What is critical thinking?

Guidelines for critical thinking from the authors of Sefer Psychology (Trois Weed)

The concept of "critical thinking" is often perceived as a negative concept, why? Is it because of the natural association with "criticism", which is perceived by many people as a sign of failure? Or perhaps because of the identification of the critical thinking process with the philosophical school of the Cynics, and the behavior of the school's founders, behavior considered vulgar and invasive or tactless at best.

Either way, critical thinking is one of the most powerful and essential tools used by modern thinkers. Critical thinking is perhaps the most important tool in the scientific skeptic's toolbox. Of course, not everything lends itself to scientific measurement. When a child says to his mother "I love you to the moon", does he mean that he loves her as long as the distance between them does not exceed 360 thousand kilometers? (A follow-up question, since the distance between a point on the earth and the moon changes according to the moon's appearance, does the child's love also change according to the moon's appearance?) Of course not! Through such an inappropriate application of the scientific method to all areas of life, it is very easy to see how people identify the cynical school with scientific thinking, or why some people hold these superstitions and even fears about science.

On the other hand, you certainly wouldn't want to go back to the (not so distant) time when your doctor's main knowledge was in astrology, and the medicine could only be brewed on a full moon night with grains from the left end of the wadi, relative to sunrise in the month of Jupiter. Likewise, you wouldn't want your doctor to be suspicious of the new study on the drug that might save your life, because "anyone can show anything with statistics" [1]. Therefore, scientific skepticism is essential for working in the fields of science and examining the fields that are not in the mainstream of science, we mean pseudo-sciences of all kinds. In this sense, critical thinking is not only essential, but encouraged and desirable, it is positive.

Indeed, in their book, Tarois and Weed define it as "not merely negative" and go on to quote the philosopher Richard Paul, giving the concept a positive light:

Philosopher Richard Paul described three types of people: vulgar believers, who use slogans and trite sayings to intimidate those who hold different views into agreeing with them; Sophisticated believers, adept at using intellectual arguments, but only to defend their existing beliefs; and critical believers, who reason their way to conclusions through logic, and are willing to listen to others.

What is critical thinking, then, and how can we think critically? Tarois and Weid offer a definition, but most importantly, continue to present eight conditions, which they call "Guidelines" that define critical thinking. Little by little, and especially among social science students [2], these conditions are becoming more and more familiar. I would like to introduce these conditions here, but before that, a few words and a superficial presentation of the thinkers will be in order: Carol Tarois and Carol Weid, are two successful PhDs in psychology who have written four books in partnership so far, and dozens of books independently. Their textbook Psychology, currently published in its ninth edition, is considered one of the most recognized textbooks in the field of psychology. More about the notebooks, you can read for example on the publisher's website. At the beginning of the book, which is considered an introduction to the field of psychology, the authors offer a definition for critical thinking:
Critical thinking is the ability and willingness to assess claims and make judgments objectively based on well-founded reasons. It is the ability to look for flaws and cracks in arguments, and to oppose claims that are not supported by any evidence. But critical thinking is not negative thinking and nothing. Critical thinking also develops and nurtures the ability to be creative and constructive, provide possible explanations for findings, think about implications, and apply new knowledge to deal with a wide range of social and personal problems. In fact, you cannot separate critical thinking from creative thinking, because only when you start questioning what is, can you imagine what could be.

1. Ask questions; It was right to wonder.
Always look for the questions that have not been answered in the textbook, by experts, or by the media. This will avoid the dangerous mindset of a 'higher authority' or a 'know-it-all' person; No one has all the answers to all questions, even the greatest experts in a certain field continue to explore it and ask questions. Show a willingness to ask "What's wrong here?" or "Why is this so, and how did things come to this?". Even the experts make mistakes, and certainly the press and the media. The statistical or logical claims presented do not always follow from each other. Therefore, it is advisable to recognize some possible cognitive biases (see e.g HERE, HERE או HERE). In a more focused way: don't absorb information passively. As the late mathematician Paul Halmos said:

Don't just read it; fight it! Ask your own questions, look for your own examples, discover your own proofs. Is the hypothesis necessary? Is the converse true? What happens in the classical special case? What about the degenerate cases? Where does the proof use the hypothesis?

[Don't read and don't, fight! Ask your own questions, look for original examples, prove your own proofs. Is the hypothesis essential? Is the opposite true? What happens in the special case of the Lakassi? What about the Anthem case? Where does the proof use a hypothesis?]

2. Define the problem.
Inadequate wording of the question can lead to incomplete or misleading answers. In practical terms, good wording of the question has to do with a practical definition and measurement of the terms the question uses, and a clear wording of the question. For example, in the question "What makes people angry?" We need a practical and measurable definition of "annoyance" (perhaps a certain increase in blood pressure, heart rate, humidity on the light - but this physical definition is also suitable for fear, or a heart attack). Moreover, if we admit that not everything upsets all human beings, we need to focus the question for a well-defined group of human beings. But even for such a group, we assume a common denominator, otherwise why would they be upset about the same thing? This guideline also asks us to formulate neutral questions, to try and eliminate preconceived answers (or biases we will try more generally).

3. Examine the evidence.
The main issue here is "what counts as 'good evidence'?" Ask yourself "What evidence supports or refutes this or that argument, and the opposite argument?". Just because many people believe something to be true, including many 'experts', does not mean it is. A number of specialties and sub-specialties are required here, and as Bayne points out, Ennis found 118 of them! [3]

4. Analyze the assumptions and biases.
We are all subject to biases, beliefs that prevent us from being unbiased. Evaluate the assumptions and biases hidden behind the arguments. Doubt your arguments yourself. For the most part the biases and assumptions are hidden, don't forget that the axioms of Euclidean geometry were also found to be incomplete. Look for the hidden biases and assumptions, don't be ashamed of them. After all remember the words of Niels Bohr:

An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes, which can be made, in a very narrow field.

[An expert is a person who has made all possible mistakes in a very narrow field.]

5. Avoid emotional reasoning: "If I feel this way, it must be true."
The notebook claims that emotional reasoning and rational reasoning complement each other, and using one without the other can be as dangerous as replacing one with the other. As they put it, a fervent commitment to a particular view can spur one to think boldly without fear of the opinions of others, but when "gut feelings" replace clear thinking, and private views replace orderly collection of evidence, the results can be disastrous.

6. Don't oversimplify.
This rule warns against generalizations, such as stereotypes. Reject thinking in terms of either/or. Don't let the anecdote be your only argument. Rowan goes so far as to argue that all other guidelines can be seen as ways to avoid overgeneralization. Or in the words of Albert Einstein:

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

[Everything should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.]

7. Consider other possible interpretations.

8. Tolerate or allow the existence of uncertainty.
Sometimes there is not enough evidence to allow conclusions to be drawn. Accept the situation, or use it as a spur to further investigation. Don't be afraid to say "I don't know". The rule does not mean that you should doubt everything and believe in nothing; The rule means to believe carefully and mindfully, and to be willing to reconsider even your most cherished beliefs. Do not demand "the" answer.

It was a short summary dealing with the questions "what is critical thinking" and "what are the guidelines for critical thinking", based on the first chapter of the books:

• Tavris, C., and C. Wade. 1993. Psychology. 3rd ed. London: HarperCollins.
• Bayne, RowanIdeas and Evidence - Critical Reflections on MBTI® Theory and Practice".
  CAPT – Center for Applications of Psychological Type, Inc. (Florida, 2005).

Notes and references:[1] "You can prove anything with statistics" - Carl Gustav Jung, psychologists and Freud's pupil. See, for example, here.

[2] For example: Bayne, Rowan "Ideas and Evidence - Critical Reflections on MBTI® Theory and Practice".
CAPT – Center for Applications of Psychological Type, Inc. (Florida, 2005).

[3] Ennis, RH 1987. A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In JB Baron and RJ
Sternberg, eds., Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice. New-York: Freeman.
For further reading see:
Presley, Sharon 1995.”Intellectual Self-Reliance, Independent and Critical Thinking are the Cornerstones". Truth Seeker (The Journal of Independent Thought).