CRITICAL THINKING

The development of critical thinking as an essential skill in 21st-century learning is uncontested

within educational and professional settings. Critical Thinking is the process of using reasoning

to discern what is true, and what is false.

Part of it involves being familiar with logic and logical fallacies - those bits of false reasoning

that are used to manipulate and mislead us.

Part involves being able to separate facts from opinions.

Part involves being fair and open minded; not dismissing anything without examination, and

not accepting anything without examination, either.

Part of it involves asking questions, of yourself and of others, because that is how we uncover

the truth, and the motivations behind the arguments.

Part involves self-regulation; the ongoing process of making sure that you have not fallen into

any of the logical fallacies or rationalizations yourself.

Ideal critical thinkers are open-minded; ready and eager to explore all ideas and all points of

view, including those alien or opposed to their own.

They are not threatened by opposing views, because they are looking for the truth; they know

that if they have it already, it will stand any scrutiny. And if they don't have it, they are willing

to drop the falsehoods they have, and embrace it. Critical thinkers question everything; using

their tools to ferret out the truth, wherever it may hide.

decisions about their merit. The aim of critical thinking is to try to maintain an ‘objective’

position. When you think critically, you weigh up all sides of an argument and evaluate its

strengths and weaknesses. So, critical thinking skills entail: actively seeking all sides of an

argument testing the soundness of the claims made; testing the soundness of the evidence used

to support the claims.

Critical thinking is a higher order of thinking: it is the practice of using a number of different

advanced thinking skills in a variety of complex ways.

Critical thinking focuses on thought: it looks at how facts are proven, arguments are formed,

conclusions are reached, not just what the facts, argument or conclusion may be.

Critical thinking is self-reflexive: it involves reflecting on, questioning and testing your own

thinking processes.

Critical thinking is discipline-specific: it engages in particular forms of reasoning, such as

mathematical reasoning, historical analysis or literary interpretation, which are specific to a

particular discipline.

In the 1950s, Benjamin Bloom identified a set of important study and thinking skills for

university students, which he called the ‘thinking triangle’

Evaluate: make judgments about the value of information

Synthesis: combine information and ideas into something new

Analyze: make a methodical and detailed examination. Apply use knowledge. Comprehend.

Have understanding
Know: be aware, remember information

HOW IS CRITICAL THINKING DIFFERENT FROM THINKING?

THINKING CRITICAL THINKING

FOCUS On information: data, facts, On ideas: assumptions, biases,

examples On ideas: opinions, flaws in reasoning, point of view,

positions context, implications

ACTIVITY Organizing and making Deeply and broadly questioning and

connections between pieces of testing the ways in which an idea is

information or ideas, sometimes formed as well as how you have

idea. Thinking about your own

thinking while you are thinking

about the thinking of others.

GOAL To form an opinion about what you To apply criteria in forming a

are thinking about conclusion or evaluation about what

you have been thinking about and

how you have been thinking about

it.

A Process for Thinking Critically

The aim of critical thinking is to try to maintain an ‘objective’ position. This means that you

should try to be aware of any preconceptions you have that might be skewing the way you think

about an argument. As you read, allow yourself opportunities to check your understanding and

revisit sections if you are unsure of their meaning. Although there is no one right way of

thinking critically, you will find it useful to get some basic tasks done before moving on to an

evaluation of any material.

Try the following three steps:

1 Identify the thrust of the information.

2 Analyze the material.

3 Compare and apply the information.

within the information you are reading. At this stage you are simply trying to define and be

aware of the subject matter. Try to identify the main points of the argument claims being made

evidence used conclusions reached.

Analyze the material: As you read, think about whether or not the material is relevant to your

needs. Here are some questions that might help in your analysis: Does the information make

sense in relation to other theories and research? Where in the broader picture does this particular

argument sit? How old is the material? Is the material clear or do you need to find additional

information to aid your understanding? Can you identify any implications that might require you

to look for other material? (Perhaps complementary explanations of a phenomenon if the original

material is not comprehensive enough) Does the argument present a balanced view or is the

author disregarding some topics in order to put forward a particular argument?

Compare and apply information: Try looking for the implications of one piece of information

for another weakness that might be revealed when you apply the idea to a real-life situation.

Does the theory or formula only go so far and do you need to draw upon another theory or

principle to complete your understanding of something?

CHARACTERISTICS OF A CRITICAL THINKER

Once an individual has mastered the process of critical thinking they will normally be described

as having the characteristics listed:

Open minded

Questioning
Empathetic

Honest

Analytical

Objective

Steps of critical thinking process

Observe Determine what information is available; Gather information from a

variety of sources; ascertain what information currently exists;

Explore the different perspectives and Identify similarities or

contradictions

Analyze Break down the information into the main themes or arguments;

Discriminate the value of the information; Prioritize important

information and Differentiate opinion from fact

Question Consider possible alternatives; Develop new hypotheses

Contextualize Contextualize information in relation to: historical consideration,

ethical considerations, political considerations, cultural considerations,

environmental considerations and specific circumstances (Rhodes

2010)

Reflection Question and test conclusions; Reflect on possible outcomes

When thinking critically, you begin by examining the claims being made by the person whose

words you are listening to, or reading. Every claim has four attributes. Three are determined

before you begin reasoning. The fourth you arrive at by reasoning.

First; is the claim descriptive, or prescriptive? Descriptive claims talk about the way the world is.

Prescriptive claims talk about how the world should be. "There are many poor people living in

Liberia," is a descriptive claim. "Education should develop the mind to positively contribute to

society," is a prescriptive claim.

Second, is the claim objective or subjective? Is the claim made for everyone, everywhere? Or

just for the speaker or members of his group? "An apple is a type of fruit" is objective. "I love

apples" is subjective.

Third; is the claim absolute, or relative? Does it say that things are this way, and they never vary

throughout time and space? Or does it say that this is the way this thing is right now? "Snow

crystals are formed from water vapor." is an absolute claim. "It's snowing." is a relative claim.

Fourth; is it true or false? It's true if it corresponds with consensual reality, either in the physical

or nonphysical world. (Remember, there are many parts of consensual reality that are

nonphysical. This includes most of our concepts, like freedom, friendship, etc. We pretty much

agree about what they mean, so they are part of our consensual reality.)

Barriers to Critical Thinking

Several researchers (Landsman & Gorski, 2007; Sandholtz, Ogawa, & Scribner, 2004; Sheldon

& Biddle, 1998; Wong, 2007) suggest that the current educational trend to standardize
curricula and focus on test scores undermines instructors’ ability to address critical

thinking in the classroom. The emphasis on “teaching to the test” distracts the learning

process from student-centered instruction and places the emphasis on the content. If the

focus is on learning, students should be given the freedom (and responsibility) to explore

content, analyze resources, and apply information. Unfortunately, students are not typically

taught to think or learn independently, and they rarely “pick up” these skills on their own

(Ladsman & Gorski, 2007; Lundquist, 1999; Rippen, Booth, Bowie, & Jordan, 2002). Critical

thinking is not an innate ability. Although some students may be naturally inquisitive, they

require training to become systematically analytical, fair, and open-minded in their pursuit of

knowledge. With these skills, students can become confident in their reasoning and apply their

critical thinking ability to any content area or discipline (Lundquist, 1999). Critical thinking is

often compared to the scientific method; it is a systematic and procedural approach to the process

of thinking (Scriven & Paul, 2007). Just as students learn the process of the scientific method,

they must also learn the process of critically thinking. Four barriers often impede the integration

of critical thinking in education: (1) lack of training, (2) lack of information, (3) preconceptions,

and (4) time

Forming Judgment and Being Judgmental

There is a difference between forming judgments and being judgmental, although it's true that

the two are often confused in our language. (Using that confusion to persuade people not to think

is the fallacy of Equivocation, by the way.) The first involves forming an opinion, or evaluating

the truth or falsehood of a claim, based upon discernment, logic and comparison. The second

involves attaching an emotional value of good or evil, generally a harsh one, to a person, place,

thing, or idea. As you can see, they are two very different ways of thinking. Being judgmental is
the opposite of Critical Thinking, since part of the essence of critical thinking is not forming

emotional attachments to your opinions, being fair, and looking simply for truth (not for good or

evil.) Also, in practice, judgmental thinking usually involves a lot of logical fallacies.

Red Flags

Red flags are the signal that the argument is designed to keep you from thinking at all. They are

designed to play on your emotions, and so circumvent your intellect entirely.

Appeals to loyalty: including words like "family," "patriot," "Liberian," etc. Be especially

careful if these are gratuitous, or have nothing to do with the actual subject of the premises. Ex.

"Due to the tragic events of corona virus, we need to maintain normalcy, which means

implementing the salary cuts as planned." The two are unrelated. In fact, if anything, we need to

not implement the salary cuts.

The Bandwagon approach: "9 out of 10 ..." or "87% of those polls agree...," etc. The truth of a

statement, or the correctness of an action, is totally independent of the number of people who

believe it. Therefore, there is no point in mentioning those numbers in an argument designed to

persuade unless someone is trying to manipulate you. (If they are reporting current trends, that is

different; but it is still often invalid and needs to be carefully examined.)

Appeal to authority: "According to Dr. Podah, of the AUWA Research Board..." This is a

tricky one, because if the question regards Dr. Podah field of expertise, this might be a valid

argument, and not designed to manipulate at all. But if Dr. Podah is a well known Political

Economist, and they are quoting his opinion on healthcare, he is no more likely to be correct than

anyone else. This is often used with a celebrity as the authority.

bodies, crying children, etc. As always, if what they are trying to prove is true is not actually

closely connected with those pictures, this is a red flag. If they are a charitable organization,

these pictures are appropriate, because that is what they are all about. If they are a political or

religious organization, they may not be. Find out what the organization is actually doing about

the people in these situations before you buy it.

Appeal to Novelty: "New!" New things are not automatically better than the things that they are

replacing. Decide based on the merits of the thing itself, not on its novelty.

Appeal to Fear: "If we are not willing to give up our personal freedoms, the terrorists will be

able to attack us whenever they want to." This is a powerful manipulator, because often fear

causes us to clamp down our thinking process altogether. We don't want to take the time to think,

we just want to run away so we will be safe. But this is precisely the time when it is most

important to think. When you hear this, think carefully about what the speaker wants you to do,

and decide if that will actually make it harder for the terrorists to operate, or if it will have little

or no effect on them, but will make it easier for the speaker to manipulate or regulate the

population.

Appeal to Faith: "As a Good Christian, you....,""It's obvious to all enlightened people ...," etc.

This is really a special instance of loyalty and bandwagon combined, but it can be very powerful.

No one wants to appear to go against her faith. This is particularly dangerous if someone is

speaking for the deity. Watch for it, and examine any claims made very carefully. Ridicule and

name calling;
A Short List of Logical Fallacies

(Be aware that the use of any of these does not guarantee that the argument has a false

conclusion. It simply shows that the argument is not valid, or cogent, and therefore says nothing

about the conclusion, which may be either true or false.)

Fallacies of Induction Accident - A sweeping generalization is used when an exception to the

general rule is warranted. Ex. Short trousers are not allowed in AUWA. To counter it, show that

there are exceptions to the general statement, and this should be one of them.

Circular Argument - an argument in which the conclusion also occurs as an unsupported

premise. Ex. Eating street food is unhealthy, so you shouldn't eat street food, because it's

unhealthy. No valid evidence about whether eating street food is or is not unhealthy has been

presented here. If you agreed with this statement before you heard it, you will still agree. If you

disagree, you will not accept this statement. If you have no idea, this statement won't help you

figure it out. Counter it by explaining that the conclusion has been used as a premise, and so the

argument is circular.

False Analogy - A is like B. B has property P. Therefore, A has property P (where the likeness

between A and B is tenuous, or they have a difference that affects P.) Ex. Young men are like

horses. You train your horse, and never let it make any decisions on its own, so you should train

your sons the same way. Counter-Ex. Horses and cats are both animals with four legs. We saddle

and ride horses. Therefore, we should saddle and ride cats. No analogy is perfect. The strength of

an argument based on an analogy depends on the strength of the analogy. To gage that, you need

to know something about both subjects. To prove this a fallacy, all you need to do is show that
the two vary in some important way that would affect the analogy. For instance, in the above

example, horses are not sentient, and will never be expected to live on their own. Young men

will.

Hasty Generalization - This fallacy arises when the actions of a very small sample are applied

to a large, heterogeneous group. Ex. My three year old is reading on a second grade level, so all

three year olds should read. Counter-Ex. My cats have blue eyes, so all cats have blue eyes. This

might work for all pure bred Siamese cats, which are a fairly homogenous group. But certainly

not for all cats in general. The greater the variety in the group, the greater the sample size needed

to obtain any valid information about the group as a whole. To prove it a fallacy, simply show

that the group is not homogenous, and that there is a great enough variation to render the sample

size too small.

One-Sidedness (Fallacy of Exclusion) - Presenting the evidence for one side of an argument,

and ignoring the evidence for the other side. This is something that you have to watch out for in

your own reasoning. (People who are trying to persuade you will naturally be doing this. It's your

job to find the evidence for the other side.) Ex. There shouldn't be any new houses built, because

there are lots of houses already, it's bad for the environment to build more. This completely

ignores the fact that the population is continuing to increase, especially in certain areas. Those

new people have to live somewhere. To prove this a fallacy, present the opposing evidence, and

show how it would change the conclusion.

Fallacies of Distraction - Assumes that if there is no evidence against (or for) something, that

thing must be true (or false.) Misuse of the NOT operator. Ex. There is no evidence proving that
dragons don’t exist, so dragons must exist. No evidence is simply no evidence, and proves

nothing. The conclusion may still be either true or false. To prove this a fallacy, point that out.

False Dilemma - Either P or Q. Not-P. Therefore, Q. Ex. You are either for us or against us. You

are not for us. Therefore you must be against us. Counter-Ex. You are either African or

European. You aren't African, therefore, you must be European. (What happens if you are

Japanese?)

Slippery Slope - (Causal version) If A is permitted, then by a series of tiny steps through B, C,

and so on we will eventually be permitting Z. We should not permit Z. Therefore, we should not

permit A. Misuse of the IF-THEN operator. Ex. If we let the races intermarry, the next thing you

know, we will be allowing marriage between anyone! Between father and daughter, between

man and animal, between a woman and her household appliances. This one is used all the time to

try to halt social change that some find uncomfortable. It is fallacious in direct proportion to the

connections between the steps. The farther it is from A to B, the weaker this argument is. To

prove it fallacious, identify the final event, and show that it is not inevitable. "If we allow

students to retake their exams for legitimate reasons, then soon everyone will want to retake

exams for any reason, and our educational system will collapse under the weight of constant

retakes."

This argument suggests that allowing a small change will inevitably lead to a chain of events

resulting in a catastrophic outcome. It assumes that there is no middle ground or control over the

progression of events, which is not necessarily true.

Loaded or Complex Question - A question that actually combines two questions, treats them

as one, and presupposes an answer to the first one. Ex: Have you stopped beating your wife?
These cannot be answered directly, because there is no answer that gives a true response. In the

above case, if you say "Yes" you are admitting that you used to beat her. If you say "No" you are

admitting that you are still beating her. There is no response that says, "I never did," or "I'm

single." These are used a lot as poll questions, to yield misleading answers.

Affirming the Consequent - if P then Q. Q. Therefore, P. Ex. If poverty was the result of

government regulation, we would see an increase in it. We do see an increase in it. Therefore,

poverty is the result of government regulation. Counter-Ex. If it's spring, then the flowers will be

blooming. The flowers are blooming. Therefore, it's spring. This is a famous one, used in all

kinds of manipulative arguments. As you can tell from this example, it's meaningless. Flowers

also bloom in the summer, fall, and even the winter depending on your location. None the less,

it's used for everything from selling soap to selling politics. To prove it a fallacy, point out other

things that might be causing Q.

Commutation of Conditionals - If P then Q. Therefore, if Q then P. Ex. If you are Politician in

Liberia, you will be wealthy. Therefore, if you are wealthy, you are Politician. Counter-Ex. If

you are President, then you are over 35. Therefore, if you are over 35, you are President. Sorry, it

doesn't work that way. Prove it is a fallacy by pointing out an exception. If it is raining, then the

ground will be wet. Therefore, if the ground is wet, then it is raining.

Denying the Antecedent - If P then Q. Not P. Therefore, not-Q. Ex. - If you use Soap X you

will have soft skin. You don't use Soap X, therefore, you won't have soft skin. Counter-Ex. If

you are a cat, you will be a mammal. You are not a cat, therefore you are not a mammal. This

one is used all the time in advertising and government. To prove it a fallacy, show that Q can

exist independently of P.
Denying a Conjunct - Not both P and Q. Not P. Therefore, Q. Ex. You can't be a conservative

and sympathize with the terrorists. You aren't a conservative, therefore you sympathize with the

terrorists. Counter-Ex. It can't be too hot and too cold. It's not too hot. Therefore, it's too cold.

Inconsistency - Parts of the argument contradict or are contrary to other parts. Ex. Sue is a better

teacher than Alice. Alice is a better teacher than Harvey. Harvey can out-teach Sue any day of

the week. To show the fallacy, point out the inconsistency by assuming that one is true, and

using it to show the others cannot all be true as well.

Improper Transposition - If P then Q. Therefore, if not P then not Q. Ex. If you follow this

diet, you will be healthy. Therefore, if you don't follow this diet, you won't be healthy. Counter-

Ex. If you murder your wife, she will die. Therefore, if you don't murder her, she won't die. This

may seem plausible, but it's a logical fallacy, like denying the antecedent. To prove it a fallacy,

point out a way that Q can exist without P.

Fallacies of Ambiguity Accent - The emphasis of a statement leads one to believe the opposite

of what the statement actually says. Ex. My husband came home sober last night. (which implies

that he is usually drunk.) This is used to smear people, but in such a way that the attacker can say

they were only telling the truth. Clear it up by pointing out what the statement actually says, and

avoiding assumptions.

Equivocation - a fallacy resulting when the speaker and listener are using different definitions

for the same words. Ex. I pray to the Lord every day, when the listener defines "Lord" as Jesus,

and the speaker defines "Lord" as the Horned God. It can also take a form where the ambiguous

word is used twice, to equate two things that are nothing alike. Ex. Evolution is a theory, and

theories are just guesses, so evolution is just a guess. In the first instance, "theory" refers to a
specific scientific term, in the second, to the vernacular meaning. To counter it, ask for the

definition the speaker is using, or point out that he is using two different definitions for the same

word. Never assume that your definition exactly matches that of someone else. A feather is light;

what is light cannot be dark; therefore, a feather cannot be dark

Amphiboly - A fallacy caused by ambiguous grammar, as opposed to ambiguous words. Ex.

Mary beat her mother because she was drunk. It's unclear whether "she" refers to the Mary, or

her mother. This one is usually a trap, when you assume one meaning while the other was meant.

But it can also be used purposely to prop up an invalid argument, and make it seem valid, or to

play into the assumptions of the listener (The most famous example was the oracle telling

Croesus that if he went to war, he would destroy a mighty country. What she didn't say was that

it was his own.) Counter it by identifying the ambiguity, and asking for a clearer definition.

Quoting Out of Context - Quoting part of what a passage says in such a way that the original

meaning of the quote is lost or distorted. Ex. Blessed is the man who walketh not. (From Psalm

1:1, which actually says, "Blessed is the man who walketh not in the councils of the ungodly...".

Counter it by finding the quote, and reading the whole thing in context. Changing the Subject

and Misdirection

Appeal to Authority - Authority A believes P is true, therefore P is true. Authorities can be

mistaken, too; and often have been in the past. This is particularly true when the authority's name

is being used, but the belief is not in her field of expertise. Find out if the authority is an

authority on this topic, what kind of research she has done, if her methodology is sound, if most

of the other experts in the field agree or disagree with her (and why) if she is being misquoted, or

if she was joking or being sarcastic at the time. (Yes, this one always takes research.)
Appeal to Force - Not really an argument at all, not even a fallacious one. Ex. If you know

what’s good for you, you’ll agree with me. But it has often been used to win arguments in the

past (usually when the side applying the force knows its losing through logic.) Counter it by

identifying the threat, and showing that it has nothing to do with the accuracy or inaccuracy of

the statement.

Appeal to Popularity - Idea X is popular. Therefore, X is correct. Ex. 9 out of ten Helens

agree... This one is used, once again, to sell everything from soap to politics. But it's not a valid

argument. 20,000 Frenchmen can, in fact, be wrong.

Argument ad Hominem - introducing irrelevant personal remarks about your opponent. Ex.

How can you believe what he says about the economy? He had an affair! The two have nothing

to do with each other. But this one is used all the time; generally, again, by those who know that

they are losing the argument on logical grounds. Counter it by identifying the attack, and

showing that it is completely irrelevant to the topic being discussed. Bad Company or Guilt by

Association - P accepts idea Q, therefore Q must be wrong. (where P is a person or group the

audience doesn't want to be associated with.) Ex. Communists favor socialized medicine,

therefore socialized medicine is wrong. Counter-Ex. Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore

vegetarianism is wrong. This is used all the time, to keep people from thinking about the actual

merits or defects of an idea or a thing. Counter it by identifying the tactic, and showing that the

two have nothing to do with each other.

Red Herring - a completely irrelevant argument thrown in to distract the audience. Ex. You may

say that cats make excellent pets, but I had a parrot once... Just ignore them. "We need to address
the issue of pollution from Rock Crusher." Person B: "But what about all the taxes they paid and

jobs they provide? If we shut them down, many people will lose their livelihoods."

Tu Quoque - Turning any criticism back on the accuser, instead of answering it. Ex. There is no

blue dress in the Enron case! This is a red herring, but it is used a lot, since it often has the effect

of making the accuser become defensive. It can also make her reluctant to pursue the line of

inquiry. Counter it by pointing out that it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Person

A: "You shouldn't smoke cigarettes; they're bad for your health." Person B: "But you smoke

cigarettes too, so why should I listen to you?"

Two Wrongs Make a Right - Justifying wrong actions by pointing a finger at someone else who

has done something wrong. Ex. I kept the expensive sweater that Cathy left at my house because

she lied to my friend Joan. This one is the favorite of terrorists, militants, and others who want to

strike out. They all claim that because a government or group did something they find morally

objectionable, they are justified in committing morally objectionable actions themselves. Counter

it by pointing out that wrong behavior is wrong behavior.

Fallacies of Causality Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc - Event C and E both happened at once.

Therefore, C caused E. (or Events like C are always accompanied by events like E. Therefore, C

type events cause E type events). Ex. It always rains when I wash my car, so washing my car

must cause rain. In some cases, it's simple coincidence, or it doesn't actually always happen. In

other cases, a third event is causing both of the first two. (Joint Effect) Prove it's a fallacy by

finding a probable third event, or asking how the first event could cause the second.

Post Hoc - Event C happened immediately before even E. Therefore, C caused E. Ex The kid

was playing computer games just before he committed suicide. Therefore, the games made him
kill himself. Counter-Ex. The pipes whistle just before the water stops running. Therefore, the

whistling makes the water stop. While it's true that events may cause events that happen

afterwards, they don't always do so. Sometimes they are unrelated. Sometimes, as in the example

with the pipes, the supposed cause is actually another effect of the real cause. In all such

arguments, further evidence is in order.