What Does Critical Thinking Mean To You?

The way I see it, is that you're right that it can be rational to conclude that the bridge is not out. You're still operating under your worldview, but that doesn't make it irrational.Now, I cross multiple bridges everyday, and I never consider that one of them may be out. I always conclude that the bridge is working fine, and I don't think that's irrational.But, I wouldn't say that I am being critical of those thoughts. If I was being critical, I would say that just because its near certain that the bridge is not out, it doesn't mean that it isn't. To come to a critically thought out conclusion on the state of the bridge would require actual evidence on the state of the bridge, not just following the rational principle you're talking about. Its still rational, you just haven't been critical of the thought.Most of the time when I'm driving I'm just pretty much on auto-pilot, and I wouldn't call that critical thinking even though it may be rational.

And that's where I accused RAZD of making statement of the bleeding obvious. Obvious and useless. In fact worse than useless, debilitating.It says that we can't actually know anything in advance, which is simply wrong. If our prior experiences could not teach us anything about what is likely to happen in the future - given the same or similar circumstances - we'd be incapable of action, every step we took would be the first we took. We'd learn nothing.The definition of critical thinking I prefer is from the Sceptic's Dictionary That's a practical definition - something that we can actually put to some use. Yes, that's because you expect - based on previous experience - that the bridges that you need to use will be there and functional. If your previous experience hade been that the bridges you need are quite likely to be unavailable, you would be actively thinking about what you needed to do next. Auto-pilot would be firmly switched off.

your logic is quite good... i will admit that!

I think that if you think that you know something in advance, then you're not being critical of your thoughts. Likelihood, of course we can determine beforehand. But actuality we cannot. No, we can still take actions, they're just not assessed critically without the evidence and time to do it. But not being critically thought out doesn't mean that you cannot take the actions. Like I said, I drive on auto-pilot and blindly zoom over bridges, but that's not critical thinking. Meh, what then makes something the most reasonable?According to wiki, the skill for critical thinking are:

quote:

---

The list of core critical thinking skills includes observation, interpretation, analysis, inference, evaluation, explanation, and metacognition. According to Reynolds (2011), an individual or group engaged in a strong way of critical thinking gives due consideration to establish for instance:

​

• Evidence through observation
• Context skills to isolate the problem from context
• Relevant criteria for making the judgment well
• Applicable methods or techniques for forming the judgment
• Applicable theoretical constructs for understanding the problem and the question at hand

​

In addition to possessing strong critical-thinking skills, one must be disposed to engage problems and decisions using those skills. Critical thinking employs not only logic but broad intellectual criteria such as clarity, credibility, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, significance, and fairness.

---

And the procedure goes:

quote:

---

Critical thinking calls for the ability to:

• Recognize problems, to find workable means for meeting those problems
• Understand the importance of prioritization and order of precedence in problem solving
• Gather and marshal pertinent (relevant) information
• Recognize unstated assumptions and values
• Comprehend and use language with accuracy, clarity, and discernment
• Interpret data, to appraise evidence and evaluate arguments
• Recognize the existence (or non-existence) of logical relationships between propositions
• Draw warranted conclusions and generalizations
• Put to test the conclusions and generalizations at which one arrives
• Reconstruct one's patterns of beliefs on the basis of wider experience
• Render accurate judgments about specific things and qualities in everyday life

In sum:

​

"A persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports or refutes it and the further conclusions to which it tends."

---

And everytime there ever has been a bridge out, there's big orange constructions signs with flashing lights that say: "BRIDGE OUT AHEAD". Right, and then I would be using critical thinking. But just basing everything on my previous experiences and not thinking about whether or not any of the bridges are out and just zooming over them anyways because I have no reason to think that they are not out, is not what I would call critical thinking. I mean, its a whole lot of a lack of thinking altogether, and there's certainly nothing critically applied to whatever thinking there is going on.I dunno, it just seems like the skills and procedure for critical thinking involves a lot more than what's going on as I'm driving to work in the morning half awake and listening to the radio and blindly zooming over bridges that I'm, albeit rationally, assuming are just fine.

It the antecedent PROBABILITY principle. We have taken the most rational step given our prior experience and current knowledge. We might find that the bridge is in fact closed when we get there, but no amount of thinking, critically or otherwise, could tell us that until we arrive at the damn bridge.All that you and RAZD's kind of critical thinking can tell us before the event is that the bridge might be closed - well, thanks a lot brain, that was really useful. (You know, blindingly obvious, but at best useless.)The rest is just a repeat of the above.

Which may or may not involve critical thinking.I can use the Antecedent Probability Principle without being critical of my thoughts.Just like when I zoom over bridges without question. Just because I already know its most likely that the bridge is fine, doesn't mean I've even thought about it or that I've critically assessed any of the thoughts I have had about it.

As explained, it involves thinking critically only when thinking critically is necessary.Otherwise we don't waste our brain space forcing ourselves to conclude that we can't know something that is at best irrelevant and at worst debilitating.The example we are given is the fork in the road where we have to decide whether to take the one with the bridge or otherwise. We are forced to think critically. It's a truism to say that we can't know whether the bridge is out or not. It's also totally useless.Critically thinking, it would be plain wrong to assume that because we don't know absolutely if the bridge is there or not, that we can't know what the best decision to make is. That decision has to be taken on what we DO know which will be based on our experience and knowledge.

The difference between us seems to me to be that:For you, if you're forced to make a decision and you're using the best means available, then you're considering that critical thinking.For me, if I'm forced to make a decision and the best means available aren't enough for me to consider my thoughts critically, then I don't call that critical thinking even if the best I can do at the time.

That's circular.In any case, you can think critically with whatever you have available. If your conclusion is that you don't have enough information to decide - and information can mean past experience which gives a clue to probability of outcome - then you're thinking critically.

And true. Contrary to:

quote:

---

For you, if you're forced to make a decision and you're using the best means available, then you're considering that critical thinking.

---

when the best means isn't good enough, no? I see what you're saying. I slice it a little differently.Going back to the bridges, as I said earlier, I go across a bunch of bridges every day without a thought of whether or not they're out (the one over the Mississippi is like 1/3 miles long). Now, we can rationalize that behavior with the Antecedent Probability Principle. You seem to be calling that Critical Thinking. I'm saying that if I want to think critically about it, I should actually take a look at the bridges before zooming across them. Ya know, get some actual evidence and verify the thought. Just rationalizing it doesn't really count as being critical, to me.And if I'm up the road at a fork, and I think critically about whether or not the bridge up ahead is out, then my conclusion would be 'yeah, I don't really know, I should prolly at least look'. That I might, instead, have gone ahead and zoomed across it without looking anyway just means that I wasn't thinking critically... which is no biggie. I do it all the time, everyday. And we could consider it rational through the Antecedent Probability Principle. See, I look at it more like: I don't have enough information to decide, so I can't think critically about it.That is, I don't have enough available to think critically about it. Where as you're going with: That's the point of distinction I was making when I wrote:

quote:

---

The way I see it, is that you're right that it can be rational to conclude that the bridge is not out. You're still operating under your worldview, but that doesn't make it irrational.
Now, I cross multiple bridges everyday, and I never consider that one of them may be out. I always conclude that the bridge is working fine, and I don't think that's irrational.

​

But, I wouldn't say that I am being critical of those thoughts. If I was being critical, I would say that just because its near certain that the bridge is not out, it doesn't mean that it isn't. To come to a critically thought out conclusion on the state of the bridge would require actual evidence on the state of the bridge, not just following the rational principle you're talking about. Its still rational, you just haven't been critical of the thought.

​

Most of the time when I'm driving I'm just pretty much on auto-pilot, and I wouldn't call that critical thinking even though it may be rational.

---

Merely concluding that you don't have enough information to decide, is thinking critically. Then you would legitimately conclude that you don't know that the bridge is there. Which is thinking critically.Though it's rather difficult to imagine how you could arrive at such a neutral position - you'd either believe that the bridge was there because you have prior experience of it (like your Mississippi bridge that you don't even think about anymore) or you have a real reason to believe it won't be (because there was an earthquake last night.)

Yeah, you've said that. I explained why I disagree, expounded the explanation, and now you're repeating yourself. The original bridge that started this tangent was past a fork in a road that I've never been on.You're saying that if I'm sitting at the fork and going: "Gee, I don't have enough information to determine if the bridge ahead is out or not", then I'm thinking critically.I saying that if I'm thinking critically, then I'll drive up the road and take a look at the bridge to see what kind of condition it is in.One of the principles of thinking critically is obtaining evidence. If you can't, then I wouldn't say that you can think critically about it. This doesn't matter, but I thought I mention it: Other pieces of evidence I get are things like not hearing anything about the bridge being out being mentioned on the radio, and not seeing a traffic jam lined up past E-St. If all the cars in front of me are moving along, then that's good evidence that the bridge is working fine, and more reason to not have to think about it.

Of course you are. You've assessed the situation, thought about it, used whatever you had available to make a decision. We can ask no more of critical thought. Of course in the real world you would have other information to help you form a decision about the best course of action. You see other traffic heading that way or coming towards you. If the fork was onto a 4 lane highway, if you're in a country with well maintained infrastructure etc it's likely the bridge is there. If you're on a dirt track in a three day storm you'll think rather differently. Well sure, but that's just cheating. The task is to make a decision with partial knowledge and arrive at the course of action most likely to succeed. To think rationally through a problem. Of course the only way of actually KNOWING is to drive to the bridge but that's not critical thinking - the class dunce can do that. Critical thinking isn't only applied in the presence of perfect information, how could it be? Besides, you have stacks of information - as you point out about your Mississippi bridge.RAZD's position is that you can never know that the bridge is open until you get to it. That's true but dumb and has nothing to do with thinking critically.

Well, I understand what you're saying, thanks.That's just not what Critical Thinking means to me.

I think you're both kind of right.You can have lots of information available about the bridge... but not look into that information (like Catholic Scientist over his many bridges each day not giving a passing thought).
This would not be Thinking Critically.You can have lots of information available about the bridge... and delve into it and understand everything you possibly can.
Then you would be Thinking Critically.ORYou an have hardly any information about the bridge... but delve into whatever information you do have as much as you possibly can (like Tangle is explaining about the fork in the road situation).
This would also be Thinking Critically.You can have hardly any information about the bridge... and not even look at what you do actually have.
Then you would not be Thinking Critically.I don't think the issue of Thinking Critically is about the quantity of information you have.
I think the issue relies on what you do with the information you have available.
Do you attempt to check that information? Do you attempt to question it and consider it? Do you retain a level of doubt about the information in general? Are you willing to alter your ideas if/when you gain more information?
If yes... then you are Thinking Critically.
If no... then you are not Thinking Critically.You can attempt to check things... and be unable to.
You can attempt to question things... and be unable to verify any answers.
You can be open to more information... and not be able to get any.
...and still be Thinking Critically.