![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I contributed to this article last summer as I was writing a thesis on critical thinking. It seems that it has been removed or edited. The entry I offered explored the trajectory between complete subjectivity and striving for more objective understandings (and of course, understanding critical thinking and practicing it leaves the learner in a state of ongoing redressing of inexcapable bias).
Anyway, I was sad to see my contributions wiped away. And I also feel that what it was replaced by seemed pretty contribed and devoid of critical thought -- instead relying on dogmatic interpretation.
But who am I to judge?
What is wrong with this article that it has been suggested for clean-up? (See also my comment below: frankahilario)
Someone added a quotation with a tag {Fromm} after it. Was this meant to be a link to Erich Fromm? If not, who is the quote from? Jon the Geek 14:31, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the article Critical thought and changed it into a redirect to critical thinking, as it seemed to be rather duplicate. For completeness I include here the full text of the old critical thought article. It might contain some useful information which is not already in Critical thinking. Kind regards. -- Lenthe 12:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Critical thought is often interpreted as "being critical" in the sense of "taking a negative attitude". The philosophical meaning however is that of thought which:
Therefore, critical thought requires:
"Critical thinking is a mental process of analyzing or evaluating information..."
Analysis is, I think we can agree, a division and ordering process. In most cases, the ordering involves representation in consciousness, according to some already established organizing principle. Which, of course, is the evaluation component in the quoted line. Analytic, evaluative consciousness is inherently dogmatic, in short. An examination of the tenacity with which natural (and for that matter, social) scientists historically cling to notions which are more comfortable than adequate to reality is a good gauge of this, perhaps.
But: This is not critical thinking. Critique avoids (so far as that is possible -- we can discuss the limits...) the evaluative representation in consciousness -- merely analytic thinking.
Or, to put that polemically, even English teachers can teach "critical thinking" that is merely analysis. Most seem less able to suspend the set of evaluative criteria with which they have been saddled (or have saddled themselves), and to break through into critical thinking propter se.
Don Jenner jenner.citigraphics.net
Agreed, analuein is just "I dissolve". No disciplinary thing, but maybe the idea of dividing the question and making a distinction (paraphrasing, er, Montesquieu?) and so on is very much alive. [Fascinating word: Clearly from lusis and luo — and now I am wondering how I ever got through the Platonic dialogue "Lysis" without thinking about this; Lysis is unbinding of Socrates? I was such a callow youth.] Maybe just a freeing of what is complex matters?
A case could be made, real analysis is inherently critical; the division and distinction process cannot proceed without first understanding what is present before one (at least, in consciousness) and that even dogamtic understanding starts in critique. Not sure I want to do that, but I can see how it could be done.
My concern has been with the reduction (I am being kindly...) of what I understand to be critical thinking, to what seems to be taught those who wander into my classes (whether management or philosophy -- I do both), having taken a class in "critical thinking" and which seems to be just analysis, and rather poor analysis at that.
I have no objection to incorporating something like the distinction I noted, but am not sure how best to do it. There are some implications, I think -- a large part of what I understand to be at stake in "post-Modern" is tied up in this distinction. Say if you will, I think Foucault (and maybe Ricoeur before him?) is very critical; I am less sure Derrida gets it. -- djenner 15:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in like this, guys, but after all you have said and done, I a newcomer to all this am now saying: FIRST THINGS FIRST. We go back to the basics. So, we have to define/delimit/discuss/debate CRITICAL THINKING in relation with CREATIVE THINKING (CREATIVITY) in relation with INTELLIGENCE. Please see my comments in INTELLIGENCE: I was there first.
frankahilario 20 october 2005 0625 manila time
... and online guides to critical thinking please!
I removed a plug for a book. :) Dlohcierekim 19:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
"The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal awards the Robert P. Balles Annual Prize in Critical Thinking."
This is completely out of place. Why is this in the definition of critical thinking?
"or that which is nutritive from that which is not.Critical thinking begins almost at birth. An infant or any warm blooded animal must be able to discern the nipple from the breast in order that nutrition be provided.This faculty is humanity's most important, as it is the implementation and honing of criticism which allows continued existence and social growth. The loss of this faculty through injury, denial or subversion can lead to fatal mistakes. Critical thinking is humanity's most important mental faculty."
What do people think of this slightly 'purple' passage? I didn't want to edit out someones work but I personally feel it's a bit wooly and not very encyclopedic in tone, and may not even be factually accurate. It doesn't really follow on from the greek definition as it implies. Also, finding the nipple is largely by instinct, not critical thought; hence a newborn puppy or other animal can do it. Merkinsmum 02:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
What's with the various foreign language exerts in the article? I don't understand why it's there and what purpose it serves. Wikidudeman 03:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I love critical thinking, but I find it impossible to wade through this article, it's overlong and just seems to define critical thinking in different ways, again and again and again, as if different authors have just stuck their own views on the end rather than editing what was there? I suggest thorough condensing of it Merkinsmum 19:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually I just looked at it again and it seems to have been pruned since a few weeks ago when I last tried to read it, and is now readable, hurrah! Has someone done some serious pruning? Merkinsmum 19:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Here is a passage currently in the article:
"Are there any additional benefits given to critical thinkers? According to some philosophers, that's luck. But paradox may exist because luck, by critical thinking, is usually defined as fallacy."
This should be made sensible or remove -- most likely removed.
64.91.107.186 06:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
this is a very minor comment, but could someone clarify what this means "The full advanced GCE is now available and, though very challenging" -- I don't know what a GCE is (I suspect it is some fascet of english educational testing) and I don't know WHERE it is available (ie, is there a textbook, etc. for it, and if so, what is it and where can I get it ?)
My new edits and any copyright issues regarding the Foundation for Critical Thinking
I hate this course with a passion. 82.44.209.28 21:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to make sure that I am clear regarding the new content I have submitted on this page and a few others regarding Critical Thinking, Socratic questioning and associated pages. I have emailed permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org a release for use of content from the Foundation for Critical Thinking. If you see any content that has been reused from www.criticalthinking.org, know that it is being provided with permission. Please contact me for any questions regarding this. If I have not jumped through all the correct hoops in the correct order please contact me before doing a "speedy delete" DanBlanchard 18:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article's title use a noun (thought) rather than a gerund (thinking)? Just wondering. Paul 03:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
This article really sucks. It's one person's narrow perspective of a large and interesting subject. This topic deserves better.
Moving a link here:
Reason: Ok, the organisation promotes critical thinking, as do thousands of others. But the page linked here doesn't even use the words "critical thinking", it's a fairly tenuous connection as far as I can see. As such this looks to me very much like a "vanity" link. Or am I mistaken? SociableLiberal 19:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Critical thinking is very imp , because it enables one to analyze, evaluate, and restructure our thinking, decreasing thereby the risk of acting on, or thinking with, a false premise. However, even with the use of critical thinking skills, mistakes can happen due to a thinker's egocentrism or sociocentrism or failure to be in possession of the full facts. In addition, there is always the possibility of inadvertent human error.
I think the first of those sentences just needs to go. (so it's very important, is it? I guess that's why it's in Wikipedia.) Then we have "inadvertent human error." I love the repetitive redundancy there. ;-)
It appears that a section (Common concepts used in critical thinking activities) was removed on August 29, 2007 (by 76.176.236.204), with no apparent reason given. The removed section does not appear to be in good style, nevertheless I find it strange that it simply disappeared with no one noticing. Erkcan 11:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Critical_thinking&diff=154324028&oldid=151998698
Critical thinking is thinking that self-consciously seeks to follow certain norms for the purpose of avoiding undesired outcomes. Controversies concerning how to define critical thinking in less general terms can be explained as disagreement about (a) what norms apply, (b) how they are to be followed, and (c) what critical thinkers seek.
In academia, critical thinking encompasses the subject matter of informal logic and argumentation theory, which together comprise much of what has been traditionally taught under the banner of “critical thinking.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.1.1.101 ( talk) 19:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Where's talk of the criticism of critical thinking? I'm sure I'm not the only person who sees this as a vehicle of strong social constructionist dominance.
At the very least, Wikipedia owes a fair hearing to those whom are allying themselves against this unnatural exercise in group think. One should not seek to overcome one's own biases, but to understand them. Only with understanding can one affirm both the strengths and the weaknesses of the bias, and to decide its merits thereupon.
Don't think it's too late. We can still stop this destructive filter of human potential from corroding our educational institutions. And the first step, is to expose critical thinking's critics. 07:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry you are not the only one. Today it's a great day. I discovered the purpuse of this. The purpose it to expand the group thinking. I love how they explained that scientific skepticism is different from philosophical skepticism. Oh really? They are so pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.140.11.141 ( talk) 23:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that this page has somehow morphed largely into a shameless plug for a book and a website. maybe this paged should be retitled:
Critical Thinking: It's definition and institution according to "criticalthinking.org".
Maybe even a little "paypal" check-out link where you can buy the book!
Really, I wouldn't be quite so offended if said website wasn't ridiculously hailed as, "The Foundation".
Cheers,
euneirophrenia
This article doesn't really explain anything. It is tagged as sounding like an advertisement. It does. And a bad one at that. Perhaps more could be said about the Critical Thinking A Level course in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.4.20 ( talk) 15:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I concur with others (above) that the intro is ... well, at least confusing and probably confused. I propose that we use the first paragraph of the overview section (and perhaps a little of the second) OR the Glaser quotation, as the introduction. Any thoughts or preferences w.r.t. this question?
Also, I invite folks watching the critical thinking page to scrutinize the changes I have made to the informal logic page. Cathalwoods ( talk) 22:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
(The role of) general intelligence and intellectual attainment (whether or not that equated to "education"), both in the treatment of the subject and the current state of the text and structure of the article. Both rewrite and clean-up tags would not be inappropriate for its current state. Lycurgus ( talk) 21:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I was entertaining myself the other day by reading through conservapedia and on one of the talk pages someone posted a link to a youtube video lecture series from the "Foundation for Critical Thinking". The person who posted the link exhibited no discernable critical thinking skills, so I was curious what the video could be. Only minutes into it, something sounded wrong. I only took a couple of semesters of philosophy in college (ok a semester and a half), but one of the things I actually learned was what critical thinking is (mostly).
The video I saw on youtube, though, was defining it a bit differently - it was very subtle though, and I couldn't put my finger on it why it sounded so “off”.
So, I googled, and wound up here at this page and at the Foundation for Critical Thinking page, and I went through the histories on both. The Foundation had an employee, User:DanBlanchard, create the Foundation for Critical Thought article (but it wasn't sneaky or anything-he used his real name and stated he was adding information at the behest of Richard Paul), and that employee also came here to this main Critical Thinking article and rewrote the intro and the definition to reflect the teachings of the "Foundation" (and Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder). Actually, he edited this [ [1]] main article first, and then created the Foundation page later. The difference seems to be that in the Foundation's definition it's a sort of twisted emphasis telling us that critical thinking is 'thinking about thinking' so we can 'think about how we think', so that we can win more arguments and also so we'll have better morals. Near as I can tell anyway.
I researched a bit, but there weren't any 'scholarly' criticisms or reviews of Drs. Paul or Elder or the Foundation. I found a few amazon book reviews at first - and several reviewers strongly agreed with what I saw - that Paul and Elder had somewhat redefined critical thinking. So, I dug some more and found a pdf of a paper from 1992, apparently submitted to the US Department of Education for some reason - titled: "Unpacking Richard Paul's Strong Sense Critical Thinking" which gave a somewhat thorough description of and critique on what Dr.Paul emphasizes, and how his definition differs from the more traditional definition of critical thinking.
here's:
The Critical Thinking video series for children is interesting too
The Foundation's interesting article on "Ethics Without Indoctrination"
a snippet: "Students, then, need skill and practice in moral reasoning, not indoctrination into the view that one nation rather than another is special in enunciating these moral principles. Students certainly need opportunities to explicitly learn basic moral principles, but more importantly they need opportunities to apply them to real and imagined cases, and to develop insight into both genuine and pseudo morality. They especially need to come to terms with the pitfalls of human moralizing, to recognize the ease with which we mask self-interest or egocentric desires with high-sounding moral language."
I'm sorry if this was too long, or not in the right place, or if this is considered bad wiki-form, I just wanted to share what I learned since it seems like some of you commenting also sense that something is odd about this page. Hopefully the links I give can help clear up a little of the confusion. - I don't feel knowledgable enough about the specifics of critical thinking though to change this article myself, I don't know how to strip out or balance the Foundation's information because I don't really know enough about the nuances/technicalities of what critical thinking is...
Also: how meta is it to be using my critical thinking skillz to figure out what happened to the definition of critical thinking? Uber-meta!--
Philosimphy (
talk) 14:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Hoping that by giving it something of a proper home it can have the correct discipline applied to it. Identifying key contributors to critical thinking as a topic inquiry, the history of critical thinking as a topic of inquiry, and the impact of critical thinking on the fields of education and child development, that's just some of what's needed.
We'll see. Nuke my edits if you dislike, but happy to discuss. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hargettp ( talk • contribs) 17:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Colleagues,
Many have suggested we need a better opening for the article on crtical thinking. Having worked at this for 40+ years first let me offer some context, then make a proposal. Let's take each pararaph in turn.
___#1
Context: There are 4 ways to define a concept like "critical thinking" 1. Each person offers his or her own take on what it means. We did this for decades it can be difficult and confusing. 2. Somone offers a good lit review systhesizing the prevailing definitions. Joanne Kurfuss Gainen did this in 1989 - a very good job. We could use her synthesis. Reference: Kerfuss, J. (1989). Critical thinking: Theory, research, practice and possibilities. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 2. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education. 3. A panel of experts goes through a rigrous process of coming to a reasonsable level of consensus. This was done by the American Philosophical Association in a project that took over two years ( 1988-1990 and include 46 heavy hitting experts on the topic. Yours truly was not one of those experts, but did coordinate the project using the Rand Corporation's Delphi methodology. The APA did this because option 1 was leading to endless fruitless qibbling in the professional journals and option 2, while acceptable, still relied on the ideocycratic analysis of one individual. The Delphi methodology has a built in self-corrective features, since all the experts get to comment on all the draft consensus expressions at every stage of the process. Reference: Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. ERIC Document No. ED 315-423 4. Give up on trying to define or characterize the concept abstractly, but rely instead on common usage with whatever vagueness or ambiguity this may include(e.g. dictionary defiition) or on the term's de fctor operational meaning as generated by one of its many metrics (e.g. it means whatever the WGCTA, Cornell Test, CCTST, CLA, etc. says it means). This is not a good approach. I do not recommend option #4.
Here is my suggested revision of the CT entries first paragraph:
Critical thinking, is "purposeful reflective judgment concerning what to believe or what to do."
[1] The list of core critical thinking skills, as identified by Ennis, Swartz, Paul, Halpern, Fisher, Wade, Scriven, Boyd, Chafee, Gittens, Moore, Browne, Parker, White, Keely an many others includes interpretation, analysis, inference, evaluation, explanation and meta-cognition. An individual or group engaged in strong critical thinking gives due consideration to the
evidence, the context of
judgment, the relevant criteria for making the judgment well, the applicable methods or techniques for forming the judgment, and the applicable theoretical constructs for understanding the problem and the question at hand.
[2] In addition to possessing strong critical thinking skills, one must be disposed to engage problems and decisions using those skills. The positive habits of mind which characterize a person strongly disposed toward critical thinking include a courageous desire to follow reasons and evidence wherever they may lead, open-mindedness, foresight attention to the possible consequences of choices, a systematic approach to problem solving, inquisitiveness, fair-mindedness and maturity of judgment, and confidence in reasoning.
[3]
___#2 Next paragraph - It is good to retain the early warrning that we are talking about a positive and useful set of skills and habits of mind, not something that is "critical" in the negative sense, but something that is "critical" in the sense of "vitally important." since this is essentially a clarification and expansion on the previous paragraph, I do not think we need additinal references. But if we did, I'm sure we could supply them.
I propose this a paragraph #2:
"Critical" as used in the expression "critical thinking" connotes the importance or centrality of the thinking to an issue, question or problem of concern. “Critical” in this context does not mean “disapproved” or “negative.” There are many positive and useful uses of critical thinking, for example formulating a workable solution to a complex personal problem, deliberating as a group about what course of action to take, or analyzing the assumptions and the quality of the methods used in scientifically arriving at a reasonable level of confidence about a given hypothesis. Using strong critical thinking we might evaluate an argument, for example, as worthy of acceptance because it is valid and based on true premises. Upon reflection, a speaker may be evaluated as a credible source of knowledge on a given topic.
____
Here I would like to add a quote from my own work which I think is helpful. But if this is not Wiki-norm-OK, we don't need to have this quote. I belive it is useful to Wiki readers because it articulates the set of social expectations for collaborative investigation and interaction around questions and issues of concern. One that is not steeped in hosility and compitition, but rather is suggestive of mutual respect and collaborative investigation. But the wording is simpler. Your edits and guidance here would be appreciated.
"Critical thinking is not about bashing what people believe just to show how clever we are. Nor is critical thinking about using our skills to defend beliefs that we know are untrue or decisions we know are poor. Critical thinking is intended to be used to seek truth (small “t”) with intellectual energy and with integrity. Thus, critical thinking is skeptical without being cynical. It is open-minded without being wishy-washy. It is analytical without being knit picky. Critical thinking can be decisive without being stubborn, evaluative without being judgmental, and forceful without being opinionated." [4]
___#4
Given the developments over the past two decades in cognitive psychology and the popularity of quick acting reactive decision making {Blink!} we need to clarify how critical thinking relates to reactive thinking. This is not at all a simple topic. So I'll wait until I hear from you about the first three paragraphs before going further with this. But if you want some indication of where I'm headed, please feel free to downlaod my essay, "Critical thinking: What It is and Why it counts" from Insight Assessment website. The PDF is free at: http://www.insightassessment.com/pdf_files/what&why2009.pdf
If you want to talk about any of these ideas and suggestions with me off line, my email is pfacione@measuredreasons.com
Thank you all for your time and consideration to these proposals.
Yours, Pete Facione —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfacione ( talk • contribs) 21:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Haven't seen any comments on these proposals yet. Please discuss/advise. Thank you -- Pfacione ( talk) 21:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Critical Thinking is a process that involves several distinct types of thinking. I have added three additional types of thinking to the first paragraph for the following reasons. Without a goal or purpose, either stated or implied, any thinking is for naught (clarifies goals). Since there is a reason for critical thinking, at some point, action will have to be taken, otherwise no goal can be met (accomplishes actions). But before successful action can take place, relevant information must be acquired, understood and reasonably analyzed so as to yield answers to the issues at hand. Without a well thought out game plan leading to effective action, there would be no good conclusion to access. All of these thinking tools, used properly and at the right time, create new ways of doing and knowing things that previously were unknown (creates knowledge and wisdom). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.234.169 ( talk) 16:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
In the section labeled Procedure, the article lists some of the requirements for critical thinking. One line reads "Comprehend and use language with accuracy, clarity, and discrimination"
The problem here is the use of the word discrimination. In this sense the word means "a distinction; discernment, the act of discriminating, discerning, distinguishing, noting or perceiving differences between things." Simply put, it means knowing that some words have multiple meaning and taking the time to be sure what meaning is intended. (Person A: "this makes me mad." Person B: "Do you mean angry or crazy?")
However, the article that discrimination is linked to, is a different meaning of the word. It is linked to an article about "distinct treatment of an individual or group to their disadvantage; treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit" This is not the sort of discrimination required to critical thinking.
I am not very savvy to Wikipedia editing so perhaps some one could help me make the appropriate edit. This is where I am getting these definitions: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/discrimination
Also, I love irony!
Mollgaardm ( talk) 20:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
besides its other shortcomings, the below is grossly unencyclopædic, however well intentioned. To my mind "intellectual empathy" is something of an oxymoron.
![]() | This section contains
instructions, advice, or how-to content. (March 2010) |
There is no simple way to develop the intellectual traits of a critical thinker. One important way requires developing one's intellectual empathy and intellectual humility. The first requires extensive experience in entering and accurately constructing points of view toward which one has negative feelings. The second requires extensive experience in identifying the extent of one's own ignorance in a wide variety of subjects (ignorance whose admission leads one to say, "I thought I knew, but I merely believed"). One becomes less biased and more broad-minded when one becomes more intellectually empathic and intellectually humble, and that involves time, deliberate practice and commitment. It involves considerable personal and intellectual development.
To develop one's critical thinking traits, one should learn the art of suspending judgment (for example, when reading a novel, watching a movie, engaging in dialogical or dialectical reasoning). Ways of doing this include adopting a perceptive rather than judgmental orientation; that is, avoiding moving from perception to judgment as one applies critical thinking to an issue.
One should become aware of one's own fallibility by:
An integration of insights from the critical thinking literature and cognitive psychology literature is the "Method of Argument and Heuristic Analysis." This technique illustrates the influences of heuristics and biases on human decision making along with the influences of thinking critically about reasons and claims.
The other tagged subsection looks good to me if the three specific complaints are addressed. With that done, the article level tags might be removed. The content in the deleted § above may have something that could be salvaged into a rewritten "In Schooling"/Education § but anything other than an objective recounting of what's what there will run afoul of various policies. The mentioned action wouldn't make it an excellent article but I'm working with realistic expectations here. Any really excellent treatment of this is going to have be both well researched and adopt the POV of the subject matter in an erudite way. I don't want to put the time into it but it's marked as high importance to major topics/projects and if someone does, I'm sure their efforts will be much appreciated. 72.228.177.92 ( talk) 23:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
This article needs to be clearly labelled and contextualized from the outset as an "Education Page" - that is, "critical thinking" has very specific meanings due to its origin (? the phrase as commonly used originated in the US educational community, no? Or did it? This is not immediately clear from the article, and should be.) People might well be confused, if they came to the page, for example, seeking something related to informal reasoning or logic. The subject is by nature tendentious - "Critical Thinking" seems to refer more to a movement, a set of proposed techniques in education, a quasi-ideological stance, etc than to an "actual thing" that an encylopedia can simply describe. (in so far as it is not clearly grounded in a particular fashion in the education field, then "critical thinking" seems like just a pointless synonym for "clear thinking".) Starting the article with some sort of "etymology" for the term might help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.17.134 ( talk) 05:17, July 4, 2007 (UTC)
I was surprised to see a tag on this article stating "this article has multiple issues." The issues referred to were listed as: "it needs additional references" and "it requires a general clean-up." No further details were to be found on the talk page. I also note that the article is rated "B" Class - normally indicative of a fairly good article. I don't think that the article actually justifies a "multiple issues tag." That is not to say that improvements are not needed. My own review of the article suggests that:
My view is that the issues with the article do not justify a "multiple issues" tag. I always wonder why someone who knows that an article needs some clean-up doesn't just get at it rather than leaving a tag for others to deal with. A "B" Class article is far from perfect. So let's improve this puppy to make it a good article. I will expand the lead and then remove the tag, unless someone produces further evidence that the tag is justified. Sunray ( talk) 21:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I attempted to improve the material on the assessment of Critical Thinking in the English education system but it was rejected as 'vandalism'. There are various issues that, however, need to be addressed in this section. The main thing is that it is biased towards one of the examination boards (OCR) by giving lots of detail on what their qualification involves and virtually nothing on what their competitor board (AQA) offers. It is also out of date. AQA is referred to as planning to offer a qualification in 2008, even though this qualification has been in place for over two years now. The other section I tried to deal with is that there is no longer a qualification called the Advanced Extension Award and hasn't been for over a year.
There is also the more general point that this sort of information doesn't seem at all relevant to an entry on 'Critical Thinking'. Do people around the world really want to know about the detailed specification of one English board of assessment?
Any suggestions on how these changes can be made without being rejected for 'vandalism'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trescious ( talk • contribs) 12:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I have downgraded this article to "Start" class. To say that it is poorly written is an understatement. I already removed one section that was poorly written, unsourced, and off topic, however there are other sections, including all of the ones from "Meaning" to "Importance" that are one source per section summaries of their sources. It's a wreck. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Mr. Manguard. It has a bias toward Deweyanism in the “In Schooling” section, the tone in the first sentence being dreamy and worshipful. The whole point of view seems to be that of one of his disciples, and so I added a “POV-check” tag to that section. G.E.Hoostal ( talk) 20:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm new to wikipedia editing, so please forgive me for any transgressions I may commit.
Many of the definitions of critical thinking in this article are very vague and lack sources. One thing that could help remedy this problem is to have a section detailing some or all of the operational definitions science uses when researching critical thinking. Operational definitions help clear up some of the vagueness seen the article by at least answering this question for the reader, "How are we measuring it scientifically?"
I don't know exactly how best to include these or detail them or cite them, but here are some tests used in the scientific literature:
The Assessment of Thinking Skills (ATS) developed by Wesp & Montgomery in 1998. Here is a link to a preview of the first page of the article in which it was developed:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00986289809709714?journalCode=htop20#preview Richard Wesp & Kathleen Montgomery (1998): Developing Critical Thinking Through the Study of Paranormal Phenomena, Teaching of Psychology, 25:4, 275-278
The Watson–glaser critical thinking appraisal (WGCTA)
This test is linked to at the bottom of the page under "external links", but I feel like it would benefit the clarity of the article if it were described and referenced in the actual body of the article.
Here is a quote from the Wesp & Montgomery article that I think is informative:
"...we asked students to evaluate flaws in a brief article that described a claim about a hypothetical scientific discovery...Each article was about 300 words and incorporated 10 flaws including hasty generalization, reference to irrelevant data, ad hominem attacks, appeal to authority, overgeneralization, poor control group, bandwagon effect, and flaws in statistical reasoning." pg. 277
There are more tests used in the scientific literature that hopefully others can add and describe. So does adding an "Operational Definitions" section to the article sound like a good idea?
Cgreen26 (
talk) 00:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Definitions are not descriptions. Descriptions are subjective reality, but are never objective. Definitions are objective; they have boundries, limits, weaknesses, flaws, because the thing defined does. Rocks cannot fly, even when propelled. 108.38.36.17 ( talk) 02:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The article repeats the various definitions of critical thinking throughout the text: "Critical thinking is [...]". The difficulty with the article arises from the mixture of basic mental process, general mental processes, objectives of critical thinking, criteria for good critical thinking, I suggest collecting some more resources, definitions and quotes, then the following outline:
I also suggest merging several of these 'higher order thinking articles' as the information is similar and dispersed. However, I'm no expert in the field. Sda030 ( talk) 17:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
This article begins with one definition of critical thinking and then mentions "although there is debate among educators about its precise meaning and scope". In my reading of a variety of articles on critical thinking from different disciplines, many authors make mention of a lack of agreement on a single definition of critical thinking:
"To date, much work has been completed in multiple disciplines in the name of critical thinking. A great deal of this work not only leaves one wondering how it is measured, but also leaves one groping for a clear definition of critical thinking" (p. Rudd, R. D. (2007). Defining critical thinking. Techniques, 82(7), 46-49).
Mulnix echoes this in her "survey of the literature immediately revealed that what counts as ‘critical thinking’ seems to vary widely" (p. 464, Mulnix, J. W. (2010). Thinking critically about critical thinking. Educational Philosophy and Theory. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00673.x.)
Perhaps starting with the history of critical thinking and with the recognition that there is no single agreed upon definition for critical thinking amongst researchers across disciplines (not only education) and leaving the variety of specific definitions in the definitions section would be more representative of research on critical thinking. Is it possible or necessary to come up with one single definition for critical thinking or is it up to the reader to consider different definitions and personalize his or her own definition through reflection and critical thinking? Subitizer ( talk) 16:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Added clause about Kelley seems dubious. Where is the source? Let someone knowledgeable check this. Super48paul ( talk) 20:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
This is my argument for editing the first line of the article per 19th of March 2013. To subject critical thinking to human self-reflection posits some challenge. Of course, it is difficult to argue that thought by itself is not reflective; so reflection may be said necessarily to be implicit to critical thought. When it comes to critical thinking, it is even difficult to posit a starting point at all, rather one must talk of a line of thought emerging from questioning any form of axiomatic reasoning or first principles. We may say human self-reflection starts with looking into the mirror, but critical thought starts with the wound, or through an exploration of the working of the illusion which the mirror here represent. Critical thought emerges rather with haecceities, the glitches in the matrix so to say. It doesn't of course abolish the reflexive aspect of thinking, or breaks the mirror, but rather goes through teh looking glass. -- Xact ( talk) 00:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Attempted to simplify the description that is to show CT being relevant to any individual and/or situation where information is evaluated -- Arson McFire ( talk) 20:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Checked the feedback for plagarism and NOR. I did not see the errors. The purpose of this editing is to try to change the article from a schooling/education/teaching niche to a widely applicable process. -- Arson McFire ( talk) 11:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Added link to the critical thinking org website -- Arson McFire ( talk) 11:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
-- Arson McFire ( talk) 16:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Inserted external links to snopes and factcheck
-- Arson McFire ( talk) 17:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Edited Critical thinking overview. I believe I expanded the use of CT past the focus on education.
-- Arson McFire ( talk) 02:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC) changed mostly to partially in intro.
Inserted Academic Earth link to the Oxford continuing education on Critical Reasoning -- Arson McFire ( talk) 16:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted Etymology section and insterted a definition of CT. Added a reference to Beyer. -- Arson McFire ( talk) 17:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Removed unneeded adjectives. -- Arson McFire ( talk) 17:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
/* What is Critical Thinking? */ added generic details on the definition -- Arson McFire ( talk) 17:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
/*Various definitions*/ moved section up verbatim -- Arson McFire ( talk) 18:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Noticed that the link for Reference 15 -- ^ Critical Thinking FAQs from Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations -- is no longer a good link. I was going to edit it myself, but did not see it when I went to the edit page. Though the page may have changed a bit since it was first included in this article, I believe the link that best corresponds to this reference is now http://www.ocr.org.uk/images/71705-guide-to-what-has-changed.pdf. -- Emerald Evergreen 16:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I've been going through the page history, and I've noticed a lot of source information that has been altered, I've noticed that sources have been removed for no good reason, and then I've noticed solid information deleted on account of it being "original research" even though it was previously sourced. This is bad editing at its best. I'm inclined to start reverting, but I think I'll do the actual research that the lazy deletionists refused to do. Viriditas ( talk) 02:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
This article is littered with uncited opinions. It also fails to present both sides substantially and strongly favors a positive view of critical thinking without encompassing any opposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.111.250 ( talk) 21:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
shahim is the best player in al hayat inter school — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.108.148.237 ( talk) 13:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC) That may well be but can shahim do it standing on his head? It is important for critical thinking to be able to turn the problem upside down and view its various factors from a different angle. In that regard shahim may not be able to function.
To me both have the same goals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.178.41.181 ( talk) 09:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
CRItal thinking is the 5 WS s. Critical thinking as a specific topic in education (and the philosophy of education) did flourish for a bit in the 80s. I know that, because one of my teachers made study of the basics part of our regular curriculum, with supporting textbooks and other materials.
What seems to be missing from this article is the history concerning when and how the words "critical thinking" went from being just a phrase (like "washing windows") to a discrete topic of inquiry (like "physics" or "French language" or "mathematics").
So, from personal experience (mentioned above), I know this was a topic of inquiry in the philosophy of education, but I don't know when. A quick search on the term leads to numerous articles, and articles such as "A Developmental Model of Critical Thinking," D. Kuhn, Columbia, 1999 show a broad array of references.
Notably, the only Richard Paul citation by the above paper is dated 1990, while the same paper above also references Piaget and Dewey--clearly much older sources. The Kuhn paper, for example, refers to Dewey as the "the education philosopher who had the most to teach us about critical thinking". Further, the Kuhn paper also cites John McPeck (Critical Thinking and Education, 1980, New York, St. Martin's Press). That this Wikipedia article does not cite Dewey or McPeck suggests at least editorial bias and at worst poor scholarship.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hargettp ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully recent contributions to the sections "Descriptions" and "History and Etymology" have resolved some of these issues; obviously much more history and citations stand to be added.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aksoldat ( talk • contribs) 00:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Critical thinking requires that the thinker considers any subject or issue as holistically and objectively as possible. It is not enough.(fragment)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Murrayv ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
And also that the passive voice has been mastered.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.132.112.230 ( talk) 19:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Critical thinking. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I put on the tag for "lead rewrite" because the page is a bit of a mess. It's clear from the "Definitions" section, that there is some difficulty in coming up with a broadly accepted definition.
Critical thinking generally starts with applying logic and rationality, but our task is to explain what is different about "critical" thinking that distinguishes it (or is it really different? for many speakers, it is unclear that there is a distinction).
Once we've made a stab at what critical thinking is, the article must go on to give proper coverage of the range of advocacy for critical thinking as a subject or technique to be taught in schools, about which there may be some political controversy. —jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 05:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
In the History section: "Critical thinking was described by Richard Paul as a movement in two waves (1994).[2] The "first wave" of critical thinking is often referred to as a 'critical analysis' that is clear, rational thinking involving critique. Its details vary amongst those who define it. According to Barry K. Beyer..." Notice it leaves the reader hanging waiting for a description of the second wave. The reference is not accessible via the supplied link, but a quick search of the author name and "critical thinking" yielded a 1997 paper where he describes *three* waves. http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/critical-thinking-movement-3-waves/856 If someone has the urge to improve the article, I hope this is useful. (--pjh 2017-04-06) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.86.194.253 ( talk) 17:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
TL;DR version: I propose we delete the first sentence which does not summarize the source it comes from--not even close. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 14:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
@ MjolnirPants: Thanks for watch listing this article, since I know you are well familiar with logic and reasoning. I read the first sentence in much surprise. I have never heard this as the exclusive definition for critical thinking. That definition is just a small subset of what I would call critical thinking. Oddly enough, the book I was assigned for my Critical Thinking class does not define Critical Thinking and it is not even in the index. But let's look at what Google gives. In order:
The first site: [2] "Critical thinking...the awakening of the intellect to the study of itself."
Def.2 from same website:
Def.3 and Def.4 omitted.
These sound more like the far more complex and sophisticated set of the numerous skills that make up what I would call critical thinking. Reasoning from facts to a judgment is certainly ONE skill, but it begs the question of how one can decide anything is a fact. Interpreting the vast array of information and being able to differentiate fact from wishful thinking, lies, exaggeration, half-truth, fuzzy thinking, distraction, unreliable observations, second-hand information, questionable generalization, etc. is an absolutely essential element of critical thinking that is left out of this definition. I would argue that going from the right set of facts to the right conclusion is often the easy part, and may only requires a proper application of the rules of logic. Deciding what is a reliable fact and what is not is often the most challenging aspect. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 14:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I just looked at the ref. for the first sentence, and see it refers to the same site I was just quoting from, and uses defn. 4 from Glasser (1941). But def. 4 from Glasser definitely cannot be summarized to create the first sentence. I propose we delete the first sentence which does not summarize the source it comes from--not even close. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 14:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
It's notizable that there are quite a few articles that lack critical thinking, defacto leading to the conclusion that there are an ample number of editorial houses that would prefer individuals not to think at all.
This should be one of the first articles at the aperture level of Wikipedia itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.91.90.226 ( talk) 20:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Part 8 is a sublimality to discredit critical thinking, should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.91.90.226 ( talk) 20:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello
Greeting for the day.
AS in the article named critical thinking, I came across a word called decision making which i thought would be better, if I could link the word to one of my blog post which I have written in my blog.
I think that through this minor linking, the article's quality would improve and also many readers would also get benefited.
This was just a suggestion form my part. Rest lies upon the moderator(s)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nidhivarma ( talk • contribs) 15:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
~~~~
after you're done writing.)There seem to be numerous references to different "waves" of thought about critical thinking, all supported by a single reference repeated numerous times, namely Walters, Kerry (1994). Re-Thinking Reason. How prevalent is this view in academia? Is the source academically accepted? GoodStuff ( talk) 07:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I see two places where the word "adduction" might be better changed to "abduction" unless I am missing something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:1016:82E8:DDEC:F334:AC27:B6E3 ( talk) 20:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in this topic, but the example about the sum of even numbers is actually a deductive argument, unless I'm mistaken. It's also not clearly written. This should be changed, and I think it would be best to use an example not from mathematics here because it could easily be confused with mathematical induction, which is (ironically) a type of deductive reasoning. 2600:1700:4B10:B3B0:51AD:4FCE:7092:E95A ( talk) 21:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
The description says that deduction is certain and derived from premises. Induction is only likely to be true. But the example for induction is that the sum of any two even integers is an even integer. That is certain and derived from its premises. I would say it is a deductive conclusion, not an inductive one.
I believe an example of induction would be that the sun will rise tomorrow. Or, before we knew of the existence of black swans, that all swans are white.
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Alinamartell579.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Chuanhaozhou.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 19:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
EvyRue512.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 19:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Integration being the key is the part of
A: Critical Aspects
B: commercial flow
C: Critical Thinking
D: perception 192.145.170.153 ( talk) 10:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
native -> naive (egocentrism). The current text is an unsupportable and false value judgment. 98.4.112.204 ( talk) 10:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I contributed to this article last summer as I was writing a thesis on critical thinking. It seems that it has been removed or edited. The entry I offered explored the trajectory between complete subjectivity and striving for more objective understandings (and of course, understanding critical thinking and practicing it leaves the learner in a state of ongoing redressing of inexcapable bias).
Anyway, I was sad to see my contributions wiped away. And I also feel that what it was replaced by seemed pretty contribed and devoid of critical thought -- instead relying on dogmatic interpretation.
But who am I to judge?
What is wrong with this article that it has been suggested for clean-up? (See also my comment below: frankahilario)
Someone added a quotation with a tag {Fromm} after it. Was this meant to be a link to Erich Fromm? If not, who is the quote from? Jon the Geek 14:31, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the article Critical thought and changed it into a redirect to critical thinking, as it seemed to be rather duplicate. For completeness I include here the full text of the old critical thought article. It might contain some useful information which is not already in Critical thinking. Kind regards. -- Lenthe 12:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Critical thought is often interpreted as "being critical" in the sense of "taking a negative attitude". The philosophical meaning however is that of thought which:
Therefore, critical thought requires:
"Critical thinking is a mental process of analyzing or evaluating information..."
Analysis is, I think we can agree, a division and ordering process. In most cases, the ordering involves representation in consciousness, according to some already established organizing principle. Which, of course, is the evaluation component in the quoted line. Analytic, evaluative consciousness is inherently dogmatic, in short. An examination of the tenacity with which natural (and for that matter, social) scientists historically cling to notions which are more comfortable than adequate to reality is a good gauge of this, perhaps.
But: This is not critical thinking. Critique avoids (so far as that is possible -- we can discuss the limits...) the evaluative representation in consciousness -- merely analytic thinking.
Or, to put that polemically, even English teachers can teach "critical thinking" that is merely analysis. Most seem less able to suspend the set of evaluative criteria with which they have been saddled (or have saddled themselves), and to break through into critical thinking propter se.
Don Jenner jenner.citigraphics.net
Agreed, analuein is just "I dissolve". No disciplinary thing, but maybe the idea of dividing the question and making a distinction (paraphrasing, er, Montesquieu?) and so on is very much alive. [Fascinating word: Clearly from lusis and luo — and now I am wondering how I ever got through the Platonic dialogue "Lysis" without thinking about this; Lysis is unbinding of Socrates? I was such a callow youth.] Maybe just a freeing of what is complex matters?
A case could be made, real analysis is inherently critical; the division and distinction process cannot proceed without first understanding what is present before one (at least, in consciousness) and that even dogamtic understanding starts in critique. Not sure I want to do that, but I can see how it could be done.
My concern has been with the reduction (I am being kindly...) of what I understand to be critical thinking, to what seems to be taught those who wander into my classes (whether management or philosophy -- I do both), having taken a class in "critical thinking" and which seems to be just analysis, and rather poor analysis at that.
I have no objection to incorporating something like the distinction I noted, but am not sure how best to do it. There are some implications, I think -- a large part of what I understand to be at stake in "post-Modern" is tied up in this distinction. Say if you will, I think Foucault (and maybe Ricoeur before him?) is very critical; I am less sure Derrida gets it. -- djenner 15:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in like this, guys, but after all you have said and done, I a newcomer to all this am now saying: FIRST THINGS FIRST. We go back to the basics. So, we have to define/delimit/discuss/debate CRITICAL THINKING in relation with CREATIVE THINKING (CREATIVITY) in relation with INTELLIGENCE. Please see my comments in INTELLIGENCE: I was there first.
frankahilario 20 october 2005 0625 manila time
... and online guides to critical thinking please!
I removed a plug for a book. :) Dlohcierekim 19:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
"The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal awards the Robert P. Balles Annual Prize in Critical Thinking."
This is completely out of place. Why is this in the definition of critical thinking?
"or that which is nutritive from that which is not.Critical thinking begins almost at birth. An infant or any warm blooded animal must be able to discern the nipple from the breast in order that nutrition be provided.This faculty is humanity's most important, as it is the implementation and honing of criticism which allows continued existence and social growth. The loss of this faculty through injury, denial or subversion can lead to fatal mistakes. Critical thinking is humanity's most important mental faculty."
What do people think of this slightly 'purple' passage? I didn't want to edit out someones work but I personally feel it's a bit wooly and not very encyclopedic in tone, and may not even be factually accurate. It doesn't really follow on from the greek definition as it implies. Also, finding the nipple is largely by instinct, not critical thought; hence a newborn puppy or other animal can do it. Merkinsmum 02:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
What's with the various foreign language exerts in the article? I don't understand why it's there and what purpose it serves. Wikidudeman 03:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I love critical thinking, but I find it impossible to wade through this article, it's overlong and just seems to define critical thinking in different ways, again and again and again, as if different authors have just stuck their own views on the end rather than editing what was there? I suggest thorough condensing of it Merkinsmum 19:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually I just looked at it again and it seems to have been pruned since a few weeks ago when I last tried to read it, and is now readable, hurrah! Has someone done some serious pruning? Merkinsmum 19:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Here is a passage currently in the article:
"Are there any additional benefits given to critical thinkers? According to some philosophers, that's luck. But paradox may exist because luck, by critical thinking, is usually defined as fallacy."
This should be made sensible or remove -- most likely removed.
64.91.107.186 06:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
this is a very minor comment, but could someone clarify what this means "The full advanced GCE is now available and, though very challenging" -- I don't know what a GCE is (I suspect it is some fascet of english educational testing) and I don't know WHERE it is available (ie, is there a textbook, etc. for it, and if so, what is it and where can I get it ?)
My new edits and any copyright issues regarding the Foundation for Critical Thinking
I hate this course with a passion. 82.44.209.28 21:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to make sure that I am clear regarding the new content I have submitted on this page and a few others regarding Critical Thinking, Socratic questioning and associated pages. I have emailed permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org a release for use of content from the Foundation for Critical Thinking. If you see any content that has been reused from www.criticalthinking.org, know that it is being provided with permission. Please contact me for any questions regarding this. If I have not jumped through all the correct hoops in the correct order please contact me before doing a "speedy delete" DanBlanchard 18:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article's title use a noun (thought) rather than a gerund (thinking)? Just wondering. Paul 03:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
This article really sucks. It's one person's narrow perspective of a large and interesting subject. This topic deserves better.
Moving a link here:
Reason: Ok, the organisation promotes critical thinking, as do thousands of others. But the page linked here doesn't even use the words "critical thinking", it's a fairly tenuous connection as far as I can see. As such this looks to me very much like a "vanity" link. Or am I mistaken? SociableLiberal 19:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Critical thinking is very imp , because it enables one to analyze, evaluate, and restructure our thinking, decreasing thereby the risk of acting on, or thinking with, a false premise. However, even with the use of critical thinking skills, mistakes can happen due to a thinker's egocentrism or sociocentrism or failure to be in possession of the full facts. In addition, there is always the possibility of inadvertent human error.
I think the first of those sentences just needs to go. (so it's very important, is it? I guess that's why it's in Wikipedia.) Then we have "inadvertent human error." I love the repetitive redundancy there. ;-)
It appears that a section (Common concepts used in critical thinking activities) was removed on August 29, 2007 (by 76.176.236.204), with no apparent reason given. The removed section does not appear to be in good style, nevertheless I find it strange that it simply disappeared with no one noticing. Erkcan 11:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Critical_thinking&diff=154324028&oldid=151998698
Critical thinking is thinking that self-consciously seeks to follow certain norms for the purpose of avoiding undesired outcomes. Controversies concerning how to define critical thinking in less general terms can be explained as disagreement about (a) what norms apply, (b) how they are to be followed, and (c) what critical thinkers seek.
In academia, critical thinking encompasses the subject matter of informal logic and argumentation theory, which together comprise much of what has been traditionally taught under the banner of “critical thinking.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.1.1.101 ( talk) 19:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Where's talk of the criticism of critical thinking? I'm sure I'm not the only person who sees this as a vehicle of strong social constructionist dominance.
At the very least, Wikipedia owes a fair hearing to those whom are allying themselves against this unnatural exercise in group think. One should not seek to overcome one's own biases, but to understand them. Only with understanding can one affirm both the strengths and the weaknesses of the bias, and to decide its merits thereupon.
Don't think it's too late. We can still stop this destructive filter of human potential from corroding our educational institutions. And the first step, is to expose critical thinking's critics. 07:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry you are not the only one. Today it's a great day. I discovered the purpuse of this. The purpose it to expand the group thinking. I love how they explained that scientific skepticism is different from philosophical skepticism. Oh really? They are so pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.140.11.141 ( talk) 23:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that this page has somehow morphed largely into a shameless plug for a book and a website. maybe this paged should be retitled:
Critical Thinking: It's definition and institution according to "criticalthinking.org".
Maybe even a little "paypal" check-out link where you can buy the book!
Really, I wouldn't be quite so offended if said website wasn't ridiculously hailed as, "The Foundation".
Cheers,
euneirophrenia
This article doesn't really explain anything. It is tagged as sounding like an advertisement. It does. And a bad one at that. Perhaps more could be said about the Critical Thinking A Level course in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.4.20 ( talk) 15:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I concur with others (above) that the intro is ... well, at least confusing and probably confused. I propose that we use the first paragraph of the overview section (and perhaps a little of the second) OR the Glaser quotation, as the introduction. Any thoughts or preferences w.r.t. this question?
Also, I invite folks watching the critical thinking page to scrutinize the changes I have made to the informal logic page. Cathalwoods ( talk) 22:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
(The role of) general intelligence and intellectual attainment (whether or not that equated to "education"), both in the treatment of the subject and the current state of the text and structure of the article. Both rewrite and clean-up tags would not be inappropriate for its current state. Lycurgus ( talk) 21:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I was entertaining myself the other day by reading through conservapedia and on one of the talk pages someone posted a link to a youtube video lecture series from the "Foundation for Critical Thinking". The person who posted the link exhibited no discernable critical thinking skills, so I was curious what the video could be. Only minutes into it, something sounded wrong. I only took a couple of semesters of philosophy in college (ok a semester and a half), but one of the things I actually learned was what critical thinking is (mostly).
The video I saw on youtube, though, was defining it a bit differently - it was very subtle though, and I couldn't put my finger on it why it sounded so “off”.
So, I googled, and wound up here at this page and at the Foundation for Critical Thinking page, and I went through the histories on both. The Foundation had an employee, User:DanBlanchard, create the Foundation for Critical Thought article (but it wasn't sneaky or anything-he used his real name and stated he was adding information at the behest of Richard Paul), and that employee also came here to this main Critical Thinking article and rewrote the intro and the definition to reflect the teachings of the "Foundation" (and Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder). Actually, he edited this [ [1]] main article first, and then created the Foundation page later. The difference seems to be that in the Foundation's definition it's a sort of twisted emphasis telling us that critical thinking is 'thinking about thinking' so we can 'think about how we think', so that we can win more arguments and also so we'll have better morals. Near as I can tell anyway.
I researched a bit, but there weren't any 'scholarly' criticisms or reviews of Drs. Paul or Elder or the Foundation. I found a few amazon book reviews at first - and several reviewers strongly agreed with what I saw - that Paul and Elder had somewhat redefined critical thinking. So, I dug some more and found a pdf of a paper from 1992, apparently submitted to the US Department of Education for some reason - titled: "Unpacking Richard Paul's Strong Sense Critical Thinking" which gave a somewhat thorough description of and critique on what Dr.Paul emphasizes, and how his definition differs from the more traditional definition of critical thinking.
here's:
The Critical Thinking video series for children is interesting too
The Foundation's interesting article on "Ethics Without Indoctrination"
a snippet: "Students, then, need skill and practice in moral reasoning, not indoctrination into the view that one nation rather than another is special in enunciating these moral principles. Students certainly need opportunities to explicitly learn basic moral principles, but more importantly they need opportunities to apply them to real and imagined cases, and to develop insight into both genuine and pseudo morality. They especially need to come to terms with the pitfalls of human moralizing, to recognize the ease with which we mask self-interest or egocentric desires with high-sounding moral language."
I'm sorry if this was too long, or not in the right place, or if this is considered bad wiki-form, I just wanted to share what I learned since it seems like some of you commenting also sense that something is odd about this page. Hopefully the links I give can help clear up a little of the confusion. - I don't feel knowledgable enough about the specifics of critical thinking though to change this article myself, I don't know how to strip out or balance the Foundation's information because I don't really know enough about the nuances/technicalities of what critical thinking is...
Also: how meta is it to be using my critical thinking skillz to figure out what happened to the definition of critical thinking? Uber-meta!--
Philosimphy (
talk) 14:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Hoping that by giving it something of a proper home it can have the correct discipline applied to it. Identifying key contributors to critical thinking as a topic inquiry, the history of critical thinking as a topic of inquiry, and the impact of critical thinking on the fields of education and child development, that's just some of what's needed.
We'll see. Nuke my edits if you dislike, but happy to discuss. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hargettp ( talk • contribs) 17:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Colleagues,
Many have suggested we need a better opening for the article on crtical thinking. Having worked at this for 40+ years first let me offer some context, then make a proposal. Let's take each pararaph in turn.
___#1
Context: There are 4 ways to define a concept like "critical thinking" 1. Each person offers his or her own take on what it means. We did this for decades it can be difficult and confusing. 2. Somone offers a good lit review systhesizing the prevailing definitions. Joanne Kurfuss Gainen did this in 1989 - a very good job. We could use her synthesis. Reference: Kerfuss, J. (1989). Critical thinking: Theory, research, practice and possibilities. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 2. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education. 3. A panel of experts goes through a rigrous process of coming to a reasonsable level of consensus. This was done by the American Philosophical Association in a project that took over two years ( 1988-1990 and include 46 heavy hitting experts on the topic. Yours truly was not one of those experts, but did coordinate the project using the Rand Corporation's Delphi methodology. The APA did this because option 1 was leading to endless fruitless qibbling in the professional journals and option 2, while acceptable, still relied on the ideocycratic analysis of one individual. The Delphi methodology has a built in self-corrective features, since all the experts get to comment on all the draft consensus expressions at every stage of the process. Reference: Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. ERIC Document No. ED 315-423 4. Give up on trying to define or characterize the concept abstractly, but rely instead on common usage with whatever vagueness or ambiguity this may include(e.g. dictionary defiition) or on the term's de fctor operational meaning as generated by one of its many metrics (e.g. it means whatever the WGCTA, Cornell Test, CCTST, CLA, etc. says it means). This is not a good approach. I do not recommend option #4.
Here is my suggested revision of the CT entries first paragraph:
Critical thinking, is "purposeful reflective judgment concerning what to believe or what to do."
[1] The list of core critical thinking skills, as identified by Ennis, Swartz, Paul, Halpern, Fisher, Wade, Scriven, Boyd, Chafee, Gittens, Moore, Browne, Parker, White, Keely an many others includes interpretation, analysis, inference, evaluation, explanation and meta-cognition. An individual or group engaged in strong critical thinking gives due consideration to the
evidence, the context of
judgment, the relevant criteria for making the judgment well, the applicable methods or techniques for forming the judgment, and the applicable theoretical constructs for understanding the problem and the question at hand.
[2] In addition to possessing strong critical thinking skills, one must be disposed to engage problems and decisions using those skills. The positive habits of mind which characterize a person strongly disposed toward critical thinking include a courageous desire to follow reasons and evidence wherever they may lead, open-mindedness, foresight attention to the possible consequences of choices, a systematic approach to problem solving, inquisitiveness, fair-mindedness and maturity of judgment, and confidence in reasoning.
[3]
___#2 Next paragraph - It is good to retain the early warrning that we are talking about a positive and useful set of skills and habits of mind, not something that is "critical" in the negative sense, but something that is "critical" in the sense of "vitally important." since this is essentially a clarification and expansion on the previous paragraph, I do not think we need additinal references. But if we did, I'm sure we could supply them.
I propose this a paragraph #2:
"Critical" as used in the expression "critical thinking" connotes the importance or centrality of the thinking to an issue, question or problem of concern. “Critical” in this context does not mean “disapproved” or “negative.” There are many positive and useful uses of critical thinking, for example formulating a workable solution to a complex personal problem, deliberating as a group about what course of action to take, or analyzing the assumptions and the quality of the methods used in scientifically arriving at a reasonable level of confidence about a given hypothesis. Using strong critical thinking we might evaluate an argument, for example, as worthy of acceptance because it is valid and based on true premises. Upon reflection, a speaker may be evaluated as a credible source of knowledge on a given topic.
____
Here I would like to add a quote from my own work which I think is helpful. But if this is not Wiki-norm-OK, we don't need to have this quote. I belive it is useful to Wiki readers because it articulates the set of social expectations for collaborative investigation and interaction around questions and issues of concern. One that is not steeped in hosility and compitition, but rather is suggestive of mutual respect and collaborative investigation. But the wording is simpler. Your edits and guidance here would be appreciated.
"Critical thinking is not about bashing what people believe just to show how clever we are. Nor is critical thinking about using our skills to defend beliefs that we know are untrue or decisions we know are poor. Critical thinking is intended to be used to seek truth (small “t”) with intellectual energy and with integrity. Thus, critical thinking is skeptical without being cynical. It is open-minded without being wishy-washy. It is analytical without being knit picky. Critical thinking can be decisive without being stubborn, evaluative without being judgmental, and forceful without being opinionated." [4]
___#4
Given the developments over the past two decades in cognitive psychology and the popularity of quick acting reactive decision making {Blink!} we need to clarify how critical thinking relates to reactive thinking. This is not at all a simple topic. So I'll wait until I hear from you about the first three paragraphs before going further with this. But if you want some indication of where I'm headed, please feel free to downlaod my essay, "Critical thinking: What It is and Why it counts" from Insight Assessment website. The PDF is free at: http://www.insightassessment.com/pdf_files/what&why2009.pdf
If you want to talk about any of these ideas and suggestions with me off line, my email is pfacione@measuredreasons.com
Thank you all for your time and consideration to these proposals.
Yours, Pete Facione —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfacione ( talk • contribs) 21:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Haven't seen any comments on these proposals yet. Please discuss/advise. Thank you -- Pfacione ( talk) 21:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Critical Thinking is a process that involves several distinct types of thinking. I have added three additional types of thinking to the first paragraph for the following reasons. Without a goal or purpose, either stated or implied, any thinking is for naught (clarifies goals). Since there is a reason for critical thinking, at some point, action will have to be taken, otherwise no goal can be met (accomplishes actions). But before successful action can take place, relevant information must be acquired, understood and reasonably analyzed so as to yield answers to the issues at hand. Without a well thought out game plan leading to effective action, there would be no good conclusion to access. All of these thinking tools, used properly and at the right time, create new ways of doing and knowing things that previously were unknown (creates knowledge and wisdom). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.234.169 ( talk) 16:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
In the section labeled Procedure, the article lists some of the requirements for critical thinking. One line reads "Comprehend and use language with accuracy, clarity, and discrimination"
The problem here is the use of the word discrimination. In this sense the word means "a distinction; discernment, the act of discriminating, discerning, distinguishing, noting or perceiving differences between things." Simply put, it means knowing that some words have multiple meaning and taking the time to be sure what meaning is intended. (Person A: "this makes me mad." Person B: "Do you mean angry or crazy?")
However, the article that discrimination is linked to, is a different meaning of the word. It is linked to an article about "distinct treatment of an individual or group to their disadvantage; treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit" This is not the sort of discrimination required to critical thinking.
I am not very savvy to Wikipedia editing so perhaps some one could help me make the appropriate edit. This is where I am getting these definitions: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/discrimination
Also, I love irony!
Mollgaardm ( talk) 20:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
besides its other shortcomings, the below is grossly unencyclopædic, however well intentioned. To my mind "intellectual empathy" is something of an oxymoron.
![]() | This section contains
instructions, advice, or how-to content. (March 2010) |
There is no simple way to develop the intellectual traits of a critical thinker. One important way requires developing one's intellectual empathy and intellectual humility. The first requires extensive experience in entering and accurately constructing points of view toward which one has negative feelings. The second requires extensive experience in identifying the extent of one's own ignorance in a wide variety of subjects (ignorance whose admission leads one to say, "I thought I knew, but I merely believed"). One becomes less biased and more broad-minded when one becomes more intellectually empathic and intellectually humble, and that involves time, deliberate practice and commitment. It involves considerable personal and intellectual development.
To develop one's critical thinking traits, one should learn the art of suspending judgment (for example, when reading a novel, watching a movie, engaging in dialogical or dialectical reasoning). Ways of doing this include adopting a perceptive rather than judgmental orientation; that is, avoiding moving from perception to judgment as one applies critical thinking to an issue.
One should become aware of one's own fallibility by:
An integration of insights from the critical thinking literature and cognitive psychology literature is the "Method of Argument and Heuristic Analysis." This technique illustrates the influences of heuristics and biases on human decision making along with the influences of thinking critically about reasons and claims.
The other tagged subsection looks good to me if the three specific complaints are addressed. With that done, the article level tags might be removed. The content in the deleted § above may have something that could be salvaged into a rewritten "In Schooling"/Education § but anything other than an objective recounting of what's what there will run afoul of various policies. The mentioned action wouldn't make it an excellent article but I'm working with realistic expectations here. Any really excellent treatment of this is going to have be both well researched and adopt the POV of the subject matter in an erudite way. I don't want to put the time into it but it's marked as high importance to major topics/projects and if someone does, I'm sure their efforts will be much appreciated. 72.228.177.92 ( talk) 23:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
This article needs to be clearly labelled and contextualized from the outset as an "Education Page" - that is, "critical thinking" has very specific meanings due to its origin (? the phrase as commonly used originated in the US educational community, no? Or did it? This is not immediately clear from the article, and should be.) People might well be confused, if they came to the page, for example, seeking something related to informal reasoning or logic. The subject is by nature tendentious - "Critical Thinking" seems to refer more to a movement, a set of proposed techniques in education, a quasi-ideological stance, etc than to an "actual thing" that an encylopedia can simply describe. (in so far as it is not clearly grounded in a particular fashion in the education field, then "critical thinking" seems like just a pointless synonym for "clear thinking".) Starting the article with some sort of "etymology" for the term might help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.17.134 ( talk) 05:17, July 4, 2007 (UTC)
I was surprised to see a tag on this article stating "this article has multiple issues." The issues referred to were listed as: "it needs additional references" and "it requires a general clean-up." No further details were to be found on the talk page. I also note that the article is rated "B" Class - normally indicative of a fairly good article. I don't think that the article actually justifies a "multiple issues tag." That is not to say that improvements are not needed. My own review of the article suggests that:
My view is that the issues with the article do not justify a "multiple issues" tag. I always wonder why someone who knows that an article needs some clean-up doesn't just get at it rather than leaving a tag for others to deal with. A "B" Class article is far from perfect. So let's improve this puppy to make it a good article. I will expand the lead and then remove the tag, unless someone produces further evidence that the tag is justified. Sunray ( talk) 21:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I attempted to improve the material on the assessment of Critical Thinking in the English education system but it was rejected as 'vandalism'. There are various issues that, however, need to be addressed in this section. The main thing is that it is biased towards one of the examination boards (OCR) by giving lots of detail on what their qualification involves and virtually nothing on what their competitor board (AQA) offers. It is also out of date. AQA is referred to as planning to offer a qualification in 2008, even though this qualification has been in place for over two years now. The other section I tried to deal with is that there is no longer a qualification called the Advanced Extension Award and hasn't been for over a year.
There is also the more general point that this sort of information doesn't seem at all relevant to an entry on 'Critical Thinking'. Do people around the world really want to know about the detailed specification of one English board of assessment?
Any suggestions on how these changes can be made without being rejected for 'vandalism'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trescious ( talk • contribs) 12:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I have downgraded this article to "Start" class. To say that it is poorly written is an understatement. I already removed one section that was poorly written, unsourced, and off topic, however there are other sections, including all of the ones from "Meaning" to "Importance" that are one source per section summaries of their sources. It's a wreck. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Mr. Manguard. It has a bias toward Deweyanism in the “In Schooling” section, the tone in the first sentence being dreamy and worshipful. The whole point of view seems to be that of one of his disciples, and so I added a “POV-check” tag to that section. G.E.Hoostal ( talk) 20:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm new to wikipedia editing, so please forgive me for any transgressions I may commit.
Many of the definitions of critical thinking in this article are very vague and lack sources. One thing that could help remedy this problem is to have a section detailing some or all of the operational definitions science uses when researching critical thinking. Operational definitions help clear up some of the vagueness seen the article by at least answering this question for the reader, "How are we measuring it scientifically?"
I don't know exactly how best to include these or detail them or cite them, but here are some tests used in the scientific literature:
The Assessment of Thinking Skills (ATS) developed by Wesp & Montgomery in 1998. Here is a link to a preview of the first page of the article in which it was developed:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00986289809709714?journalCode=htop20#preview Richard Wesp & Kathleen Montgomery (1998): Developing Critical Thinking Through the Study of Paranormal Phenomena, Teaching of Psychology, 25:4, 275-278
The Watson–glaser critical thinking appraisal (WGCTA)
This test is linked to at the bottom of the page under "external links", but I feel like it would benefit the clarity of the article if it were described and referenced in the actual body of the article.
Here is a quote from the Wesp & Montgomery article that I think is informative:
"...we asked students to evaluate flaws in a brief article that described a claim about a hypothetical scientific discovery...Each article was about 300 words and incorporated 10 flaws including hasty generalization, reference to irrelevant data, ad hominem attacks, appeal to authority, overgeneralization, poor control group, bandwagon effect, and flaws in statistical reasoning." pg. 277
There are more tests used in the scientific literature that hopefully others can add and describe. So does adding an "Operational Definitions" section to the article sound like a good idea?
Cgreen26 (
talk) 00:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Definitions are not descriptions. Descriptions are subjective reality, but are never objective. Definitions are objective; they have boundries, limits, weaknesses, flaws, because the thing defined does. Rocks cannot fly, even when propelled. 108.38.36.17 ( talk) 02:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The article repeats the various definitions of critical thinking throughout the text: "Critical thinking is [...]". The difficulty with the article arises from the mixture of basic mental process, general mental processes, objectives of critical thinking, criteria for good critical thinking, I suggest collecting some more resources, definitions and quotes, then the following outline:
I also suggest merging several of these 'higher order thinking articles' as the information is similar and dispersed. However, I'm no expert in the field. Sda030 ( talk) 17:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
This article begins with one definition of critical thinking and then mentions "although there is debate among educators about its precise meaning and scope". In my reading of a variety of articles on critical thinking from different disciplines, many authors make mention of a lack of agreement on a single definition of critical thinking:
"To date, much work has been completed in multiple disciplines in the name of critical thinking. A great deal of this work not only leaves one wondering how it is measured, but also leaves one groping for a clear definition of critical thinking" (p. Rudd, R. D. (2007). Defining critical thinking. Techniques, 82(7), 46-49).
Mulnix echoes this in her "survey of the literature immediately revealed that what counts as ‘critical thinking’ seems to vary widely" (p. 464, Mulnix, J. W. (2010). Thinking critically about critical thinking. Educational Philosophy and Theory. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00673.x.)
Perhaps starting with the history of critical thinking and with the recognition that there is no single agreed upon definition for critical thinking amongst researchers across disciplines (not only education) and leaving the variety of specific definitions in the definitions section would be more representative of research on critical thinking. Is it possible or necessary to come up with one single definition for critical thinking or is it up to the reader to consider different definitions and personalize his or her own definition through reflection and critical thinking? Subitizer ( talk) 16:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Added clause about Kelley seems dubious. Where is the source? Let someone knowledgeable check this. Super48paul ( talk) 20:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
This is my argument for editing the first line of the article per 19th of March 2013. To subject critical thinking to human self-reflection posits some challenge. Of course, it is difficult to argue that thought by itself is not reflective; so reflection may be said necessarily to be implicit to critical thought. When it comes to critical thinking, it is even difficult to posit a starting point at all, rather one must talk of a line of thought emerging from questioning any form of axiomatic reasoning or first principles. We may say human self-reflection starts with looking into the mirror, but critical thought starts with the wound, or through an exploration of the working of the illusion which the mirror here represent. Critical thought emerges rather with haecceities, the glitches in the matrix so to say. It doesn't of course abolish the reflexive aspect of thinking, or breaks the mirror, but rather goes through teh looking glass. -- Xact ( talk) 00:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Attempted to simplify the description that is to show CT being relevant to any individual and/or situation where information is evaluated -- Arson McFire ( talk) 20:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Checked the feedback for plagarism and NOR. I did not see the errors. The purpose of this editing is to try to change the article from a schooling/education/teaching niche to a widely applicable process. -- Arson McFire ( talk) 11:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Added link to the critical thinking org website -- Arson McFire ( talk) 11:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
-- Arson McFire ( talk) 16:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Inserted external links to snopes and factcheck
-- Arson McFire ( talk) 17:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Edited Critical thinking overview. I believe I expanded the use of CT past the focus on education.
-- Arson McFire ( talk) 02:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC) changed mostly to partially in intro.
Inserted Academic Earth link to the Oxford continuing education on Critical Reasoning -- Arson McFire ( talk) 16:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted Etymology section and insterted a definition of CT. Added a reference to Beyer. -- Arson McFire ( talk) 17:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Removed unneeded adjectives. -- Arson McFire ( talk) 17:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
/* What is Critical Thinking? */ added generic details on the definition -- Arson McFire ( talk) 17:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
/*Various definitions*/ moved section up verbatim -- Arson McFire ( talk) 18:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Noticed that the link for Reference 15 -- ^ Critical Thinking FAQs from Oxford Cambridge and RSA Examinations -- is no longer a good link. I was going to edit it myself, but did not see it when I went to the edit page. Though the page may have changed a bit since it was first included in this article, I believe the link that best corresponds to this reference is now http://www.ocr.org.uk/images/71705-guide-to-what-has-changed.pdf. -- Emerald Evergreen 16:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I've been going through the page history, and I've noticed a lot of source information that has been altered, I've noticed that sources have been removed for no good reason, and then I've noticed solid information deleted on account of it being "original research" even though it was previously sourced. This is bad editing at its best. I'm inclined to start reverting, but I think I'll do the actual research that the lazy deletionists refused to do. Viriditas ( talk) 02:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
This article is littered with uncited opinions. It also fails to present both sides substantially and strongly favors a positive view of critical thinking without encompassing any opposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.111.250 ( talk) 21:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
shahim is the best player in al hayat inter school — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.108.148.237 ( talk) 13:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC) That may well be but can shahim do it standing on his head? It is important for critical thinking to be able to turn the problem upside down and view its various factors from a different angle. In that regard shahim may not be able to function.
To me both have the same goals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.178.41.181 ( talk) 09:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
CRItal thinking is the 5 WS s. Critical thinking as a specific topic in education (and the philosophy of education) did flourish for a bit in the 80s. I know that, because one of my teachers made study of the basics part of our regular curriculum, with supporting textbooks and other materials.
What seems to be missing from this article is the history concerning when and how the words "critical thinking" went from being just a phrase (like "washing windows") to a discrete topic of inquiry (like "physics" or "French language" or "mathematics").
So, from personal experience (mentioned above), I know this was a topic of inquiry in the philosophy of education, but I don't know when. A quick search on the term leads to numerous articles, and articles such as "A Developmental Model of Critical Thinking," D. Kuhn, Columbia, 1999 show a broad array of references.
Notably, the only Richard Paul citation by the above paper is dated 1990, while the same paper above also references Piaget and Dewey--clearly much older sources. The Kuhn paper, for example, refers to Dewey as the "the education philosopher who had the most to teach us about critical thinking". Further, the Kuhn paper also cites John McPeck (Critical Thinking and Education, 1980, New York, St. Martin's Press). That this Wikipedia article does not cite Dewey or McPeck suggests at least editorial bias and at worst poor scholarship.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hargettp ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully recent contributions to the sections "Descriptions" and "History and Etymology" have resolved some of these issues; obviously much more history and citations stand to be added.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aksoldat ( talk • contribs) 00:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Critical thinking requires that the thinker considers any subject or issue as holistically and objectively as possible. It is not enough.(fragment)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Murrayv ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
And also that the passive voice has been mastered.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.132.112.230 ( talk) 19:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Critical thinking. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I put on the tag for "lead rewrite" because the page is a bit of a mess. It's clear from the "Definitions" section, that there is some difficulty in coming up with a broadly accepted definition.
Critical thinking generally starts with applying logic and rationality, but our task is to explain what is different about "critical" thinking that distinguishes it (or is it really different? for many speakers, it is unclear that there is a distinction).
Once we've made a stab at what critical thinking is, the article must go on to give proper coverage of the range of advocacy for critical thinking as a subject or technique to be taught in schools, about which there may be some political controversy. —jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 05:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
In the History section: "Critical thinking was described by Richard Paul as a movement in two waves (1994).[2] The "first wave" of critical thinking is often referred to as a 'critical analysis' that is clear, rational thinking involving critique. Its details vary amongst those who define it. According to Barry K. Beyer..." Notice it leaves the reader hanging waiting for a description of the second wave. The reference is not accessible via the supplied link, but a quick search of the author name and "critical thinking" yielded a 1997 paper where he describes *three* waves. http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/critical-thinking-movement-3-waves/856 If someone has the urge to improve the article, I hope this is useful. (--pjh 2017-04-06) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.86.194.253 ( talk) 17:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
TL;DR version: I propose we delete the first sentence which does not summarize the source it comes from--not even close. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 14:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
@ MjolnirPants: Thanks for watch listing this article, since I know you are well familiar with logic and reasoning. I read the first sentence in much surprise. I have never heard this as the exclusive definition for critical thinking. That definition is just a small subset of what I would call critical thinking. Oddly enough, the book I was assigned for my Critical Thinking class does not define Critical Thinking and it is not even in the index. But let's look at what Google gives. In order:
The first site: [2] "Critical thinking...the awakening of the intellect to the study of itself."
Def.2 from same website:
Def.3 and Def.4 omitted.
These sound more like the far more complex and sophisticated set of the numerous skills that make up what I would call critical thinking. Reasoning from facts to a judgment is certainly ONE skill, but it begs the question of how one can decide anything is a fact. Interpreting the vast array of information and being able to differentiate fact from wishful thinking, lies, exaggeration, half-truth, fuzzy thinking, distraction, unreliable observations, second-hand information, questionable generalization, etc. is an absolutely essential element of critical thinking that is left out of this definition. I would argue that going from the right set of facts to the right conclusion is often the easy part, and may only requires a proper application of the rules of logic. Deciding what is a reliable fact and what is not is often the most challenging aspect. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 14:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I just looked at the ref. for the first sentence, and see it refers to the same site I was just quoting from, and uses defn. 4 from Glasser (1941). But def. 4 from Glasser definitely cannot be summarized to create the first sentence. I propose we delete the first sentence which does not summarize the source it comes from--not even close. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 14:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
It's notizable that there are quite a few articles that lack critical thinking, defacto leading to the conclusion that there are an ample number of editorial houses that would prefer individuals not to think at all.
This should be one of the first articles at the aperture level of Wikipedia itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.91.90.226 ( talk) 20:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Part 8 is a sublimality to discredit critical thinking, should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.91.90.226 ( talk) 20:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello
Greeting for the day.
AS in the article named critical thinking, I came across a word called decision making which i thought would be better, if I could link the word to one of my blog post which I have written in my blog.
I think that through this minor linking, the article's quality would improve and also many readers would also get benefited.
This was just a suggestion form my part. Rest lies upon the moderator(s)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nidhivarma ( talk • contribs) 15:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
~~~~
after you're done writing.)There seem to be numerous references to different "waves" of thought about critical thinking, all supported by a single reference repeated numerous times, namely Walters, Kerry (1994). Re-Thinking Reason. How prevalent is this view in academia? Is the source academically accepted? GoodStuff ( talk) 07:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I see two places where the word "adduction" might be better changed to "abduction" unless I am missing something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:1016:82E8:DDEC:F334:AC27:B6E3 ( talk) 20:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in this topic, but the example about the sum of even numbers is actually a deductive argument, unless I'm mistaken. It's also not clearly written. This should be changed, and I think it would be best to use an example not from mathematics here because it could easily be confused with mathematical induction, which is (ironically) a type of deductive reasoning. 2600:1700:4B10:B3B0:51AD:4FCE:7092:E95A ( talk) 21:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
The description says that deduction is certain and derived from premises. Induction is only likely to be true. But the example for induction is that the sum of any two even integers is an even integer. That is certain and derived from its premises. I would say it is a deductive conclusion, not an inductive one.
I believe an example of induction would be that the sun will rise tomorrow. Or, before we knew of the existence of black swans, that all swans are white.
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Alinamartell579.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Chuanhaozhou.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 19:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
EvyRue512.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 19:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Integration being the key is the part of
A: Critical Aspects
B: commercial flow
C: Critical Thinking
D: perception 192.145.170.153 ( talk) 10:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
native -> naive (egocentrism). The current text is an unsupportable and false value judgment. 98.4.112.204 ( talk) 10:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)