Critical thinking

Meaning, Standards, Principles, Characteristics, Barriers, and Benefits of critical thinking

This chapter is about the meaning and nature of critical thinking; standards of critical thinking,
codes of intellectual conduct: the principles of good arguments and critical thinking,
characteristics of critical thinking: basic features of critical thinker and uncritical thinker, barriers
of critical thinking and the benefits of critical thinking.
Critical thinking can be defined as a wide range of cognitive skills and intellectual dispositions
needed to effectively identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments and truth claims.
- Critical means involving or exercising skilled judgment or observation.
- Critical thinking means thinking clearly and intelligently.
It helps to discover and overcome personal preconceptions and biases; to formulate and present
convincing reasons in support of conclusions; and to make reasonable, intelligent decisions about
what to believe and what to do.
However, it does not automatically follow that being intelligent means being able think critically
or reason about information in a useful, effective and efficient manner. Being smart and
intelligent is not sufficient.
Critical thinking is a process or journey that helps us to arrive at the most useful, helpful, and
most likely destinations when evaluating claims for scientific truth.
It is a process that hopefully leads to an impartial investigation of the data and facts that remains
not swayed by irrelevant emotions.
Critical thinking, thus, is thinking clearly, thinking fairly, thinking rationally, thinking
objectively, and thinking independently.
The main goal of teaching Critical Thinking is therefore, to teach students how to think; that is,
how to become independent, self-directed thinkers and learners. It is about the personal
empowerment and enrichment that result from learning to use your mind to its fullest potential.
The aim of critical thinking is to arrive at well-reasoned, considered, and justifiable conclusions.

Some Definitions of Critical Thinking

The American philosopher, John Dewey, has defined critical thinking as an active, persistent,
and careful consideration of a belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds,
which support it and the further conclusions to which it tends. In this definition, there are three
main points that we should focus on: active, persistent and grounds.
 Critical thinking is an ‘active’ process. In contrast to ‘passive’, a kind of thinking in
which you just receive ideas and information from other people. It is active, in a sense
that you think things through for yourself, raise questions yourself, find relevant

1
 information yourself and so on, rather than learning in a largely passive way from
someone else.
 Critical thinking is persistent and careful consideration. Here, Dewey is contrasting
critical thinking with the kind of unreflective thinking we all sometimes engage in (quick
decisions).
 Critical thinking require the ‘grounds which support’ a belief and the ‘further
conclusions to which it tends’. Or what matters are the reasons we have for believing
something and the implications of our beliefs (skillful reasoning is a key element of
critical thinking).
Dewey’s definition, though it is important, misses some important features of critical thinking.
Edward Glaser defined critical thinking as: (1) an attitude of being disposed to consider in a
thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range of one’s experience; (2)
knowledge of the methods of logical enquiry and reasoning; and (3) some skill in applying those
methods.
If we closely observe Glaser’s definition, it is immediately obvious that this definition owes a lot
to Dewey’s original definition (it seems similar). But there are two points which stands out in
this definition.
 The first sentence speaks about an attitude or disposition to be thoughtful about problems
and recognizes that you can apply what he calls ‘the methods of logical enquiry and
reasoning’ with more or less ‘skill’.
 The tradition has picked up on both these elements, recognizing that critical thinking is
partly a matter of having certain thinking skills. But it is not just a matter of having these
skills; it is also a matter of being disposed to use them.
 Critical thinking combines these habits and abilities in approaching and understanding
our experience.
Robert Ennis defined critical thinking as reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused on
deciding what to believe or do.
Notice that the emphasis on being ‘reasonable’ and ‘reflective’ in this definition is similar with
the above two definitions. But, Ennis speaks of ‘deciding what to . . . do’, which was not
explicitly mentioned in the above definitions.
 Decision-making is an important part of critical thinking in Ennis’s conception.
Richard Paul defined critical thinking as mode of thinking – about any subject, content or
problem – in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking
charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them.
Paul associates critical thinking with reflecting on thoughts.
 It draws attention to a feature of critical thinking on which scholars in the field seem to
be largely agreed - that the only realistic way to develop one’s critical thinking ability is
through ‘thinking about one’s thinking’ (often called ‘meta-cognition’), and consciously
aiming to improve it by reference to some model of good thinking in that domain

2
Michael Scriven has defined critical thinking as skilled and active interpretation and evaluation
of observations and communications, information and argumentation.
He argued that critical thinking is an academic competency akin to reading and writing and is of
similarly fundamental importance.
 He points out that thinking does not count as critical merely because it is intended to be,
any more than thinking counts as scientific simply because it aims to be. To be critical,
thinking has to meet certain standards, (clarity, relevance, reasonableness and so on), and
one may be more or less skilled at this (as skilled activity for reasons).
 He defined critical thinking as an ‘active’ process, partly because it involves questioning
and partly because of the role played by meta-cognition.
 He includes ‘interpretation’ of texts, speech, film, graphics, actions and even body
language, because ‘like explanation, interpretation typically involves constructing and
selecting the best of several alternatives, and it is a crucial preliminary to drawing
conclusions about complex claims’.
 He includes ‘evaluation’ because ‘this is the process of determining the merit, quality,
worth, or value of something’ and much critical thinking is concerned with evaluating the
truth, probability or reliability of claims.
The above definitions, though may not give exhaustive definition by themselves, they
nevertheless provide an important conception of critical thinking together.
Critical thinking is sometimes referred to as ‘criticocreative’ thinking. This word is the
combination of two words: critical and creative. (to emphasize the positive, imaginative aspects
of critical thinking.)
 that the term ‘critical thinking’ is sometimes thought to sound rather negative, as though
one’s only interest is in adversely criticizing other people’s arguments and ideas. This
would be a serious mistake since (and this is the second reason) to be good at evaluating
arguments and ideas, one often has to be very imaginative and creative about other
possibilities, alternative considerations, different options and so on.
 To be a good judge of issues, it is not enough to see faults in what other people say. You
need to base your judgment on the best arguments you can devise in the time available;
and this often requires you to think of relevant considerations other than those presented,
look at issues from different points of view, imagine alternative scenarios and perhaps
find other relevant information – in short, you will need to be quite creative.
Standards of Critical Thinking

The very reason that we learn critical thinking is due to the fact that not every thinking is critical.
Critical thinking is a disciplined thinking governed by clear intellectual standards. To identify a
critical thinking from the uncritical, we refer to some standards. There is a consensus among
philosophers that for thinking to be critical, it has to meet certain standards.

Standard of critical thinking refers a conditions or a level that critical thinking should meet to be
considered as normal and acceptable. Among the most important of these intellectual standards

3
are clarity, precision, accuracy, relevance, consistency, logical correctness, completeness, and
fairness.

Clarity: It is refers to clear understanding of concepts and clearly expressing them in a language
that is free of obscurity and vagueness.

 Before we can effectively evaluate (address) a person’s argument or claim, we need to

understand clearly what the person is saying.
 Clarity is a gateway standard. If a statement is unclear, we cannot determine whether it is
accurate or relevant (we cannot tell anything about it because we do not yet know what it
is saying).
 Sometimes lack of clarity is due to laziness, carelessness, or a lack of skill. At other
times, it results from a misguided effort to appear clever, learned, or profound.
 Critical thinkers, however, not only strive for clarity of language but also seek maximum
clarity of thought.
 To achieve our personal goals in life,
i) we need a clear conception of our goals and priorities,
ii) a realistic grasp of our abilities, and
iii) a clear understanding of the problems and opportunities we face.

Such self-understanding can be achieved only if we value and pursue clarity of thought.

Precision: is a matter of being exact, accurate and careful.

 Though most ideas are seems precise, they are really vague, obscures, and imprecise.
Hence, to get precise understanding, we should pay close attention to details.
 It has a number of understandings, but critical thinkers understand the importance of
precise thinking in different contexts. They understand that to cut through the confusions
and uncertainties that surround many everyday problems and issues, it is often necessary
to insist on precise answers to precise questions:
i) What exactly is the problem we are facing?
ii) What exactly are the alternatives?
iii) What exactly are the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative?

Only when we habitually seek such precision are we truly become critical thinkers.

Accuracy is about correct information (having and getting true/genuine timely information).

 Critical thinking should care a lot about genuine information. If the ideas and thoughts
one processes are not real, then once decision based on wrong and false information will
likely to result in distorting realities.1

1
In the same vein, John Rawls, in his book entitled as ‘A Theory of Justice’ argued that truth is the first virtue of
systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue.

4
  Whether an idea is attractive or sophisticated should be abandoned if it is based on false
information, because false informations are sources of bad decisions.

Relevance: the question of relevance is a question of logical connections. When there is a

discussion or debate, it should focus on relevant ideas and information (those points that bear on
the issue).

 Critical thinkers do not collect any information; they focus and carefully choose only the
information that has logical relation with the ideas at hands.

Consistency is about the quality of always behaving in the same way or of having the same
opinions or standards.

 Critical thinkers prize truth and so are constantly on the lookout for inconsistencies, both
in their own thinking and in the arguments and assertions of others.
 We have to avoid inconsistency: There are two kinds of inconsistency that should be
avoided.
i) One is logical inconsistency, which involves saying or believing inconsistent things
(i.e., things that cannot both or all be true) about a particular matter.
ii) The other is practical inconsistency, which involves saying one thing and doing
another (being hypocrites). As a rule, they involve failures of character to a greater
degree than they do failures of critical reasoning.2
 Critical thinking helps us become aware of (recognize) such unconscious practical
inconsistencies, allowing us to deal with them on a conscious and rational basis.
 A critical thinker should be consistent logically and practically.

Logical Correctness: To think logically is to reason correctly; that is, to draw well-founded
conclusions from the beliefs held.

 To think critically, we need accurate and well supported beliefs.

 When the combinations of thoughts are mutually supporting and make sense in
combination, the thinking is logical, if not, is contradictory and not logical.

Completeness: referring to deep and complete thinking instead of shallow and superficial
thinking, though it is sometimes it is impossible or inappropriate to discuss an issue in depth.

Fairness: critical thinking demands that our thinking be fair - that is, open minded, impartial,
and free of distorting biases and preconceptions.

 Fairness implies the treating of all relevant viewpoints alike without reference to one’s
own feelings or interests.
2
Human beings often display a remarkable capacity for self-deception (people are not fully aware that their words
conflict with their deeds). See Author Harold Kushner’s attitude in relation to this topic.

5
  It can be very difficult to achieve OR, It is probably unrealistic to suppose that our
thinking could ever be completely free of biases and preconceptions; to some extent, we
all perceive reality in ways that are powerfully shaped by our individual life experiences
and cultural backgrounds, identify truth with our own self-interest or the interests of our
nation or group.
 We naturally think from our own perspective, from a point of view, which tends to
privilege our position.
 However, fair-mindedness is clearly an essential attribute of a critical thinker. Hence, it is
important to keep the standard of fairness at the forefront of our thinking.

Codes of Intellectual Conduct for Effective Discussion

Critical thinking’ is a disciplined thinking that provide a wide range of cognitive skills and
intellectual dispositions needed to effectively identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments and truth
claims; and governed by clear intellectual standards that can be used to identify a critical
thinking from the uncritical.

 But the question is that how can we measure the goodness or badness of an argument?
 How is that some thinking are critical, and some are not?

Principles of Good Argument

1) The Structural Principle

The structural principle of a good argument requires that one who argues for or against a position
should use an argument that meets the fundamental structural requirements of a well-formed
argument.

 Argument should not use reasons that contradict each other, that contradict the
conclusion, or that explicitly or implicitly assume the truth of the conclusion.
 Neither does it draw any invalid deductive inferences.
 Good argument require structurally sound (it should be formed in such a way that the
conclusion either follows necessarily from its premises, in the case of deductive
arguments, or follows probably from its premises, in the case of inductive arguments).
 A good argument should also provide us with reasons to believe that the conclusion
deserves our acceptance.
 Argument that could render it fatally flawed would be one whose premises are
incompatible with one another (a conclusion that contradicts another claim in the same
argument violates the law of non-contradiction).

6
 2) The Relevance Principle

An argument for or against a position should set forth only reasons whose truth provides some
evidence for the truth of the conclusion.

 The premises of a good argument must be relevant to the truth or merit of the conclusion
(assessing the truth or acceptability of a premise is non-sense if it is not even relevant to
the truth of the conclusion).
 A premise is relevant if its acceptance provides some reason to believe, counts in favor
of, or has some connection to (bearing on) the truth or merit of the conclusion.
 To determine whether a particular premise or reason is relevant.
i) First, would the premise’s being true in any way make one more likely to believe
that the conclusion is true? If the answer is yes, the premise is probably relevant.
If the answer is no, the premise is probably not relevant.
ii) Second, even if the premise is true, should it be a consideration in the
determination of whether or not the conclusion of the argument is true?

3) The Acceptability Principle

This principle requires that one who presents an argument for or against a position should
provide reasons that are likely to be accepted by a mature, rational person and that meet standard
criteria of acceptability.

 A reason is acceptable if it is the kind of claim that a rational person would accept in the
face of all the relevant evidence available.
 The term “acceptable” is preferable to the more traditional term “true” for several
reasons.
i) First, the notion of acceptability stems from the very nature of argumentative
interchange. In most argumentative situations, the key to achieving agreement on the
conclusion is achieving acceptance of the premises.
ii) Second, since it is notoriously difficult to establish the absolute truth of any
statement, it would be an impractical requirement of a good argument that its
premises must be true in any absolute sense.
iii) Third, an analysis of our language suggests that in many ordinary contexts, what we
typically mean by the word “true” would be more appropriately expressed by the
phrase “accepted as true.”
iv) Fourth, even if a premise were true in the absolute sense, it may be unacceptable to a
particular audience because that audience may not be in a position to determine its
truth.

7
 4) The Sufficiency Principle

It requires that one who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide
relevant and acceptable reasons of the right kind, that together are sufficient in number and
weight to justify the acceptance of the conclusion.

 The assignment of weight to each piece of supporting evidence makes it difficult

to apply this principle (What one participant regards as the most important piece
of evidence, another may regard as trivial by comparison with other possible
evidence) - disagreement over the issues.
 Thus, agreement about the relative weight to give to the kinds of relevant and
acceptable evidence used in support of a conclusion is important.
 To determine the sufficiency of the evidences
i) Are the reasons enough to drive one to the arguer’s proposed conclusion?
ii) is the evidence presented flawed by some kind of faulty causal analysis?
iii) is some key or crucial evidence simply missing from the argument?

Answer to these questions will tell us if the premises are sufficient.

5) The Rebuttal Principle

This principle requires that one who presents an argument for or against a position should
include in the argument an effective rebuttal to all anticipated serious criticisms of the argument
that may be brought against it or against the position it supports.

 a good argument must meet that other side directly.

 a good argument should anticipate and effectively refute or blunt the force of the most
serious criticisms against it and the position that it supports.
i) First, what are the strongest arguments against the position being defended?
ii) Second, does the argument address the counterarguments effectively?
iii) Third, what potentially serious weaknesses in the argument for the position might
be recognized by an opponent?
iv) Fourth, does the argument itself recognize and address those possible
weaknesses?
v) Finally, does the argument show why arguments for alternative positions on the
issue are flawed or unsuccessful?
 Arguments can fail to meet the rebuttal principle in several ways and those
wishing to avoid the responsibility of rebuttal commonly use several diversionary
tactics - clear violations of our obligation to respond honestly to the arguments of
our opponents.
i) misrepresent the criticism (resort to humor or ridicule)
ii) try to avoid responding to a criticism by attacking the critic instead of the
criticism.

8
Principles of Critical Thinking

There are various principles of a critical thinking as parts of the codes of intellectual conduct,
among others,

1) The Fallibility Principle

This principle requires that each participant in a discussion of a disputed issue should be willing
to accept the fact that he or she is fallible, which means that one must acknowledge that one’s
own initial view may be wrong or may not be the most defensible position on the question.

 It is about consciously to accept the fact that you are fallible, if you refuse to accept your
own fallibility, you are, in effect, saying that you are not willing to change your mind,
even if you hear a better argument.
 It also entails the presence of fairness in the game. An admission of fallibility, however,
is a positive sign that you are genuinely interested in the kind of honest inquiry that may
lead to a fair resolution of the issue.

2) The Truth Seeking Principle

This principle requires that each participant should be committed to the task of earnestly
searching for the truth or at least the most defensible position on the issue at stake.

 The search for truth is lifelong endeavor,

i) which principally takes the form of discussion
ii) wherein we systematically entertain the ideas and arguments of fellow seekers
after truth.
iii) while at the same time thoughtfully considering criticisms of our own views
iv) it is imperative to listen to the arguments for alternative positions and encourage
criticism of our own arguments.

3) The Clarity Principle

It requires that the formulations of all positions, defences, and attacks should be free of any kind
of linguistic confusion (expressed in confusing, vague, ambiguous, or contradictory language)
and clearly separated from other positions and issues.

 Any successful discussion of an issue must be carried on in language that all the parties
involved can understand. Even if what we have to say is perfectly clear to ourselves,
others may not be able to understand us.

4) The Burden of Proof Principle

This principle requires that the burden of proof for any position usually rests on the participant
who sets forth the position (accountability for one’s own positions/actions).

9
If, and when, an opponent asks, the proponent should provide an argument for that position.

 But if the claimant is asked “Why?” or “How do you know that is true?” he or she is
logically obligated to produce reasons on behalf of the claim.
 An exception to this rule is a situation in which the claim in question is well established
or uncontroversial. In such a case, the burden of proof might rest on the one who wishes
to challenge that claim.
 To ask others to accept your claim without any support, or to shift the burden of proof to
them by suggesting that your position is true unless they can prove otherwise, is to
commit the fallacy of “arguing from ignorance,” for you are, in this way, making a claim
based on no evidence at all.

5) The Principle of Charity

This principle of a critical thinking requires that if a participant’s argument is reformulated by an

opponent, it should be carefully expressed in its strongest possible version that is consistent with
what is believed to be the original intention of the arguer.

Good discussion in general and argumentation in particular impose an ethical requirement on

their participants.

 It requires being fair with one another’s arguments (being free from any hidden intension
with personal goal)
 If we deliberately create and then attack a weak version of the original argument, we will
probably fail to achieve the very goals that discussion is designed to serve.
 If we are really interested in the truth or the best answer to a problem, then we will want
to evaluate the best version of any argument set forth in support of one of the options.

6) The Suspension of Judgment Principle

This principle requires that if no position is defended by a good argument, or if two or more
positions seem to be defended with equal strength, one should, in most cases, suspend judgment
about the issue.

 Decisions require good basis (suitable evidence)

 It requires refraining oneself from presenting/making judgment without critical
examination.
 If practical considerations seem to require a more immediate decision, one should weigh
the relative benefits or harm connected with the consequences of suspending judgment
and decides the issue on those grounds.
 It may be quite appropriate to suspend judgment on the matter and wait until there is
more of a basis for decision.

10
 7) The Resolution Principle

This principle requires that an issue should be considered resolved if the argument for one of the
alternative positions is a structurally sound, one that uses relevant and acceptable reasons that
together provide sufficient grounds to justify the conclusion and that also include an effective
rebuttal to all serious criticisms of the argument and/or the position it supports (good closure).

 In order to settle issues at stake, an argument should meet all the standards, if flawed in
way that raises doubt about the merit of the positions.
 There are many good arguments out there, and if good arguments resolve issues, why are
not more issues resolved? How much more discussion is needed, just because some
refuse to recognize the force of a good argument? Unfortunately, very few controversial
issues ever come to rational resolution.
 So why does it not happen? Why are issues not resolved? There are probably a number of
reasons.
i) It could be that one of the parties to the dispute has a blind spot; that is, he or she
simply cannot be objective about the particular issue at hand.
ii) Or maybe he or she has been rationally but not psychologically convinced by the
discussion.
iii) Another possible explanation is that one or more of the parties in the dispute have
been rationally careless or at least guilty of not thinking as clearly as they should.
iv) It is even possible that one of the parties has a hidden agenda - an issue to defend
other than the stated one.
v) Or maybe the parties involved are simply not being honest with themselves, for
they may want to win the argument more than they want to find a solution to the
problem.
vi) Finally, perhaps the parties are in what might be called deep disagreement. In
other words, they are divided on the issue because of fundamental underlying
assumptions that have yet to be explored.
 No argument, however, being regarded as permanently successful. There is always the
possibility that new evidence will come to light that will raise new doubts about a
position hold on what were thought to be good grounds. Under these conditions, further
examination is always appropriate.

Characteristics of Critical Thinking

We have defined critical thinking generally as a wide range of cognitive skills and intellectual
dispositions needed to effectively identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments and truth claims.

Distinguishing critical thinker from uncritical one

A. Basic characters of critical thinkers

A critical thinker simply is a person who exhibit some feature of critical thinking. There are
some dispositions and attitudes, skills and abilities, habits and values that every critical person
should manifest. Among others, critical thinkers are:

11
  Honest with themselves, acknowledging what they don't know, recognizing their
limitations, and being watchful of their own errors.
 Regard problems and controversial issues as exciting challenges.
 Strive for understanding, keep curiosity alive, remain patient with complexity, and are
ready to invest time to overcome confusion.
 Base judgments on evidence rather than personal preferences, deferring judgment
whenever evidence is insufficient. They revise judgments when new evidence reveals
error.
 Interested in other people's ideas and so are willing to read and listen attentively, even
when they tend to disagree with the other person.
 Recognize that extreme views (whether conservative or liberal) are seldom correct, so
they avoid them, practice fair-mindedness, and seek a balance view.
 Practice restraint, controlling their feelings rather than being controlled by them, and
thinking before acting.

B. Basic Characters of Uncritical Thinkers

 Pretend they know more than they do, ignore their limitations, and assume their views are
error-free.
 Regard problems and controversial issues as nuisances or threats to their ego.
 Are inpatient with complexity and thus would rather remain confused than make the
effort to understand.
 Base judgments on first impressions and gut reactions. They are unconcerned about the
amount or quality of evidence and cling to their views steadfastly.
 Are preoccupied with themselves and their own opinions, and so are unwilling to pay
attention to others' views. At the first sign of disagreement, they tend to think, "How can I
refute this?"
 Ignore the need for balance and give preference to views that support their established
views.
 Tend to follow their feelings and act impulsively.

The comparison between the two

First, critical thinkers have a passionate drive for clarity, precision, accuracy, and other critical
thinking standards while uncritical thinkers often think in ways that are unclear, imprecise, and
inaccurate.

 Critical thinkers are sensitive to ways in which critical thinking can be skewed by
egocentrism, sociocentrism, wishful thinking, and other impediments, while uncritical
thinkers often fall prey to egocentrism, sociocentrism, relativistic thinking, unwarranted
assumptions, and wishful thinking.

Second, critical thinkers are skilled at understanding, analyzing, and evaluating arguments and
viewpoints whereas uncritical thinkers often misunderstand or evaluate unfairly arguments and
viewpoints.

12
  Critical thinkers reason logically, draw appropriate conclusions from evidence and data,
while uncritical thinkers are illogical, and draw unsupported conclusions from these
sources.

Third, critical thinkers are intellectually honest with themselves, acknowledging what they do
not know and recognizing their limitations while uncritical thinkers pretend they know more than
they do and ignore their limitations.

 Critical thinkers listen open-mindedly to opposing points of view, welcome criticisms of

beliefs and assumptions, whereas uncritical thinkers are closed-minded, and resist
criticisms of beliefs and assumptions.

Fourth, critical thinkers base their beliefs on facts and evidence rather than on personal
preferences or self-interests, while uncritical thinkers often base beliefs on mere personal
preferences or self-interests.

 Critical thinkers are aware of the biases and preconceptions that shape the way they
perceive the world, whereas uncritical thinkers lack awareness of their own biases and
preconceptions.

Fifth, critical thinkers think independently and are not afraid to disagree with group opinion
whereas uncritical thinkers tend to engage in “groupthink” uncritically following the beliefs and
values of the crowd.

 Critical thinkers have the intellectual courage to face and assess fairly ideas that
challenge even their most basic beliefs whereas uncritical thinkers fear and resist ideas
that challenge their basic beliefs.

Finally yet importantly, critical thinkers pursue truth, are curious about a wide range of issues
and have the intellectual perseverance to pursue insights or truths despite obstacles or difficulties
whereas uncritical thinkers are often relatively indifferent to truth and lack curiosity, tend not to
persevere when they encounter intellectual obstacles or difficulties.

Barriers to Critical Thinking

It is an attempt to provide reasons for a question why is it that uncritical thinking is so common?
Why is it that so many people, including many highly educated and intelligent people, find
critical thinking so difficult?, if critical thinking is so important.

Though the reasons are quite complex, it is possible to mention some of the problems tat impede
critical thinking, such as egocentrism, sociocentrism, unwarranted assumptions and stereotype,
relativistic thinking and wishful thinking.

 There are also other common barriers to critical thinking, including, lack of relevant
background information, poor reading skills, bias, prejudice, superstition, peer pressure,
conformism, provincialism (narrow, unsophisticated thinking), narrow-mindedness,

13
 closed-mindedness, distrust in reason, scapegoating (blaming the innocent),
rationalization (inventing excuses to avoid facing our real motives).

1) Egocentrism (self-centered thinking)

Egocentrism is the tendency to see reality as centered on oneself. Egocentrics are selfish, self-
absorbed people who view their interests, ideas, and values as superior to everyone else’s.

All of us are affected to some degree by egocentric biases. Egocentrism can manifest itself in a
variety of ways. Two common forms this are self-interested thinking and the superiority bias.

Self-interested thinking is the tendency to accept and defend beliefs that harmonize with one’s
self-interest. Almost no one is immune to self-interested thinking, however, it is likely that self-
interest plays at least some role in shaping the respective attitudes and beliefs: it is major
obstacles to critical thinking.

 Everyone finds it tempting at times to reason that “this benefits me, therefore it must be
good”; but from a critical thinking standpoint, such “reasoning” is a sham.
It is an assumption that “What is most important is what I want and need.”
 But why should I, or anyone else, accept such an arbitrary and obviously self-serving
assumption? What makes your wants and needs more important than everyone else’s?
 It demands that we weigh evidence and arguments objectively and impartially.

Superiority bias (also known as illusory superiority or the better-than average effect) is the
tendency to overrate oneself - to see oneself as better in some respect than one actually is.

2) Sociocentrism (group-centered thinking)

Sociocentrism can hinder rational thinking by focusing excessively on the group. Sociocentrism
can distort critical thinking in many ways. Two of the most important are group bias and
conformism.

Group bias is the tendency to see one’s own group (nation, tribe, sect, peer group, and the like)
as being inherently better than others (mine-is-better thinking).

 Just as we seem naturally inclined to hold inflated views of ourselves, so we find it easy
to hold inflated views of our family, our community, or our nation. Conversely, we find it
easy to look with suspicion or disfavor on those we regard as “outsiders”.3
 Most people absorb group bias unconsciously, usually from early childhood. It is
common, for example, for people to grow up thinking that their society’s beliefs,
institutions, and values are better than those of other societies.
 Not only affect/cripple the habit of critical thinking, but also it is a great cause of human
conflict, intolerance, and oppression.

3
Social scientists tell us that such thinking is extremely common throughout human history and
across cultures.
14
Conformism refers to our tendency to follow the crowd - that is, to conform (often unthinkingly)
to authority or to group standards of conduct and belief.
 The desire to belong, to be part of the in-group, can be among the most powerful of
human motivations.
 As critical thinkers, we need to be aware of the seductive power of peer pressure and
reliance on authority and develop habits of independent thinking to combat them, since
we are impressed, influenced, and intimidated by authority, so much so that, under the
right conditions, we abandon our own values, beliefs, and judgments, even doubt our own
immediate experience.
3) Unwarranted Assumptions and Stereotypes

An assumption is something we take for granted - something we believe to be true without any
proof or conclusive evidence.
Almost everything we think and do is based on assumptions. It would be impossible to get
through a day without making assumptions; in fact, many of our daily actions are based on
assumptions we have drawn from the patterns in our experience.
 Unwarranted assumptions, however, are unreasonable. An unwarranted assumption is
something taken for granted without good reason. Such assumptions often prevent our
seeing things clearly.
 One of the most common types of unwarranted assumptions is a stereotype.

The word stereotype comes from the printing press era, when plates, or stereotypes, were used
to produce identical copies of one page. Similarly, when we stereotype, as the word is now used,
we assume that individual people have all been stamped from one plate, so all politicians are
alike, members of ethnic groups, professors, women, teachers, and so forth.
 When we form an opinion of someone that is based not on his or her individual qualities
but, rather, on his or her membership in a particular group, we are assuming that all or
virtually all members of that group are alike.
 Typically, stereotypes are arrived at through a process known as hasty generalization, in
which one draws a conclusion about a large class of things(in this case, people) from a
small sample.
 If we are conscious of our tendency to stereotype, we can take measures to end it.

4) Relativistic Thinking

Relativism is the view that truth is a matter of opinion. There are two popular forms of
relativism: subjectivism and cultural relativism.
Subjectivism is the view that truth is a matter of individual opinion. According to subjectivism,
whatever an individual believes is true, is true for that person, and there is no such thing as
“objective” or “absolute” truth, i.e., truth that exists independent of what anyone believes.

15
Cultural relativism is the view that truth is a matter of social or cultural opinion. In other
words, it is the view that what is true for person A is what person A’s culture or society believes
is true. Thus, for the cultural relativist, just as for the subjectivist, there is no objective or
absolute standard of truth. What is true is whatever most people in a society or culture believe to
be true.
- Relativists usually claim, not that all truth is relative, but that truth is relative in some
important domain(s).
- By far the most common form of relativism is moral relativism. Like relativism
generally, moral relativism comes in two major forms: moral subjectivism and cultural
moral relativism.
I) Moral subjectivism is the view that what is morally right and good for an
individual, A, is whatever A believes is morally right and good.
II) Cultural moral relativism, the view that what is morally right and good for an
individual, A, is whatever A’s society or culture believes is morally right and
good.
- Cultural moral relativism is a very popular view. There are two major reasons people
seem to find it so attractive.
A) One has to do with the nature of moral disagreement (the absence of objective truth in
ethics) and
B) Concerns for the value of tolerance. We must be tolerant of other cultures’ moral
beliefs and values, in order to eliminate acts of religious and cultural imperialism.
- Despite these apparent attractions, however, there are deep problems with cultural moral
relativism.
1. Does the fact that there is deep disagreement in ethics show that there is no objective
moral truth - that ethics is just a matter of opinion? b/c let’s analogous with religion
about the existence of God then assess relativity in this regard, whether he exists is
not simply a matter of opinion.
2. Cultural moral relativism does not necessarily support the value of tolerance.
Relativism tells us that we should accept the customs and values of our society. Thus,
if you live in an intolerant society, relativism implies that you too should be
intolerant.
- However, it does not mean that relativism has nothing at all to teach us. It makes us
cautions and open minded regarding our own ethical belief; can teach us an important
lesson about the value of intellectual humility.
5) Wishful Thinking

Wishful thinking refers to a state of believing something not because you had good evidence for
it but simply because you wished it were true.

- Example, when people fantasize about possessing extraordinary personal powers and
accept uncritically accounts of psychic prediction and levitation.

Benefits of Critical Thinking

Critical Thinking: Skills and Dispositions

16
 - Critical thinking teaches you how to raise and identify fundamental questions and
problems in the community.
- It will teach you to reformulate these problems clearly and precisely.
- It will teach you how to gather and assess relevant information, develop reasoned
conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criterion and standards.
- It teaches you how to be open minded to alternative system of thought, recognize and
assess your own assumptions, implications and practical consequences, how to
communicate effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems.
Critical thinking is what university is all about. University is not only about teaching students
with facts. It’s about teaching students to think- think critically.
This chapter will introduce you the skills and dispositions you need to become an independent,
self-directed thinker and learner.
Critical Thinking in the Classroom

In university, the focus is on higher-order thinking: the active, intelligent evaluation of ideas and
information.

In a critical thinking chapter, students learn a variety of skills that can greatly improve their
classroom performance. These skills include:

 Understanding the arguments and beliefs of others

To succeed in university, you must, of course, be able to understand the material you are
studying. It does teach a variety of skills that, with practice, can significantly improve your
ability to understand the arguments and issues discussed in your college textbooks and classes.
 Critically evaluating those arguments and beliefs
In addition, critical thinking can help you critically evaluate what you are learning in class.
During your university career, your instructors will often ask you to discuss “critically” some
argument or idea introduced in class. Critical thinking teaches a wide range of strategies and
skills that can greatly improve your ability to engage in such critical evaluation.

 Developing and defending one’s own well-supported arguments and beliefs

critical thinking can help you critically evaluate what you are learning in class. During your
university career, your instructors will often ask you to discuss “critically” some argument or
idea introduced in class. Critical thinking teaches a wide range of strategies and skills that can
greatly improve your ability to engage in such critical evaluation.
Critical Thinking in Life

First, critical thinking can help us avoid making foolish personal decisions. All of us have at one
time or another made decisions about what profession to choose, what relationships to enter into,
what personal behavior to develop, and the like that we later realized were seriously misguided
or irrational.

17
 - Critical thinking can help us avoid such mistakes by teaching us to think about important
life decisions more carefully, clearly, and logically.

Second, critical thinking plays a vital role in promoting democratic processes. In democracy, it is
the people who have the ultimate say over who governs and for what purposes. Citizens should
vote, should evaluate different public policies, and collectively determine their fate and et cetera.

- Many of today’s most serious societal problems - environmental destruction, poverty,

ethnic conflicts, decaying the morality of societies, high level of corruption , violating
basic human rights, displacement, to mention just a few - have largely been caused by
poor critical thinking.

Third, critical thinking is worth studying for its own sake, simply for the personal enrichment it
can bring to our lives. One of the most basic truths of the human condition is that most people,
most of the time, believe what they are told.

- Critical thinking, honestly and courageously pursued can help free us from the
unexamined assumptions and biases of our upbringing and our society. It lets us step
back from the prevailing customs and ideologies of our culture and ask, “This is what
I’ve been taught, but is it true? In short, critical thinking allows us to lead self-directed,
“examined” lives.
- It is a sole means of personal liberation.

18