What Does Critical Thinking Mean To You?

Reminds me of what Henry Hazlitt said in 1916

How do you determine what the right things are?

By whether or not she has faith in it, obviously.

Exactly. We can have confidence in concepts that have been tested, the more they are tested, the more confidence we have. When we find agreement\consilience with results from different processes this too increases confidence.Confidence should never be considered absolute, while faith can be. Faith is more like trust, and it is more of an emotional aspect.This does not mean that there is no room for faith in critical thinking, just that one should be wary, we can have faith in an assumption that is not tested, based on our core beliefs and knowledge (our worldview), but we should be wary because it is untested.

Indeed the definition of delusion is believing something in spite of contradictory information.An example is believing that the earth is younger than 10 or 12 thousand years old -- there is massive evidence that contradicts this belief.To me this is an indicator of the possible validity of a belief system -- with an inverse relationship to the number/s of evidence that must be denied to maintain the belief/s.To me, critical thinking is a method of applying logical evaluation to concepts to see how they fit against one's worldview. This takes it a step beyond the application of the scientific method, building on it to include aspects that are not amenable to that method.Thus, rather than limiting one-self to only concepts that are tested, one limits one's worldview to allow tested concepts and concepts that are not contradicted, and maintaining skeptical acceptance\confidence in an inverse relationship to the degree of testing.Is a concept tested?

1. if yes, then was it contradicted\invalidated by the results?
   • if not, then we can have a fair degree of confidence in it being valid;
   • if it was, then we can have confidence in it being invalid\misinformed.
2. if not, then we can have very little (if any) confidence of it being valid or invalid -- it's in limbo, as it were.

I agree with what you posted above, but don't go getting all pedantic on us again!;-)

Of course I wasn't defining it, just stating what I knew to be contrary to the prevailing EvC opinion. There's no point in the likes of me trying to define critical thinking or anything else at this forum. Or saying anything at all for that matter.

To me, critical thinking is the mechanism I use to process and evaluate data. The first thing I do is determine whether the data/hypotheses/theories/etc. are credible and valid. In order to do this, I look to see how the data was collected, who collected it, how it was measured/analyzed/captured, how it was interpreted, and how it is presented. And then I determine whether the conclusions drawn are reasonable and logical.If I am confident in the quality of the data, then I feel comfortable using it. But I always maintain some level of doubt. I never accept anything, whether I generated it or not, at face value. There is room for error everywhere. My motto for as long as I can remember is "question everything."My basic beliefs have not changed since I first started at this forum. I have always been a skeptic and remain so today.As for you, I think you have become a better thinker and your critical thinking skills have certainly improved. However, I feel that you are reluctant to evolve further for fear of what you might find. You want to believe what you have always believed and this is your default position. A safe position. Moving beyond what you want to believe is not something you are actively seeking, but you are curious and keep picking at it a tiny bit at a time.Edited by roxrkool, : No reason given.

Of course you were. You were presenting your personal belief, which is pretty much the opposite of critical thinking. Or any thinking at all.You have told us repeatedly that your belief stems from the bible (or your interpretation of it) and that evidence will not change your mind. There is no critical thinking involved there--just religious apologetics. The bible says it, you believe it. No thinking needed! That's true. Words (and phrases) already have meanings. You don't get to come along and change the meanings or the definitions of them because you disagree with where they lead. Now, that's not true. You have every right to comment here, just as we have every right to agree or disagree with you.Who would a lot of us disagree with if you weren't here?

confidence

quote:

---

Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced. Joe Klein, Time, 17 May 2004

---

Emotions+trust can bypass the need for evidence, but it is honest to "be wary". I could honestly agree that I "know" God does not exist--based on Stiles definition, but at the same time honestly say that I believe with all of my being that God does in fact exist.

quote:

---

Critical thinking is what leads to faith in the right things.

---

That really isn't a definition (or if its intended as one it's hopelessly wrong. You can't define a method by its outcome - a method is a way of attempting to achieve a desired outcome)Critical thinking is careful evaluation of claims and the evidence available. And to do it properly you have to apply it to everything. The real test of a critical thinker is applying it to overcome your own biases. In fact Phat, good critical thinking is the best defence against self-worship there is.Being hypercritical of opponent's views, while being credulous of anything you like is the opposite of good critical thinking. And is exactly the sort of thinking typical of self-worshippers.

Why should it be a definition? One could as easily say (paraphrase): And I have no trouble with that statement: that is the goal is it not? Logically and unbiased. Open-minded, yet skeptical.Edited by RAZD, : .

Because the definition is useless. To use the definition, we have to decide what is valid. and we have to acknowledge that at times we must act without complete information.Finally, critical thinking alone is not sufficient to lead to acceptance of only valid things.

quote:

---

Why should it be a definition? One could as easily say (paraphrase):

​

Critical thinking is what leads to acceptance of valid things.
And I have no trouble with that statement: that is the goal is it not?

---

I don't think that the goal is to make short, superficial and uncontroversial statements. If it isn't intended as a definition, all it tells us is why Faith is so often wrong.

Again I did not see it as being a definition, just a statement. Elucidate.