One of my aims with this blog is to further critical thinking. I am doing this now since well over a decade, it is therefore high time to ask:
WHAT IS CRITICAL THINKING?
Critical thinking is the process of analyzing information with a view of forming an evidence-based and reliable judgment. Instead of accepting information at face value, critical thinking involves a deeper, more rigorous and rational process. The core characteristics of critical thinking are:
- Skeptical inquiry: asking questions, not just accepting answers unchecked. A critical thinker constantly probes for clarity and evidence, challenging assumptions and the status quo.
- Analytical evaluation: breaking down complex information into smaller parts to understand how they relate, evaluating the credibility of sources, identifying biases and assessing the strength of evidence.
- Open-minded objectivity: aiming to put aside personal beliefs and biases, considering different viewpoints and adjusting a position convincing evidence.
- Purposeful reflection: aiming to reach a reasoned conclusion, making an informed decision, reflecting on ones own thought processes and correcting flaws in ones arguments.
Regular Thinking tends to be automatic, unstructured, influenced by intuition, beliefs, emotions, habits, experiences, etc. It is useful for mundane things such as deciding what to wear or what to have for dinner. It is akin to what Daniel Kahneman called ‘fast thinking’.
Critical Thinking is more of a deliberate, systematic and rational process. It’s slower and requires conscious effort. It is useful for analyzing a research paper, solving a difficult problems or making a significant life decision. It is akin to what Daniel Kahneman called ‘slow thinking‘.
In essence, critical thinking is a refined and disciplined form of contemplation that aims for clarity, accuracy, and fairness, while regular thinking is for the obvious stuff of every-day life. In other words, most people have both forms of thinking at their disposal and each serves a different set of purposes.
GULLIBLITY
But what about the many people who are unable to think critically and employ regular thinking in the wrong way? In the comments section of this blog, we have met several of them – for instance, people who believe in disproven treatments like homeopathy, individuals who are convinced that the germ theory of disease is false, or guys who subscribe to anti-vaccination myths. They tend to be passionate about their beliefs and seem to fall easily for even the most obvious misinformation. They are unable to understand science and unwilling to change their mind. When confronted with convincing evidence, they conclude that it is a conspiracy. These people, I am afraid, are usually lost to the world of critical thinking – but, to look on the bright side, on this blog, they fulfill an important puropse: they greatly enhance the critical thinking skills of the rest of us.
Thanks guys!
14 Responses to Critical thinking … [and a praise of gullibility]
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Religiosity plays a part. When faith is taught and promoted over evidence, in one aspect of someone’s interpretation of reality, it impacts other areas. We have seen evidence of some faith schools, in the UK, either not teaching subjects like evolution, or trying to suggest that there is a controversy or something to debate. If the law in the UK states there has to be an element of religious teaching, and collective worship it would be nice if critical thinking also had to be taught! More important than ever in an era of AI “instant answers” being promoted.
I’d say they are not so much lost to the world of critical thinking, but are using all their critical thinking skills to try and prop up their belief in homeopathy and other fruitless forms of pseudoscience.
Which indeed must be an extremely exhausting effort, given that not even all the critical thinking in the world is able to actually demonstrate any effects and mechanisms of homeopathy etc..
I noticed this recent piece on the sociology of conspiracy theorists – depressing really, but speaks to the point so often made that these people are coming from a place of emotion rather than rational thought.
https://theconversation.com/why-people-embrace-conspiracy-theories-its-about-community-not-gullibility-262276
I wonder if critical-thinking depends on what one has chosen for a living and that depends on one’s character e.g. a self-employed guy needs to solve problems or go bust whereas a State-employed person tends to blindly follow rules (until they get pissed off and leave e.g. Henry Marsh resigned from the NHS).
Another example: politicians who have never had a proper job but shout “Stop the boats” or “Smash the gangs” as a bromide for the masses (whom they evidently despise by so doing).
An example of someone with a proper job (farmer) was Voisin Andre:
Voisin Andre writes, in chapter 23, of Soil, Grass and Cancer; health of animals and men is linked to the mineral balance of the soil, that e.g. brucellosis in cattle was due to lack of manganese, but when a ration of manganese was added to their food, it had no effect.
(Brucellosis causes abortions and low milk production from bacteria called brucellae)
But when the soil was treated with manganese and half the infected cattle ate that grass, the disease disappeared from that half and their health was restored!
This wonderful book was written 70 years ago and in this case, brucellosis is not a disease of “infection” (the well fed cattle survived equally well when still in contact with the “diseased” half of cattle) but a disease of deficiency in this instance.
“I wonder if critical-thinking depends on what one has chosen for a living”
No.
“and that depends on one’s character”
Not directly.
It depends on upbringing, education, intelligence, etc.
@old bob
Just so you know ‘wondering if critical thinking depends on what you do for a living’ is very obviously untrue. Self employed guys solve problems as do state employed people who are actively problem solving on a daily basis (I am state employed I know this well).
State employed people blindly follow rules. They follow rules yes indeed and some may do so blindly. Many rules are put in place for safety and protection so should be followed. I would hope self employed guys also follow rules particularly airline pilots, builders, electricians (the list is too long) otherwise bad shit happens.
Some people leave the NHS because we cant tolerate there BS (Aseem Malholtra possibly) or are just bad at their job whilst health practitioners in the private sector can be extremely poor critical thinkers. I think Edzard has posted tons on this particular point. Some ex NHS employees clearly have very little critical thinking ( DR John Cambell) for example Which also raises the interesting point that educational status doesn’t necessarily confer critical thinking skills either.
In essence there are generilasations in what you have said that are by themselves largely untrue and the presuppositions from what you have written are also untrue. Unfortunately i have to wonder ‘that what people do for a living doesn’t necessarily infer critical thinking skills’ but also may do if you teach critical thinking skills. It aint black and white.
The aircraft industry is different from most because instead of a punishment ethos, staff are encouraged to cooperate in everything that went wrong, without fear of persecution and the results are excellent. Does anyone remember Rain man? (the surprising Qantas statistic)?
I asked a NZ pilot about that, back in the day, and he said it’s because the Aussies are straight talking: They say what they mean and mean what they say without deference to anybody or anything hence a safety issue gets fixed fast.
Critical thinking does not come out of training, it comes from experience. Build cheap; Fail fast. No amount of theory will do it. How is “critical thinking” different from “thinking”? Thinking *is* critical, otherwise what else is it!
Who reading this is certain, without self-doubt? No one. You start off as some snotty nosed kid thinking you dad is a fool, only to learn, from experience of age, that he was really a genius.
Anyone who thinks they are Right, with a capital “R” are just immature. That’s all.
Like everybody else, I used to believe that Pasteur was a genius, until I read Ethel D. Hume’s book, Bechamp or Pasteur – how wrong I was. And how much more interesting the reality is! Because “…[Truth is stranger than fiction]…”
You could try telling my old managers that NHS employees “blindly follow rules”, as I had something of a reputation for questioning what I was told to do and asking for evidence to support it.
When I was one of the folk charged with reviewing drafts of policies, I would regularly send them back with corrections and questions.
NICE guidelines are another mattter. Following best, evidence-based clinical practice, which is legally defensible, is a prerequisite for any registered clinician here.
Your post is a false dichotomy and, as our host points out, education, background and personality are more important. Not to mention that, in the UK, to train as any form of clinician you have to work for the NHS, as the much vaunted private sector does no training, merely parasitises on the public sector.
It is “our host” who makes a distinction between “education, background and personality” and “character”. Not me. You can have all the education, background and personality in the world but without morality, you are nothing.
And that has what to do with your claim about state employees blindly following rules (which still isn’t remotely correct)?
I’m not sure how OB reconciles these two statements:
and
Brucellosis was eliminated in cattle Australia in 1989 by a program of disease testing and vaccination against Brucella abortus. Soil supplementation with manganese played no role in the elimination campaign.
https://www.agriculture.gov.au/sites/default/files/sitecollectiondocuments/animal-plant/animal-health/pet-food-safety/brucella-abortus-colour.pdf
OB is an example of what a critical thinker is not. Instead of thinking “Gee, I wonder if that 70-yr-old observation has held up, I’ll see what the latest research has to say,” OB sticks with a preferred, and incorrect narrative.
Brucellosis causes Mn deficiency, not the other way around.
Old Bob likes his science the way he likes his name, old, and in this case, outdated.
Brucellosis is a disease process caused by Brucella spp, it is not a nutrient deficiency. Mn deficiency can also cause a disease process, and some of its symptoms overlap with brucellosis. Modern animal agriculture employs a number of strategies to combat brucellosis, not just Mn supplementation.
Of course, nutrition, general health, and environment contribute to susceptibility and survival, but taken too far, and you wind up at terrain theory and food is medicine.
Unlike Old Bob’s, the objectives of science and critical thinking are to build on what we have learned and to refine and improve our understanding of the world, not to recapitulate our ignorance.
Wikipedia Category:Barriers to critical thinking
▶️ Each blue triangle can be tapped (clicked) to activate its drop-down list.