Critical Thinking

Critical Thinking

The single greatest subject on the planet! You all love it with a passion.

Here are a few hints and tip to help you along your way!

Definition of Critical Thinking

A widely used definition says ‘critical thinking is reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused on

deciding what to believe or do’ (cf Ennis R.H. Critical Thinking, Prentice Hall, 1995 p xvii). Though

the term ‘critical thinking’ is sometimes thought to sound ‘negative’, it should be understood in

the same sense as, for example, a theatre ‘critic’ - ie as someone whose comments and

judgements may be either positive or negative. In short, critical thinking is a kind of evaluative

thinking which is particularly concerned with the quality of reasoning or argument which is

presented in support of a belief or a course of action.

The following example shows how explanation differs from argument.

(b) (P) Jane was angry with him because (Q) he had crashed her car.

In this case, Q is not a reason why one should believe P; P is already known to be true and Q

explains why it is true. Candidates need to understand the distinction between arguments and

explanations and the distinctive use of language involved. (See Section 5.3.5, on explanations.)

There are also semi-technical notions which can be useful in argument and candidates should

learn how to use some of these as the occasion arises throughout the course (words like

consistent, contradiction, converse, counter-example, valid, entail/imply, hypothetical, necessary

and sufficient conditions). For example:

time refusing to increase spending on prison places. Prisons are so overcrowded that the

first entails the second if one has any concern for prisoners’ welfare.

The words in italic are called ‘semi-technical’ because although they are everyday words, the

tradition of logic and philosophy has clarified and redefined them in ways which make them more

useful than their everyday counterparts in understanding and evaluating arguments. Although

their meanings are different from everyday usage, they are easily explained in ordinary English

and do not require any technical vocabulary or symbolism from formal logic.

Candidates are required to:

· learn that arguments may be presented in differing forms.

Different examples of reasoning/argument should be explored to identify their elements (by using

argument indicators and the ‘therefore’ test). Candidates should learn that arguments may be

presented in ‘linear’ form, in dialogue form, or even in the form of a narrative.

The Green Movement is mistaken in thinking we should recycle materials like paper and

glass because paper comes from trees, an easily renewable resource, and glass is made

from sand, which is plentiful and cheap. Furthermore, in some American cities recycling

schemes have been abandoned because they are too expensive.

Here is a similar argument in dialogue form.

(b) John: Why do you believe that the Green Movement is mistaken in thinking we should

recycle material like paper and glass?

Mary: Well, paper comes from trees which are an easily renewable resource, and glass is

made from sand, which is plentiful and cheap.

John: Yes, but isn’t it still relatively cheaper to recycle?

Mary: Perhaps it is in some places, but in some American cities recycling schemes have

been abandoned because they are too expensive.

In general, candidates should study examples like these, where someone is trying to justify a

point of view (conclusion, recommendation, interpretation, decision, explanation, verdict, or

whatever) by providing reasons, grounds, or premises (which might answer objections, counterarguments

or opposing points of view). It is not difficult to distinguish the reasons and

conclusion in the above example. Here is another example which is much more difficult,

roads that the environment and road safety are under threat. Rail travel should be made

cheaper. Everyone wants the roads to be less crowded, but they still want the convenience

of being able to travel by road themselves. People will not abandon the car in favour of the

train without some new incentive.

Rewriting this with the suitable occurrences of therefore and because can make the argument

crystal clear

Deciding the Credibility of Sources

Candidates are required to:

· use different criteria to decide which sources and authorities are reliable and on what

grounds.

Since so many of our beliefs are based on what other people tell us, in writing, on television or by

word of mouth, candidates need to know how to decide who to believe. The criteria which apply

will depend on the case, but relevant considerations often include:

· the source’s reputation for reliability (contrast the BBC and the Sun newspaper);

· whether the source has a vested interest (for example someone accused of war crimes

who denies any responsibility);

· whether there is corroboration of the claim from independent sources (as when it was

claimed that ‘cold fusion’ had been produced);

· whether the source has the relevant expertise/training (as when a police officer gives

evidence in court);

· the nature of the claim itself (as when someone claims to have witnessed a miracle);

· whether the source can provide credible reasons for the claim they make (as when

someone claims to have encountered ‘aliens’ from another planet).

Candidates should learn how to use these and other criteria in deciding which sources and

authorities are credible/reliable and on what grounds.

Recognising and Evaluating Assumptions

Candidates are required to:

· recognise and evaluate assumptions.

Clarifying Expressions and Ideas

Candidates are required to:

· interpret and clarify terms and ideas whose meaning is unclear, vague, imprecise or

ambiguous and do this in a way which is appropriate to the audience and context.

The process of reasoning often encounters a need for clarification. Terms may be used, or

claims may be made, whose meaning is unclear, vague, imprecise or ambiguous. For example,

if someone argues that ‘natural foods’ are best for us, they might be asked to clarify what they

mean by:

· giving clear examples of such foods and clear examples of foods which are not natural,

· explaining in general terms how this term is normally used, or

· stating clearly what their meaning is.

To take another example, when discussing poverty it is important to be clear what the criteria are

for regarding someone as poor in that context (in Townsend’s famous definition, ‘Individuals,

families and groups in the population can be said to be in poverty when they lack the resources

to obtain the types of diet, participate in the activities and have the living conditions and amenities

which are customary, or at least widely encouraged or approved, in the societies to which they

belong’. (Poverty in the United Kingdom 1979 p31). Knowing when and what kind of clarification

is necessary is an important skill; sometimes adequate clarification may be supplied with the aid

of a dictionary or textbook, sometimes the history of idea will be necessary, sometimes good

examples will do.

Candidates are required to:

· present their own arguments in a clear, logical and coherent way.

It is one thing to understand and evaluate other people’s arguments, but it is quite another thing

to apply the same standards of rigour to one’s own ideas. It is clear that good critical thinking

entails doing this, so in this element of the course candidates should practise using the

language of reasoning, being clear about reasons and conclusions, judging the credibility of

sources, questioning assumptions, and evaluating claims and inferences, but all with respect

to their own arguments, explanations and decisions. The skills described in detail in previous

sections are probably most easily learned in the context of considering other people’s reasoning,

but they also need to be applied to the candidate’s own reasoning and to be displayed (with the

same depth of analysis) in producing good reasoning.