C H A PT E R 1

Introduction to
Critical Thinking

This book is about the power of disciplined thinking. It’s about learning to
think for yourself and being your own person. It’s about the personal enrichment
that results from learning to use your mind to its fullest potential. In short, it’s
about critical thinking.
Critical thinking is what a college education is all about. In many high
schools, the emphasis tends to be on “lower-order thinking.” Students are simply
expected to passively absorb information and then repeat it back on tests. In college, Criticism lies at
by contrast, the emphasis is on fostering “higher-order thinking”: the active, intelli- the very heart
gent evaluation of ideas and information. This doesn’t mean that factual informa- of education.
tion and rote learning are ignored in college. But it is not the main goal of a college —Robert Paul Wolff
education to teach students what to think. The main goal is to teach students how
to think—that is, how to become independent, self-directed thinkers and learners.
We live in exciting, fast-changing times. With the click of a mouse or the tap
of a finger, each of us has instant access to a world of thoughtful, well-reasoned
­analysis—or to a sewer of bigotry, illogic, and misinformation. Many people today
rely heavily on social media, openly partisan news outlets, and other dubious
sources for much of their news, information, and social commentary. This has led
The purpose
to a dangerous proliferation of ill-informed, extremist views and a growing number
which runs
of people who dwell in a toxic “echo chamber” of endlessly repeated and reinforced
through all other
monolithic views. As Thomas Jefferson stated, “in a republican nation, whose cit-
educational
izens are to be led by reason and persuasion and not by force, the art of reasoning
becomes of first importance.” Never in human history, perhaps, has it been more purposes—the
important to master this Jeffersonian “art of reasoning.” common thread
of education—is
the development
What Is Critical Thinking? of the ability to
think.
Often when we use the word critical we mean “negative and fault-finding.” This —Educational
Policies
is the sense we have in mind, for example, when we complain about a parent or Commission
a friend who we think is unfairly critical of what we do or say. But critical also
2 CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Critical Thinking

means “involving or exercising skilled judgment or observation.” In this sense,

critical thinking means thinking clearly and intelligently. More precisely, critical
thinking is the general term given to a wide range of cognitive skills, attitudes,
and intellectual dispositions needed to effectively identify, analyze, and evaluate
arguments and truth claims; to discover and overcome biases and false precon-
ceptions; to formulate and present sound reasons in support of conclusions; and
to make reasonable, intelligent decisions about what to believe and what to do.
Put somewhat differently, critical thinking is disciplined thinking governed
by high intellectual standards. Among the most important of these intellectual
standards are clarity, precision, accuracy, relevance, consistency, logical correct-
ness, completeness, and fairness.1 Let’s begin our introduction to critical think-
ing by looking briefly at each of these important critical thinking standards.

Critical Thinking Standards

Clarity
Before we can effectively evaluate a person’s argument or claim, we need to under-
Everything that stand clearly what they are saying. Unfortunately, that can be difficult because
can be said people often fail to express themselves clearly. Sometimes this lack of clarity is due
can be said to laziness, carelessness, or a lack of skill. At other times, it results from a mis-
clearly. guided effort to appear clever, learned, or profound. Consider the following passage
—Ludwig from philosopher Martin Heidegger’s influential but notoriously obscure book
Wittgenstein
Being and Time:
Temporality makes possible the unity of existence, facticity, and falling, and
in this way constitutes primordially the totality of the structure of care. The
items of care have not been pieced together cumulatively any more than
temporality itself has been put together “in the course of time” [“mit der
Zeit”] out of the future, the having been, and the Present. Temporality “is”
not an entity at all. It is not, but it temporalizes itself. . . . Temporality tem­
poralizes, and indeed it temporalizes possible ways of itself. These make
possible the multiplicity of Dasein’s modes of Being, and especially the
basic possibility of authentic or inauthentic existence.2
That may be profound, or it may be nonsense, or it may be both. Whatever
exactly it is, it is quite needlessly obscure.
As William Strunk Jr. and E. B. White remark in their classic The Elements
of Style, “[M]uddiness is not merely a disturber of prose, it is also a destroyer
of life, of hope: death on the highway caused by a badly worded road sign,
heartbreak among lovers caused by a misplaced phrase in a well-intentioned
letter. . . .”3 Only by paying careful attention to language can we avoid such need-
less miscommunications and disappointments.
Critical thinkers strive not only for clarity of language; they also seek
maximum clarity of thought. As self-help books constantly remind us, to achieve
 Critical Thinking Standards 3

a realistic grasp of our abilities, and a clear understanding of the problems and
opportunities we face. Such self-understanding can be achieved only if we value
and pursue the clarity of thought.

Precision
Detective stories contain some of the most interesting examples of critical think-
ing in fiction. The most famous fictional sleuth is, of course, Sherlock Holmes,
the immortal creation of British writer Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. In Doyle’s
stories, Holmes is often able to solve complex mysteries when the bungling
detectives from Scotland Yard haven’t so much as a clue. What is the secret of
his success? An extraordinary commitment to precision—that is, exact, detailed
information and analysis. First, by careful and highly trained observation, Holmes
is able to discover clues that others have overlooked. Then, by a process of
precise logical inference, he is able to reason from those clues to discover the
solution to the mystery. A constant
Everyone recognizes the importance of precision in specialized fields such exercise of the
as medicine, mathematics, architecture, and engineering. Critical thinkers also discipline of
understand the importance of precise thinking in daily life. They understand that precise thought
to cut through the confusions and uncertainties that surround many everyday makes for more
problems and issues, it is often necessary to insist on precise answers to precise lucid and exact
questions: What exactly is the problem we’re facing? What precisely are the alter- thinking.
natives? What exactly are the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative? —John Hick
Only when we habitually seek such precision are we truly critical thinkers.

Accuracy
There is a well-known saying about computers: “Garbage in, garbage out.” Sim-
ply put, this means that if you put bad information into a computer, bad infor-
mation is exactly what you will get out of it. Much the same is true of human
thinking. No matter how brilliant you may be, you’re almost guaranteed to make
bad decisions if your decisions are based on false information. No one can
A good example of this is provided by the 2020 U.S. presidential election. navigate well
Following his decisive defeat at the polls, President Trump falsely declared that through life
the election was “rigged” and that he had actually “won by a lot.” Despite clear without an
evidence to the contrary, many Trump loyalists accepted this “Big Lie.” What accurate map by
resulted was an unprecedented assault on American democracy, culminating in which to steer.
the violent insurrectionist attack on the U.S. capitol on January 6, 2021, and a Knowledge is
wave of voter-suppression laws in states with Republican legislatures. None of the possession
this would have occurred had Trump supporters honestly examined how base- of such a map,
less were claims of election rigging and widespread illegal voting. and truth is
Critical thinkers don’t merely value the truth; they have a passion for what the map
accurate, timely information. As consumers, citizens, workers, and parents, they gives us, linking
strive to make decisions that are as informed as possible. In the spirit of Soc- us to reality.
rates’ famous statement that the unexamined life is not worth living, they never —Tom Morris
stop learning, growing, and inquiring.
4 CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Critical Thinking

Relevance
Anyone who has ever sat through a meandering, unproductive meeting or
watched a mud-slinging political debate can appreciate the importance of staying
focused on relevant, on-topic ideas and information. A favorite debater’s trick
is to try to distract an audience’s attention by raising an irrelevant issue. Even
Abraham Lincoln wasn’t above such tricks, as the following story told by his
law partner illustrates:
In a case where Judge [Stephen T.] Logan—always earnest and grave—
opposed him, Lincoln created no little merriment by his reference to
Logan’s style of dress. He carried the surprise in store for the latter, till he
reached his turn before the jury. Addressing them, he said: “Gentlemen,
you must be careful and not permit yourselves to be overcome by the
eloquence of counsel for the defense. Judge Logan, I know, is an effective
lawyer. I have met him too often to doubt that; but shrewd and careful
though he be, still he is sometimes wrong. Since this trial has begun I have
No tedious and discovered that, with all his caution and fastidiousness, he hasn’t knowl­
irrelevant edge enough to put his shirt on right.” Logan turned red as crimson, but
discussion can sure enough, Lincoln was correct, for the former had donned a new shirt,
be allowed; and by mistake had drawn it over his head with the pleated bosom behind.
The general laugh which followed destroyed the effect of Logan’s elo­
what is said
quence over the jury—the very point at which Lincoln aimed.4
should be
pertinent. Lincoln’s ploy was entertaining and succeeded in distracting the jury. Had the
—Plato jurors been thinking critically, however, they would have realized that carelessness
about one’s clothing has no logical relevance to the strength of one’s arguments.
Critical thinkers stay on topic, on track.

Consistency
It is easy to see why consistency is essential to critical thinking. Logic tells us that
if a person holds inconsistent beliefs, at least one of those beliefs must be false.
Critical thinkers prize truth and so are constantly on the lookout for inconsisten-
cies, both in their own thinking and in the arguments and assertions of others.
“Consistency” means “doing the same.” Thus, someone acts consistently
The guiding when their thoughts, words, or deeds agree with either their past thoughts,
principle of words, or deeds (so-called diachronic consistency) or with their present ones
rational (synchronic consistency). Critical thinkers have integrity---a kind of integral
behavior is wholeness---both in what they believe and in what they say and do. There are
consistency. thus two kinds of inconsistencies they are careful to avoid. One is logical incon-
—Deborah J. sistency, which involves saying or believing inconsistent things (i.e., things that
Bennett cannot both or all be true) about a particular matter. The other is practical
inconsistency, which involves saying one thing and doing another.
Sometimes people are fully aware that their words conflict with their deeds.
The politician who cynically breaks her campaign promises once she takes office,
the TV evangelist caught in an extramarital affair, the drug counselor arrested for
peddling drugs—such people are hypocrites
 Critical Thinking Standards 5

Speaking of Inconsistency . . .

Philosophy professor Kenneth R. Merrill has built a better mousetrap and has kept
(1932–2018) offers the following tongue-in- his shoulder to the wheel.
cheek advice for writers. What kind of 6. Keep your language simple. Eschew ses­
inconsistency does Merrill commit? quipedalian locutions and fustian rheto­
ric. Stay clear of the crepuscular—nay,
1. Watch your spelling. Writters who mis­
tenebrific and fuliginous—regions of oro­
pele a lott of words are propperly
tund sonorities.
reguarded as iliterate.
7. Avoid vogue words. Hopefully, the writer
2. Don’t forget the apostrophe where its
will remember that her words basically
needed, but don’t stick it in where theres
impact the reader at the dynamic interface
no need for it. A writers reputation hangs
of creative thought and action. To be via­
on such trif le’s.
ble, the writer’s parameters must enable
3. Don’t exaggerate. Overstatement always
her to engage the knowledgeable reader
causes infinite harm.
in a meaningful dialogue—­especially at
4. Beware of the dangling participle. For­
this point in time, when people tend to pri­
getting this admonition, infelicitous
oritize their priorities optimally.
phrases creep into our writing.
8. Avoid profane or abusive language. It is
5. Clichés should be avoided like the plague.
a damned outrage how many knuckle-
However, hackneyed language is not
dragging slobs vilify people they dis­
likely to be a problem for the writer who,
agree with.5
since he was knee-high to a grasshopper,

thinking point of view, such examples are not especially interesting. As a rule, they There is a
involve failures of character more than they do failures of critical reasoning.
difference
More interesting from a critical thinking standpoint are cases in which
between
people are not fully aware that their words conflict with their deeds. Such cases
knowing the
highlight an important lesson of critical thinking: that human beings often dis-
path and
play a remarkable capacity for self-deception. Author Harold Kushner cites an
walking the
all-too-­typical example:
path.
Ask the average person which is more important to him, making money or —Morpheus, in
being devoted to his family, and virtually everyone will answer family without The Matrix
hesitation. But watch how the average person actually lives out his life. See
where he really invests his time and energy, and he will give away the fact
that he really does not live by what he says he believes. He has let himself
be persuaded that if he leaves for work earlier in the morning and comes home
more tired at night, he is proving how devoted he is to his family by expend­
ing himself to provide them with all the things they have seen advertised.6
Critical thinking helps us become aware of such unconscious practical incon-
sistencies, allowing us to deal with them on a conscious and rational basis.
It is also common, of course, for people to unknowingly hold inconsistent
beliefs about a particular subject. In fact, as Socrates pointed out long ago, such
unconscious logical inconsistency is far more common
6 CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Critical Thinking

Man is the
Critical Thinking Lapse
Reasoning The human race are masters of the ridiculous. There was actually a story
Animal. Such is in our newspaper of a man who was bitten on the tongue while kissing
the claim. I think a rattlesnake. He decided to try a nonscientific remedy he heard about
it is open to to counteract a snakebite. So he wired his mouth to a pickup truck bat­
dispute. Indeed, tery and tried to jump-start his tongue. It knocked him out and he ended
up in the hospital, where he lost part of his tongue and one lip.7
my experiments
have proven to
me that he is
the Unreasoning suspect. As we shall see, for example, many today claim that “morality is rela-
Animal. Note his tive,” while holding a variety of views that imply that it is not relative. Critical
history…. His thinking helps us recognize such logical inconsistencies or, still better, avoid
record is the them altogether.
fantastic record
of a maniac. Logical Correctness
—Mark Twain
To think logically is to reason correctly—that is, to draw well-founded conclusions
from the beliefs we hold. To think critically we need accurate and well-supported
Intelligence beliefs. But, just as important, we need to be able to reason from those beliefs to
means a conclusions (“inferences”) that logically follow from them. Unfortunately, illogical
person who thinking is all too common in human affairs. Bertrand Russell, in his classic essay
can see “An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish,” provides an amusing example:
implications I am sometimes shocked by the blasphemies of those who think themselves
and arrive at pious—for instance, the nuns who never take a bath without wearing a
conclusions. bathrobe all the time. When asked why, since no man can see them, they
—Talmud reply: “Oh, but you forget the good God.” Apparently they conceive of the
deity as a Peeping Tom, whose omnipotence enables Him to see through
bathroom walls, but who is foiled by bathrobes. This view strikes me as
curious.8

As Russell observes, from the proposition

God sees everything.
the pious nuns correctly drew the conclusion
God sees through bathroom walls.

It is only when However, they failed to draw the equally obvious conclusion that
there is God sees through bathrobes.
completeness
Such illogic is, indeed, curious—but not, alas, uncommon.
and
exhaustiveness Completeness
that there is
scholarship. In most contexts, we rightly prefer deep, through, and complete thinking to
—Hsün Tzu
thinking that is shallow and superficial. Thus, we justly condemn slipshod crim-
inal investigations, hasty jury deliberations,
 Critical Thinking Standards 7

driving directions, and snap medical diagnoses. Of course, there are times when
it is impossible or inappropriate to discuss an issue in depth; no one would
expect, for example, a thorough and wide-ranging discussion of the ethics of
human genetic research in a short newspaper editorial. Generally speaking, how-
ever, thinking is better when it is deep rather than shallow, and thorough rather
than spotty and superficial.

Fairness
Finally, critical thinking demands that our thinking be fair—that is, open-minded,
impartial, and free of distorting biases and preconceptions. That can be very Closed-
difficult to achieve, particularly in today’s polarized environment. Even the most mindedness
superficial acquaintance with history and the social sciences tells us that people means
are often strongly disposed to resist unfamiliar ideas, to prejudge issues, to stereo- premature
type outsiders, and to identify truth with their own self-­interest or the interests of intellectual old
their nation or group. It is probably unrealistic to suppose that our thinking could age.
ever be completely free of biases and preconceptions; to some extent, we all per- —John Dewey
ceive reality in ways that are powerfully shaped by our individual life experiences
and cultural backgrounds. But as difficult as it may be to achieve, basic fair-
mindedness is clearly an essential attribute of a critical thinker. We act and think
unjustly when we fail to treat opposing views with the respect they deserve, allow
bias to close our minds and hearts, or refuse to “treat like cases alike” by holding
ourselves to different intellectual standards than we hold others.

Exercise 1.1

I. Break into groups of four or five. Choose one member of your group to take notes
and be the group reporter. Discuss your education up to this point. To what extent has
your education prepared you to think clearly, precisely, accurately, logically, and
so forth? Have you ever known a person (e.g., a teacher or a parent) who strongly
modeled the critical thinking standards discussed in this section? If so, how?
II. Have you ever been guilty of either practical inconsistency (saying one thing
and doing another) or logical inconsistency (believing inconsistent things about a
particular issue)? In small groups think of examples either from your own experience
or from that of someone you know. Be prepared to share your examples with the class
as a whole.
III. Are clarity, precision, accuracy, relevance, consistency, logicalness, completeness,
and fairness universal intellectual standards? That is, are they valid at all times and in
all contexts? Are there any situations in which some or all of these norms should not
be applied? Explain and defend your answer.
IV. How high are intellectual standards in contemporary politics? In the mass media?
On social media? Can you think of any ways of improving the quality of thought and
discussion in these areas?
8 CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Critical Thinking

The Benefits of Critical Thinking

Having examined some of the key intellectual standards that lie at the heart of
critical thinking and reasoning, (clarity, precision, and so forth), let’s now consider
more specifically what you can expect to gain from a course in critical thinking.

Critical Thinking in the Classroom

As we noted, college is a lot different from high school. In college, the focus is
less on memorization and more on higher-order thinking: the active, intelligent
evaluation of ideas and information. For this reason, critical thinking plays a
vital role throughout the college curriculum.
In a critical thinking course, students learn a variety of skills that can
greatly improve their classroom performance. These skills include:
• understanding the arguments and beliefs of others,
• critically evaluating those arguments and beliefs, and
• developing and defending one’s own thoughtful, well-supported
arguments and beliefs.
Let’s look briefly at each of these three skills.
To do well in college, you must, of course, be able to understand the
We don’t want material you are studying. A course in critical thinking cannot make inherently
you to difficult material easy, but it will teach a variety of skills that, with practice, can
axiomatically significantly improve your ability to understand the arguments and issues dis-
accept the cussed in your college textbooks and classes.
conventional In addition, critical thinking can help you critically evaluate what you are
wisdom on a learning in class. During your college career, your instructors will often ask you
particular to discuss “critically” some argument or idea introduced in class. Critical think-
subject. Indeed, ing teaches a wide range of strategies and skills that can greatly improve your
your first instinct ability to do so.
should be to You will also frequently be asked to develop your own arguments on particular
question it. topics or issues. In an American Government class, for example, you might be
—John J. asked to write a paper addressing the issue of whether the Electoral College in
Mearsheimer U.S. presidential elections should be abolished. To write such a paper successfully,
you must do more than simply find and assess relevant arguments and information.
You must also be able to marshal arguments and evidence in a way that convinc-
ingly supports your view. The systematic training provided in a course in critical
thinking can greatly improve that skill as well.

Critical Thinking in the Workplace

Surveys indicate that fewer than half of today’s college graduates can expect to be
working in their major field of study within five years of graduation. This statistic
speaks volumes about changing workplace realities. Increasingly, employers are
looking not for employees with highly specialized career skills, since such skills
 Common Barriers to Critical Thinking 9

thinking and communication skills—quick learners who can solve problems, think
creatively, gather and analyze information, draw appropriate conclusions from Communication
data, and communicate their ideas clearly and effectively. These are exactly the skills, critical
kinds of generalized thinking and problem-solving skills that a course in critical thinking skills,
thinking can improve. and writing skills
are ... the crucial
Critical Thinking in Life attributes most
employers value
Critical thinking is hugely important in many contexts outside the classroom and the
while hiring a
workplace. Let’s look briefly at three important respects in which this is the case.
potential
First, critical thinking can help us avoid making foolish personal decisions.
employee.
All of us have at one time or another made decisions about consumer purchases,
—The Economic
relationships, personal behavior, and the like that we later realized were seriously Times
misguided or irrational. Critical thinking can help us avoid such mistakes by teach-
ing us to think about important life decisions more carefully, clearly, and logically.
Second, critical thinking plays an essential role in promoting democratic
processes. Despite what cynics might say, in a democracy it really is “we the
people” who have the final say over who governs and to what ends. It is vitally
important, therefore, that citizens’ decisions be as informed and as thoughtful
as possible. Many of today’s most serious social problems—climate change, unre-
sponsive government, failing schools, a broken healthcare system, rampant gun
violence, lack of affordable childcare, a shrinking middle-class, and an economy
that works mostly for the wealthy, to mention just a few—have largely been Citizens who
caused by poor critical thinking. Without an active and informed citizenry, such think for
problems will only grow worse. themselves,
Third, critical thinking is worth studying for its own sake, simply for the rather than
personal enrichment and empowerment it can bring to our lives. One of the most uncritically
basic truths of the human condition is that most people, most of the time, believe ingesting what
what they are told. Throughout most of recorded history, people accepted without their leaders
question that the earth was the center of the universe, that demons cause disease, tell them, are
that slavery was just, and that women are inferior to men. Critical thinking, hon- the absolutely
estly and courageously pursued, can help free us from the unexamined assump- necessary
tions and biases of our upbringing and our society. It lets us step back from the ingredient of a
prevailing customs, values, and beliefs of our culture and ask, “This is what I’ve society that is
been taught, but is it true? Does it make sense?” In short, critical thinking allows to remain truly
us to lead self-directed, autonomous “examined” lives. Such personal liberation is, free.
as the word itself implies, the ultimate goal of a liberal arts education. Whatever —Howard Kahane
other benefits it brings, a liberal education can have no greater reward.

Common Barriers to Critical Thinking

The preceding section raises an obvious question: If critical thinking is so obviously
important 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?
10 CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Critical Thinking

The reasons, as you might expect, are quite complex. Following is a list
of some of the most common impediments to critical thinking:
• lack of education and relevant background information
• bias
• prejudice
• superstition
• credulity (gullibility)
• egocentrism (self-centered thinking)
• sociocentrism (group-centered thinking)
• peer pressure
• conformism
• tribalism
• provincialism (narrow, unsophisticated thinking)
• narrow-mindedness
• close-mindedness
• misology (distrust in reason and rational argument)
• distrust in science
• distrust in credible media sources
• misplaced trust in lying politicians or other unreliable sources
• relativistic thinking
• stereotyping
• unwarranted assumptions
• scapegoating (blaming the innocent)
• rationalization (inventing excuses to avoid facing our real motives)
• wishful thinking
• short-term thinking
• conspiratorial thinking
• selective perception
• tunnel vision (missing the bigger picture due to an excessively narrow
focus)
• overpowering appetities or emotions
• self-deception
• intellectual sloth (lack of curiosity and disinterest in things of the mind)
• confirmation bias (favoring evidence that supports one’s current
views)
• other common cognitive biases (see box titled “The Hazards of
Mental Shortcuts” on the next page)
 Common Barriers to Critical Thinking 11

The Hazards of Mental Shortcuts

Aristotle called humans the rational ani- we judge probability based on resem-
mal. We humans certainly take pride in our blance. For quick decisions, this heuris-
ability as critical thinkers, but we aren’t tic is valuable though not infallible. If a
always as rational as Aristotle might have mangy stray dog with foam coming out
believed. Some of our cognitive tools of its mouth is approaching me, then
evolved under evolutionary pressure that I will have to decide quickly what to do.
required us to make quick decisions. As a I may be tempted to try to help the dog,
result, the cognitive tools that may serve but the representativeness heuristic will
us well when we have to make a quick tell me that there is a significant chance
decision, like whether that’s a saber- that the dog has rabies—the dog resem-
toothed tiger approaching, serve us less bles other dogs that have rabies. So
well when we use them to make decisions I will avoid the dog and call the animal
that require more careful consideration, control office in my town. Even if it turns
like whether to buy a particular car. These out that the dog is healthy and friendly,
tools are called heuristics. I will be glad that I erred on the side of
A heuristic is a rule of thumb for prob- caution.
lem solving and decision making. Be- Consider another example. You are a
cause heuristics allow us to make basketball scout for an NBA team, and you
judgments and decisions quickly, they come across a high school player who is
are valuable time-saving tools. Problems the same height and weight as LeBron
result, though, when we use the wrong James. He also has the same scoring aver-
tool at the wrong time. In their landmark age that James did in high school. Should
article “Judgment under Uncertainty: you recommend that your team draft this
Heuristics and Biases,” psychologists player out of high school? It would cer-
Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman tainly be tempting, and your automatic
identified three heuristics that lead us to thinking might scream that yes you should.
make mistakes when they are misap- But unlike the case of the stray dog, this is
plied. Kahneman’s best-selling book not a case where a quick decision needs
Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011) points to to be made. Signing an NBA player is a ma-
the fundamental problem: We are apt to jor investment, and most players turn out
make mistakes when we quickly apply to be bad investments. You should pause
heuristics to situations that require and be skeptical. Ask yourself: What are
slower, more deliberate consideration. the chances of finding another LeBron
In 2002 Kahneman was awarded the James? There are some striking similari-
Nobel Prize in Economics, a fact that testi- ties, but in what ways does your prospect
fies to the fruitfulness of his work. Tversky differ from James?
and Kahneman’s studies on heuristics The second heuristic is the availabil-
have had a major impact not just in their ity heuristic, according to which we
home discipline of psychology but also in judge frequency by the ease with which
economics, public policy, military plan- we can bring examples to mind. For ex-
ning, medical training, and many more ample, when asked to judge whether
areas. cancer is a common cause of death
The first heuristic is the representa- among Americans over sixty years old,
tiveness heuristic, according to which I will automatically search my memory for
12 CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Critical Thinking

people I know who died of cancer when point. If I am visiting New York City and
they were over sixty years old, and I will I see a Statue of Liberty souvenir for sale
answer yes. by a street merchant, I will have a price in
Consider this question: Is the average mind that I am willing to pay, for example,
American more likely to die in a terrorist ten dollars. When I ask the price, I may
attack or in a swimming pool? If you think be willing to pay a little more if the mer-
about it quickly and apply the availability chant tells me it’s handmade or that it’s
heuristic, you may be tempted to answer the last one he has. But ten dollars will be
that death in a terrorist attack is more the standard by which I judge the price.
likely. After all, you may have just seen the For a quick and minor decision such as
news on your social media feed of yet an- this, my anchor price will probably serve
other terrorist attack. But in fact, more me well.
Americans die in swimming pools each If the first computer I ever bought was a
year than in terrorist attacks. We just don’t used IBM PC that cost 1000 dollars in 1995,
hear nearly as much about swimming pool then that price may serve as my anchor. A
deaths because they don’t make exciting new PC in 2022 that costs 800 dollars
news stories. So if you are afraid of terror- will automatically seem very inexpensive
ist attacks or if you are deciding whether to me. But in fact, it may be overpriced. The
or not to buy a pool, you might want to same model may be available for only
think more slowly and deliberately about 600 dollars at a different store. I need to
matters. think slowly and deliberately to free myself
The anchoring and adjustment heu- from my anchor in this case.
ristic describes the common tendency to The lesson of recent research on heu-
make an estimate based on an initial ristics and other cognitive biases is clear:
starting point (the “anchor”) and then fail Rational thinking is more difficult than has
to adjust sufficiently from that starting long been assumed.

Let’s look in detail at five of these impediments—egocentrism, sociocentrism,

unwarranted assumptions, relativistic thinking, and wishful thinking—that play
an especially powerful role in hindering critical thinking.

Egocentrism
Egocentrism is the tendency to see reality as centered on oneself. Egocentrics are
selfish, self-absorbed people who see their rights and needs as more important to
everyone else’s. All of us are affected to some degree by egocentric biases.
How quick Egocentrism can reveal itself in a host of ways. Two common forms are
come the self-interested thinking and the superiority bias.
reasons for Self-interested thinking is the tendency to accept and defend beliefs that
approving what ­harmonize with one’s self-interest. Almost no one is immune to self-interested
we like! thinking. Most rich people favor low taxes on the wealthy; most poor people do
—Jane Austen
not. Most state university professors strongly support tenure, paid sabbaticals, low
teaching loads, and a strong faculty voice in
 Common Barriers to Critical Thinking 13

taxpayers and university administrators do not. Most ­American voters favor cam-
paign finance reform; most elected politicians do not. Of course, some of these
beliefs may be supported by good reasons. From a psychological standpoint, how-
ever, it is likely that self-interest plays at least some role in shaping the respective
attitudes and beliefs.
Self-interested thinking, however understandable it may seem, is a major
obstacle to critical thinking. Everyone finds it tempting at times to reason that
“this benefits me, so it must be good”; but from a critical thinking standpoint,
such “reasoning” is a sham. Implicit in such thinking is the 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? Critical thinking
condemns such special pleading. It demands that we weigh evidence and argu-
ments objectively and impartially. Ultimately, it demands that we revere truth—
even when it hurts.
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. We have all known braggarts or know-it-alls who claim to be
more smarter, luckier, more talented, or more knowledgeable than they really are.
If you are like most people, you probably think of yourself as being an unusually
self-aware person who is largely immune from any such self-deception. If so, then The one thing
you too are probably suffering from superiority bias. that unites all
Studies show that superiority bias is an extremely common trait. In one human beings,
survey, one million high school seniors were asked to rate themselves on their regardless of
“ability to get along with others.” Only 15 percent put themselves below the age, gender,
median.9 Other surveys have shown that 90 percent of business managers and religion,
more than 90 percent of college professors rate their performance as better than economic
average. Student surveys indicate that most college students think they are far status, or ethnic
less likely to get divorced, develop a drinking problem, fail at business, or die background, is
of cancer than their peers. It is easy, of course, to understand why people tend that, deep
to overrate themselves. We all like to feel good about ourselves. Nobody likes down inside,
to think of himself or herself as being “below average” in some important we all believe
respect. At the same time, however, it is important to be able to look honestly that we are
at our personal strengths and weaknesses. We want to set high personal goals, above-average
but not goals that are wildly unrealistic. Self-confidence grounded in genuine drivers.
accomplishment is an important element of success. Overconfidence is an obsta- —Dave Barry
cle to genuine personal and intellectual growth.

Sociocentrism
Sociocentrism is group-centered thinking. Just as egocentrism can hinder rational
thinking by focusing excessively on the self, so can sociocentrism short-circuit
rational thought by focusing excessively on the group.
Sociocentrism can distort critical thinking in many ways. Three of the
most important are group bias, tribalism, and conformism.
14 CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Critical Thinking

Group bias is the tendency to see one’s own group (nation, tribe, sect, peer
Custom and group, and the like) as being inherently better than others. Social scientists tell us
example have that such thinking is extremely common throughout human history and across
a much more cultures. Just as we seem naturally inclined to hold inflated views of ourselves, so
persuasive we find it easy to hold inflated views of our family, our community, or our nation.
power than any Conversely, we find it easy to look with suspicion or disfavor on those we regard
certitude as “outsiders.”
obtained by Most people absorb group bias unconsciously, usually from early child-
way of inquiry. hood. It is common, for example, for people to grow up thinking that their
—René Descartes society’s beliefs, institutions, and values are better than those of other societies.
Consider this exchange between eight-year-old Maurice D. and the well-known
Swiss scientist and philosopher Jean Piaget:
Maurice D. (8 years, 3 months old): If you didn’t have any nationality and
you were given a free choice of nationality, which would you choose?
Swiss nationality. Why? Because I was born in Switzerland. Now look, do
you think the French and the Swiss are equally nice, or the one nicer or
less nice than the other? The Swiss are nicer. Why? The French are
always nasty. Who is more intelligent, the Swiss or the French, or do you
think they’re just the same? The Swiss are more intelligent. Why? Because
they learn French quickly. If I asked a French boy to choose any nation-
ality he liked, what country do you think he’d choose? He’d choose
France. Why? Because he was born in France. And what would he say
about who’s nicer? Would he think the Swiss and the French equally nice
or one better than the other? He’d say the French are nicer. Why? Because
he was born in France. And who would he think more intelligent?
The French. Why? He’d say that the French want to learn quicker than
the Swiss. Now you and the French boy don’t really give the same answer.
Who do you think answered best? I did. Why? Because Switzerland is
always better.10

Although most people outgrow such childish nationalistic biases to some extent,
To those who few of us manage to outgrow them completely. Clearly, this kind of “mine-is-
would better” thinking lies at the root of a great deal of human conflict, intolerance,
investigate the and oppression.
cause of Another common form of sociocentrism is tribalism—strong feelings of
existing loyalty to, and identification with, one’s tribe, clan, or perceived in-group. Par-
opinions, the ticularly during periods of stress or perceived threat, tribalist commitments to
study of “oneness and sameness” can grow strong—sometimes to the point that they
predispositions overwhelm reason and what Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature.”
is much more Outsized tribalist loyalties are often difficult to recognize, since they are rooted
important than in evolution and frequently operate below the level of conscious awareness. Like
the study of other forms of sociocentrism, however, tribalism can ride roughshod over rea-
argument. son, logic, and common decency. For those reasons, we must all be alert to its
—W. E. H. Lecky powerful subconscious allure and be sensitive to situations in which loyalties to
our “tribe” or social group is causing harmful exclusion, unjust partiality, or loss
of some large good.
 Common Barriers to Critical Thinking 15

A third common form of sociocentric thinking is conformism (some-

times called the herd instinct). 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 two
classic experiments demonstrate, this desire to conform can seriously crip-
ple our powers of critical reasoning.
In the first experiment, conducted in the 1950s by Solomon Asch,
groups of eight college students were asked to match a standard line like the
following

with three comparison lines such as these:

A
B
C
In each group, only one of the eight participants was unaware of the true nature
of the experiment; the other seven were confederates working in league with When fifty
the experimenter. In each case, the single true subject was seated at the end million people
of the table and asked to answer last. In some trials, the seven confederates say a foolish
unanimously gave the correct answer (B); in others, they unanimously gave an thing, it is still a
incorrect answer. The results: When no pressure to conform was present, sub- foolish thing.
jects gave the correct answer more than 99 percent of the time. When faced —Anatole France
with the united opposition of their peers, however, almost one-third (32 per-
cent) of the subjects refused to believe their own eyes and gave answers that
were obviously incorrect!
Another famous experiment was conducted by Stanley Milgram in the
1960s.11 In Milgram’s experiment, subjects were asked to administer a series of
increasingly severe electrical shocks to people whom the subjects could hear but
couldn’t see. (In fact, no actual shocks were given; the shock “victims” were
actually confederates who merely pretended to be in pain.) Subjects were told
that they were participating in a study of the effects of punishment on learning.
Their task was to act as “teachers” who inflicted progressively more painful
shocks on “learners” whenever the latter failed to answer a question correctly.
The severity of the shocks was controlled by a series of thirty switches, which
ranged in 15-volt intervals from 15 volts (“Slight Shock”) to 450 volts (“XX
Danger: Severe Shock”). The purpose of the study was to determine how far
ordinary people would go in inflicting pain on total strangers, simply because
they were asked to do so by someone perceived to be “an authority.”
The results were, well, shocking. More than 85 percent of the subjects
continued to administer shocks beyond the 300-volt mark, long after the point
at which they could hear the victims crying out or pounding on the walls in
pain. After the 330-volt mark, the screaming stopped, and for all the subjects
knew, the victims were either unconscious or dead.
16 CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Critical Thinking

two-thirds (65 percent) of the subjects continued to administer shocks, as they

Growing up were instructed, until they had administered the maximum 450 volts.
means The lesson of these studies is clear: “Authority moves us. We are impressed,
throwing off influenced, and intimidated by authority, so much so that, under the right con-
dependence ditions, we abandon our own values, beliefs, and judgments, even doubt our own
upon external immediate sensory experience.”12 As critical thinkers, we need to be aware of
authority. the seductive power of conformism and develop habits of independent thinking
—Jerome Frank to combat it.

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. If the weather report calls for rain, we take a rain jacket
because we assume that the meteorologist is not lying, that the report is based on
a scientific analysis of weather patterns, that the instruments are accurate, and so
forth. There may be no proof that any of this is true, but we realize that it is wiser
to take the jacket than to insist that the weather bureau provide exhaustive evi-
dence to justify its prediction.
Although we often hear the injunction “Don’t assume,” it would be impossi-
ble 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 experi-
ence. You go to class at the scheduled time because you assume that class is being
held at its normal hour and in its same place. You don’t call the professor each
day to ask if class is being held; you just assume that it is. Such assumptions are
warranted, which means that we have good reason to hold them. When you see a
driver coming toward you with the turn signal on, you have good reason to believe
that the driver intends to turn. You may be incorrect, and it might be safer to
withhold action until you are certain, but your assumption is not unreasonable.
Unwarranted assumptions, however, are unreasonable. An unwarranted
assumption is something taken for granted without good reason. Such assump-
tions often prevent our seeing things clearly. For example, our attraction for
someone might cause us to assume that they feel the same way and thus to
interpret that person’s actions incorrectly.
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, or Muslims, or
African Americans, professors, women, and so forth. When we form an opinion
of someone that is based not on their individual qualities but, rather, on their
membership in a particular group, we are assuming that all or virtually all
members of that group are alike. Because people are not identical, no matter
what race or other similarities they share, stereotypical conceptions will often
be false or misleading.
 Common Barriers to Critical Thinking 17

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 meet one South Bergian who is
rude, we might jump to the conclusion that all or most South Bergians are rude.
Or we might generalize from what we have heard from a few friends or read in General
a single news story. Often the media—advertisements, the news, movies, and so
notions are
forth—encourage stereotyping by the way they portray groups of people.
generally
The assumptions we need to become most conscious of are not the ones that
wrong.
lead to our routine behaviors, such as carrying a rain jacket or going to class, but
—Mary Worthley
the ones on which we base our more important attitudes, actions, and decisions. Montague
If we are conscious of our tendency to stereotype, we can take measures to end it.

Exercise 1.2

I. Read this story and answer the questions that follow.

When it happened, a disturbing mix of feelings bubbled inside you. It sickened
you to watch the boat slip beneath the waves and disappear forever; so much
work had gone into maintaining it and keeping it afloat, but at least everyone
was safe in the tiny lifeboat you’d had just enough time to launch. You secretly
congratulated yourself for having had the foresight to stock the lifeboat with a
few emergency items, such as a small amount of food and water, but you knew
that a boat built to hold three, maybe four people wasn’t going to survive too
long with such an overload of passengers.
You looked around at your companions: the brilliant Dr. Brown, whose
cleverness and quick wit had impressed you on many occasions; Marie
Brown, pregnant and clearly exhausted from the climb into the lifeboat;
Lieutenant Ashley Morganstern, a twenty-year veteran who’d seen the most
brutal sorts of combat; the lieutenant’s secretary and traveling companion,
whose shirt you noticed for the first time bore the monogram LB, but whom
everyone called, simply, “Letty”; and Eagle-Eye Sam, the trusted friend who’d
been at your side for many years as you sailed the oceans in your precious,
now-vanished boat and whose nickname came from his ability to spot the
smallest objects seemingly miles away at sea.
Seeing the fear on your passengers’ faces, you tried to comfort them:
“Don’t worry; we’ll be fine. They’ll be looking for us right away. I’m sure of
it.” But you weren’t so sure. In fact, you knew it wasn’t true. It might be days
before you were found, since you’d had no time to radio for help. Rescuers
probably wouldn’t be dispatched until Friday, five days from now, when your
failure to show up in port would finally arouse concern.
On the third day, your passengers showed increasing signs of frustration,
anger, and fear. “Where are they?” Marie cried. “We can’t go on like this!”
You knew she was right. We can’t, you thought, not all of us anyway.
On the fourth day, the food was completely gone, and just enough water
remained to keep perhaps three people alive for another day, maybe two.
Suddenly, things got worse. “Is that water?!” Marie screamed, pointing a
shaking finger at the bottom of the lifeboat. Horrified, you looked down to see
18 CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Critical Thinking

grabbed a T-shirt that was lying in the bottom of the boat and used it like a
sponge to absorb the water, wringing it out over the side and plunging it
into the invading water again and again. But it was no use; the water began
to seep in faster than Brown could work.
“We’re too heavy,” the lieutenant insisted without emotion. “We’ve got to
lighten the load. Someone has to get out and swim.”
“Swim?!” Marie gasped in disbelief. “Are you insane?! There are sharks in
these waters!”
“Who’s it going to be, Captain?” the lieutenant asked almost coldly,
staring you square in the eye. “Which one of us swims?”
“Me. I’ll go,” you say, swinging your leg out over the side of the boat.
“No,” Letty insisted. “You’re the only one who knows how to navigate. If
you go, we’ll all die. You must choose one of us to sacrifice.”
And so you did.
A. Answer the following questions individually.
1. Which one did you choose? Why? Why didn’t you choose the others?
2. As you read, you probably imagined what the characters looked like. From
the image you had of them, describe the following characters in a few
sentences:
The Captain
Dr. Brown
Marie Brown
Lieutenant Ashley Morganstern
Letty
Eagle-Eye Sam
3. Do you think Dr. Brown is related to Marie Brown? If so, how?
B. Now form groups of three and complete the following tasks:
1. Compare your responses to question 1 in part A. Discuss the reasons for
your decisions. Is there any consensus in the group?
2. Do you all agree on the relationship between Dr. Brown and Marie Brown?
3. What evidence is there in the story to support your answer for question 3
in part A? Is it possible that they are related in another way or not at all?
4. Look at your portraits of Dr. Brown. How many assumptions did you and
your group members make about the doctor’s gender, age, appearance, and
profession? What evidence in the story supports your image of the doctor? If
your images are similar, what do you think accounts for that similarity? Are
your mental images similar to ones we normally see in the media, for example?
5. Look at your portraits of the other characters. First, what similarities do
you find among your group’s members? Second, what evidence is there in
the story to support your assumptions? Are other assumptions possible?
Finally, where do you think your mental images came from?
II. In groups of three or four, name and explain a stereotypical conception people
may have had about you over the years. Note how that stereotypical conception
keeps others from coming to know you more accurately. Turn your page over and
exchange papers with other members of your group. See if the other members can
determine which stereotype description goes with what member of your group.
 Common Barriers to Critical Thinking 19

Relativistic Thinking
Nearly every college professor has had at least one conversation like the
following:
Pat: Professor X, I don’t understand why you gave me a D on this paper.
Prof. X: Well, as I noted in my written comments, you state your
opinions, but you don’t offer any reasons to back them up.
Pat: Do you mean you gave me a low grade because you disagree with my
opinions?
Prof. X: No, not at all, Pat. You received a low grade because you didn’t
give any arguments or evidence to support your opinions.
Pat: But isn’t everyone entitled to their own opinion? And can anyone
ever really prove that their opinion is right and everyone else’s is wrong?
Why, then, do I have to give reasons for my opinions when I’m entitled
to hold them and no one can prove that they’re wrong?
Pat, here, has fallen into the trap of relativistic thinking. It is crucial to under-
stand why this is a trap, because once one has fallen into it, it is very difficult
to see any point in studying critical thinking at all.
Relativism is the view that there is no objective or factual truth, but that
truth varies from individual to individual, or from culture to culture. There are
two popular forms of relativism: subjectivism and cultural relativism. Subjectivism
is the view that truth is a matter of individual opinion. This is the view Pat
­apparently holds. According to subjectivism, whatever an individual believes is
true, is true for that person, and there is no such thing as “objective” or “abso-
lute” truth, that is, truth that exists independent of what anyone believes. For
example, suppose Bobby thinks action films are better than romantic comedies,
and Alice believes the opposite. According to subjectivism, action films are better
than romantic comedies for Bobby but not for Alice. Both beliefs are true—for
them. And truth for one individual or another is the only kind of truth there is.
The other common form of relativism is cultural relativism. This is the
view that truth is a matter of social or cultural opinion. In other words, cultural
relativism is the view that what is true for person A is what A’s culture or society
believes is true. Eating with your fingers, for example, might be considered rude
in South Bergia but not in North Bergia. According to cultural relativism, there-
fore, eating with your fingers is rude in South Bergia but not North Bergia.
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.
Relatively few people endorse subjectivism or cultural relativism in the
pure, unqualified forms in which we have stated them. Almost everybody would
admit, for example, that 1 + 1 = 2 is true, no matter who might be ignorant
or deluded enough to deny it. What relativists usually claim, therefore, is 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
20 CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Critical Thinking

generally, moral relativism comes in two major forms: moral subjectivism and
cultural moral relativism. Moral subjectivism is the view that what is morally
right and good for an individual, A, is whatever A believes is morally right and
Our thinking good. Thus, if Andy believes that premarital sex is always wrong, and Jennifer
something right believes that it is not always wrong, according to moral subjectivism premarital
or wrong is not sex is always wrong for Andy and is not always wrong for Jennifer.
what makes it The other major form of moral relativism is cultural moral relativism, the
so. view that what is morally right and good for an individual, A, is whatever A’s
—Tom Regan society or culture believes is morally right and good. Thus, according to cultural
moral relativism, if culture A believes that polygamy is wrong, and culture B
believes that polygamy is right, then polygamy is wrong for culture A and right
for culture B.
Cultural moral relativism is a very popular view today, especially among
the young. There are two major reasons people seem to find it so attractive.
One has to do with the nature of moral disagreement, and the other concerns
the value of tolerance.
Moral disagreements are a matter of ethics, and ethics obviously, is very
different from math or science. In math and science, there are arguments and
disagreements, but not nearly to the extent there are in ethics. For example,
all mathematicians agree that 2 + 3 = 5, and all scientists agree that the
earth is larger than the moon. In ethics, there is widespread disagreement,
the disagreements often go very deep, and there seems to be no rational way
to resolve many of them. For instance, people in the United States disagree
strongly about the morality of abortion or same-sex marriage. What such deep
disagreements show, some people conclude, is that there is no objective truth
in ethics; morality is just a matter of individual belief or social convention.
Another reason people find cultural moral relativism attractive is that it
seems to support the value of tolerance. Throughout history, terrible wars,
persecutions, and acts of religious and cultural imperialism have been commit-
ted by people who firmly believed in the absolute righteousness of their cul-
ture’s beliefs and values. Cultural moral relativism seems to imply that we must
be tolerant of other cultures’ moral beliefs and values. If culture A believes
that polygamy is wrong, and culture B believes that it is right, then culture A
must agree that polygamy is right for culture B, no matter how offensive the
practice may be to culture A.
Despite these apparent attractions, however, there are deep problems with
cultural moral relativism, as the following exercise (adapted from a set of role-­
playing scenarios developed by Dr. Grant H. Cornwell)13 will illustrate.

Exercise 1.3
In groups of four or five, choose a group reporter to take notes and be the group
spokesperson. Read and discuss one of the following case studies as assigned by
your instructor.
 Common Barriers to Critical Thinking 21

Case 1
Definition: A cultural moral relativist is one who maintains the following thesis:
Whatever members of a culture believe is morally right and good is morally
right and good for them.
You are a member of culture C studying cultures A and B. You are a
committed cultural moral relativist, that is, you maintain wholeheartedly the
relativist thesis.
Culture A is a pacifist culture and believes that it is always morally wrong
to commit a violent act against another human being for any reason.
Culture B is a militaristic and slaveholding culture. Its members believe that
it is morally good and right to invade, subjugate, and enslave other cultures.
While you are observing them, culture B invades culture A.

Discussion Questions
1. What can you consistently believe with regard to the morality of culture A? The
morality of culture B? Specifically, as a consistent moral relativist, can you criticize or
condemn the morality of culture A? Of culture B?
2. What can you consistently do with regard to culture B’s invasion and attempted
subjugation of culture A?
Case 2
Definition: A cultural moral relativist is one who maintains the following thesis:
Whatever members of a culture believe is morally right and good is morally
right and good for them.
You are a member of culture B and a committed cultural moral relativist,
that is, you maintain wholeheartedly the relativist thesis.
Culture B is a militaristic and slaveholding culture. A majority of its
members believe that it is morally right and good to invade, subjugate, and
enslave other cultures.
Culture A is a pacifist culture. A majority of its members believe that it is
always wrong to commit any act of violence against another human being
for any reason.
Culture B believes that it is morally wrong for culture A to practice pacifism.
Culture B invades culture A. Its aim is to subjugate and enslave members of
culture A and force some of them to participate in gladiatorial bouts for the
amusement of members of culture B.

Discussion Questions
1. Is there any logical inconsistency in being a cultural moral relativist and also
belonging to culture B? (Hint: Consider not only what culture B believes is right and
good for its own members to do but also what it believes is right and good for other
cultures to do.) If so, which beliefs, precisely, are inconsistent?
2. What can you consistently believe with regard to the morality of culture A? The
morality of culture B? Specifically, as a consistent moral relativist, can you criticize or
condemn the morality of culture A? Of culture B?
22 CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Critical Thinking

3. What can you consistently do with regard to culture B’s invasion and attempted
conquest of culture A?
Case 3
Definition: A cultural moral relativist is one who maintains the following
thesis:
Whatever members of a culture believe is morally right and good is morally
right and good for them.
Culture B consists of two subcultures: the Alphas and the Betas. The
Alphas are a ruling majority group. They believe that it is morally right to
randomly select a young child for sacrifice at the beginning of each year.
The Betas are an oppressed minority group with its own distinctive cultural,
moral, and religious practices. Betas believe strongly that child sacrifice is
morally wrong.
You are a member of culture B and a Beta. You are also a committed
cultural moral relativist, that is, you maintain wholeheartedly the relativist
thesis.
Culture A is a pacifist culture. Members of this culture believe that it is
always wrong to commit any act of violence against another human being
for any reason.
The Alphas believe that it is morally right to impose their beliefs and values
on culture A. They believe that it is a moral atrocity that culture A does
not sacrifice children, and they believe that they have a moral duty to use
whatever means are necessary to change the beliefs of culture A and have
its members comply with this practice.
Culture B invades culture A and begins its program of subjugation and
indoctrination.

Discussion Questions
1. Is it possible for an individual to belong to more than one culture at the same time?
If so, does this pose any logical difficulty for the cultural moral relativist?
2. Is there any logical difficulty in being a moral relativist and belonging to culture B?
(Hint: Consider not only what culture B believes is right and good for its own mem-
bers to do but also what it believes is right and good for other cultures to do.)
3. What can you consistently believe with regard to the morality of culture A? The
morality of culture B? Specifically, as a consistent moral relativist, can you criticize or
condemn the morality of culture A? Of culture B?
4. What can you consistently do with regard to culture B’s invasion and attempted
subjugation of culture A?
5. Suppose that sometime in the future the Betas become the majority subculture in
culture B, and a majority of culture B comes to believe that child sacrifice is wrong.
Can this be described as “moral progress” from the standpoint of cultural moral rela-
tivism? Why or why not?
 Common Barriers to Critical Thinking 23

These cases highlight several serious problems with cultural moral relativism.
1. Relativism makes it impossible for us to criticize or condemn other
cultures’ values, even those that seem horribly and clearly wrong. We
can no longer say, for example, that a particular culture is wrong to
practice slavery or child sacrifice, as long as that culture believes that
those practices are morally right.
2. Relativism makes it impossible for us to criticize or condemn our own
societies’ prevailing values. Suppose you personally oppose racial
segregation, but a majority of your society supports it. According to
relativism, you must change your mind and agree that racial
segregation is right in your society. In fact, if relativism is true,
anyone who criticizes majority values is always wrong. Total
conformity to majority opinion is required.
3. Relativism rules out the idea of moral progress. Moral values can
change, but if relativism is true, they can never become better or
worse, for relativism implies that what is right for a society is what
that culture believes is right at that time. Thus, a relativist cannot say,
for example, that the abolition of slavery or laws outlawing gender
discrimination represented moral progress in the United States.
4. Relativism can lead to conflicting moral duties. There are several ways
in which a relativist might find himself stuck with conflicting moral
beliefs and duties. Cases 2 and 3 highlight two ways in which this
can occur:14
a. When a relativist is a member of a society that holds beliefs that
conflict with moral relativism (cases 2 and 3). If your society
believes, for example, that child sacrifice is absolutely and
objectively right, then you too, as a moral relativist, must believe
that child sacrifice is absolutely and objectively right, for whatever
moral beliefs your society holds, you must hold as well.
b. When a relativist belongs to two or more cultures and those cultures
hold mutually inconsistent moral beliefs (case 3). Can a person
belong to two different cultures at the same time? It is hard to
see why not. An Amish farmer living in Ohio, for instance, would
seem to be a member of both an Amish culture and a larger
American one. If such dual membership is possible, however,
conflicts can clearly occur between the two cultures’ moral codes.
And given relativism’s claim that what is right for a person is
whatever their culture believes is right, this could lead to
conflicting moral duties.
Thus, cultural moral relativism has consequences that make it very difficult to
accept. In addition, however, it can be shown that the two main reasons people
are attracted to cultural moral relativism—ethical disagreement and the value of
tolerance—are not good reasons at all.
24 CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Critical Thinking

First, does the fact that there is deep and persistent disagreement in ethics
show that there is no objective moral truth—that ethics is just a matter of opin-
ion? Hardly. Think about another area in which there is deep, pervasive, and
seemingly irresolvable disagreement: religion. People disagree vehemently over
whether God exists, whether there is an afterlife, and so forth; yet we don’t
conclude from this that there is no objective truth about these matters. It may
be difficult to know whether God exists. But whether he exists is not simply a
matter of opinion. Thus, deep disagreement about an issue does not show that
there is no objective truth about that issue.
Second, as the cases in Exercise 1.3 make clear, 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
We should all intolerant society, relativism implies that you too should be intolerant.
tolerate each Does this mean that cultural moral relativism has nothing at all to teach
other because us? No. The fact that people disagree so much about ethics does not show that
we are all moral truth is simply a matter of opinion, but it should make us cautious and
weak, open-minded regarding our own ethical beliefs. If millions of obviously decent,
inconsistent, intelligent people disagree with you, how can you be sure that your values are
subject to the correct ones? In this way, relativism can teach us an important lesson about
mutability and the value of intellectual humility. But we don’t need relativism—which is a false
to error. and confused theory—to teach us this lesson. We can learn it just by opening
—Voltaire
our hearts and minds and reflecting honestly about the challenges of living an
ethical life.

Wishful Thinking
Once, as a Little Leaguer, one of the authors was thrown out at the plate in a
The easiest foolish attempt to stretch a triple into a home run, possibly costing the team the
thing of all is to game. Angry and disappointed, he refused to believe that he had really been
deceive one’s thrown out. “I was safe by a mile,” he said plaintively to his disbelieving coaches
self; for what a and teammates. It was only years later, when he was an adult, that he could admit
man wishes, he to himself that he really had been out—out, in fact, by a mile.
generally Have you ever been guilty of wishful thinking—believing something not
believes to be because you had good evidence for it but simply because you wished it were
true. true? If so, you’re not alone. Throughout history, human intelligence has done
—Demosthenes battle with wishful thinking and has usually come out the loser.
People fear the unknown and invent comforting myths to render the
universe less hostile and more predictable. They fear death and listen eagerly
to stories of healing crystals, quack cures, tales of past lives, and communica-
The universe is tion with the dead. They fantasize about possessing extraordinary personal
what it is, not powers and accept uncritically accounts of psychic prediction, levitation, mir-
what I choose acle cures, and ESP. They delight in tales of the marvelous and the uncanny,
that it should be. and they buy mass-market tabloids that feature headlines such as “Spiritual
—Bertrand Russell
Sex Channeler: Medium Helps Grieving Widows Make Love to their Dead
Husbands.”15 They kid themselves into
 Qualities of a Critical Thinker 25

then find themselves dealing with the consequences of unwanted pregnancies,

drunk-driving convictions, drug addiction, homelessness, or COVID-19.

Exercise 1.4

I. Have you ever been guilty of self-interested thinking, superiority bias, group bias,
tribalism, conformism, or wishful thinking? Without embarrassing yourself too much,
discuss these critical thinking lapses in groups of three or four; then share with the
class whatever examples you’d like to discuss.
II. This textbook gives a number of examples of self-interested thinking, superiority
bias, group bias, conformism, and wishful thinking. Jot down at least two additional
examples of each of these five critical thinking hindrances. Divide into groups of
three or four, discuss your examples with the group, and share what you think are the
best examples with the class as a whole.

Qualities of a Critical Thinker

We hope that, over the course of this chapter, a picture has begun to emerge of
the key qualities of a critical thinker. Some of these qualities involve intellectual
skills, such as a well-honed ability to analyze arguments, weigh evidence, reason to
well-supported conclusions, formulate sound arguments, and detect shoddy rea-
soning. Other characteristics involve attitudes, such as a recognition of the impor-
tance of high intellectual standards, evidence-based reasoning, open-mindedness,
sensitivity to common impediments to sound thinking, and the love of truth.
Still other attributes involve dispositions—firmly ingrained habits of mind and
character—such as a fair-mindedness, intellectual courage, inquisitiveness, intellec-
tual diligence, carefulness, thoroughness, attentiveness, and intellectual humility.
Pulling these all together, we are now in a position to offer a general profile of a
critical thinker. The following list contrasts some of the key intellectual traits
of critical thinkers with the relevant traits of uncritical thinkers.16

Critical Thinkers . . . Uncritical Thinkers . . .

Have a passionate drive for clarity Often think in ways that are
precision, accuracy, and other criti- unclear, imprecise, and What is the
cal thinking standards. inaccurate. hardest task in
the world? To
Are sensitive to ways in which Often fall prey to egocentrism, so- think.
critical thinking can be skewed by ciocentrism, relativistic thinking,
—Ralph Waldo
egocentrism, sociocentrism, wishful unwarranted assumptions, and Emerson
thinking, and other impediments. wishful thinking.
Are skilled at understanding, analyz- Often misunderstand or evalu-
ing, and evaluating arguments and ate unfairly arguments and
viewpoints. viewpoints.
26 CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Critical Thinking

Reason logically and draw appropri- Think illogically and draw un-
ate conclusions from evidence and supported conclusions from evi-
data. dence and data.
Are intellectually honest with them- Pretend they know more than
selves, acknowledging what they do and ignore their
they don’t know and recognizing limitations.
their limitations.
Listen open-mindedly to opposing Are close-minded and resist
points of view and welcome criticisms criticisms of beliefs and
of beliefs and assumptions. assumptions.
Base their beliefs on facts and evi- Often base beliefs on mere per-
dence rather than on personal prefer- sonal preference or self-interest.
ence or self-interest.
Are aware of the biases and precon- Lack awareness of their own
ceptions that shape the way they per- biases and preconceptions.
ceive the world.
Think independently and are not Tend to engage in “groupthink,”
afraid to disagree with group uncritically following the beliefs
opinion. and values of the crowd.
Are able to get to the heart of an Are easily distracted and lack
issue or a problem, without being the ability to zero in on the es-
distracted by details. sence of an issue or a problem.
Have the intellectual courage to face Fear and resist ideas that chal-
and assess fairly ideas that challenge lenge their basic beliefs.
even their most basic beliefs.
Pursue truth and are curious about a Are often relatively indifferent
wide range of issues. to truth and lack curiosity.
Character is
destiny.
Have the intellectual perseverance to Tend not to persevere when
pursue insights or truths despite ob- they encounter intellectual
—Heraclitus
stacles or difficulties. obstacles or difficulties.

A course in critical thinking is like most other things in life: You get out of
it what you put into it. If you approach critical thinking as a chore—a pointless
general education requirement you need to get out of the way before you can turn
to more “relevant” courses in your major—a chore it will be. On the other hand, if
you approach critical thinking as an opportunity to develop your mind and learn
habits of disciplined thinking that are vital to success in school, in your career, and
in your life as a liberally educated person, it can be a rewarding and even transfor-
mative experience.
 Summary 27

Exercise 1.5

I. Review the list of critical thinking traits on pages 25–26, then write a 250-word essay
in which you address the following questions: Which of the qualities listed is your stron-
gest critical thinking trait? Why? Which is your weakest? Why? What could you do to
improve in this latter regard? Be specific and realistic.
II. In groups of three or four, define the following critical thinking traits: intellectual
honesty, open-mindedness, fair-mindedness, intellectual courage, and intellectual per-
severance. (See the list of critical thinking traits on pages 25–26 for some broad
hints.) Give an example of each.
III. In groups of three or four, think of examples, either from your experience or
from your knowledge of current events or history, of individuals who possess, or
did possess, the quality of intellectual courage to an unusual degree. What about
them leads you to think of them as being especially intellectually courageous? Do
the same for the qualities of open-mindedness, intellectual honesty, and intellec-
tual perseverance. Be prepared to share your group’s best examples with the class.
IV. Critical thinkers possess intellectual habits (or “virtues”) such as open-
mindedness, curiosity, and intellectual courage. They also have high intellectual stan-
dards for how they use their minds and form beliefs. Such standards are called critical
thinking (or “epistemic”) norms, and include common-sense principles such as
“Don’t believe on insufficient evidence,” “Proportion your beliefs to the strength of
the evidence,” and “Be willing to revise your beliefs in the light of new evidence.” In
small groups, see if you can come up with five other norms that good thinkers com-
monly use to form rational, well-supported beliefs.
V. Political scientists tell us that many voters are poorly informed about issues, and
are often influenced by emotion or other non rational factors. In small groups, discuss
the traits that an “ideal” or “intellectually virtuous” voter would possess. Share your
group’s ideas with the class.
VI. What critical thinking challenges, if any, did you experience as a result of the
recent COVID-19 pandemic? In general, do you believe that government officials,
schools, and ordinary citizens responded to the pandemic appropriately?

Summary
1. Critical thinking is the general term given to a wide range of cognitive skills
and intellectual dispositions needed to effectively identify, analyze, and
evaluate arguments and truth claims; 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. It is disciplined thinking governed by clear
intellectual standards that have proven their value over the course of
28 CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Critical Thinking

human history. Among the most important of these intellectual standards

are clarity, precision, accuracy, relevance, consistency, logical correctness,
completeness, and fairness.
2. Critical thinking has many benefits. It can help students do better in
school by improving their ability to understand, construct, and criticize
arguments. It can help people succeed in their careers by improving
To learn is to
their ability to solve problems, think creatively, and communicate their
face
ideas clearly and effectively. It can also reduce the likelihood of making
transformation.
serious mistakes in important personal decisions, promote democratic
—Parker J. Palmer
processes by improving the quality of public decision making, and
liberate and empower individuals by freeing them from the unexamined
assumptions, dogmas, and prejudices of their upbringing, their society,
and their age.
3. Major barriers to critical thinking include egocentrism, sociocentrism,
unwarranted assumptions, relativistic thinking, and wishful thinking.
Egocentrism is the tendency to see reality as centered on oneself. Two
common forms of egocentrism are self-interested thinking (the tendency
to accept and defend beliefs that accord with one’s own self-interest)
and superiority bias (the tendency to overrate oneself  ).
Sociocentrism is group-centered thinking. Three common varieties of
sociocentrism are group bias (the tendency to see one’s culture or
group as being better than others), tribalism (powerful feelings of
loyalty to the tribe or group), and conformism (the tendency to
conform, often unthinkingly, to authority or to group standards of
conduct and belief).
Unwarranted assumptions are things we take for granted without good
reason. Often, unwarranted assumptions take the form of stereotypes.
Stereotypes are generalizations about a group of people in which
identical characteristics are assigned to all or virtually all members of
the group, often without regard to whether such attributions are
accurate.
Relativistic thinking is thinking that is based on the idea that there is no
“objective” or “factual” truth—that truth varies from individual to
individual, or from culture to culture. The most popular form of
relativism is moral relativism, which holds that what is morally right and
good varies from individual to individual (moral subjectivism) or from
culture to culture (cultural moral relativism).
Wishful thinking is believing something because it makes one feel good, not
because there is good reason for thinking that it is true.
 Notes 29

4. Critical thinkers possess many qualities that distinguish them from

uncritical thinkers. Among the most important of these traits are a
passionate drive for clarity, precision, accuracy, and other intellectual
standards that characterize careful, disciplined thinking; a sensitivity to the
ways in which critical thinking can be skewed by egocentrism, wishful
thinking, and other psychological obstacles to rational belief; honesty and
intellectual humility; open-mindedness; intellectual courage; love of truth;
and intellectual perseverance.

Notes
1. Our discussion of critical thinking standards is indebted to Richard Paul, Critical Think-
ing: What Every Person Needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing World (Rohnert Park, CA:
Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique, 1990), pp. 51–52; and Richard Paul and
Linda Elder, Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life
(Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001), pp. 83–131.
2. Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson (San
Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1962), pp. 376–77. Originally published in 1927.
3. William Strunk Jr. and E. B. White, The Elements of Style, 3rd ed. (New York: Macmillan,
1979), p. 79.
4. William H. Herndon, quoted in David Hackett Fischer, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a
Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper & Row, 1970), p. 291.
5. Used by permission of Kenneth R. Merrill.
6. Harold Kushner, When All You’ve Ever Wanted Isn’t Enough: The Search for a Life That
Matters (New York: Pocket Books, 1986), p. 15.
7. Erma Bombeck, All I Know about Animal Behavior I Learned in Loehmann’s Dressing Room
(New York: Harper Paperbacks, 1995), p. 66.
8. Bertrand Russell, “An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish,” in Unpopular Essays (New York:
Simon & Schuster, 1950), pp. 86–87.
9. Cited in Thomas Gilovich, How We Know What Isn’t So: The Fallibility of Human Reason
in Everyday Life (New York: Free Press, 1991), p. 77. The same survey found that only
2 percent of respondents rated themselves below average in their leadership ability.
Another survey found that 86 percent of Australians rate their job performance as above
average. David G. Myers, The Pursuit of Happiness (New York: Avon, 1993), p. 111.
10. Quoted in Richard Paul, Critical Thinking, pp. 91–92.
11. See Stanley Milgram, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View (New York: Harper
& Row, 1974).
12. Joel Rudinow and Vincent E. Barry, Invitation to Critical Thinking, 4th ed. (Ft. Worth,
TX: Harcourt College Publishers, 1999), p. 20.
13. Grant H. Cornwell, “From Pluralism to Relativism and Back Again: Philosophy’s Role
in an Inclusive Curriculum,” Teaching Philosophy 14 (June 1991), pp. 143–53. Used with
permission.
14. There is a third way that moral relativism can lead to conflicting moral duties, namely,
when a relativist belongs to a culture that holds conflicting moral beliefs. As a little
Socratic questioning quickly makes clear, most people unwittingly hold conflicting moral
beliefs. To take a simple example, a child might believe both that “I should always do
what my teacher tells me” and that “I should always do what my parents tell me” without
30 CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Critical Thinking

realizing that these two rules can conflict. A whole society, of course, can also hold
inconsistent moral beliefs and, indeed, is even more likely to do so than an individual,
since a society has no single, unifying mind to iron out conflicts. At one time, for
instance, a majority of Americans believed both that “unjustified discrimination is wrong”
and that “women should not be permitted to vote,” which we recognize to be inconsistent,
though few people at the time did. Because a relativist must share the moral beliefs of
his society (or at least those beliefs he is aware of), he may find himself committed to
inconsistent beliefs.
15. Weekly World News, March 11, 2000.
16. This list of critical thinking dispositions is drawn largely from three sources: Vincent Ryan
Ruggiero, Beyond Feelings: A Guide to Critical Thinking, 9th ed. (New York: McGraw Hill,
2012), pp. 20–26; John Chaffee, The Thinker’s Way (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1998),
pp. 34–37; and Paul, Critical Thinking, p. 54. For a lengthier but similar list, see Paul and
Elder, Critical Thinking, pp. 105–12.