This from the Skeptics dictionary-

critical thinking

The goal of critical thinking is to arrive at the most reasonable beliefs and take the most reasonable actions. We have evolved, however, not to seek the truth, but to survive and reproduce. Critical thinking is an unnatural act. By nature, we’re driven to confirm and defend our current beliefs, even to the point of irrationality. We are prone to reject evidence that conflicts with our beliefs and to attack those who offer such evidence.

Cool. Well stated IMHO. We have evolved with truth seeking not the main objective. I think that says a lot about where we are as a species.

I love the idea of critical thinking. But I suspect that there are built in traps. Namely the idea that there is some universally quantifiable property of ‘reasonableness’. Some standard by which by which we can judge any set of ideas along a set spectrum. I’m fairly certain this isn’t the case.

Rather, reasonableness is judged within the context of a consensus. You and I agree on a certain set of definitions, assumptions and goals, for whatever reason. At that point its then possible to decide whether or not something is reasonable within this paradigm. According to these common objectives. Without this consensus I don’t think there is anywhere to stand.
I don’t think I can level a charge of unreason against someone without a detailed knowledge of their world view. I can certainly disagree with their stated facts but that’s different.

Second, the idea that humans are capable somehow of stepping outside their primal directives in a search for some nebulous truth. Maybe this is possible but I think it needs some really explicit exposition as to what these hypothetical truths are in order to evaluate the claim. If we possess the means and motive to seek truth for reasons other than survival what would those means and motives be precisely? I don’t claim they don’t exist but I’m not willing to concede such a large point sight unseen.

I guess I would endorse actively applying critical thinking to critical thinking itself as step one. Good topic though.

Avogadro’s number - 24 May 2012 05:37 AM

This from the Skeptics dictionary-

critical thinking

The goal of critical thinking is to arrive at the most reasonable beliefs and take the most reasonable actions. We have evolved, however, not to seek the truth, but to survive and reproduce. Critical thinking is an unnatural act. By nature, we’re driven to confirm and defend our current beliefs, even to the point of irrationality. We are prone to reject evidence that conflicts with our beliefs and to attack those who offer such evidence.

Cool. Well stated IMHO. We have evolved with truth seeking not the main objective. I think that says a lot about where we are as a species.

Shermer’s belief-dependent realism.

I think reasonableness is grounded in the concept of eudaimonia established first by the Greeks. The well being of humanity. General welfare.

Still some problems there I know, but it’s a rational framework to work within.

And, it takes some critical thinking ability and skill to help determine what is reasonable to and for most.

Brick Bungalow - 24 May 2012 08:06 AM

I love the idea of critical thinking. But I suspect that there are built in traps. Namely the idea that there is some universally quantifiable property of ‘reasonableness’. Some standard by which by which we can judge any set of ideas along a set spectrum. I’m fairly certain this isn’t the case.

Rather, reasonableness is judged within the context of a consensus. You and I agree on a certain set of definitions, assumptions and goals, for whatever reason. At that point its then possible to decide whether or not something is reasonable within this paradigm. According to these common objectives. Without this consensus I don’t think there is anywhere to stand.
I don’t think I can level a charge of unreason against someone without a detailed knowledge of their world view. I can certainly disagree with their stated facts but that’s different.

Second, the idea that humans are capable somehow of stepping outside their primal directives in a search for some nebulous truth. Maybe this is possible but I think it needs some really explicit exposition as to what these hypothetical truths are in order to evaluate the claim. If we possess the means and motive to seek truth for reasons other than survival what would those means and motives be precisely? I don’t claim they don’t exist but I’m not willing to concede such a large point sight unseen.

I guess I would endorse actively applying critical thinking to critical thinking itself as step one. Good topic though.

I’m not quite sure what your goals are with these statements. First, I don’t think the suggestion of critical thinking as a useful tool makes the assumption that there is a universally quantifiable property of reasonableness. Instead, I think it’s just widely (and rightly) accepted that science is currently the best tool we can use for coming to reasonable answers to reasonable questions. Are you promoting a brand of postmodern relativism wherein a person’s ideas can be ‘reasonable’ so long as they are consistent within their own paradigm even if their beliefs fly in the face of scientific evidence?

No, just pontificating based on my experiences where the phrase ‘critical thinking’ was abused. Essentially marrying certain preferred conclusions rather than trying to isolate a process. Or else advocating skepticism and criticism as ends unto themselves. Creating a sort of feedback loop or crude relativism whereby conclusions and knowledge claims are non starters because to accept them under any circumstance would mean relaxing the all important critical stance. I’m totally personalizing this, I know, but based on previous conversations with many frequent board members I think many of them would empathize.

This seems pertinent here—establishes a set of parameters, I suppose ... at least it seems to be a pretty solid, practical set of parameters with significant consensus among those who concern themselves with such things.

I think critical thinking skills are those that are learned to be used with inductive logic, generally. To critically think we should not start with a priori or premise. Lets evaluate all sides, and all evidences and see where it takes us.

I think that is the main point. To attempt to suspend bias, and definitely subjective bias as much as possible.

It’s almost impossible not to have bias—the trick is to recognize this and to be honest with yourself about it.

I tend to agree with BigRed ... it’s more an issue of being smart/reasonable, and mostly aware, about your biases. For the most clear example, a bias toward being reasonable and realistic and fair and such is obviously desirable.

bigredfutbol - 25 May 2012 07:12 AM

It’s almost impossible not to have bias—the trick is to recognize this and to be honest with yourself about it.

I don’t think this goes nearly far enough, BRF. Humanity is awash in subjective illusion and delusion in our interactions with each other and the world. The trick is in the degree of recognition one is capable of regarding bias. But you’re correct. To recognize it in the first place is a necessary trick. A conscientious juggling of our illusions and delusions can actually be FUN. And we need them to some extent for our survival.

nv - 25 May 2012 07:46 AM

bigredfutbol - 25 May 2012 07:12 AM

It’s almost impossible not to have bias—the trick is to recognize this and to be honest with yourself about it.

I don’t think this goes nearly far enough, BRF. Humanity is awash in subjective illusion and delusion in our interactions with each other and the world. The trick is in the degree of recognition one is capable of regarding bias. But you’re correct. To recognize it in the first place is a necessary trick. A conscientious juggling of our illusions and delusions can actually be FUN. And we need them to some extent for our survival.

This seems to be an excellent start. Denying bias, delusion and the vested interest in ones perspective isn’t thinking critically. That was sort of what I was getting at. I identify as a secular person not because of some certainty about the ultimate nature of the cosmos but because supernatural belief, as I’ve observed it, is such a perfect example of the bad habits I want to avoid.

What I’m curious about is whether critical thinking exists in some sort of vacuum… can you be a critical thinker without some assumed agenda? Some worldview that you are using these critical skills to promote? Does it work if you have no endpoint in view?

nv - 25 May 2012 07:46 AM

bigredfutbol - 25 May 2012 07:12 AM

It’s almost impossible not to have bias—the trick is to recognize this and to be honest with yourself about it.

I don’t think this goes nearly far enough, BRF. Humanity is awash in subjective illusion and delusion in our interactions with each other and the world. The trick is in the degree of recognition one is capable of regarding bias. But you’re correct. To recognize it in the first place is a necessary trick. A conscientious juggling of our illusions and delusions can actually be FUN. And we need them to some extent for our survival.

Absolutely—I was just suggesting a very basic starting point.

Avogadro’s number - 24 May 2012 05:37 AM

This from the Skeptics dictionary-

critical thinking

The goal of critical thinking is to arrive at the most reasonable beliefs and take the most reasonable actions. We have evolved, however, not to seek the truth, but to survive and reproduce. Critical thinking is an unnatural act. By nature, we’re driven to confirm and defend our current beliefs, even to the point of irrationality. We are prone to reject evidence that conflicts with our beliefs and to attack those who offer such evidence.

Cool. Well stated IMHO. We have evolved with truth seeking not the main objective. I think that says a lot about where we are as a species.

I see a lot of truth in that statement, but I’m not sure it encapsulates critical thinking perfectly.

Certainly, it is in our nature to cling to beliefs we cherish, even in the face of contradictory evidence, but everything about us has evolved, including the capacity for critical thinking.  Certain members of our species have evolved into critical thinkers, and their having done so has certainly aided in the survival of the species overall.  I have no formal training in evolution, so forgive me for trespassing on other people’s areas of expertise, but I don’t know if it’s accurate to say that critical thinking is an “unnatural” act.”  (Not that I care much.  I mean, whether something is natural has nothing to do with whether it’s good.)

We have evolved a capacity for critical thinking, it’s just that some people, by nature, are better at it than others.  There is an interesting story out there somewhere about people in Afghanistan (I think).  Living in a war torn region rife with medieval superstition, some people purchased some sort of talisman that would render them invincible in the face of enemy fire.  It made enough sense to them to actually purchase the thing, but with the stakes so high (their lives) something told them to test the thing first.  So, they put it around the neck of a chicken, and shot at it.  They missed at first, and thought, hmm, maybe it works.  Then they focused their aim, and blew the little bird to smithereens, and realized it would probably not be a good idea to head into enemy fire armed only with the talisman.

I dunno.  It would seem to me that critical thinking has taken hold in us somehow, and its memes have persevered to the extent that they have survival value.  I’m sure I’m butchering the language of evolution, but I hope I’m making sense overall.