Critical Thinking

Introduction

Happy New Year! To start the new year, I offer a few thoughts about the importance of critical thinking.

Critical thinking is disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence. Critical thinkers are by nature sceptical. They approach texts with suspicion.. When studying for an MA, one of the very best things you can do is keep your antenna up and (forgive the mixed metaphors), sniff out baloney. Thinking critically involves never believing what you’re told without question. Sniffing out?fallacies is one of the best mental exercises there is and you should make it a habit.?Whenever you read a text, particularly if it’s the?work of anybody in authority (academic, political, whatever), first check for logical fallacies.?Then, try to?detect the assumptions which inform the?argument:?what does the argument rest on??

What marks out the real scholar is not knowledge but critical acumen; not displays of hundreds of references but the display of a coherent and cohesive argument; not prose that makes the author sound learned, but prose that cuts to the chase. As Forbes said “Education’s purpose is to replace an empty mind with an open one” (in other words, not a full one).

Definitions

My favourite definition of critical thinking is Noam Chomsky’s: “I try to encourage people to think for themselves, to question standard assumptions…Don’t take assumptions for granted. Begin by taking a skeptical attitude toward anything that is conventional wisdom. Make it justify itself. It usually can’t. Be willing to ask questions about what is taken for granted. Try to think things through for yourself.” I also like Warren's succinct "Critical thinking is reasonable reflective?thinking that is focused on deciding what?to believe or do ".

I assume, as do Chomsky and Warren, that critical thinking is based on a realist epistemology, and on the use of reason to examine empirical evidence. This is the classic rationalist stance and contrasts with the relativist position adopted by current radical sociolinguistics who adopt a Critical Social Justice Theory. The following two short quotes by the opposing views illustrate the differences of approach. Bertrand Russel (1928) “The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holder’s lack of rational conviction.” Bell Hooks (2010):?“Critical thinking requires us to use our imagination, seeing things from perspectives other than our own and envisioning the likely consequences of our position.”

Fallacies

When writing a paper, the masters or doctoral student should have ever before them the reasoning that their writing develops. First, here are a few things to avoid:

1. Begging the Claim: The conclusion that the writer should prove is validated within the claim. Example:

Well-conceived (lexically-informed) coursebooks help learners learn better than badly-conceived (grammar-informed) coursebooks.

The conclusion that should be proved is already assumed in the claim.

2. Circular Argument: This restates the argument rather than actually proving it. Example:

Comprehensible input is the sufficient condition for acquisition. ?Comprehensible input = i+1 (i.e., comprehensible input is input the learner largely understands).

The conclusion and the evidence used to prove it are basically the same idea. Specific evidence is needed to support either sentence. In other words, the grounds and warrant are equivalent in meaning to the claim they purport to support, thus making no inferential leap from grounds to claim. Krashen’s “theory” is a good example.

3. Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than his or her opinions or arguments. Example:

Universal grammar is wrong because Chomsky is an arrogant anarchist who makes rude remarks about his critics. .

4. Ad populum: An emotional appeal that speaks to positive or negative concepts rather than the real issue at hand. Example:

If you were less interested in proving yourself right by giving obscure academic references, you would appreciate what I’m trying to say.

A common ploy used in those replying to my criticisms of their work.

5. Red Herring: A diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them. Example:

Your criticism of the incoherence of my argument is blighted by gratuitous insults.

The author switches the discussion away from the point in question and talks instead about another issue.

6. Straw Man: This move oversimplifies an opponent’s viewpoint and then attacks that hollow argument.

Example:

Jane says “In CELTA, I think we should?look at alternatives to the current end of course exams, such as portfolios.”

John says “If you abandon the?established and proven ways of objectively assessing?students’ knowledge and competencies, then you undermine the high standards we’ve set for the course.”???

Jane didn’t suggest abandoning all assessment.?John?is not treating the argument?fairly,?or refuting Jane’s?position.

7. Moral Equivalence: This fallacy compares minor misdeeds with major wrongs. Example

Your?attacks on the cohesion of my text is a fundamental?attack on human rights.?

The author compares the relatively harmless actions of an outspoken critic with a serious attack?on decent values.?This comparison is unfair and inaccurate.

8. Non sequiturs: arguments in which the claim does not follow from the proof offered. This is probably the most common of the lot. Jason Anderson’s work is repleat with examples. Here’s one of his favourites: ?There is evidence to?support explicit (grammar) instruction, therefore there is?evidence to support the “PPP paradigm”.

But the real issue is one’s approach to a text. Critical thinking suggests that we should first try as hard as we can to spot the fallacies, and after that we should interrogate the text more generally; not, as Fairclough suggests, to uncover its political implications (a worthy enterprise though that might be) but to judge its arguments; its logic, its reasoning, its evidence.

Three Views of critical thinking.

1. Scriven and Paul (1987) Presentation at the 8th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform.

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skilfully 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. Critical thinking — in being responsive to variable subject matter, issues, and purposes — is incorporated in a family of interwoven modes of thinking, among them: scientific thinking, mathematical thinking, historical thinking, anthropological thinking, economic thinking, moral thinking, and philosophical thinking.

Critical thinking varies according to the motivation underlying it. When grounded in selfish motives, it is often manifested in the skilful manipulation of ideas in service of one’s own, or one’s groups’, vested interest. As such it is typically intellectually flawed, however pragmatically successful it might be. When grounded in fair-mindedness and intellectual integrity, it is typically of a higher order intellectually, though subject to the charge of “idealism” by those habituated to its selfish use.

Critical thinking of any kind is never universal in any individual; everyone is subject to episodes of undisciplined or irrational thought. Its quality is therefore typically a matter of degree and dependent on, among other things, the quality and depth of experience in a given domain of thinking or with respect to a particular class of questions. No one is a critical thinker through-and-through, but only to such-and-such a degree, with such-and-such insights and blind spots, subject to such-and-such tendencies towards self-delusion. For this reason, the development of critical thinking skills and dispositions is a life-long endeavour.

2. Paul and Elder (2008) The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools, Foundation for Critical Thinking Press.

People who think critically are keenly aware of the inherently flawed nature of human thinking when left unchecked. They strive to diminish the power of their egocentric and sociocentric tendencies. They use the intellectual tools that critical thinking offers – concepts and principles that enable them to analyze, assess, and improve thinking. They work diligently to develop the intellectual virtues of intellectual integrity, intellectual humility, intellectual civility, intellectual empathy, intellectual sense of justice and confidence in reason. They realize that no matter how skilled they are as thinkers, they can always improve their reasoning abilities and they will at times fall prey to mistakes in reasoning, human irrationality, prejudices, biases, distortions, uncritically accepted social rules and taboos, self-interest, and vested interest. They avoid thinking simplistically about complicated issues and strive to appropriately consider the rights and needs of relevant others. They recognize the complexities in developing as thinkers, and commit themselves to life-long practice toward self-improvement. They embody the Socratic principle: The unexamined life is not worth living, because they realize that many unexamined lives together result in an uncritical, unjust, dangerous world

A well cultivated critical thinker:

? raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely; ? gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards; ? thinks open-mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and ? communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems.

Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.

3. Glasser (1941) An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking. Teacher’s College, Columbia University. Critical thinking involves three things:

1. an attitude of being disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range of one’s experiences; 2. knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning, and 3. some skill in applying those methods.

Critical thinking calls for a persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports it and the further conclusions to which it tends. It also generally requires ability to recognize problems, to find workable means for meeting those problems, to gather and marshal pertinent information, to recognize unstated assumptions and values, to comprehend and use language with accuracy, clarity, and discrimination, to interpret data, to appraise evidence and evaluate arguments, to recognize the existence (or non-existence) of logical relationships between propositions, to draw warranted conclusions and generalizations, to put to test the conclusions and generalizations at which one arrives, to reconstruct one’s patterns of beliefs on the basis of wider experience, and to render accurate judgments about specific things and qualities in everyday life.

Critical Thinking Web Sites

1. Roger Darlington gives a very good quick overview here:?https://www.rogerdarlington.me.uk/thinking.html

2. The web page “Study Guides and Strategies” has a very good section on helping students apply critical thinking to their work on assignments. You can find it here:?https://www.studygs.net/crtthk.htm#?Once you get there, note that there are 3 parts: see the Menu on the left of the page.

3. Another good web site is “The Critical Thinking Web” which is here:?https://philosophy.hku.hk/think/critical/?This has a slightly more challenging series of pages, but it starts off very well, and then gets a bit more tricky. See it as a kind of thinking gymn where you can go for a good work-out!

There’s a nice, short, easy but informative video on this page:?https://philosophy.hku.hk/think/critical/ct.php

?

References

Chomsky, N. (1975). Toward a humanistic conception of education. In Walter Feinberg and Henry Rosemont, Jr. (eds.),?Work, Technology and Education?University of Illinois Press, 204-20.?

Hooks, B. (2010). Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom. Routledge.

Russell, B. (1928), "A plea for clear thinking", in?Portraits From Memory. OUP

Warren, K. J. (1988). Critical thinking and feminism. Informal Logic, 1,?31-44.?