: theory, practice, and attitude.

III. Improv ing O ur T hinking S kills

If we want to think correctly, we need to follow the correct rules of reasoning. Knowledge of theory includes knowledge of these rules. These are the basic principles of critical thinking, such as the laws of logic, and the methods of scientific reasoning, etc.

Also, it would be useful to know something about what not to do if we want to reason correctly. This means we should have some basic knowledge of the mistakes that people make. First, this requires some knowledge of typical fallacies. Second, psychologists have discovered persistent biases and limitations in human reasoning. An awareness of these empirical findings will alert us to potential problems.

However, merely knowing the principles that distinguish good and bad reasoning is not enough. We might study in the classroom about how to swim, and learn about the basic theory, such as the fact that one should not breathe underwater. But unless we can apply such theoretical knowledge through constant practice, we might not actually be able to swim.

Similarly, to be good at critical thinking skills it is necessary to internalize the theoretical principles so that we can actually apply them in daily life. There are at least two ways to do this. One is to perform lots of quality exercises. These exercises don’t just include practicing in the classroom or receiving tutorials; they also include engaging in discussions and debates with other people in our daily lives, where the principles of critical thinking can be applied. The second method is to think more deeply about the principles that we have acquired. In the human mind, memory and understanding are acquired through making connections between ideas.

Good critical thinking skills require more than just knowledge and practice. Persistent practice can bring about improvements only if one has the right kind of motivation and attitude. The following attitudes are not uncommon, but they are obstacles to critical thinking:

I prefer being given the correct answers rather than figuring them out myself.
I don’t like to think a lot about my decisions as I rely only on gut feelings.
I don’t usually review the mistakes I have made.
I don’t like to be criticized.

To improve our thinking we have to recognize the importance of reflecting on the reasons for belief and action. We should also be willing to engage in debate, break old habits, and deal with linguistic complexities and abstract concepts.

The California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory is a psychological test that is used to measure whether people are disposed to think critically. It measures the seven different thinking habits listed below, and it is useful to ask ourselves to what extent they describe the way we think:

Truth-Seeking—Do you try to understand how things really are? Are you interested in finding out the truth?
Open-Mindedness—How receptive are you to new ideas, even when you do not intuitively agree with them? Do you give new concepts a fair hearing?
Analyticity—Do you try to understand the reasons behind things? Do you act impulsively or do you evaluate the pros and cons of your decisions?
Systematicity—Are you systematic in your thinking? Do you break down a complex problem into parts?
Confidence in Reasoning—Do you always defer to other people? How confident are you in your own judgment? Do you have reasons for your confidence? Do you have a way to evaluate your own thinking?
Inquisitiveness—Are you curious about unfamiliar topics and resolving complicated problems? Will you chase down an answer until you find it?
Maturity of Judgment—Do you jump to conclusions? Do you try to see things from different perspectives? Do you take other people’s experiences into account?

Finally, as mentioned earlier, psychologists have discovered over the years that human reasoning can be easily affected by a variety of cognitive biases. For example, people tend to be over-confident of their abilities and focus too much on evidence that supports their pre-existing opinions. We should be alert to these biases in our attitudes towards our own thinking.

IV. Defining Critical Thinking

There are many different definitions of critical thinking. Here we list some of the well-known ones. You might notice that they all emphasize the importance of clarity and rationality. Here we will look at some well-known definitions in chronological order.

1) Many people trace the importance of critical thinking in education to the early twentieth-century American philosopher John Dewey. But Dewey did not make very extensive use of the term “critical thinking.” Instead, in his book How We Think (1910), he argued for the importance of what he called “reflective thinking”:

…[when] the ground or basis for a belief is deliberately sought and its adequacy to support the belief examined. This process is called reflective thought; it alone is truly educative in value…

Active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends, constitutes reflective thought.

There is however one passage from How We Think where Dewey explicitly uses the term “critical thinking”:

The essence of critical thinking is suspended judgment; and the essence of this suspense is inquiry to determine the nature of the problem before proceeding to attempts at its solution. This, more than any other thing, transforms mere inference into tested inference, suggested conclusions into proof.

2) The Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (1980) is a well-known psychological test of critical thinking ability. The authors of this test define critical thinking as:

…a composite of attitudes, knowledge and skills. This composite includes: (1) attitudes of inquiry that involve an ability to recognize the existence of problems and an acceptance of the general need for evidence in support of what is asserted to be true; (2) knowledge of the nature of valid inferences, abstractions, and generalizations in which the weight or accuracy of different kinds of evidence are logically determined; and (3) skills in employing and applying the above attitudes and knowledge.

3) A very well-known and influential definition of critical thinking comes from philosopher and professor Robert Ennis in his work “A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities” (1987):

Critical thinking is reasonable reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do.

4) The following definition comes from a statement written in 1987 by the philosophers Michael Scriven and Richard Paul for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking (link), an organization promoting critical thinking in the US:

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness. It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue, assumptions, concepts, empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions, implications and consequences, objections from alternative viewpoints, and frame of reference.

The following excerpt from Peter A. Facione’s “Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction” (1990) is quoted from a report written for the American Philosophical Association:

We understand critical thinking to be purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based. CT is essential as a tool of inquiry. As such, CT is a liberating force in education and a powerful resource in one’s personal and civic life. While not synonymous with good thinking, CT is a pervasive and self-rectifying human phenomenon. The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fairminded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit. Thus, educating good critical thinkers means working toward this ideal. It combines developing CT skills with nurturing those dispositions which consistently yield useful insights and which are the basis of a rational and democratic society.

V. Two F eatures of C ritical T hinking

A. how not what .

Critical thinking is concerned not with what you believe, but rather how or why you believe it. Most classes, such as those on biology or chemistry, teach you what to believe about a subject matter. In contrast, critical thinking is not particularly interested in what the world is, in fact, like. Rather, critical thinking will teach you how to form beliefs and how to think. It is interested in the type of reasoning you use when you form your beliefs, and concerns itself with whether you have good reasons to believe what you believe. Therefore, this class isn’t a class on the psychology of reasoning, which brings us to the second important feature of critical thinking.

B. Ought N ot Is ( or Normative N ot Descriptive )

There is a difference between normative and descriptive theories. Descriptive theories, such as those provided by physics, provide a picture of how the world factually behaves and operates. In contrast, normative theories, such as those provided by ethics or political philosophy, provide a picture of how the world should be. Rather than ask question such as why something is the way it is, normative theories ask how something should be. In this course, we will be interested in normative theories that govern our thinking and reasoning. Therefore, we will not be interested in how we actually reason, but rather focus on how we ought to reason.

In the introduction to this course we considered a selection task with cards that must be flipped in order to check the validity of a rule. We noted that many people fail to identify all the cards required to check the rule. This is how people do in fact reason (descriptive). We then noted that you must flip over two cards. This is how people ought to reason (normative).

Section I-IV are taken from http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/ and are in use under the creative commons license. Some modifications have been made to the original content. ↵

Share This Book

Register or Log In
0) { document.location='/search/'+document.getElementById('quicksearch').value.trim().toLowerCase(); }">

Chapter 2 Summary

All Hail the Self

From the standpoint of critical thinking, we have taken self-centered thinking too far when we accept claims for no good reason. In the service of our almighty selves, we distort our judgment and raise our risk of error, which is ironically a risk to ourselves.
Self-interested thinking takes several forms. We may decide to accept a claim solely on the grounds that it advances, or coincides with, our interests . Or we may be tempted to accept claims for no other reason than that they help us save face .
To overcome the excessive influence of your own needs, watch out when things get very personal, be alert to ways that critical thinking can be undermined, and ensure that nothing has been left out.

All Hail My Group

Group pressure to accept a statement or act in a certain way has several overlapping subtypes. When the pressure to conform comes from your peers, it’s called peer pressure. When the pressure comes from the mere popularity of a belief, it’s known as an appeal to popularity. When the pressure comes from what groups of people do or how they behave, it’s called an appeal to common practice. In all cases, the lapse in critical thinking comes from the use of group pressure alone to try to support a claim.
The assumption that your group is better than others is at the heart of prejudice, a negative or adverse belief about others without sufficient reasons. It is dislike or intolerance based on no good evidence.
We all have certain beliefs not because we have thought critically about them but because our parents raised us to believe them or because the conceptual push and pull of our social or political group has instilled them in us. That is, we may believe what we believe—and assume that our beliefs are better than anyone else’s—merely because we were born into a family or society that maintains such views. This endemic pressure can lead to wishful thinking, rationalization, self-deception, and—worst of all—violence. Group thinking of this kind can also easily generate narrow-mindedness, resistance to change, and stereotyping (classifying individuals into groups according to oversimplified or prejudiced attitudes or opinions).
For critical thinkers, the only way to counter the outsize influence of the group is to achieve an impartial stance and proportion your belief to the strength of reasons. Both actions take courage, dedication, and practice.

The Toughest Mental Obstacles

In its most general sense, evidence is something that makes a statement more likely to be true. It does not mean “something that I feel or perceive is true.” The mere fact that you strongly believe a statement, or have a friend who strongly believes it, or have read Twitter posts by people swearing that it’s true, or hear from your favorite radio or TV personality that it’s so—such things do not, by themselves, constitute evidence.
An all-too-human tendency is to try to deny or resist evidence that flies in the face of our cherished beliefs. We may deny evidence, or ignore it, or reinterpret it so it fits better with our prejudices. Denying evidence may be psychologically comforting (for a while, anyway), but it thwarts any search for knowledge and stunts our understanding.
We often not only resist conflicting evidence, but also seek out and use only confirming evidence—a phenomenon known as confirmation bias. When we go out of our way to find only confirming evidence, we can end up accepting a claim that’s not true, seeing relationships that aren’t there, and finding confirmation that isn’t
Motivated reasoning is reasoning for the purpose of supporting a predetermined conclusion, not to uncover the truth. It’s confirmation bias in overdrive. It’s a way of piling up evidence that agrees with our preferred conclusion and of downplaying, ignoring, or devaluing evidence that supports the contrary view. We set out to prove our point, not to determine whether the point is justified.
We commit the availability error when we rely on evidence not because it’s trustworthy but because it’s memorable or striking—that is, psychologically available. In such cases, we put stock in evidence that’s psychologically impressive or persuasive, not necessarily logically acceptable.

Your Brain on Social Media

The mere exposure effect is the idea that just being exposed repeatedly to words or images (even without registering them consciously) can induce a favorable or comfortable feeling toward them, whether or not there is any good reason for doing so.
The illusion-of-truth effect is a phenomenon in which you come to believe that a false claim is actually true simply because it is familiar. But, of course, familiarity is no guarantee of truth. The worrisome part is that the illusory truth effect can happen even when we know better—that is, even when we have the opportunity to draw on our store of knowledge.
The false consensus effect is the tendency to overestimate the degree to which other people share our opinions, attitudes, and preferences. We like to think that most people agree with us (on a single issue or all issues), believe what we believe, have the same values, and look at the world the same way we do. The problem is that we are often wrong about how widely our beliefs and attitudes are shared by others.
The Dunning–Kruger effect is the phenomenon of being ignorant of how ignorant we are. The Dunning–Kruger effect is made worse by the tendency of many to believe that because they know a little something about a subject, they are experts; because they have read a book or a few Internet pages on a topic, they are as much an expert as any Ph.D.

Philosophical Obstacles

Subjective relativism is the view that truth depends solely on what someone believes—a notion that may make critical thinking look superfluous. But subjective relativism leads to some strange consequences. For example, if the doctrine were true, each of us would be infallible. Also, subjective relativism has a logical problem—it’s self-defeating. Its truth implies its falsity. There are no good reasons to accept this form of relativism.
Social relativism is the view that truth is relative to societies—a claim that would also seem to make critical thinking unnecessary. But this notion is undermined by the same kinds of problems that plague subjective relativism.
Philosophical skepticism is the doctrine that we know much less than we think we do. One form of philosophical skepticism says that we cannot know anything unless the belief is beyond all possible doubt. But this is not a plausible criterion for knowledge. To be knowledge, claims need not be beyond all possible doubt, but beyond all reasonable doubt.

Select your Country

Chapter 2 Becoming a Critical Reader

2.2 understanding how critical thinking works, learning objectives.

Learn how and why critical thinking works.
Understand the creative and constructive elements of critical thinking.
Add to the list of productive questions that can be asked about texts.

“Critical thinking” has been a common phrase in education for more than a quarter century, but it can be a slippery concept to define. Perhaps because “critical” is an adjective with certain negative connotations (e.g., “You don’t have to be so critical” or “Everybody’s a critic”), people sometimes think that critical thinking is a fault-finding exercise or that there is nothing creative about it. But defined fairly and fully, critical thinking is in fact a precondition to creativity.

Critical thinkers consider multiple sides of an issue before choosing sides. They tend to ask questions instead of accepting everything they hear or read, and they know that answers often only open up more lines of inquiry. Critical thinkers read between the lines instead of reading only at face value, and they also develop a keen sense of how their own minds operate. Critical thinkers recognize that much of the information they read and hear is a combination of fact and opinion. To be successful in college, you will have to learn to differentiate between fact and opinion through logic, questioning, and verification.

Facts are pieces of information that you can verify as true. Opinions are personal views or beliefs that may have very little grounding in fact. Since opinions are often put forth as if they were facts, they can be challenging to recognize as opinions. That’s where critical thinkers tend to keep questioning. It is not enough to question only the obviously opinionated material in a text. Critical thinkers develop a habit of subjecting all textual statements to a whole constellation of questions about the speaker (or writer), the intended audience , the statement itself, and the relevance of it.

Considering the speaker:

Who is making this the statement?
What are the speaker’s affiliations?
How does the speaker know the truth of this statement?

Considering the audience:

Who is being addressed with this statement?
What could connect the speaker of the statement with the intended audience?
Would all people consider this statement to be true?

Considering the statement:

Can this statement be proven?
Will this statement also be true tomorrow or next year?
If this statement is true, what else might be true?
Are there other possible interpretations of the facts behind this statement?

Considering relevance:

What difference does this statement make?
Who cares (and who should care)?
So what? What now? What’s next?

Writers naturally write with some basic assumptions. Without a starting point, a writer would have no way to begin writing. As a reader, you have to be able to identify the assumptions a writer makes and then judge whether or not those assumptions need to be challenged or questioned. As an active reader , you must acknowledge that both writers and readers make assumptions as they negotiate the meaning of any text. A good process for uncovering assumptions is to try to think backward from the text. Get into the habit of asking yourself, “In order to make this given statement, what else must this writer also believe?”

Whether you recognize it or not, you also have biases and preconceptions on which you base many decisions. These biases and preconceptions form a screen or a lens through which you see your world. Biases and preconceptions are developed out of your life’s experiences and influences. As a critical thinker who considers all sides of an issue, you have to identify your personal positions and subject them to scrutiny.

Just as you must uncover assumptions—those of the writer as well as your own as a reader—to truly capture what you are reading, you must also examine the assumptions that form the foundation of your writing. And you must be prepared to do so throughout the writing process; such self-questioning can, in fact, be a powerful strategy for revision (as you’ll see in more detail in Chapter 8 “Revising,” Section 8.1 “Reviewing for Purpose” ).

Key Takeaways

Far from being a negative or destructive activity, critical thinking is actually the foundation of creative, constructive thinking.
Critical thinkers consider multiple sides of issues, before arriving at a judgment. They must carefully consider the source, the audience, and the relevance of any statement, making a special effort to distinguish fact from opinion in the statement itself.
Biases and preconceptions are ideas based on life experiences and are common components of most everything you say, hear, or read.
A public service announcement (PSA) campaign (Ad Council)
A “This I Believe” radio essay (This I Believe)
A television ad spot from a political campaign (The Living Room Candidate)
An entry in one of the debates on a “big question” (Big Questions Essay Series)
Use those same questions for a reading from one of your other classes (even a chapter from a textbook) or a reading in your composition class assigned by your instructor.
Go to the Smithsonian Institution (SIRIS) site in the Note 2.5 “Gallery of Web-Based Texts” and click on the Search Collections tab. Use the search phrase “personal hygiene advertisements” and then choose two of the ads that appear in the archive after you’ve browsed the dozens of hits. Apply this section’s questions to two ads you’ve chosen. Then get to know the search engine on the SIRIS site a little better by trying out a few search phrases of your own on topics of interest to you.
Writers Handbook. Authored by : Anonymous. Provided by : Anonymous. Located at : http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/writers-handbook/ . License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike

2.2 Overcoming Cognitive Biases and Engaging in Critical Reflection

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Label the conditions that make critical thinking possible.
Classify and describe cognitive biases.
Apply critical reflection strategies to resist cognitive biases.

To resist the potential pitfalls of cognitive biases, we have taken some time to recognize why we fall prey to them. Now we need to understand how to resist easy, automatic, and error-prone thinking in favor of more reflective, critical thinking.

Critical Reflection and Metacognition

To promote good critical thinking, put yourself in a frame of mind that allows critical reflection. Recall from the previous section that rational thinking requires effort and takes longer. However, it will likely result in more accurate thinking and decision-making. As a result, reflective thought can be a valuable tool in correcting cognitive biases. The critical aspect of critical reflection involves a willingness to be skeptical of your own beliefs, your gut reactions, and your intuitions. Additionally, the critical aspect engages in a more analytic approach to the problem or situation you are considering. You should assess the facts, consider the evidence, try to employ logic, and resist the quick, immediate, and likely conclusion you want to draw. By reflecting critically on your own thinking, you can become aware of the natural tendency for your mind to slide into mental shortcuts.

This process of critical reflection is often called metacognition in the literature of pedagogy and psychology. Metacognition means thinking about thinking and involves the kind of self-awareness that engages higher-order thinking skills. Cognition, or the way we typically engage with the world around us, is first-order thinking, while metacognition is higher-order thinking. From a metacognitive frame, we can critically assess our thought process, become skeptical of our gut reactions and intuitions, and reconsider our cognitive tendencies and biases.

To improve metacognition and critical reflection, we need to encourage the kind of self-aware, conscious, and effortful attention that may feel unnatural and may be tiring. Typical activities associated with metacognition include checking, planning, selecting, inferring, self-interrogating, interpreting an ongoing experience, and making judgments about what one does and does not know (Hackner, Dunlosky, and Graesser 1998). By practicing metacognitive behaviors, you are preparing yourself to engage in the kind of rational, abstract thought that will be required for philosophy.

Good study habits, including managing your workspace, giving yourself plenty of time, and working through a checklist, can promote metacognition. When you feel stressed out or pressed for time, you are more likely to make quick decisions that lead to error. Stress and lack of time also discourage critical reflection because they rob your brain of the resources necessary to engage in rational, attention-filled thought. By contrast, when you relax and give yourself time to think through problems, you will be clearer, more thoughtful, and less likely to rush to the first conclusion that leaps to mind. Similarly, background noise, distracting activity, and interruptions will prevent you from paying attention. You can use this checklist to try to encourage metacognition when you study:

Check your work.
Plan ahead.
Select the most useful material.
Infer from your past grades to focus on what you need to study.
Ask yourself how well you understand the concepts.
Check your weaknesses.
Assess whether you are following the arguments and claims you are working on.

Cognitive Biases

In this section, we will examine some of the most common cognitive biases so that you can be aware of traps in thought that can lead you astray. Cognitive biases are closely related to informal fallacies. Both fallacies and biases provide examples of the ways we make errors in reasoning.

Connections

See the chapter on logic and reasoning for an in-depth exploration of informal fallacies.

Watch the video to orient yourself before reading the text that follows.

Cognitive Biases 101, with Peter Bauman

Confirmation bias.

One of the most common cognitive biases is confirmation bias , which is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information that confirms or supports your prior beliefs. Like all cognitive biases, confirmation bias serves an important function. For instance, one of the most reliable forms of confirmation bias is the belief in our shared reality. Suppose it is raining. When you first hear the patter of raindrops on your roof or window, you may think it is raining. You then look for additional signs to confirm your conclusion, and when you look out the window, you see rain falling and puddles of water accumulating. Most likely, you will not be looking for irrelevant or contradictory information. You will be looking for information that confirms your belief that it is raining. Thus, you can see how confirmation bias—based on the idea that the world does not change dramatically over time—is an important tool for navigating in our environment.

Unfortunately, as with most heuristics, we tend to apply this sort of thinking inappropriately. One example that has recently received a lot of attention is the way in which confirmation bias has increased political polarization. When searching for information on the internet about an event or topic, most people look for information that confirms their prior beliefs rather than what undercuts them. The pervasive presence of social media in our lives is exacerbating the effects of confirmation bias since the computer algorithms used by social media platforms steer people toward content that reinforces their current beliefs and predispositions. These multimedia tools are especially problematic when our beliefs are incorrect (for example, they contradict scientific knowledge) or antisocial (for example, they support violent or illegal behavior). Thus, social media and the internet have created a situation in which confirmation bias can be “turbocharged” in ways that are destructive for society.

Confirmation bias is a result of the brain’s limited ability to process information. Peter Wason (1960) conducted early experiments identifying this kind of bias. He asked subjects to identify the rule that applies to a sequence of numbers—for instance, 2, 4, 8. Subjects were told to generate examples to test their hypothesis. What he found is that once a subject settled on a particular hypothesis, they were much more likely to select examples that confirmed their hypothesis rather than negated it. As a result, they were unable to identify the real rule (any ascending sequence of numbers) and failed to “falsify” their initial assumptions. Falsification is an important tool in the scientist’s toolkit when they are testing hypotheses and is an effective way to avoid confirmation bias.

In philosophy, you will be presented with different arguments on issues, such as the nature of the mind or the best way to act in a given situation. You should take your time to reason through these issues carefully and consider alternative views. What you believe to be the case may be right, but you may also fall into the trap of confirmation bias, seeing confirming evidence as better and more convincing than evidence that calls your beliefs into question.

Anchoring Bias

Confirmation bias is closely related to another bias known as anchoring. Anchoring bias refers to our tendency to rely on initial values, prices, or quantities when estimating the actual value, price, or quantity of something. If you are presented with a quantity, even if that number is clearly arbitrary, you will have a hard discounting it in your subsequent calculations; the initial value “anchors” subsequent estimates. For instance, Tversky and Kahneman (1974) reported an experiment in which subjects were asked to estimate the number of African nations in the United Nations. First, the experimenters spun a wheel of fortune in front of the subjects that produced a random number between 0 and 100. Let’s say the wheel landed on 79. Subjects were asked whether the number of nations was higher or lower than the random number. Subjects were then asked to estimate the real number of nations. Even though the initial anchoring value was random, people in the study found it difficult to deviate far from that number. For subjects receiving an initial value of 10, the median estimate of nations was 25, while for subjects receiving an initial value of 65, the median estimate was 45.

In the same paper, Tversky and Kahneman described the way that anchoring bias interferes with statistical reasoning. In a number of scenarios, subjects made irrational judgments about statistics because of the way the question was phrased (i.e., they were tricked when an anchor was inserted into the question). Instead of expending the cognitive energy needed to solve the statistical problem, subjects were much more likely to “go with their gut,” or think intuitively. That type of reasoning generates anchoring bias. When you do philosophy, you will be confronted with some formal and abstract problems that will challenge you to engage in thinking that feels difficult and unnatural. Resist the urge to latch on to the first thought that jumps into your head, and try to think the problem through with all the cognitive resources at your disposal.

Availability Heuristic

The availability heuristic refers to the tendency to evaluate new information based on the most recent or most easily recalled examples. The availability heuristic occurs when people take easily remembered instances as being more representative than they objectively are (i.e., based on statistical probabilities). In very simple situations, the availability of instances is a good guide to judgments. Suppose you are wondering whether you should plan for rain. It may make sense to anticipate rain if it has been raining a lot in the last few days since weather patterns tend to linger in most climates. More generally, scenarios that are well-known to us, dramatic, recent, or easy to imagine are more available for retrieval from memory. Therefore, if we easily remember an instance or scenario, we may incorrectly think that the chances are high that the scenario will be repeated. For instance, people in the United States estimate the probability of dying by violent crime or terrorism much more highly than they ought to. In fact, these are extremely rare occurrences compared to death by heart disease, cancer, or car accidents. But stories of violent crime and terrorism are prominent in the news media and fiction. Because these vivid stories are dramatic and easily recalled, we have a skewed view of how frequently violent crime occurs.

Another more loosely defined category of cognitive bias is the tendency for human beings to align themselves with groups with whom they share values and practices. The tendency toward tribalism is an evolutionary advantage for social creatures like human beings. By forming groups to share knowledge and distribute work, we are much more likely to survive. Not surprisingly, human beings with pro-social behaviors persist in the population at higher rates than human beings with antisocial tendencies. Pro-social behaviors, however, go beyond wanting to communicate and align ourselves with other human beings; we also tend to see outsiders as a threat. As a result, tribalistic tendencies both reinforce allegiances among in-group members and increase animosity toward out-group members.

Tribal thinking makes it hard for us to objectively evaluate information that either aligns with or contradicts the beliefs held by our group or tribe. This effect can be demonstrated even when in-group membership is not real or is based on some superficial feature of the person—for instance, the way they look or an article of clothing they are wearing. A related bias is called the bandwagon fallacy . The bandwagon fallacy can lead you to conclude that you ought to do something or believe something because many other people do or believe the same thing. While other people can provide guidance, they are not always reliable. Furthermore, just because many people believe something doesn’t make it true. Watch the video below to improve your “tribal literacy” and understand the dangers of this type of thinking.

The Dangers of Tribalism, Kevin deLaplante

Sunk cost fallacy.

Sunk costs refer to the time, energy, money, or other costs that have been paid in the past. These costs are “sunk” because they cannot be recovered. The sunk cost fallacy is thinking that attaches a value to things in which you have already invested resources that is greater than the value those things have today. Human beings have a natural tendency to hang on to whatever they invest in and are loath to give something up even after it has been proven to be a liability. For example, a person may have sunk a lot of money into a business over time, and the business may clearly be failing. Nonetheless, the businessperson will be reluctant to close shop or sell the business because of the time, money, and emotional energy they have spent on the venture. This is the behavior of “throwing good money after bad” by continuing to irrationally invest in something that has lost its worth because of emotional attachment to the failed enterprise. People will engage in this kind of behavior in all kinds of situations and may continue a friendship, a job, or a marriage for the same reason—they don’t want to lose their investment even when they are clearly headed for failure and ought to cut their losses.

A similar type of faulty reasoning leads to the gambler’s fallacy , in which a person reasons that future chance events will be more likely if they have not happened recently. For instance, if I flip a coin many times in a row, I may get a string of heads. But even if I flip several heads in a row, that does not make it more likely I will flip tails on the next coin flip. Each coin flip is statistically independent, and there is an equal chance of turning up heads or tails. The gambler, like the reasoner from sunk costs, is tied to the past when they should be reasoning about the present and future.

There are important social and evolutionary purposes for past-looking thinking. Sunk-cost thinking keeps parents engaged in the growth and development of their children after they are born. Sunk-cost thinking builds loyalty and affection among friends and family. More generally, a commitment to sunk costs encourages us to engage in long-term projects, and this type of thinking has the evolutionary purpose of fostering culture and community. Nevertheless, it is important to periodically reevaluate our investments in both people and things.

In recent ethical scholarship, there is some debate about how to assess the sunk costs of moral decisions. Consider the case of war. Just-war theory dictates that wars may be justified in cases where the harm imposed on the adversary is proportional to the good gained by the act of defense or deterrence. It may be that, at the start of the war, those costs seemed proportional. But after the war has dragged on for some time, it may seem that the objective cannot be obtained without a greater quantity of harm than had been initially imagined. Should the evaluation of whether a war is justified estimate the total amount of harm done or prospective harm that will be done going forward (Lazar 2018)? Such questions do not have easy answers.

Table 2.1 summarizes these common cognitive biases.

Think Like a Philosopher

As we have seen, cognitive biases are built into the way human beings process information. They are common to us all, and it takes self-awareness and effort to overcome the tendency to fall back on biases. Consider a time when you have fallen prey to one of the five cognitive biases described above. What were the circumstances? Recall your thought process. Were you aware at the time that your thinking was misguided? What were the consequences of succumbing to that cognitive bias?

Write a short paragraph describing how that cognitive bias allowed you to make a decision you now realize was irrational. Then write a second paragraph describing how, with the benefit of time and distance, you would have thought differently about the incident that triggered the bias. Use the tools of critical reflection and metacognition to improve your approach to this situation. What might have been the consequences of behaving differently? Finally, write a short conclusion describing what lesson you take from reflecting back on this experience. Does it help you understand yourself better? Will you be able to act differently in the future? What steps can you take to avoid cognitive biases in your thinking today?

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-philosophy/pages/1-introduction

Authors: Nathan Smith
Publisher/website: OpenStax
Book title: Introduction to Philosophy
Publication date: Jun 15, 2022
Location: Houston, Texas
Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-philosophy/pages/1-introduction
Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-philosophy/pages/2-2-overcoming-cognitive-biases-and-engaging-in-critical-reflection

© Dec 19, 2023 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking

(10 reviews)

Matthew Van Cleave, Lansing Community College

Publisher: Matthew J. Van Cleave

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by "yusef" Alexander Hayes, Professor, North Shore Community College on 6/9/21

Formal and informal reasoning, argument structure, and fallacies are covered comprehensively, meeting the author's goal of both depth and succinctness. read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

Formal and informal reasoning, argument structure, and fallacies are covered comprehensively, meeting the author's goal of both depth and succinctness.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

The book is accurate.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

While many modern examples are used, and they are helpful, they are not necessarily needed. The usefulness of logical principles and skills have proved themselves, and this text presents them clearly with many examples.

Clarity rating: 5

It is obvious that the author cares about their subject, audience, and students. The text is comprehensible and interesting.

Consistency rating: 5

The format is easy to understand and is consistent in framing.

Modularity rating: 5

This text would be easy to adapt.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

The organization is excellent, my one suggestion would be a concluding chapter.

Interface rating: 5

I accessed the PDF version and it would be easy to work with.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

The writing is excellent.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

This is not an offensive text.

Reviewed by Susan Rottmann, Part-time Lecturer, University of Southern Maine on 3/2/21

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

I reviewed this book for a course titled "Creative and Critical Inquiry into Modern Life." It won't meet all my needs for that course, but I haven't yet found a book that would. I wanted to review this one because it states in the preface that it fits better for a general critical thinking course than for a true logic course. I'm not sure that I'd agree. I have been using Browne and Keeley's "Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking," and I think that book is a better introduction to critical thinking for non-philosophy majors. However, the latter is not open source so I will figure out how to get by without it in the future. Overall, the book seems comprehensive if the subject is logic. The index is on the short-side, but fine. However, one issue for me is that there are no page numbers on the table of contents, which is pretty annoying if you want to locate particular sections.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

I didn't find any errors. In general the book uses great examples. However, they are very much based in the American context, not for an international student audience. Some effort to broaden the chosen examples would make the book more widely applicable.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

I think the book will remain relevant because of the nature of the material that it addresses, however there will be a need to modify the examples in future editions and as the social and political context changes.

Clarity rating: 3

The text is lucid, but I think it would be difficult for introductory-level students who are not philosophy majors. For example, in Browne and Keeley's "Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking," the sub-headings are very accessible, such as "Experts cannot rescue us, despite what they say" or "wishful thinking: perhaps the biggest single speed bump on the road to critical thinking." By contrast, Van Cleave's "Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking" has more subheadings like this: "Using your own paraphrases of premises and conclusions to reconstruct arguments in standard form" or "Propositional logic and the four basic truth functional connectives." If students are prepared very well for the subject, it would work fine, but for students who are newly being introduced to critical thinking, it is rather technical.

It seems to be very consistent in terms of its terminology and framework.

Modularity rating: 4

The book is divided into 4 chapters, each having many sub-chapters. In that sense, it is readily divisible and modular. However, as noted above, there are no page numbers on the table of contents, which would make assigning certain parts rather frustrating. Also, I'm not sure why the book is only four chapter and has so many subheadings (for instance 17 in Chapter 2) and a length of 242 pages. Wouldn't it make more sense to break up the book into shorter chapters? I think this would make it easier to read and to assign in specific blocks to students.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

The organization of the book is fine overall, although I think adding page numbers to the table of contents and breaking it up into more separate chapters would help it to be more easily navigable.

Interface rating: 4

The book is very simply presented. In my opinion it is actually too simple. There are few boxes or diagrams that highlight and explain important points.

The text seems fine grammatically. I didn't notice any errors.

The book is written with an American audience in mind, but I did not notice culturally insensitive or offensive parts.

Overall, this book is not for my course, but I think it could work well in a philosophy course.

Reviewed by Daniel Lee, Assistant Professor of Economics and Leadership, Sweet Briar College on 11/11/19

This textbook is not particularly comprehensive (4 chapters long), but I view that as a benefit. In fact, I recommend it for use outside of traditional logic classes, but rather interdisciplinary classes that evaluate argument read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

To the best of my ability, I regard this content as accurate, error-free, and unbiased

The book is broadly relevant and up-to-date, with a few stray temporal references (sydney olympics, particular presidencies). I don't view these time-dated examples as problematic as the logical underpinnings are still there and easily assessed

Clarity rating: 4

My only pushback on clarity is I didn't find the distinction between argument and explanation particularly helpful/useful/easy to follow. However, this experience may have been unique to my class.

To the best of my ability, I regard this content as internally consistent

I found this text quite modular, and was easily able to integrate other texts into my lessons and disregard certain chapters or sub-sections

The book had a logical and consistent structure, but to the extent that there are only 4 chapters, there isn't much scope for alternative approaches here

No problems with the book's interface

The text is grammatically sound

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

Perhaps the text could have been more universal in its approach. While I didn't find the book insensitive per-se, logic can be tricky here because the point is to evaluate meaningful (non-trivial) arguments, but any argument with that sense of gravity can also be traumatic to students (abortion, death penalty, etc)

No additional comments

Reviewed by Lisa N. Thomas-Smith, Graduate Part-time Instructor, CU Boulder on 7/1/19

The text covers all the relevant technical aspects of introductory logic and critical thinking, and covers them well. A separate glossary would be quite helpful to students. However, the terms are clearly and thoroughly explained within the text,... read more

The content is excellent. The text is thorough and accurate with no errors that I could discern. The terminology and exercises cover the material nicely and without bias.

The text should easily stand the test of time. The exercises are excellent and would be very helpful for students to internalize correct critical thinking practices. Because of the logical arrangement of the text and the many sub-sections, additional material should be very easy to add.

The text is extremely clearly and simply written. I anticipate that a diligent student could learn all of the material in the text with little additional instruction. The examples are relevant and easy to follow.

The text did not confuse terms or use inconsistent terminology, which is very important in a logic text. The discipline often uses multiple terms for the same concept, but this text avoids that trap nicely.

The text is fairly easily divisible. Since there are only four chapters, those chapters include large blocks of information. However, the chapters themselves are very well delineated and could be easily broken up so that parts could be left out or covered in a different order from the text.

The flow of the text is excellent. All of the information is handled solidly in an order that allows the student to build on the information previously covered.

The PDF Table of Contents does not include links or page numbers which would be very helpful for navigation. Other than that, the text was very easy to navigate. All the images, charts, and graphs were very clear

I found no grammatical errors in the text.

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

The text including examples and exercises did not seem to be offensive or insensitive in any specific way. However, the examples included references to black and white people, but few others. Also, the text is very American specific with many examples from and for an American audience. More diversity, especially in the examples, would be appropriate and appreciated.

Reviewed by Leslie Aarons, Associate Professor of Philosophy, CUNY LaGuardia Community College on 5/16/19

This is an excellent introductory (first-year) Logic and Critical Thinking textbook. The book covers the important elementary information, clearly discussing such things as the purpose and basic structure of an argument; the difference between an argument and an explanation; validity; soundness; and the distinctions between an inductive and a deductive argument in accessible terms in the first chapter. It also does a good job introducing and discussing informal fallacies (Chapter 4). The incorporation of opportunities to evaluate real-world arguments is also very effective. Chapter 2 also covers a number of formal methods of evaluating arguments, such as Venn Diagrams and Propositional logic and the four basic truth functional connectives, but to my mind, it is much more thorough in its treatment of Informal Logic and Critical Thinking skills, than it is of formal logic. I also appreciated that Van Cleave’s book includes exercises with answers and an index, but there is no glossary; which I personally do not find detracts from the book's comprehensiveness.

Overall, Van Cleave's book is error-free and unbiased. The language used is accessible and engaging. There were no glaring inaccuracies that I was able to detect.

Van Cleave's Textbook uses relevant, contemporary content that will stand the test of time, at least for the next few years. Although some examples use certain subjects like former President Obama, it does so in a useful manner that inspires the use of critical thinking skills. There are an abundance of examples that inspire students to look at issues from many different political viewpoints, challenging students to practice evaluating arguments, and identifying fallacies. Many of these exercises encourage students to critique issues, and recognize their own inherent reader-biases and challenge their own beliefs--hallmarks of critical thinking.

As mentioned previously, the author has an accessible style that makes the content relatively easy to read and engaging. He also does a suitable job explaining jargon/technical language that is introduced in the textbook.

Van Cleave uses terminology consistently and the chapters flow well. The textbook orients the reader by offering effective introductions to new material, step-by-step explanations of the material, as well as offering clear summaries of each lesson.

This textbook's modularity is really quite good. Its language and structure are not overly convoluted or too-lengthy, making it convenient for individual instructors to adapt the materials to suit their methodological preferences.

The topics in the textbook are presented in a logical and clear fashion. The structure of the chapters are such that it is not necessary to have to follow the chapters in their sequential order, and coverage of material can be adapted to individual instructor's preferences.

The textbook is free of any problematic interface issues. Topics, sections and specific content are accessible and easy to navigate. Overall it is user-friendly.

I did not find any significant grammatical issues with the textbook.

The textbook is not culturally insensitive, making use of a diversity of inclusive examples. Materials are especially effective for first-year critical thinking/logic students.

I intend to adopt Van Cleave's textbook for a Critical Thinking class I am teaching at the Community College level. I believe that it will help me facilitate student-learning, and will be a good resource to build additional classroom activities from the materials it provides.

Reviewed by Jennie Harrop, Chair, Department of Professional Studies, George Fox University on 3/27/18

While the book is admirably comprehensive, its extensive details within a few short chapters may feel overwhelming to students. The author tackles an impressive breadth of concepts in Chapter 1, 2, 3, and 4, which leads to 50-plus-page chapters that are dense with statistical analyses and critical vocabulary. These topics are likely better broached in manageable snippets rather than hefty single chapters.

The ideas addressed in Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking are accurate but at times notably political. While politics are effectively used to exemplify key concepts, some students may be distracted by distinct political leanings.

The terms and definitions included are relevant, but the examples are specific to the current political, cultural, and social climates, which could make the materials seem dated in a few years without intentional and consistent updates.

While the reasoning is accurate, the author tends to complicate rather than simplify -- perhaps in an effort to cover a spectrum of related concepts. Beginning readers are likely to be overwhelmed and under-encouraged by his approach.

Consistency rating: 3

The four chapters are somewhat consistent in their play of definition, explanation, and example, but the structure of each chapter varies according to the concepts covered. In the third chapter, for example, key ideas are divided into sub-topics numbering from 3.1 to 3.10. In the fourth chapter, the sub-divisions are further divided into sub-sections numbered 4.1.1-4.1.5, 4.2.1-4.2.2, and 4.3.1 to 4.3.6. Readers who are working quickly to master new concepts may find themselves mired in similarly numbered subheadings, longing for a grounded concepts on which to hinge other key principles.

Modularity rating: 3

The book's four chapters make it mostly self-referential. The author would do well to beak this text down into additional subsections, easing readers' accessibility.

The content of the book flows logically and well, but the information needs to be better sub-divided within each larger chapter, easing the student experience.

The book's interface is effective, allowing readers to move from one section to the next with a single click. Additional sub-sections would ease this interplay even further.

Grammatical Errors rating: 4

Some minor errors throughout.

For the most part, the book is culturally neutral, avoiding direct cultural references in an effort to remain relevant.

Reviewed by Yoichi Ishida, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Ohio University on 2/1/18

This textbook covers enough topics for a first-year course on logic and critical thinking. Chapter 1 covers the basics as in any standard textbook in this area. Chapter 2 covers propositional logic and categorical logic. In propositional logic, this textbook does not cover suppositional arguments, such as conditional proof and reductio ad absurdum. But other standard argument forms are covered. Chapter 3 covers inductive logic, and here this textbook introduces probability and its relationship with cognitive biases, which are rarely discussed in other textbooks. Chapter 4 introduces common informal fallacies. The answers to all the exercises are given at the end. However, the last set of exercises is in Chapter 3, Section 5. There are no exercises in the rest of the chapter. Chapter 4 has no exercises either. There is index, but no glossary.

The textbook is accurate.

The content of this textbook will not become obsolete soon.

The textbook is written clearly.

The textbook is internally consistent.

The textbook is fairly modular. For example, Chapter 3, together with a few sections from Chapter 1, can be used as a short introduction to inductive logic.

The textbook is well-organized.

There are no interface issues.

I did not find any grammatical errors.

This textbook is relevant to a first semester logic or critical thinking course.

Reviewed by Payal Doctor, Associate Professro, LaGuardia Community College on 2/1/18

This text is a beginner textbook for arguments and propositional logic. It covers the basics of identifying arguments, building arguments, and using basic logic to construct propositions and arguments. It is quite comprehensive for a beginner book, but seems to be a good text for a course that needs a foundation for arguments. There are exercises on creating truth tables and proofs, so it could work as a logic primer in short sessions or with the addition of other course content.

The books is accurate in the information it presents. It does not contain errors and is unbiased. It covers the essential vocabulary clearly and givens ample examples and exercises to ensure the student understands the concepts

The content of the book is up to date and can be easily updated. Some examples are very current for analyzing the argument structure in a speech, but for this sort of text understandable examples are important and the author uses good examples.

The book is clear and easy to read. In particular, this is a good text for community college students who often have difficulty with reading comprehension. The language is straightforward and concepts are well explained.

The book is consistent in terminology, formatting, and examples. It flows well from one topic to the next, but it is also possible to jump around the text without loosing the voice of the text.

The books is broken down into sub units that make it easy to assign short blocks of content at a time. Later in the text, it does refer to a few concepts that appear early in that text, but these are all basic concepts that must be used to create a clear and understandable text. No sections are too long and each section stays on topic and relates the topic to those that have come before when necessary.

The flow of the text is logical and clear. It begins with the basic building blocks of arguments, and practice identifying more and more complex arguments is offered. Each chapter builds up from the previous chapter in introducing propositional logic, truth tables, and logical arguments. A select number of fallacies are presented at the end of the text, but these are related to topics that were presented before, so it makes sense to have these last.

The text is free if interface issues. I used the PDF and it worked fine on various devices without loosing formatting.

1. The book contains no grammatical errors.

The text is culturally sensitive, but examples used are a bit odd and may be objectionable to some students. For instance, President Obama's speech on Syria is used to evaluate an extended argument. This is an excellent example and it is explained well, but some who disagree with Obama's policies may have trouble moving beyond their own politics. However, other examples look at issues from all political viewpoints and ask students to evaluate the argument, fallacy, etc. and work towards looking past their own beliefs. Overall this book does use a variety of examples that most students can understand and evaluate.

My favorite part of this book is that it seems to be written for community college students. My students have trouble understanding readings in the New York Times, so it is nice to see a logic and critical thinking text use real language that students can understand and follow without the constant need of a dictionary.

Reviewed by Rebecca Owen, Adjunct Professor, Writing, Chemeketa Community College on 6/20/17

This textbook is quite thorough--there are conversational explanations of argument structure and logic. I think students will be happy with the conversational style this author employs. Also, there are many examples and exercises using current events, funny scenarios, or other interesting ways to evaluate argument structure and validity. The third section, which deals with logical fallacies, is very clear and comprehensive. My only critique of the material included in the book is that the middle section may be a bit dense and math-oriented for learners who appreciate the more informal, informative style of the first and third section. Also, the book ends rather abruptly--it moves from a description of a logical fallacy to the answers for the exercises earlier in the text.

The content is very reader-friendly, and the author writes with authority and clarity throughout the text. There are a few surface-level typos (Starbuck's instead of Starbucks, etc.). None of these small errors detract from the quality of the content, though.

One thing I really liked about this text was the author's wide variety of examples. To demonstrate different facets of logic, he used examples from current media, movies, literature, and many other concepts that students would recognize from their daily lives. The exercises in this text also included these types of pop-culture references, and I think students will enjoy the familiarity--as well as being able to see the logical structures behind these types of references. I don't think the text will need to be updated to reflect new instances and occurrences; the author did a fine job at picking examples that are relatively timeless. As far as the subject matter itself, I don't think it will become obsolete any time soon.

The author writes in a very conversational, easy-to-read manner. The examples used are quite helpful. The third section on logical fallacies is quite easy to read, follow, and understand. A student in an argument writing class could benefit from this section of the book. The middle section is less clear, though. A student learning about the basics of logic might have a hard time digesting all of the information contained in chapter two. This material might be better in two separate chapters. I think the author loses the balance of a conversational, helpful tone and focuses too heavily on equations.

Consistency rating: 4

Terminology in this book is quite consistent--the key words are highlighted in bold. Chapters 1 and 3 follow a similar organizational pattern, but chapter 2 is where the material becomes more dense and equation-heavy. I also would have liked a closing passage--something to indicate to the reader that we've reached the end of the chapter as well as the book.

I liked the overall structure of this book. If I'm teaching an argumentative writing class, I could easily point the students to the chapters where they can identify and practice identifying fallacies, for instance. The opening chapter is clear in defining the necessary terms, and it gives the students an understanding of the toolbox available to them in assessing and evaluating arguments. Even though I found the middle section to be dense, smaller portions could be assigned.

The author does a fine job connecting each defined term to the next. He provides examples of how each defined term works in a sentence or in an argument, and then he provides practice activities for students to try. The answers for each question are listed in the final pages of the book. The middle section feels like the heaviest part of the whole book--it would take the longest time for a student to digest if assigned the whole chapter. Even though this middle section is a bit heavy, it does fit the overall structure and flow of the book. New material builds on previous chapters and sub-chapters. It ends abruptly--I didn't realize that it had ended, and all of a sudden I found myself in the answer section for those earlier exercises.

The simple layout is quite helpful! There is nothing distracting, image-wise, in this text. The table of contents is clearly arranged, and each topic is easy to find.

Tiny edits could be made (Starbuck's/Starbucks, for one). Otherwise, it is free of distracting grammatical errors.

This text is quite culturally relevant. For instance, there is one example that mentions the rumors of Barack Obama's birthplace as somewhere other than the United States. This example is used to explain how to analyze an argument for validity. The more "sensational" examples (like the Obama one above) are helpful in showing argument structure, and they can also help students see how rumors like this might gain traction--as well as help to show students how to debunk them with their newfound understanding of argument and logic.

The writing style is excellent for the subject matter, especially in the third section explaining logical fallacies. Thank you for the opportunity to read and review this text!

Reviewed by Laurel Panser, Instructor, Riverland Community College on 6/20/17

This is a review of Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking, an open source book version 1.4 by Matthew Van Cleave. The comparison book used was Patrick J. Hurley’s A Concise Introduction to Logic 12th Edition published by Cengage as well as... read more

Competing with Hurley is difficult with respect to comprehensiveness. For example, Van Cleave’s book is comprehensive to the extent that it probably covers at least two-thirds or more of what is dealt with in most introductory, one-semester logic courses. Van Cleave’s chapter 1 provides an overview of argumentation including discerning non-arguments from arguments, premises versus conclusions, deductive from inductive arguments, validity, soundness and more. Much of Van Cleave’s chapter 1 parallel’s Hurley’s chapter 1. Hurley’s chapter 3 regarding informal fallacies is comprehensive while Van Cleave’s chapter 4 on this topic is less extensive. Categorical propositions are a topic in Van Cleave’s chapter 2; Hurley’s chapters 4 and 5 provide more instruction on this, however. Propositional logic is another topic in Van Cleave’s chapter 2; Hurley’s chapters 6 and 7 provide more information on this, though. Van Cleave did discuss messy issues of language meaning briefly in his chapter 1; that is the topic of Hurley’s chapter 2.

Van Cleave’s book includes exercises with answers and an index. A glossary was not included.

Reviews of open source textbooks typically include criteria besides comprehensiveness. These include comments on accuracy of the information, whether the book will become obsolete soon, jargon-free clarity to the extent that is possible, organization, navigation ease, freedom from grammar errors and cultural relevance; Van Cleave’s book is fine in all of these areas. Further criteria for open source books includes modularity and consistency of terminology. Modularity is defined as including blocks of learning material that are easy to assign to students. Hurley’s book has a greater degree of modularity than Van Cleave’s textbook. The prose Van Cleave used is consistent.

Van Cleave’s book will not become obsolete soon.

Van Cleave’s book has accessible prose.

Van Cleave used terminology consistently.

Van Cleave’s book has a reasonable degree of modularity.

Van Cleave’s book is organized. The structure and flow of his book is fine.

Problems with navigation are not present.

Grammar problems were not present.

Van Cleave’s book is culturally relevant.

Van Cleave’s book is appropriate for some first semester logic courses.

Chapter 1: Reconstructing and analyzing arguments

1.1 What is an argument?
1.2 Identifying arguments
1.3 Arguments vs. explanations
1.4 More complex argument structures
1.5 Using your own paraphrases of premises and conclusions to reconstruct arguments in standard form
1.6 Validity
1.7 Soundness
1.8 Deductive vs. inductive arguments
1.9 Arguments with missing premises
1.10 Assuring, guarding, and discounting
1.11 Evaluative language
1.12 Evaluating a real-life argument

Chapter 2: Formal methods of evaluating arguments

2.1 What is a formal method of evaluation and why do we need them?
2.2 Propositional logic and the four basic truth functional connectives
2.3 Negation and disjunction
2.4 Using parentheses to translate complex sentences
2.5 “Not both” and “neither nor”
2.6 The truth table test of validity
2.7 Conditionals
2.8 “Unless”
2.9 Material equivalence
2.10 Tautologies, contradictions, and contingent statements
2.11 Proofs and the 8 valid forms of inference
2.12 How to construct proofs
2.13 Short review of propositional logic
2.14 Categorical logic
2.15 The Venn test of validity for immediate categorical inferences
2.16 Universal statements and existential commitment
2.17 Venn validity for categorical syllogisms

Chapter 3: Evaluating inductive arguments and probabilistic and statistical fallacies

3.1 Inductive arguments and statistical generalizations
3.2 Inference to the best explanation and the seven explanatory virtues
3.3 Analogical arguments
3.4 Causal arguments
3.5 Probability
3.6 The conjunction fallacy
3.7 The base rate fallacy
3.8 The small numbers fallacy
3.9 Regression to the mean fallacy
3.10 Gambler's fallacy

Chapter 4: Informal fallacies

4.1 Formal vs. informal fallacies
4.1.1 Composition fallacy
4.1.2 Division fallacy
4.1.3 Begging the question fallacy
4.1.4 False dichotomy
4.1.5 Equivocation
4.2 Slippery slope fallacies
4.2.1 Conceptual slippery slope
4.2.2 Causal slippery slope
4.3 Fallacies of relevance
4.3.1 Ad hominem
4.3.2 Straw man
4.3.3 Tu quoque
4.3.4 Genetic
4.3.5 Appeal to consequences
4.3.6 Appeal to authority

Answers to exercises Glossary/Index

Ancillary Material

About the book.

This is an introductory textbook in logic and critical thinking. The goal of the textbook is to provide the reader with a set of tools and skills that will enable them to identify and evaluate arguments. The book is intended for an introductory course that covers both formal and informal logic. As such, it is not a formal logic textbook, but is closer to what one would find marketed as a “critical thinking textbook.”

About the Contributors

Matthew Van Cleave , PhD, Philosophy, University of Cincinnati, 2007. VAP at Concordia College (Moorhead), 2008-2012. Assistant Professor at Lansing Community College, 2012-2016. Professor at Lansing Community College, 2016-

Contribute to this Page

school Campus Bookshelves
menu_book Bookshelves
perm_media Learning Objects
login Login
how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
hub Instructor Commons
Download Page (PDF)
Download Full Book (PDF)
Periodic Table
Physics Constants
Scientific Calculator
Reference & Cite
Tools expand_more
Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

1: Introduction to Critical Thinking, Reasoning, and Logic

Last updated
Save as PDF
Page ID 29580

Golden West College via NGE Far Press

What is thinking? It may seem strange to begin a logic textbook with this question. ‘Thinking’ is perhaps the most intimate and personal thing that people do. Yet the more you ‘think’ about thinking, the more mysterious it can appear. It is the sort of thing that one intuitively or naturally understands, and yet cannot describe to others without great difficulty. Many people believe that logic is very abstract, dispassionate, complicated, and even cold. But in fact the study of logic is nothing more intimidating or obscure than this: the study of good thinking.

1.1: Prelude to Chapter
1.2: Introduction and Thought Experiments- The Trolley Problem
1.3: Truth and Its Role in Argumentation - Certainty, Probability, and Monty Hall Only certain sorts of sentences can be used in arguments. We call these sentences propositions, statements or claims.
1.4: Distinction of Proof from Verification; Our Biases and the Forer Effect
1.5: The Scientific Method The procedure that scientists use is also a standard form of argument. Its conclusions only give you the likelihood or the probability that something is true (if your theory or hypothesis is confirmed), and not the certainty that it’s true. But when it is done correctly, the conclusions it reaches are very well-grounded in experimental evidence.
1.6: Diagramming Thoughts and Arguments - Analyzing News Media
1.7: Creating a Philosophical Outline

Chapter Two: Characterizing Critical Thinking

I. Introduction

A book devoted to a specific subject should supply a general characterization of that subject, and the earlier, the better. In Chapter One, I made strides toward this goal by extracting a provisional formulation of critical thinking from cases in which it was clearly on display. In this chapter, I intend to fill out this characterization more completely and thereby discharge my obligation. I will do so, however, by approaching critical thinking from a different perspective, viz., the perspective of theoretical treatments it has been given in philosophy and education.

I begin by reflecting on the specific words in our term, 'critical' and 'thinking'. I then analyze a sampling of definitions on offer for 'critical thinking'. The goal of this analysis is two-fold: first, it will tie the approach we adopt in this handbook into the literature on critical thinking, enabling those who wish to explore other treatments of the subject to get their bearings; second, it will yield a more detailed description of the subject matter of this handbook, a description that will give shape to the discussion in subsequent chapters. After calling attention to two central assumptions that underpin our characterization of critical thinking, I close this chapter by emphasizing once more the value of our subject as we have understood it.

II. Critical Thinking as Subject Matter

One way to get at critical thinking is to find it out in the world of our experience. This is done in two stages: (a) locate episodes where we intuitively recognize its presence, and (b) detail the aspects of these cases that support our intuitive reactions. We adopt this grassroots, bottom up approach in Chapter One, and the result is this formulation: critical thinking is thinking that involves the application of standards and criteria in evaluating options, both practical and theoretical. There is much to be said for this approach. For one thing, it allows us to focus on those cognitive traits that incline us to value this type of thinking in the first place; for another, it does justice to the feeling we may have that while we may be unable to define critical thinking, we definitely know it when we see it. However, without guidance, this approach can lead to misplaced emphasis and skewed results, as when a newcomer to the arts concludes that the gallery intends to feature all of the fancy frames. One way to avoid this in our case is to check our formulation against other available formulations of critical thinking. On this top down approach, critical thinking is described in advance on the basis of certain assumptions about thinking and criticism, and the result is then confirmed or disconfirmed on the basis of how well it works when applied to particular cases. In this chapter, we adopt the top down approach. As we will see, our provisional formulation from Chapter One will be supported by considerations drawn from theoretical treatments of critical thinking.

II.1 Terminological Analysis

When first introduced to the term 'critical thinking', people often think of unpleasant episodes from their past in which they were on the receiving end of negative criticism. While it is true that remonstrances from mom and "feedback" from the boss can demonstrate critical thinking, these are not the only or the best illustrations of critical thinking. It is a mistake to tie critical thinking too closely to destructive criticism of others, a mistake grounded in misinterpretation of the word 'critical' in our term. This mistake reveals the need to fix the meaning of the two words that our term comprises.

First, consider 'thinking.' The meaning of this is obvious enough, it would seem--thinking is just what happens when we let our mind do its thing. It is what we do when we deliberate, reflect, ponder, explore, interpret, create, consider, and engage in a host of additional cognitive processes. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary ( www.webster.com ) supplies us with this suitably general definition: "to form or have in mind." Fortunately, we needn't spend too much time with this term--any exercise of our cognitive faculties that could involve evaluation is germane to our investigation. Before leaving this word, however, it is worth notion that we will concentrate in what follows on conscious thinking--i.e., thinking of which we are aware. While it is hoped that the skills which constitute critical thinking will become habitual, influencing us even at a sub-conscious level, this must be a consequence of the sustained conscious application of those skills.

Of the two component words, 'critical' is the one requiring more attention, as it is the one that misleads. Once again, we can turn to the dictionary for a relevant sense of 'critical': "exercising or involving careful judgment or judicious evaluation." In this sense, it is closely related to the Greek word 'kriterion,' or standard for judging. As defined, 'critical' is essentially concerned with thinking, as judgment and evaluation are types of thinking. Further, the definition focuses attention on types of thinking that involve the consideration of an option (viz., evaluation) or options (viz., judgment) relative to standards that serve to identify the relevant ideal. So understood, the term is free from the negative connotations that rise like spectres when you first consider the term. Instead, it applies without prejudice to evaluative thinking wherever it might be found.

II.2 An Analysis of Definitions

"The primary focus of critical thinking skills is on determining whether arguments are sound, i.e., whether they have true premises and logical strength" (Hughes 1996, 21).
"A critical thinker is someone who uses specific criteria to evaluate reasoning and make decisions" (Diestler 1998, 2).
"Critical thinking is evaluating whether we should be convinced that some claim is true or some argument is good, as well as formulating good arguments" (Epstein 2000, i).
"Critical thinking is the careful, deliberate determination of whether we should accept, reject, or suspend judgment about a claim--and of the degree of confidence with which we accept or reject it" (Moore & Parker 1998, 6).
"The ability to correctly validate or refute claims presented for our belief" (Kiersky & Caste 1995, 3).
"Critical thinking is consciously observing, analyzing, reasoning, and evaluating according to proven standards" (Mayfield 1997, 6).
"A unique kind of purposeful thinking in which the thinker systematically and habitually imposes criteria and intellectual standards upon the thinking, taking charge of the construction of thinking, guiding the construction of the thinking according to the standards, and assessing the effectiveness of the thinking according to the purpose, the criteria, and the standards" (Paul 1993, 21).
"... reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do" (Ennis).
"Active, persistent and careful consideration of a belief or supposed form of knowledge in light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends" (Dewey)
"Critical thinking is correctly defined as the review, evaluation, and revision of previous thinking" (Stratton 1999, 10).

Each of these presupposes thinking as a basic activity and then supplies conditions that must be satisfied by thinking if it is to count as critical thinking. These definitions point to four salient aspects of the relevant type of thinking. First, as Dewey explicitly asserts, the type of thinking we're after is active --a critical thinker must be in charge of her thought processes, controlling their application to the subject at hand. This points to the second prominent aspect, viz., that critical thinking is purposeful thinking, an aspect that is featured in the definitions of Diestler, Moore & Parker, Paul, Ennis, and Stratton. In all of them, though, critical thinking is conceived as leading to conclusions, an essentially purposeful endeavor. Third, critical thinking is principled thinking, where this must be understood in two ways: (a) it is itself principled, being systematic, "reasonable," "careful," and conducted "according to proven standards"; and (b) it involves the application of principles to claims, arguments, beliefs, "previous thinking," courses of action, and the like. The first of these senses underwrites the ability to evaluate particular cases of critical thinking as better or worse, as we did in Chapter One. The second calls attention to the fact that critical thinking is rarely done in a vacuum; rather, it is typically done in specific substantive contexts, e.g., in the auto dealership, the biology laboratory, the forest, etc. The principles one must apply in these cases are drawn largely from the topic at issue. This point is closely related to the fundamentally evaluative character of critical thinking, the last of the salient aspects on display in these definitions. When you apply principles in an active fashion for the purpose of generating a conclusion about some topic, you are generally engaged in evaluation, i.e., in determining whether the topic is good or bad, right or wrong, relevant or irrelevant, adequate or inadequate, etc.

Armed with these aspects, we can revisit and assess the provisional formulation we identified in the first chapter. The idea of activity is implicit in that formulation, but the purposive nature of critical thinking deserves more emphasis than it is given there. The second sense in which the thinking must be principled, and the closely associated aspect of evaluation, are given privilege of place, but the first sense in which it must be principled is not expressed in the formulation. Thus, the top down approach reveals the need to enlarge our working definition, which we can express as follows:

Working Definition : Critical thinking is thinking that involves the principled application of standards and criteria in the evaluation of practical and theoretical options for the purpose of reaching conclusions about those options.

So understood, critical thinking is clearly a species of the broader genus of thinking. It is not, for instance, creative thinking. Creative thinking is marked by the production of ideas which can then be regarded practical or theoretical options available for critique. For example, the process of brainstorming, which involves the unchecked production of ideas on a particular topic, is creative and explicitly non-critical. Of course, no good critical thinker can avoid creative thinking, since one is often called upon to generate the options that are then subjected to critical assessment, as well as reasons for or against those options. Hearkening back to the examples at the beginning of Chapter One, consider the process of creative scheduling that Monica must engage in if she is to achieve her goal of graduating in four years, or the creativity demonstrated by Kristine as she generates a relevant list of reasons for and against granting China Most Favored Nation status. In fact, most episodes thinking in which we are interested involve the symbiotic interaction of creativity and criticism, a constant interplay of production and evaluation--of making and shaking, so to speak. Nevertheless, conceptual considerations force us to recognize the difference between these two species of cognitive activity.

Other species that are categorically different from critical thinking include what we might call procedural thinking, which involves applying and following a protocol or recipe, and dogmatic thinking, which is marked by unwavering adherence to a creed or set of guidelines. Both of these are static in an important sense, involving thinking that is insensitive to the variety of results that evaluation can yield. By contrast, critical thinking requires to recognize and appreciate differences of context and complexity, always remaining open to the possibility that previously identified conclusions might be set aside in favor of others.

It is important to call attention to two assumptions that underpin the project of explicit instruction in critical thinking skills as it is developed here. First, as noted above, critical thinking primarily occurs in contexts that serve up standards that are specific to the subject matter considered and methodology employed. Thus, one must have factual knowledge about the domain in which one is working if one is to be an effective critical thinker. If one is to teach critical thinking, one must call attention to the fact that the specific principles applied are grounded in specific domains, and therefore the principles will vary with the domain. (The situation is more complicated than this, actually. Subject matter and methodology do not line up with one another--if you hold subject matter fixed, methods will vary, and vice versa. For example, philosophical subject matter receives both empirical and a priori treatment, and the same is true of the social sciences and the sciences. Given this variation, one must know where one is in the logical space determined by the interaction of subject matter and methodology if one is to know what principles and criteria to apply.)

Second, the variation of principles notwithstanding, we presume that there are general cognitive skills that are employed in any domain where critical thinking is found. Thus, skills like argument reconstruction and logical analysis, problem identification and solution, and so forth are applicable across the wide spectrum of contexts within which thinking is critical. This is not a point on which there is universal consensus; indeed, members of the critical thinking community have expressed deep doubts about the existence of such general skills. (See McPeck.) For now, we will press onward in spite of these reservations, but I will return to them in Chapter Five, developing them in detail and supplying an argument intended to undercut them.

III. Critical Thinking as Technology

Critical thinking is a tool that all of us have in our cognitive toolbox. However, possession does not imply mastery in this case. (Compare: I own a piano, but you don't want to hear me play it.) If a person spends time studying it, then they can develop mastery, in which case the tool becomes very useful indeed. It is applicable whenever there are arguments to be constructed, evaluated, or destroyed. When you are asked to change your belief system by accepting or rejecting some claim, it's time to bust open the toolbox and think critically about what it is you are being asked to do. Your persuasion should only follow on your endorsement, and this demands that you assess and then endorse the claim you are being asked to believe. As with most tools, critical thinking must be applied wisely. There are contexts in which its application is appropriate and contexts where it is not. Recall the example of brainstorming mentioned above--there it is better to refrain from critical evaluation and let everything in at first so that the pool of candidate ideas is as large and as varied as possible. The better part of wisdom is knowing how to pick your spots, and this is certainly true of critical thinking.

We apply principles and make evaluations daily, even hourly. Thus, we think critically all the time. In many of these cases, poor evaluations could lead to discomfort or worse. Given this, pursuit of the good life requires that we be good critical thinkers. Actually, it is too strong to say that it requires this, as the good life could be had by a shoddy but exceedingly lucky critical thinker. However, unless you wish to place your bets and risk significant losses, it is better to have some measure of control over the direction that life takes you. This can be achieved through the explicit study of these skills. Beyond mastering the skills associated with critical thinking, such study results in the cultivation of the "critical spirit", i.e., a willingness to think critically on a regular basis when the situation calls for it. Critical thinking can be conceived as technology, i.e., as a tool we apply to improve our lives, but it is important to see it as essential technology--it forms a part of who we are and how we view the world. When you train your students to think critically, you help them develop skills, but in addition, you influence their sense of self and their worldview.

IV. Critical Thinking Skills: An Annotated List

It is useful to have in hand a list of the relevant skills that you will enhance through explicit instruction in critical thinking. However, there is no standard list, and what stands out as a relevant skill often depends on the type of context within which critical thinking is to be done. Further complicating matters is the fact that theoretical perspectives lead people to emphasize different patterns and, as a result, generate different lists. Critical thinking ability is a many jointed beast, and there are many ways to carve it cleanly. As a consequence, any list is bound to seem incomplete.

Even so, a list of specific skills is valuable. My efforts in this section are guided by the working definition we now have in place. This definition points to three general types of activity comprised by critical thinking: goal pursuit, criteria application, and option evaluation. Critical thinking is purposeful thinking, i.e., thinking that is intended to get us somewhere, and so it requires exercise of goal pursuit skills. This goal is achieved through the application of standards and criteria, both general and subject-specific, and there are certain skills associated with this type of activity. Finally, standards and criteria are applied for the purpose of evaluating the relevant options, and the process of evaluation is one that requires a large suite of skills. As should be clear, the skills in these groups are not only in the business of supporting critical thinking. For instance, there is nothing about the pursuit of goals that requires critical thinking, as my goal of following the waffle recipe exactly illustrates; likewise, we could apply criteria out of curiosity, without having any interest in evaluation. While individually they are not wedded to critical thinking, they relate to one another in a way that yields critical thinking. Specifically, they are nested : if the type of goal pursuit centrally involves criteria application, and if criteria application is done for the purpose of option evaluation, then you have an episode of critical thinking.

In what follows, I use the three types of activity as a framework for organizing critical thinking skills. Some of the classificatory decisions are somewhat arbitrary, as several of these skills have a home in more than one of the sections. For example, observation and recollection, listed under criteria application, certainly figure into the other activities as well. Nevertheless, I’ve attempted to align specific skills with the activities that seem most closely related to them.

IV.1 Goal Pursuit Skills

These skills comprise those involved in the formation of goals and the maintenance of the plans formed to achieve those goals.

Goal Formation: If one is to pursue a goal, one must first have a goal. We form goals in all manner of circumstances and for many reasons; however, there are certain circumstances in which we form goals that require the exercise of critical thinking skills. Often this is nested inside the pursuit of other goals, given that goals are often achieved only after accomplishing sub-goals; in such cases, problem definition follows on criteria application and option evaluation, and so forms a seamless part of the exercise of the whole array of critical thinking skills. Two of those are:

Problem Definition: What is the problem that you are required to solve? Problems require solutions, and solutions serve as goals for whom the problems are troubling. Question Formulation: This is related to problem definition. Questions spur answers, which are held up as goals to pursue.

Quality Control: When you set a goal, you create a plan that you then execute as you pursue the goal. Plan maintenance and execution depend on the exercise of certain quality control skills. Principle among these are:

Coherence Assurance: Are the means of accomplishing the goal logically and logistically coherent with the goal? Do the sub-goals cohere with one another? If you accomplish all the sub-goals in order, will you thereby achieve the goal? Completion: Is the plan complete? Are there parts that must be filled out before the plan as a whole is executed?

IV.2 Criteria Application Skills

Included in this category are skills associated with recognition of the need for criteria application and with identification of the relevant standard.

Observation: What criteria do the circumstances require? Are there specific criteria associated with the subject matter under consideration? Does the plan, with its constituent goals and sub-goals, require specific criteria? Is there a pattern of appearance or behavior into which the option and attendant circumstances fit? You must be able to observe the situation and identify criteria germane to pursuit of your goal in that situation.

Recollection: Given observations about the goal and the circumstances, what is the nature of the criteria that are relevant? How are they to be applied? One must be able to recollect these details. (Note that if you don’t recollect them, research might be required; however, since research is a full-blown context for the complete exercise of critical thinking, research skills do not all fit into the category.)

IV.3 Option Evaluation Skills

Included in this list are all those skills (and there are many) associated with analysis of an option into aspects, inspection of those aspects in light of the relevant criteria, and synthesis of the results into a decision about the option. The skills on this list have application in each of these stages, depending on the circumstances. They are listed alphabetically.

Classification: What category does an aspect of an option or the result of a particular inspection fall into? How do these categories relate to one another?

Comparison: How do the various elements compare to one another? How does the element in question compare to the ideal described by the applied standard? How do the results of the inspections relate to one another?

Discrimination: What are the parts (spatial, temporal, etc.) of the option? What is the structure that binds these parts together?

Elaboration: How can the description of an aspect of an option or inspection be increased in detail without undermining their character?

Inference: What follows from the explicit aspects of the option or inspection? That is, what do they imply? Are these implied aspects relevant to the evaluation?

Ordering: How should the results of inspection be ordered—should one be given logical or thematic or political or ... prominence over others?

Prediction: What should follow if this option is believed or acted upon? (This forms a part of the thought experimentation that often figures into inspection of options, experimentation designed to determine the effects of a belief or course of action. Identification of these effects will often influence the results of an inspection.)

Restructuring: Can the analysis be accomplished in a different way? Can the inspection? Is there a different and preferable way to synthesize the results of inspection into an acceptable result?

Verification: Has the analysis been conducted correctly? The inspection? The synthesis?

2.2 Understanding How Critical Thinking Works

Learning objectives.

Learn how and why critical thinking works.
Understand the creative and constructive elements of critical thinking.
Add to the list of productive questions that can be asked about texts.

Considering the speaker:

Who is making this the statement?
What are the speaker’s affiliations?
How does the speaker know the truth of this statement?

Considering the audience:

Who is being addressed with this statement?
What could connect the speaker of the statement with the intended audience?
Would all people consider this statement to be true?

Considering the statement:

Can this statement be proven?
Will this statement also be true tomorrow or next year?
If this statement is true, what else might be true?
Are there other possible interpretations of the facts behind this statement?

Considering relevance:

What difference does this statement make?
Who cares (and who should care)?
So what? What now? What’s next?

Writers naturally write with some basic assumptions. Without a starting point, a writer would have no way to begin writing. As a reader, you have to be able to identify the assumptions a writer makes and then judge whether or not those assumptions need to be challenged or questioned. As an active reader A person who uncovers the biases, preconceptions, assumptions and implications of a text. , you must acknowledge that both writers and readers make assumptions as they negotiate the meaning of any text. A good process for uncovering assumptions is to try to think backward from the text. Get into the habit of asking yourself, “In order to make this given statement, what else must this writer also believe?”

Just as you must uncover assumptions—those of the writer as well as your own as a reader—to truly capture what you are reading, you must also examine the assumptions that form the foundation of your writing. And you must be prepared to do so throughout the writing process; such self-questioning can, in fact, be a powerful strategy for revision (as you’ll see in more detail in Chapter 8 "Revising" , Section 8.1 "Reviewing for Purpose" ).

Key Takeaways

Far from being a negative or destructive activity, critical thinking is actually the foundation of creative, constructive thinking.
Critical thinkers consider multiple sides of issues, before arriving at a judgment. They must carefully consider the source, the audience, and the relevance of any statement, making a special effort to distinguish fact from opinion in the statement itself.
Biases and preconceptions are ideas based on life experiences and are common components of most everything you say, hear, or read.

Use the set of questions at the end of this section about the speaker , audience , statement , and relevance for a text of your choice from the Note 2.5 "Gallery of Web-Based Texts" in Section 2.1 "Browsing the Gallery of Web-Based Texts" . Here are some promising avenues to pursue:

A public service announcement (PSA) campaign (Ad Council)
A “This I Believe” radio essay (This I Believe)
A television ad spot from a political campaign (The Living Room Candidate)
An entry in one of the debates on a “big question” (Big Questions Essay Series)
Use those same questions for a reading from one of your other classes (even a chapter from a textbook) or a reading in your composition class assigned by your instructor.
Go to the Smithsonian Institution (SIRIS) site in the Note 2.5 "Gallery of Web-Based Texts" and click on the Search Collections tab. Use the search phrase “personal hygiene advertisements” and then choose two of the ads that appear in the archive after you’ve browsed the dozens of hits. Apply this section’s questions to two ads you’ve chosen. Then get to know the search engine on the SIRIS site a little better by trying out a few search phrases of your own on topics of interest to you.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

7.2 Critical Thinking

Imagine someone asked you to share the best way to approach a colleague about a behaviour that is bothering them. What would you say? How did you come to your response? If you asked and someone told you their answer, what would you think or feel about their response? How did you come to the reaction you had to their response? Recalling the role of perception from an earlier chapter, we know that our communication is always shaped by a perspective we hold based on our experiences. What happens when you don’t know the answer or you don’t like the option someone else provided? How do you re-approach the question to come up with a response? When searching for information on how to answer a question, how do we select the best information? Communication competence is achieved by the ability to pay critical attention to how information is being perceived, selected, and communicated by ourselves and others. This is especially challenging in increasingly diverse, complex, and information-filled environments.

So, what are our strategies? In reality, there are many different strategies to critically attend to the messages we send and receive. In this section, we will explore a three-strategy approach: critical listening , critical thinking , and critical ignoring .

In the scenario above in which a co-worker asks you to share the best way to approach a colleague about a behaviour that is bothering them, what would your immediate response be? Your immediate response might be an effective solution, but that’s not what we’re trying to figure out. Whatever your immediate response was, we want to learn to employ strategies to actively seek other possible solutions and explore them in depth. Your immediate response to the question may also indicate your own bias, which is what we want to avoid when choosing and communicating a response. Bias is “an outlook … based on a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgement and/or an instance of such prejudice” (Merriam-Webster, 2023a). Perhaps you consciously recall personal experiences of how you’ve approached co-workers in the past, and your immediate response has been shaped by those experiences. Your response is biased because it is based on personal experience. Sometimes we are consciously aware of our bias when we communicate; however, implicit bias can also exist. Implicit bias is “a bias or prejudice that is present but not consciously held or recognized” (Merriam-Webster, 2023b). Shaping our response according to our experiences is natural and helps us make decisions quickly. At the same time, relying only on our own experiences limits us to the options we already know.

If competent communication is our goal, competent communicators can understand, choose from, and perform a wide range of behaviours (Adler et al., 2021, pp. 16–19). Knowing about conscious and implicit bias, we can start to listen to ourselves and others communicate and possibly become consciously aware. Listening to all communication can help us become more reasoned communicators and allow us to connect better with others as we acknowledge diverse perspectives alongside our own. Bias can turn into reason when more information is gathered, other possible solutions are identified, and all the information is analyzed to determine a reasoned response or action.

Ultimately, using strategies to critically attend to information helps us to do the following:

Challenge our assumptions
Avoid information overload
Avoid the communication of biased or irrelevant information
Develop an understanding of and empathy for different perspectives
Explore options to make an informed decision
Connect with diverse audiences.

Strategy 1: Critical Listening

Many different ways of listening are described in literature. Three listening types are commonly discussed:

Informational listening
Comprehensive and evaluative listening
Empathic listening

Each type of listening serves a different purpose, can be used in isolation or simultaneously, and can help us perceive, select and/or evaluate information to use orally or in writing. Each of the listening styles can be used when attending to external information being given to us and can also serve as an introspective approach to listening to ourselves.

Informational listening involves gathering new information and facts, then identifying key points. This is followed by recording the information so that we can access it later by committing it to memory and/or taking physical notes.

Comprehensive and evaluative listening is a combination of listening styles that does not attempt to decide if information is right or wrong. Instead, this listening style determines the main message the information is trying to send and how similar or different the information is to our existing knowledge and beliefs. It is through this listening style that we decide what we have learned. This process is an active approach that uses the following steps;

Seeks to understand and organize the information gathered; uses paraphrasing and questioning communication skills
Seeks to align the new information with what we already know or believe

Empathic listening is an active listening style that seeks to identify and understand the feelings and emotions behind the information being presented. You may ask questions, gently requesting that the speaker discuss their feelings and emotions. You will also use paraphrasing, and seek clarification to help understand whether you have truly heard the other person’s perspective. This listening style helps to create connection and trust between the listener and speaker.

Consider the following scenario: Your workplace team is trying to decide whether cellphones should be banned whenever interactions with clients take place. The discussion has been raised several times and there are many different opinions and perspectives on the question.

When you ask yourself the question, listen to your own reaction and internal communication. When you imagine this discussion taking place with your workplace team, imagine the range of opinions and perspectives. When you imagine yourself doing any kind of research to gather information about the topic, imagine the information you might find.

How would you use each of the listening styles above? Imagine the possible information you might gather from each listening style. Imagine the possible emotions and feelings that may need to be managed. What might be the benefits and challenges from using each listening style?

Gathering information is usually the first step in any situation that requires critically attending to information, but it doesn’t end there, and you may revisit the critical listening strategy at any point in your approach. Nonetheless, after gathering information, you’ll need to do something with it, and there may be a lot of information to sort through. This is where the next two strategies come into play.

Strategy 2: Critical Thinking

The concept of critical thinking does not have a single definition; instead, definitions range from simple to complex but capture a common theme of analyzing information to gain a better understanding.

Here are a few definitions to consider:

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action (Foundation for Critical Thinking, 2019).
For some, critical thinking has a lot to do with understanding one’s own perspective and those of others.
Critical thinking is the mental process involved in processing information for the purpose of problem solving, decision making, and thinking critically (Drew, 2023).
Critical thinking is the means of assessing the accuracy, authenticity, plausibility, or sufficiency of all information (Beyer 1995).
Critical thinking is developing the ability to think in alignment with the original idea or different from the original idea.

Not surprisingly, several critical-thinking models or frameworks are commonly used. Each approaches the process of analyzing and understanding information in a different way and for a different purpose. Some examples of critical-thinking models are listed in the table below.

Table 7.1. Examples of Critical-Thinking Models or Frameworks

Consider the previous scenario where your workplace team is trying to decide whether cellphones should be banned whenever interactions with clients take place. The discussion has been raised several times, and there are many different opinions and perspectives on the question. Choose one or two of the critical-thinking models in the table above to explore and click on the links. Use the steps in each model to answer the question “Should cellphones be banned whenever interactions with clients take place?”

In their own unique way, each model will ask you to gather more information from sources of information such as books, articles, or other people. You will then compare and analyze the information and perspectives you gather, considering possible courses of action and their possible outcomes and impacts. This gathering, sorting, and analyzing of information is essential to making a final decision based on reason instead of personal bias. However, as you may have already felt, the process can be overwhelming if there are a lot of facts, perspectives, and resulting options and consequences. We can understand why personal bias becomes the more attractive and easily accessible option.

Strategy 3: Critical Ignoring

The third and find strategy in moving towards communication competence, critical ignoring , helps us navigate the sea of information and decide what to keep and what to discard. As you consider your own response and that of others to the question “Should cellphones be banned whenever interactions with clients take place?” you may think of some strong opinionated responses that might be communicated or find some compelling evidence for or against the issue when you research the topic. The degree to which you feel overwhelmed by the information indicates your natural capacity for taking in information, and you may have already started to ignore some of the information you have come across.

This means you are already engaging in critical ignoring , which is choosing what to ignore, learning how to resist misleading information, and deciding where to invest your attention (Kozyreva et al., 2023). You may now be asking how critical ignoring is not biased. Critical ignoring is not biased because the choice of what information is ignored is based on assessing the quality of the information and is not based on personal opinions and perspectives. Note that although critical ignoring is designed for online sources of information, it is possible to apply the same approach to human sources of information.

The following three steps are involved in critical ignoring:

Self-nudging: This is ignoring temptations by removing them. For example, you know that a particular website or social media platform tends to post a lot of information that grabs your attention but isn’t usually helpful because of its lack of objective facts and supporting evidence. You turn off notifications from these sources or remove them. Then you turn your attention to the high-quality sources of information that usually do provide information that stands up to reason. Self-nudging provides a sense of control, enabling you to access the best sources of information in diverse and complex environments.
Lateral reading: This is determining how trustworthy a source and its information is by investigating the background of the website and author, and by comparing the information across a wide variety of sources. For example, you click on an article with an attention-grabbing title that is connected to a problem you’ve recently been discussing with colleagues. The information sounds excellent and helpful, but how to be sure? Investigating the author of the article reveals that they have credentials and experience related to the topic. A close look at the organization that runs the website reveals that they are selling one of the products mentioned in the article, which casts doubt on the quality of the information. Last but not least, you search for other articles on the same topic, and almost all the articles from different sources agree with the information presented in the original article. You assess the article’s information to be of reasonable quality and forward it to your colleagues to consider. Lateral reading is initially time consuming, but with practice, it can develop into a quick and easy method of investing in the highest-quality information.
Do not feed the trolls—ignoring malicious actors: This involves learning how to ignore the people who spread misinformation or harass others using multiple platforms, or those who create debate or argument where there is none to be had. Because online statements can be emotionally charged, deliberately personal, or polarizing, we as humans tend to have just as emotional a response, and it is difficult not to react or try to defend the cause or individual being attacked. “Feeding the trolls” by directly engaging with them is tempting but ultimately has the same effect as feeding ourselves a good breakfast—it provides the necessary fuel for growth and regeneration. Instead of feeding the trolls, do not respond directly, block and report them to the platform where they are making statements, and then seek support from your close social group or professionals.

(Kozyreva et al., 2023)

Consider the previous scenario where your workplace team is trying to decide whether cellphones should be banned whenever interactions with clients take place. If you followed the first two steps, critical listening and critical thinking , you now have a lot of information to sort through. There may be many different opinions and perspectives on the question, and perhaps you found a few published articles. Next comes the third and final step, critical ignoring , to narrow down the information that really helps to answer the question.

As you reflect on the information you gather when exploring any topic or question, this three-strategy approach will help you manage the information and come to a reasonable course of action.

Relating Theory to Real Life

Consider the following questions (Stevenson, 2023) and choose one that you would like to use to work through the three-step critical-thinking strategy you’ve read about on this page:
Does humanity have the right to colonize other planets?
Should we aim to rehabilitate prisoners or should we just punish them for their crimes?
Would public health care be better than private?
Should more be done to protect children on social media?

2. Use the critical listening, critical thinking, and critical ignoring three-step strategy.

What response to the original question did you come up with?
List and describe at least three key points that helped determine your final response as a result of using the three-step strategy.

Attribution

Unless otherwise indicated, material on this page has been copied and adapted from the following resource:

Department of Communication Studies. (n.d.). Communicating to connect: Interpersonal communication for today. Austin Community College. https://sites.google.com/austincc.edu/interpersonaloer/title-page , licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 , except where otherwise noted.

Adler, R. B., Rolls, J. A., & Proctor, R., II. (2021). LOOK: Looking out, looking in (4th ed.). Cengage Canada. (Original work published 2017)

Apedaile, S., & NorQuest College Centre for Intercultural Education. (2015). The Something’s up! cycle . https://www.norquest.ca/NorquestCollege/media/pdf/about/resources/intercultural-resources-for-educators/the-somethings-up-cycle.pdf

Beyer, B. K. (1995). Critical thinking. Phi Kappa Delta Educational Foundation.

Crockett, L. (2021, September 29). The most useful critical thinking mental models to know about . Future Focused Learning. https://blog.futurefocusedlearning.net/useful-critical-thinking-mental-models

Drew, C. (2023, May 10). The 4 types of critical thinking skills – explained! HelpfulProfessor.com. https://helpfulprofessor.com/thinking-skills/

The Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2019). Defining critical thinking . https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766

Hammond, J., Keeney, R., & Raiffa, H. (1999). Smart choices: PROACT technique . Harvard Business School Press. https://www.canada.ca/en/services/jobs/training/initiatives/skills-success/tools/problem-solved-employees-learners.html#h2.04

Kozyreva, A., Wineburg, S., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig, R. (2023). Critical ignoring as a core competence for digital citizens. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 32 (1), 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214221121570

Merriam-Webster. (2023a). Bias. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary . https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bias

Merriam-Webster. (2023b). Implicit bias. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary . https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/implicit%20bias

Plymouth University. (2010). Critical thinking . Learning Development with Plymouth University. https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/uploads/production/document/path/1/1710/Critical_Thinking.pdf

Stevenson, T. (2023, April 13). 80 ethical questions to ask yourself and others . Questions About Everything. https://questionsabouteverything.com/ethical-questions/#Looking_For_More_Questions

Vanderpool, A., & Robinson, T. A. (2017, November 29). Critical thinking: Multiple models for teaching and learning (abridged) . Teaching With Writing: The WIC Newsletter (Spring 2023). https://blogs.oregonstate.edu/wicnews/2017/11/29/critical-thinking-multiple-models-teaching-learning/#:~:text=Beyer’s%20evaluative%20thinking%20model&text=Thus%2C%20critical%20(or%2C%20to,(Beyer%201995%2C%2010

Share This Book

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

7 Critical Thinking and Evaluating Information

In this chapter, you will read a chapter on Critical Thinking and Evaluating Information from a module on Effective Learning Strategies, Student Success by Jazzabel Maya at Austin Community College, Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike

Use warming up, working out, and cooling down strategies to read the chapter. You will participate in a discussion and write a journal after you finish reading.

Remember to write down the strategies you’re using to warm up, work out, and cool down.

Chapter 7: Critical Thinking and Evaluating Information

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Define critical thinking
Describe the role that logic plays in critical thinking
Describe how both critical and creative thinking skills can be used to problem-solve
Describe how critical thinking skills can be used to evaluate information
Apply the CRAAP test to evaluate sources of information
Identify strategies for developing yourself as a critical thinker

Critical Thinking and Evaluating Information

Critical Thinking

As a college student, you are tasked with engaging and expanding your thinking skills. One of the most important of these skills is critical thinking because it relates to nearly all tasks, situations, topics, careers, environments, challenges, and opportunities. It is a “domain-general” thinking skill, not one that is specific to a particular subject area.

What Is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking is clear, reasonable, reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do. It means asking probing questions like “How do we know?” or “Is this true in every case or just in this instance?” It involves being skeptical and challenging assumptions rather than simply memorizing facts or blindly accepting what you hear or read.

Imagine, for example, that you’re reading a history textbook. You wonder who wrote it and why, because you detect certain biases in the writing. You find that the author has a limited scope of research focused only on a particular group within a population. In this case, your critical thinking reveals that there are “other sides to the story.”

Who are critical thinkers, and what characteristics do they have in common? Critical thinkers are usually curious and reflective people. They like to explore and probe new areas and seek knowledge, clarification, and new solutions. They ask pertinent questions, evaluate statements and arguments, and they distinguish between facts and opinion. They are also willing to examine their own beliefs, possessing a manner of humility that allows them to admit lack of knowledge or understanding when needed. They are open to changing their mind. Perhaps most of all, they actively enjoy learning, and seeking new knowledge is a lifelong pursuit. This may well be you!

No matter where you are on the road to being a critical thinker, you can always more fully develop and finely tune your skills. Doing so will help you develop more balanced arguments, express yourself clearly, read critically, and glean important information efficiently. Critical thinking skills will help you in any profession or any circumstance of life, from science to art to business to teaching. With critical thinking, you become a clearer thinker and problem solver.

Critical Thinking and Logic

Critical thinking is fundamentally a process of questioning information and data. You may question the information you read in a textbook, or you may question what a politician or a professor or a classmate says. You can also question a commonly-held belief or a new idea. With critical thinking, anything and everything is subject to question and examination for the purpose of logically constructing reasoned perspectives.

What Is Logic?

The word logic comes from the Ancient Greek logike , referring to the science or art of reasoning. Using logic, a person evaluates arguments and reasoning and strives to distinguish between good and bad reasoning, or between truth and falsehood. Using logic, you can evaluate the ideas and claims of others, make good decisions, and form sound beliefs about the world. [1]

Questions of Logic in Critical Thinking

Let’s use a simple example of applying logic to a critical-thinking situation. In this hypothetical scenario, a man has a Ph.D. in political science, and he works as a professor at a local college. His wife works at the college, too. They have three young children in the local school system, and their family is well known in the community. The man is now running for political office. Are his credentials and experience sufficient for entering public office? Will he be effective in the political office? Some voters might believe that his personal life and current job, on the surface, suggest he will do well in the position, and they will vote for him. In truth, the characteristics described don’t guarantee that the man will do a good job. The information is somewhat irrelevant. What else might you want to know? How about whether the man had already held a political office and done a good job? In this case, we want to think critically about how much information is adequate in order to make a decision based on logic instead of assumptions.

The following questions, presented in Figure 1, below, are ones you may apply to formulating a logical, reasoned perspective in the above scenario or any other situation:

What’s happening? Gather the basic information and begin to think of questions.
Why is it important? Ask yourself why it’s significant and whether or not you agree.
What don’t I see? Is there anything important missing?
How do I know? Ask yourself where the information came from and how it was constructed.
Who is saying it? What’s the position of the speaker and what is influencing them?
What else? What if? What other ideas exist and are there other possibilities?

Infographic titled "Questions a Critical Thinker Asks." From the top, text reads: What's Happening? Gather the basic information and begin to think of questions (image of two stick figures talking to each other). Why is it Important? Ask yourself why it's significant and whether or not you agree. (Image of bearded stick figure sitting on a rock.) What Don't I See? Is there anything important missing? (Image of stick figure wearing a blindfold, whistling, walking away from a sign labeled Answers.) How Do I Know? Ask yourself where the information came from and how it was constructed. (Image of stick figure in a lab coat, glasses, holding a beaker.) Who is Saying It? What's the position of the speaker and what is influencing them? (Image of stick figure reading a newspaper.) What Else? What If? What other ideas exist and are there other possibilities? (Stick figure version of Albert Einstein with a thought bubble saying "If only time were relative...".

Problem-Solving with Critical Thinking

For most people, a typical day is filled with critical thinking and problem-solving challenges. In fact, critical thinking and problem-solving go hand-in-hand. They both refer to using knowledge, facts, and data to solve problems effectively. But with problem-solving, you are specifically identifying, selecting, and defending your solution. Below are some examples of using critical thinking to problem-solve:

Your roommate was upset and said some unkind words to you, which put a crimp in the relationship. You try to see through the angry behaviors to determine how you might best support the roommate and help bring the relationship back to a comfortable spot.
Your campus club has been languishing due to lack of participation and funds. The new club president, though, is a marketing major and has identified some strategies to interest students in joining and supporting the club. Implementation is forthcoming.
Your final art class project challenges you to conceptualize form in new ways. On the last day of class when students present their projects, you describe the techniques you used to fulfill the assignment. You explain why and how you selected that approach.
Your math teacher sees that the class is not quite grasping a concept. She uses clever questioning to dispel anxiety and guide you to a new understanding of the concept.
You have a job interview for a position that you feel you are only partially qualified for, although you really want the job and you are excited about the prospects. You analyze how you will explain your skills and experiences in a way to show that you are a good match for the prospective employer.
You are doing well in college, and most of your college and living expenses are covered. But there are some gaps between what you want and what you feel you can afford. You analyze your income, savings, and budget to better calculate what you will need to stay in college and maintain your desired level of spending.

Problem-Solving Action Checklist

Problem-solving can be an efficient and rewarding process, especially if you are organized and mindful of critical steps and strategies. Remember to assume the attributes of a good critical thinker: if you are curious, reflective, knowledge-seeking, open to change, probing, organized, and ethical, your challenge or problem will be less of a hurdle, and you’ll be in a good position to find intelligent solutions. The steps outlined in this checklist will help you adhere to these qualities in your approach to any problem:

Critical and Creative Thinking

Critical and creative thinking (described in more detail in Chapter 6: Theories of Learning) complement each other when it comes to problem-solving. The following words, by Dr. Andrew Robert Baker, are excerpted from his “Thinking Critically and Creatively” essay. Dr. Baker illuminates some of the many ways that college students will be exposed to critical and creative thinking and how it can enrich their learning experiences.

THINKING CRITICALLY AND CREATIVELY Critical thinking skills are perhaps the most fundamental skills involved in making judgments and solving problems. You use them every day, and you can continue improving them. The ability to think critically about a matter—to analyze a question, situation, or problem down to its most basic parts—is what helps us evaluate the accuracy and truthfulness of statements, claims, and information we read and hear. It is the sharp knife that, when honed, separates fact from fiction, honesty from lies, and the accurate from the misleading. We all use this skill to one degree or another almost every day. For example, we use critical thinking every day as we consider the latest consumer products and why one particular product is the best among its peers. Is it a quality product because a celebrity endorses it? Because a lot of other people may have used it? Because it is made by one company versus another? Or perhaps because it is made in one country or another? These are questions representative of critical thinking. The academic setting demands more of us in terms of critical thinking than everyday life. It demands that we evaluate information and analyze myriad issues. It is the environment where our critical thinking skills can be the difference between success and failure. In this environment we must consider information in an analytical, critical manner. We must ask questions—What is the source of this information? Is this source an expert one and what makes it so? Are there multiple perspectives to consider on an issue? Do multiple sources agree or disagree on an issue? Does quality research substantiate information or opinion? Do I have any personal biases that may affect my consideration of this information? It is only through purposeful, frequent, intentional questioning such as this that we can sharpen our critical thinking skills and improve as students, learners and researchers. While critical thinking analyzes information and roots out the true nature and facets of problems, it is creative thinking that drives progress forward when it comes to solving these problems. Exceptional creative thinkers are people that invent new solutions to existing problems that do not rely on past or current solutions. They are the ones who invent solution C when everyone else is still arguing between A and B. Creative thinking skills involve using strategies to clear the mind so that our thoughts and ideas can transcend the current limitations of a problem and allow us to see beyond barriers that prevent new solutions from being found. Brainstorming is the simplest example of intentional creative thinking that most people have tried at least once. With the quick generation of many ideas at once, we can block-out our brain’s natural tendency to limit our solution-generating abilities so we can access and combine many possible solutions/thoughts and invent new ones. It is sort of like sprinting through a race’s finish line only to find there is new track on the other side and we can keep going, if we choose. As with critical thinking, higher education both demands creative thinking from us and is the perfect place to practice and develop the skill. Everything from word problems in a math class, to opinion or persuasive speeches and papers, call upon our creative thinking skills to generate new solutions and perspectives in response to our professor’s demands. Creative thinking skills ask questions such as—What if? Why not? What else is out there? Can I combine perspectives/solutions? What is something no one else has brought-up? What is being forgotten/ignored? What about ______? It is the opening of doors and options that follows problem-identification. Consider an assignment that required you to compare two different authors on the topic of education and select and defend one as better. Now add to this scenario that your professor clearly prefers one author over the other. While critical thinking can get you as far as identifying the similarities and differences between these authors and evaluating their merits, it is creative thinking that you must use if you wish to challenge your professor’s opinion and invent new perspectives on the authors that have not previously been considered. So, what can we do to develop our critical and creative thinking skills? Although many students may dislike it, group work is an excellent way to develop our thinking skills. Many times I have heard from students their disdain for working in groups based on scheduling, varied levels of commitment to the group or project, and personality conflicts too, of course. True—it’s not always easy, but that is why it is so effective. When we work collaboratively on a project or problem we bring many brains to bear on a subject. These different brains will naturally develop varied ways of solving or explaining problems and examining information. To the observant individual we see that this places us in a constant state of back and forth critical/creative thinking modes. For example, in group work we are simultaneously analyzing information and generating solutions on our own, while challenging other’s analyses/ideas and responding to challenges to our own analyses/ideas. This is part of why students tend to avoid group work—it challenges us as thinkers and forces us to analyze others while defending ourselves, which is not something we are used to or comfortable with as most of our educational experiences involve solo work. Your professors know this—that’s why we assign it—to help you grow as students, learners, and thinkers! —Dr. Andrew Robert Baker, Foundations of Academic Success: Words of Wisdom

Evaluating Information with Critical Thinking

Evaluating information can be one of the most complex tasks you will be faced with in college. But if you utilize the following four strategies, you will be well on your way to success:

Read for understanding
Examine arguments
Clarify thinking
Cultivate “habits of mind”

Read for Understanding

When you read, take notes or mark the text to track your thinking about what you are reading. As you make connections and ask questions in response to what you read, you monitor your comprehension and enhance your long-term understanding of the material. You will want to mark important arguments and key facts. Indicate where you agree and disagree or have further questions. You don’t necessarily need to read every word, but make sure you understand the concepts or the intentions behind what is written. See the chapter on Active Reading Strategies for additional tips.

Examine Arguments

When you examine arguments or claims that an author, speaker, or other source is making, your goal is to identify and examine the hard facts. You can use the spectrum of authority strategy for this purpose. The spectrum of authority strategy assists you in identifying the “hot” end of an argument—feelings, beliefs, cultural influences, and societal influences—and the “cold” end of an argument—scientific influences. The most compelling arguments balance elements from both ends of the spectrum. The following video explains this strategy in further detail:

Clarify Thinking

When you use critical thinking to evaluate information, you need to clarify your thinking to yourself and likely to others. Doing this well is mainly a process of asking and answering probing questions, such as the logic questions discussed earlier. Design your questions to fit your needs, but be sure to cover adequate ground. What is the purpose? What question are we trying to answer? What point of view is being expressed? What assumptions are we or others making? What are the facts and data we know, and how do we know them? What are the concepts we’re working with? What are the conclusions, and do they make sense? What are the implications?

Cultivate “Habits of Mind”

“Habits of mind” are the personal commitments, values, and standards you have about the principle of good thinking. Consider your intellectual commitments, values, and standards. Do you approach problems with an open mind, a respect for truth, and an inquiring attitude? Some good habits to have when thinking critically are being receptive to having your opinions changed, having respect for others, being independent and not accepting something is true until you’ve had the time to examine the available evidence, being fair-minded, having respect for a reason, having an inquiring mind, not making assumptions, and always, especially, questioning your own conclusions—in other words, developing an intellectual work ethic. Try to work these qualities into your daily life.

In 2010, a textbook being used in fourth-grade classrooms in Virginia became big news for all the wrong reasons. The book, Our Virginia by Joy Masoff, had caught the attention of a parent who was helping her child do her homework, according to an article in The Washington Post . Carol Sheriff was a historian for the College of William and Mary and as she worked with her daughter, she began to notice some glaring historical errors, not the least of which was a passage which described how thousands of African Americans fought for the South during the Civil War.

Further investigation into the book revealed that, although the author had written textbooks on a variety of subjects, she was not a trained historian. The research she had done to write Our Virginia, and in particular the information she included about Black Confederate soldiers, was done through the Internet and included sources created by groups like the Sons of Confederate Veterans, an organization which promotes views of history that de-emphasize the role of slavery in the Civil War.

How did a book with errors like these come to be used as part of the curriculum and who was at fault? Was it Masoff for using untrustworthy sources for her research? Was it the editors who allowed the book to be published with these errors intact? Was it the school board for approving the book without more closely reviewing its accuracy?

There are a number of issues at play in the case of Our Virginia , but there’s no question that evaluating sources is an important part of the research process and doesn’t just apply to Internet sources. Using inaccurate, irrelevant, or poorly researched sources can affect the quality of your own work. Being able to understand and apply the concepts that follow is crucial to becoming a more savvy user and creator of information.

When you begin evaluating sources, what should you consider? The CRAAP test is a series of common evaluative elements you can use to evaluate the C urrency, R elevance, A uthority, A ccuracy, and P urpose of your sources. The CRAAP test was developed by librarians at California State University at Chico and it gives you a good, overall set of elements to look for when evaluating a resource. Let’s consider what each of these evaluative elements means. You can visit the ACC Library’s Web page for a tutorial on Evaluating Information using the CRAAP test.

One of the most important and interesting steps to take as you begin researching a subject is selecting the resources that will help you build your thesis and support your assertions. Certain topics require you to pay special attention to how current your resource is—because they are time sensitive, because they have evolved so much over the years, or because new research comes out on the topic so frequently. When evaluating the currency of an article, consider the following:

When was the item written, and how frequently does the publication come out?
Is there evidence of newly added or updated information in the item?
If the information is dated, is it still suitable for your topic?
How frequently does information change about your topic?

Understanding what resources are most applicable to your subject and why they are applicable can help you focus and refine your thesis. Many topics are broad and searching for information on them produces a wide range of resources. Narrowing your topic and focusing on resources specific to your needs can help reduce the piles of information and help you focus in on what is truly important to read and reference. When determining relevance consider the following:

Does the item contain information relevant to your argument or thesis?
Read the article’s introduction, thesis, and conclusion.
Scan main headings and identify article keywords.
For book resources, start with the index or table of contents—how wide a scope does the item have? Will you use part or all of this resource?
Does the information presented support or refute your ideas?
If the information refutes your ideas, how will this change your argument?
Does the material provide you with current information?
What is the material’s intended audience?

Understanding more about your information’s source helps you determine when, how, and where to use that information. Is your author an expert on the subject? Do they have some personal stake in the argument they are making? What is the author or information producer’s background? When determining the authority of your source, consider the following:

What are the author’s credentials?
What is the author’s level of education, experience, and/or occupation?
What qualifies the author to write about this topic?
What affiliations does the author have? Could these affiliations affect their position?
What organization or body published the information? Is it authoritative? Does it have an explicit position or bias?

Determining where information comes from, if the evidence supports the information, and if the information has been reviewed or refereed can help you decide how and whether to use a source. When determining the accuracy of a source, consider the following:

Is the source well-documented? Does it include footnotes, citations, or a bibliography?
Is information in the source presented as fact, opinion, or propaganda? Are biases clear?
Can you verify information from the references cited in the source?
Is the information written clearly and free of typographical and grammatical mistakes? Does the source look to be edited before publication? A clean, well-presented paper does not always indicate accuracy, but usually at least means more eyes have been on the information.

Knowing why the information was created is a key to evaluation. Understanding the reason or purpose of the information, if the information has clear intentions, or if the information is fact, opinion, or propaganda will help you decide how and why to use information:

Is the author’s purpose to inform, sell, persuade, or entertain?
Does the source have an obvious bias or prejudice?
Is the article presented from multiple points of view?
Does the author omit important facts or data that might disprove their argument?
Is the author’s language informal, joking, emotional, or impassioned?
Is the information clearly supported by evidence?

When you feel overwhelmed by the information you are finding, the CRAAP test can help you determine which information is the most useful to your research topic. How you respond to what you find out using the CRAAP test will depend on your topic. Maybe you want to use two overtly biased resources to inform an overview of typical arguments in a particular field. Perhaps your topic is historical and currency means the past hundred years rather than the past one or two years. Use the CRAAP test, be knowledgeable about your topic, and you will be on your way to evaluating information efficiently and well!

Developing Yourself As a Critical Thinker

Critical thinking is a fundamental skill for college students, but it should also be a lifelong pursuit. Below are additional strategies to develop yourself as a critical thinker in college and in everyday life:

Reflect and practice : Always reflect on what you’ve learned. Is it true all the time? How did you arrive at your conclusions?
Use wasted time : It’s certainly important to make time for relaxing, but if you find you are indulging in too much of a good thing, think about using your time more constructively. Determine when you do your best thinking and try to learn something new during that part of the day.
Redefine the way you see things : It can be very uninteresting to always think the same way. Challenge yourself to see familiar things in new ways. Put yourself in someone else’s shoes and consider things from a different angle or perspective. If you’re trying to solve a problem, list all your concerns: what you need in order to solve it, who can help, what some possible barriers might be, etc. It’s often possible to reframe a problem as an opportunity. Try to find a solution where there seems to be none.
Analyze the influences on your thinking and in your life : Why do you think or feel the way you do? Analyze your influences. Think about who in your life influences you. Do you feel or react a certain way because of social convention, or because you believe it is what is expected of you? Try to break out of any molds that may be constricting you.
Express yourself : Critical thinking also involves being able to express yourself clearly. Most important in expressing yourself clearly is stating one point at a time. You might be inclined to argue every thought, but you might have greater impact if you focus just on your main arguments. This will help others to follow your thinking clearly. For more abstract ideas, assume that your audience may not understand. Provide examples, analogies, or metaphors where you can.
Enhance your wellness : It’s easier to think critically when you take care of your mental and physical health. Try taking activity breaks throughout the day to reach 30 to 60 minutes of physical activity each day. Scheduling physical activity into your day can help lower stress and increase mental alertness. Also, do your most difficult work when you have the most energy . Think about the time of day you are most effective and have the most energy. Plan to do your most difficult work during these times. And be sure to reach out for help i f you feel you need assistance with your mental or physical health (see Maintaining Your Mental and Physical Health for more information).

Complete Section #2 Below: ACTIVITY: REFLECT ON CRITICAL THINKING

Key takeaways.

Critical thinking is logical and reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do.
Critical thinking involves questioning and evaluating information.
Critical and creative thinking both contribute to our ability to solve problems in a variety of contexts.
Evaluating information is a complex, but essential, process. You can use the CRAAP test to help determine if sources and information are reliable.
You can take specific actions to develop and strengthen your critical thinking skills.

Use the warm up, work out, and cool down strategies for a discussion.

Prepare for a discussion by writing down the main ideas and most important supporting points in this chapter. Prepare several of your own responses to the supporting points. These might be examples of how you use critical thinking in your life. What questions might you be prepared to ask your fellow students during this discussion.

After the discussion, reflect on what you’ve learned from the other students.

Use warm up, work out, and cool down strategies for this journal writing activity.

Think about someone you consider to be a critical thinker (friend, professor, historical figure, etc). What qualities does he/she have?

Review some of the critical thinking strategies discussed on this page. Pick one strategy that makes sense to you. How can you apply this critical thinking technique to your academic work?
Habits of mind are attitudes and beliefs that influence how you approach the world (i.e., inquiring attitude, open mind, respect for truth, etc). What is one habit of mind you would like to actively develop over the next year? How will you develop a daily practice to cultivate this habit?
Write your responses in journal form, and submit according to your instructor’s guidelines.

Share This Book

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

What is Critical Thinking?

What About Assumptions?

Assumptions are beliefs or ideas that are believed to be true without proof or evidence and are used to support reasoning. This lack of verification can create bias when thinking critically. Like any human activity, the practice of critical thinking requires several basic assumptions to make sense. For people who don’t share these assumptions, the whole process can be experienced as confusing or nonsensical. Here is a partial list of assumptions that sometimes cause trouble for people new to critical thinking.

In CT, reasoning implies evaluation, both individual (“You should recycle your aluminum!”) and collective (“We should abolish the death penalty!”). Each statement can be supported by reasons, and the reasons can be evaluated as better or worse. Although this should not be confused with opinions or facts .
In CT, “Truth is what is so about something, the reality of the matter, as distinguished from what people wish were so, believe to be so, or assert to be so” (Ruggiero, 2015, p. 25)
When using critical thinking you should not contradict yourself. Contradictory statements , by definition, cannot all be true, and based on #3 above that means they can’t be partly true, or true to some people but not others.
Critical thinking requires judging other people’s opinions (along with our own!) – not in isolation, but in relation to each other.

Many people put the majority of their critical thinking energy into judging the thinking of those they disagree with (fast thinking). Our hope is that you will have come to understand that thinking carefully about your own beliefs is worth more of your time, and that you will have come to appreciate the vital importance of people who do not share your same ideas to your process of slow thinking.

Check Your Knowledge: Assumptions

Read the following statements and then determine the assumption.

The U.S. is overreacting to the growth of AI. Technology is meant to be utilized to its fullest.

“Eating healthy is important. Doctors and physical fitness advisors tell you about the advantages of health foods. Then why are these foods so expensive? Companies that sell these foods are raising prices for simple things such as fruits and vegetables….People want to be healthy but it seems that corporate America really doesn’t want to make that prospect cheap. You should avoid wasting money just to eat healthy; go buy cheap frozen vegetables at the grocery store.” (Browne & Keeley, 2018, p.56)

Taking an act or statement for granted (Merriam-Webster Online)

Judgements about good or bad, right or wrong

Evaluations for better or worse

A view or judgement

Something known or proven true

False statement

Critical Thinking in Academic Research - Second Edition Copyright © 2022 by Cindy Gruwell and Robin Ewing is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

IMAGES

Critical Thinking Skills
Critical Thinking Definition, Skills, and Examples
Critical Thinking Skills: Definitions, Examples, and How to Improve
Critical Thinking: Chapter 2
💋 What is critical thinking examples. What Is Critical Thinking?. 2022
Steps to Critical Thinking

VIDEO

Logic and critical thinking Ch 5 Fallacy basic practical Qiestion
Critical Thinking (part 1)
Critical Thinking Chapter 4 Part 3: Characteristics and Principles of CT |in Afaan Oromoo
Lucknow GS Foundation Course 2024
Critical Thinking vs. Shariah Part 44: Zakat
Webinar

COMMENTS

PDF Chapter2!! Towards!An!Understanding!! Ofcritical!Thinking!
! 24! 2.1!OverviewofChapter!2!! This!chapter!is!an!exploration!of!theories!and!definitions!ofcritical!thinking, with!the!intention!to!identify!its!underpinning ...
Critical Thinking Chapter 2 Flashcards
Critical Thinking Chapter 2. According to the text's definition of critical thinking, what factors must be present for critical thinking to be realized? Click the card to flip 👆. For critical thinking to be realized, the process must be systematic, it must be a true evaluation or formulation of claims, and it must be based on rational standards.
What Is Critical Thinking?
Critical thinking is the ability to effectively analyze information and form a judgment. To think critically, you must be aware of your own biases and assumptions when encountering information, and apply consistent standards when evaluating sources. Critical thinking skills help you to: Identify credible sources. Evaluate and respond to arguments.
Introduction to Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally about what to do or what to believe. It includes the ability to engage in reflective and independent thinking. Someone with critical thinking skills is able to do the following: Understand the logical connections between ideas. Identify, construct, and evaluate arguments.
Chapter 2 Summary
Subjective relativism is the view that truth depends solely on what someone believes—a notion that may make critical thinking look superfluous. But subjective relativism leads to some strange consequences. For example, if the doctrine were true, each of us would be infallible. Also, subjective relativism has a logical problem—it's self ...
PDF Critical Thinking
Glaser defined critical thinking as: (1) an attitude of being disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range of one's experience; (2) knowledge of the methods of logical enquiry and reasoning; and (3) some skill in applying those methods. Critical thinking calls for a persistent effort to examine ...
2.2 Understanding How Critical Thinking Works
"Critical thinking" has been a common phrase in education for more than a quarter century, but it can be a slippery concept to define. Perhaps because "critical" is an adjective with certain negative connotations (e.g., "You don't have to be so critical" or "Everybody's a critic"), people sometimes think that critical thinking is a fault-finding exercise or that there is ...
2.2: Understanding How Critical Thinking Works
1. Learn how and why critical thinking works. 2. Understand the creative and constructive elements of critical thinking. 3. Add to the list of productive questions that can be asked about texts. "Critical thinking" has been a common phrase in education for more than a quarter century, but it can be a slippery concept to define.
PDF Critical Thinking: A Concise Guide
Critical Thinking This is the best single text I have seen for addressing the level, presumptions, and interests of the non-specialist. The authors have a ﬁne knack for articulating simply and clearly the most elementary - but also the most important - aspects of critical thinking in a way that should be clear to the novice.
Chapter 1 What is critical thinking?
through a better understanding of what critical thinking entails, and by practice. Critical thinking is a cognitive activity, associated with using the mind. Learning to think in critically analytical and evaluative ways means using mental processes such as attention, categorisation, selection and judgement. However, many people
2.2 Overcoming Cognitive Biases and Engaging in Critical ...
Confirmation Bias. One of the most common cognitive biases is confirmation bias, which is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information that confirms or supports your prior beliefs.Like all cognitive biases, confirmation bias serves an important function. For instance, one of the most reliable forms of confirmation bias is the belief in our shared reality.
Chapter 2: thinking critically Flashcards
Seeing all sides of an issue combines two critical-thinking abilities: Considering issues from different perspectives. Supporting diverse viewpoints with reasons and evidence. Working to see different perspectives: 1. Identify the main idea of the passage. 2. List the reasons that support the main idea. 3.
Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking
This is an introductory textbook in logic and critical thinking. The goal of the textbook is to provide the reader with a set of tools and skills that will enable them to identify and evaluate arguments. The book is intended for an introductory course that covers both formal and informal logic. As such, it is not a formal logic textbook, but is closer to what one would find marketed as a ...
Chapter 1
Chapter 7 Critical Thinking Impacts Our Everyday Lives; ... We define critical thinking in several different ways that converge on the same basic idea. It is a combination of skills, attitude, and knowledge. ... Assessing secondary students' disposition toward critical thinking: Development of the California measure of mental motivation.
1: Introduction to Critical Thinking, Reasoning, and Logic
1: Introduction to Critical Thinking, Reasoning, and Logic. Page ID. Noah Levin. Golden West College via NGE Far Press. 1.1: Prelude to Chapter. 1.2: Introduction and Thought Experiments- The Trolley Problem. 1.3: Truth and Its Role in Argumentation - Certainty, Probability, and Monty Hall. 1.4: Distinction of Proof from Verification; Our ...
UI Critical Thinking Handbook: Chapter Two -- Theory
In Chapter One, I made strides toward this goal by extracting a provisional formulation of critical thinking from cases in which it was clearly on display. In this chapter, I intend to fill out this characterization more completely and thereby discharge my obligation. ... 2). "Critical thinking is evaluating whether we should be convinced that ...
Thinking Critically: It Matters
This chapter initiates the study of critical thinking: its value, its purpose, its subject matter. 1. Critical thinking is the process of assessing opinions. 2. Critical thinking is clear thinking about issues. 3. The first step in thinking clearly about an issue is the identification of that issue. 4.
2.2 Understanding How Critical Thinking Works
Key Takeaways. Far from being a negative or destructive activity, critical thinking is actually the foundation of creative, constructive thinking. Critical thinkers consider multiple sides of issues, before arriving at a judgment. They must carefully consider the source, the audience, and the relevance of any statement, making a special effort ...
Critical Thinking and Intellectual Style Chapter 2
Abstract The aim of this second chapter is to present a review of literature on critical thinking and on intellectual styles in order to point out the potential intersections between critical thinking and intellect. These pages are directed toward an integration of intellectual ability, learning style, personality and achievement motivation as predictors of the decision-making process.
Textbook Reading Notes
Chapter 2: Critical Thinking and Critical Theory. Vocabulary ideology : a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. critical theory : a scholarly approach that analyzes social conditions within their historical, cultural, and ideological contexts; complex theoretical perspective, and mastery that requires ongoing study and ...
7.2 Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is the means of assessing the accuracy, authenticity, plausibility, or sufficiency of all information (Beyer 1995). Critical thinking is developing the ability to think in alignment with the original idea or different from the original idea. Not surprisingly, several critical-thinking models or frameworks are commonly used.
Critical Thinking and Evaluating Information
Critical thinking is logical and reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do. Critical thinking involves questioning and evaluating information. Critical and creative thinking both contribute to our ability to solve problems in a variety of contexts. Evaluating information is a complex, but essential, process.
What About Assumptions?
Here is a partial list of assumptions that sometimes cause trouble for people new to critical thinking. Critical thinking (CT) is evaluative. An evaluation is a statement that compares what is the case to a standard about how things should be. CT requires people to make lots of judgments about good and bad, right and wrong, what we should or ...

Have a language expert improve your writing

What Is Critical Thinking? | Definition & Examples

Table of contents

Scribbr Citation Checker New

Academic examples

Nonacademic examples

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Eoghan Ryan

1 Introduction to Critical Thinking

II. The I mportance of C ritical T hinking

III. Improv ing O ur T hinking S kills

IV. Defining Critical Thinking

V. Two F eatures of C ritical T hinking

B. Ought N ot Is ( or Normative N ot Descriptive )

Share This Book

Chapter 2 Summary

Select your Country

Chapter 2 Becoming a Critical Reader

Key Takeaways

2.2 Overcoming Cognitive Biases and Engaging in Critical Reflection

Critical Reflection and Metacognition

Cognitive Biases

Connections

Cognitive Biases 101, with Peter Bauman

Anchoring Bias

Availability Heuristic

The Dangers of Tribalism, Kevin deLaplante

Think Like a Philosopher

Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking

Formats Available

Table of Contents

Ancillary Material

About the Contributors

Contribute to this Page

1: Introduction to Critical Thinking, Reasoning, and Logic

2.2 Understanding How Critical Thinking Works

Key Takeaways

7.2 Critical Thinking

Strategy 1: Critical Listening

Strategy 2: Critical Thinking

Strategy 3: Critical Ignoring

Share This Book

7 Critical Thinking and Evaluating Information

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

Critical Thinking

What Is Critical Thinking?

Critical Thinking and Logic

What Is Logic?

Questions of Logic in Critical Thinking

Problem-Solving with Critical Thinking

Problem-Solving Action Checklist

Critical and Creative Thinking

Evaluating Information with Critical Thinking

Read for Understanding

Examine Arguments

Clarify Thinking

Cultivate “Habits of Mind”

Developing Yourself As a Critical Thinker

Complete Section #2 Below: ACTIVITY: REFLECT ON CRITICAL THINKING

Share This Book

What About Assumptions?

Share This Book

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS