What is critical thinking?

Brooke Noel Moore and Richard Parker. Critical Thinking, 10th ed. New York: Mcgraw-Hill (2012). 

". . . on the one hand there is good, old-fashioned thinking. That’s what we do when we form opinions or judgments, make decisions, arrive at conclusions, and the like. On the other hand, there’s critical thinking. That’s what we do when we critique the first kind of thinking—subject it to rational evaluation. You might say that critical thinking involves thinking about thinking; we engage in it when we consider whether our thinking (or someone else’s) abides by the criteria of good sense and logic." (2)

 

". . . the purpose of thinking critically is to come to correct conclusions; the method used to achieve this objective is to evaluate our thinking by the standards of rationality." (4)

 

The book quotes and affirms the AACU's (American Association of Colleges and Universities) list of critical thinking characteristics:

 

"How well does the student

determine what information is or is not pertinent;

distinguish between rational claims and emotional ones;

separate fact from opinion;

recognize the ways in which evidence might be limited or compromised;

spot deception and holes in the arguments of others;

present his / her own analysis of the data or information;

recognize logical flaws in arguments;

draw connections between discrete sources of data and information;

attend to contradictory, inadequate, or ambiguous information;

construct cogent arguments rooted in data rather than opinion; 

select the strongest set of supporting data;

avoid overstated conclusions; 

identify holes in the evidence and suggest additional information to collect;

recognize that a problem may have no clear answer or single solution; 

propose other options and weigh them in the decision;

consider all stakeholders or affected parties in suggesting a course of action; 

articulate the argument and the context for that argument; 

correctly and precisely use evidence to defend the argument; 

logically and cohesively organize the argument;

avoid extraneous elements in an argument’s development; 

present evidence in an order that contributes to a persuasive argument?"

 

I would highlight two things: the first is the distinction between 'fact' and 'opinion'. I'm aware that there are philosophers who take issue with this distinction, but I don't remember why. The distinction may be implying that 'opinion' refers to a baseless claim, speculation, or a subjective statement presented as objective. But we often value the opinions of experts, like your doctor's opinion. A better distinction may simply be: supported claims versus unsupported claims.

 

Oh, Critical Thinking contains a section on this:

 

"Sometimes people talk about the difference between “fact” and “opinion,” having in mind the notion that all opinions are subjective. But some opinions are not subjective, because their truth or falsity is independent of what people think. Again, in this book “opinion” is just another word for “belief.” If you believe that Portland, Oregon, is closer to the North Pole than to the Equator, your opinion happens to be true, and would continue to be true even if you change your mind. You can refer to objective opinions as factual opinions or beliefs, if you want—but that doesn’t mean factual opinions are all true. “Portland, Oregon, is closer to the Equator than to the North Pole” is a factual opinion that is false." (6)

 

The second thing I would highlight is that the distinction between rational and emotional claims is problematic.

 

(1) First, I'd agree with feminist writers that dichotomizing rationality and emotion contains a suspicious subtext of misogyny.

 

(2) Second, logic and emotion don't necessarily come apart. If something traumatic happens, it's rational to have an emotional response, and indeed we would call not having an emotional response in those cases psychopathic. You can just as easily argue that the cultivated indifference, apathy, nonchalance, numbness, of everyday life is a convenient survival strategy to protect us from the reality of the horrors of the injustice and suffering of our world, and has no basis in truth. In other words, if we were truly attuned to the everyday realities right in front of us, we would be far more emotional than we are, not less. (Though, you could argue that such a survival strategy is perfectly rational exactly because it's a survival strategy. Still, it's worth noting that there may be a tradeoff here between survival and truth, or accuracy of attitude. 

 

(3) Grasping the truth of something, and really grasping it, often generates within us an emotional response. Philosophy is all about trying to grasp the truth. Grasping the truth is thus connected to both rationality and emotion.

 

(4) Being a good philosopher requires having a strong imagination. Often a strong imagination leads to strong feelings of empathy, which lead to an overwhelming emotional response when witnessing the distress of others. Empathy is deeply tied to what it means to be a good person, and being a good person is never irrational. But if being empathetic is tied to both being a good and thus rational person, and to being emotional, then again we see how emotionality and logic actually go together.

 

(5) You could also argue that intuitions are something like intellectual feelings, which means emotionality is foundational to philosophizing.

 

(6) Emotionality is foundational to philosophy in another way: the emotion of frustration is a common driver for philosophers. Philosophers are frustrated by bad philosophy, or when they hear something that isn't true and yet confidently believed. Alleviating this frustration by writing things down and setting the record straight is an essential part of the psychological motivation for philosophers to engage in philosophy. (And, coming full circle, hearing people talk about rationality and emotion as if they come apart, when they largely do not, is frustrating.)

 

With all of that said, there is a kernel of truth to contrasting emotionality with rationality: Often people feel very strongly about things they don't understand, or are mistaken about. But the problem isn't the emotion, the problem is the fact that the beliefs causing the emotion aren't justified. So we can do away with the contrast between emotionality and rationality and just focus on whether beliefs are justified or not. If they aren't, then of course any matching emotion will not be justified, and if they are then any matching emotion will be justified.

 

With that said, Aristotle would say that a person who lacks virtue is a person who feels too much. The coward feels too much fear; the ill-tempered person feels too much anger. So it's possible for someone's emotions to not match the situation. We might say the rational person is the virtuous person who feels the right kind and degree of emotion, whereas the emotional person is the vicious person who feels the wrong kind and/or wrong degree of emotion. But the contrast to rationality isn't emotion even in this case, but, obviously, irrationality!

The link the authors cite for this list is dead. Looking up critical thinking on the website today reveals a critical thinking rubric:

 

"Explanation of Issues: Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated clearly and described comprehensively, delivering all relevant information necessary for full understanding.

Evidence: Information is taken from source(s) with enough interpretation/evaluation to develop a comprehensive analysis or synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are questioned thoroughly.

Influence of Context and Assumptions: Thoroughly (systematically and methodically) analyzes own and others’ assumptions and carefully evaluates the relevance of contexts when presenting a position.

Student’s Position: Specific position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) is imaginative,
taking into account the complexities of an issue. Limits of position (perspective, thesis/ hypothesis) are acknowledged. Others’ points of view are synthesized within position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis).

Conclusions and Related Outcomes: Conclusions and related outcomes (consequences and implications) are logical and reflect student’s informed evaluation and ability to place evidence and perspectives discussed in priority order."

source: https://www.aacu.org/initiatives/value-initiative/value-rubrics/value-rubrics-critical-thinking