Critical Thinking

Robert Persse - 1 August 1988

“Critical thinking” is the name given to a way of reasoning, in everyday language, which is a great benefit to everybody who uses it. It is a tool which can be used to improve our understanding of other people’s arguments, to improve our own reasoning, to improve decision making, and to aid communication. It is especially useful for skeptics and debunkers. It is also a new idea, since in the past people have never been taught how to reason properly using everyday language, which is how most of us reason most of the time. Most of us could improve our thinking considerably by using critical thinking methods. I would like to see the Skeptics involved in the promotion of this subject.

I first became aware of critical thinking when I heard about a Massey course (Philosophy 34.103). I had always thought of myself as good at reasoning especially since I had done logic in maths at university. Skimming through the textbooks I found that I had a lot to learn. I have taken this paper extramurally this year, and can certainly recommend it.

The University of California has made critical thinking courses compulsory for all degrees. John Naisbitt, in his book Megatrends points out that trends that appear in California often sweep the US and later the Western World, I hope that this is true of critical thinking.

The Skeptical Inquirer, Summer 87, has two reviews of books to do with critical thinking. ”…Skeptics have asserted…that if everyone were properly educated in critical thinking no one would be taken in by inadequate arguments for paranormal claims.” (p402). “Critical thinking is currently a hot item in higher education…” (p405).

During the Skeptics conference I noted several times when critical thinking skills could have been used to advantage. One person clearly did not understand the essential difference between the phenomenon of evolution and the various possible processes that may drive it. If meanings are likely to be misunderstood they should be carefully spelled out, and there is no point in continuing an argument unless people are clear on meanings. At one point a creationist used the argument that cars have designers therefore animals had to have been designed. This is an example of argument by analogy which is considered to be a fallacy by many philosophers.

The Economist, 11 July 1987