What Does Critical Thinking Mean To You?

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.

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, : .

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

Are you sure that this is not your biases talking rather than just taking it as an "uncontroversial statement" ?Seems to me that you are reading more into it than is there.

Indeed GIGO is a common problem (hence it even has an acronym), even in scientific inquiry, however I don't see how this can "lead to acceptance of only valid things" without employing critical thinking to separate the good from the garbage. It seems to me, that once we have exhausted the realms of things that can be tested we are basically left with opinion, and no matter how well informed that opinion is, it is still subjective; an educated guess is a subjective opinion.I would think that this is where critical thinking would be most applicable, to be aware of and wary of personal opinions and biases.Or do you have some method to separate the wheat from the chaff without critical thinking? Some kind of litmus test?

Which is why you are skeptical even when tested, looking to hone or tune the result/s with further testing. Which is why you are skeptical even when tested, looking to hone or tune the result/s with further testing.Keeping an open mind you can (and most likely necessarily do) consider this to be the best approximation to {reality} you can reasonably obtain at this time, yet it is subject to change.The interference imho comes not so much from considering them, but in resistance to revision when more information suggests it.

And all you've got is anecdotal evidence at best, untested subjective personal experience (which could be hallucination).At best suggesting a line of inquiry or investigation before committing to an opinion.Critical thinking demands skepticism in an absence of transferable evidence.

Yep.If you accept something without evidence for it you are not using critical thinking.If you reject something without evidence against it you are not using critical thinking.If there is neither evidence for nor evidence against then the logical conclusion is that it is neither validated nor invalidated.Edited by RAZD, : ]

Does not critical thinking involve the proper use of logic? Do you not agree that the absence of evidence is only evidence for the absence of evidence?Is it really critical to make such a decision when no evidence points either way?Please evaluate your biases before replying.

For you, but not for a believer. The default position is your worldview beliefs: that will be the basis for any decision without clear answers, and it will not be critical thinking so much as blind reaction.

If it is a choice, then your worldview affects the choice you make; your experiences, your knowledge your beliefs, all go to what choices you make. Or your default position might be to take the one less traveled by, in which case you might expect the bridge to be in need of repair ...... which depends on your purpose in going down the road in the first place. And that too depends on your worldview.

Again, this is your "default position" - your assumption\opinion\belief - based on your worldview, and not necessarily anyone else's default position.For instance a person that knows absolutely nothing about climate change doesn't necessarily need to believe that it is not happening when he has not seen any evidence of change that would convince them ...Edited by RAZD, : i

It fits with your worldview. It doesn't fit with your worldview. Or one could take a scottish verdict position ...To reject evidence just because it is weak is not critical thinking imho.

Silly me I thought it was started to put Phat in the fire ...