To ask for your definition of Critical Thinking

[DynamoKev]

A claim often made is that there is a lack of Critical Thinking in the UK.

What do you understand by this term?

It’s being able to form your own judgment after evaluating the situation.

What do you understand by the term?

@Blankspace101

It’s being able to form your own judgment after evaluating the situation.

What do you understand by the term?

I think its one of those terms that is often bandied about in arguments. Its sometimes used as a trope to put down opinions. I don't have a clear idea of what people mean when they refer to it. I am often accused of being too literal, and on occasion I have gained a lot of interesting information and opinions from MN, so I decided to ask rather than assume.

If you Google Bloomberg there are lots of visual representations showing the different stages of analytical thought. I think posters often mean the OP wasn't read carefully and answered a situation that made no sense.

Bloom, not Bloomberg!!

I'd like to follow this as I often think I could do better!

Teach me your ways, O critical experts

I'm not going to argue with Bloomberg etc but when I use it I mean reading/hearing about something and using your own brain to decide if you have enough information to believe or disbelieve it. If you have, fine but check (with yourself) if it's reliable info. If you haven't either find some more info or acknowledge you don't know.

Forming a judgement based on evidence? Good evidence though like statistics or peer reviewed? I struggle with it but agree it should be taught.

I can recommend a very good book by David Robert Grimes called The Irrational Ape, which explains clearly what critical thinking is and why it's important.

For me it's a combination of things - not taking a claim at face value but taking time to consider what evidence is available to support it, being able to understand good quality vs poor quality evidence, being aware of our own and others' biases (both conscious and sub-conscious) that affect our behaviour and actions and being aware that the world is a massively complex place and there are very rarely clear-cut 'right' or 'wrong' answers to challenging questions.

I think its things like, someone has made a statement
*what motivated them to do this
*what biases could they have
*what evidence is behind this statement. Where is it from? Is it reputable and how is the original source biased
*what alternatives could there be
*is this statement likely to be true all the time/on a bigger scale etc or does it just apply to a single situation
*on the balance of probability which statement is likely to be correct or which is more logical

It's just being able to evaluate information. Eg. Does it seem believable? Is the source usually reliable? Who benefits from framing the information in that particular manner? Are there any independant corroborating sources? And so on.

The one I'm still working on for myself is, do I believe this because it confirms my current beliefs?

@DrinkFeckArseBrick

I think its things like, someone has made a statement *what motivated them to do this *what biases could they have *what evidence is behind this statement. Where is it from? Is it reputable and how is the original source biased *what alternatives could there be *is this statement likely to be true all the time/on a bigger scale etc or does it just apply to a single situation *on the balance of probability which statement is likely to be correct or which is more logical

All this. Plus confirmation bias: is this info feeding into something I've already been led to believe? If I remain appropriately sceptical, could I see a different POV?

I did an AS Level/Advanced Extension in Critical Thinking back in ye olden school days, it was offered as an additional course you could take if you'd got decent GCSE results and wanted to extend your broader academic skills. The academic specification defines it as:

Critical Thinking is the analytical thinking which underlies all rational discourse and enquiry. It is characterised by a meticulous and rigorous approach. As an academic discipline, it is unique in that it explicitly focuses on the processes involved in being rational. These processes include:

• analysing arguments
• judging the relevance and significance of information
• evaluating claims, inferences, arguments and explanations
• constructing clear and coherent arguments
• forming well-reasoned judgements and decisions.

The bits I particularly remember are the different ways of analysing the strength of an argument. Identifying the different ways bias affects what someone is telling you, picking apart weak arguments, and how to make your own case in a better way.

As well as the things below, an understanding of logical reasoning is important - not a technical understanding necessarily, but being able to see that for example in a specific circumstance if X is true then Y can't be true, which a lot of people seem to lack.

Also being able to apply scientific and statistical reasoning. An example is a new claim like "70% of women with breast cancer ate b bananas." Does not mean bananas give you breast cancer, but may be presented as if it does. You need more info, like what's the banana eating rate for those who didn't get breast cancer - it might be higher - and are there other factors involved. It's understanding that a "fact" doesn't stand alone and you may need to ask more questions.

Sorry I means news claim