criticalthinking.org Defining Critical Thinking
Criticalthinking.org writes a compilation article that attempts to define critical thinking. In order to do si, they “offer offer overlapping definitions” from various authors in a similar fashion to Norquist’s “Exigence in Rhetoric”. In doing so, it has changed my views on critical thinking and, in conjunction with the other articles I have responded to, has made me into what I believe to be a more well-rounded analyst of texts. Although there is not one clear other to whom I owe credit to, it is because of their works that I have changed the way I journal my daily thoughts.
The article opens with “Critical Thinking as Defined by the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking, 1987” by Michael Scriven and Richard Paul”. These authors describe critical thinking as “an “examination… of thought” and “using those skills to guide behavior”; they contrast this with linear thinking, which they detail as rote memorization or having skills but not using them continuously. Something that I notice throughout this article is its exemplification of Ann E. Berthoff’s “The Composing Process is a Continuum”. Scriven and Paul, as well as the other authors in this compilation, view critical thinking as something that is a consistent and unavoidable part of a critical thinker’s daily life – they see it as a part of one’s being. In fact, they view it as so ingrained in one’s thought process that Scriven and Paul believe that critical thinking can be rooted in and shape one’s morality. Because the application of critical thinking is dependant on one’s past experiences and current state of mind, when using the skills acquired from thinking critically about something (rather than memorizing), one can do good or perform “skillful manipulation”. This was eye opening for me as I viewed critical thinking as merely academic now, but as I continued reading, as well as examined this section, I began to view this as a continuous analysis of the world around me, emphasizing the connection to Berthoff’s work.
In the next section, Another Brief Conceptualization of Critical Thinking” by Linda Elder, the author analyzes the specific moral implications of thinking critically. Elder states that those who think critically “attempt to live rationally, reasonably, empathically”. This is in direct contrast to Scriven and Paul’s thought processes as Elder believes that critical thinking leads to good rather than a balance of light and dark. She states the Socratic principle “‘The unexamined life is not worth living,’” and lists virtues that critical thinking may instill in someone. She even goes so far as to explicitly state that critical thinking leads to integrity, humility, civility, empathy, sense of justice, and confidence in reading. Although her point of view falls in line with the previous authors’, it is the language used that is intriguing in this piece. It is very reminiscent of the 16 personalities test available on the internet which sorts thought processes into several categories and leads me to agree with Scriven and Paul’s concept of good and evil rather than Elder’s idealistic analysis of the concept.
The compiler’s next section has a more step-by-step approach to critical thinking. “The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools” believes that thinking which is not critical, “is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed or down-right prejudiced”. It then proposes that this can be solved by using critical thinking and even promises an improved quality of reasoning. The author lists benefits which I find similar to the scientific process, stating that a “well cultivated critical thinker” “raises vital questions”, “gathers and assess relevant information”, and “thinks openmindedly within alternative systems of thought”. These are qualities expected in an effective analysis of data gathered in an experiment and once again, like the others previously, views this as a continuous way of life rather than a one-off academic response.
In the last section, “Critical Thinking Defined by Edward Glaser”, Glaser defines critical thinking as “an attitude of being”. He sees this thought process of reactionary: someone who thinks critically would recognize a problem, gather and understand the relevant info surrounding the problem, reconstruct one’s beliefs in light of such facts, and form a solution. Once again, critical thinking is viewed as a “persistent effort” and leads me back to the scientific process. By reading these various analyses of critical thinking, it leads me to believe that critical thinking is, as Scriven and Paul described, a part of one’s thought process. I reach for my journal once again after this reflection as I feel as though I have ‘unlocked’ a new part of myself, a new way to perform metacognition and it feels none other than enlightening. I went into this assignment unsure that I would get anything from it, and I’m not leaving with a renewed sense of inspiration and excitement to explore more.
Lexicon
Transdisciplinary (adjective):
Etymology: trans- prefix 3 + disciplinary adj.
Definition: 1. Of or pertaining to more than one discipline or branch of learning; interdisciplinary.
Critical (adjective):
Etymology: Latin criticus
Definition: 1. Given to judging; esp. given to adverse or unfavourable criticism; fault-finding, censorious. 2. Involving or exercising careful judgement or observation; nice, exact, accurate, precise, punctual.
Works Cited
Berthoff, Ann E. “Forming, Thinking, Writing”. The Composing Process Is a Continuum, Boynton/Cook Publishers, 1988, p. 10-12.
“critical, adj.” OED Online, Oxford University Press, December 2019, www.oed.com/view/Entry/44592. Accessed 17 February 2020.
Nordquist, Richard. “Exigence in Rhetoric.” ThoughtCo, Jul. 16, 2019, thoughtco.com/exigence-rhetoric-term-1690688.
“transdisciplinary, adj.” OED Online, Oxford University Press, December 2019, www.oed.com/view/Entry/204672. Accessed 17 February 2020