What Does Critical Thinking Mean To You?

I was saying that we have looked everywhere for unicorns, and they aren't anywhere, so we can conclude that they don't exist. As opposed to concluding that they don't exist based on an absence of evidence of their existence.

quote:

---

Being critical of your thoughts would make you realize that being unable to find evidence for unicorns shouldn't make you conclude that they don't exist and that you should reserve your judgement until you can find actual evidence of absence.

​

Like, every corner of the planet was observed to contain no unicorns, so therefore they must not be here. Not, welp, I took a glance and didn't see any so they must not exist.

---

So, you know there isn't an elephant in the room, not just because of the lack of evidence for it, but also because you can see to the other side of the room unimpeded by the presence of an elephant. You have positive evidence of a room with no elephant in it, you don't just have an absence of evidence for an elephant.

We've looked everywhere they could be.Horse-like mammals can't survive in the bottom of the Mariana Trench, the heart of the Amazon, nor the middle of Antarctica.Besides, the original claims of it existing come from small section of the world, and its been shown to be clear of unicorns. They wouldn't have been able to observe some amazonian creature.

Oh, I wasn't meaning to talk about anything magical. Nevermind then.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

---

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.

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

Well, it has to be a non-zero amount of information. There has to be something to think about.And I think that there's also a non-zero amount of information that still doesn't provide us enough stuff to think with. I can see why people are saying that determining that you don't have enough info to decide is still critical thinking, but it just doesn't seem enough for me.It's like if we were baking. And you measured up some flour and said, well, we don't have enough ingredients to make this cake. But hey, we're still in the kitchen measuring stuff so technically we're baking. I say no, you haven't actually baked anything yet.I guess I just hold it to a higher standard or something. But I may very well be wrong.

Are there mountain lions in Illinois?Honest question, I'd like to know.You really think that a coin flip is a critically thinking an answer to the question?Why not: "I don't know."?

The fastest and most direct route to the airport from where I used to live was to go over the northern bridge on highway I-270. But there is only that one bridge and you have no other options to get across the river. So, because you only get one shot to catch your flight, we would always take the longer route down south across I-70. That way, if there's a wreck on the bridge (which happens occasionally on any of the bridges) then you can get off the highway and drive up to the McKinley bridge and get across the river that way. We took the longer route every time just to avoid getting stuck in traffic on I-270, because of a wreck on the bridge, and ending up missing our flight. You just never know, and its better to be safe than sorry.Here's an image: The I-270 bridge is at the very top and the I-70 bridge is at the bottom, and McKinley bridge is in between. I used to live straight to the right from where it says Chain of Rocks Canal. It was worth taking the longer route just in case there'd be a wreck on the I-270 bridge because if there was then traffic could get backed up for hours and you might miss your flight. Its better to have an option for another bridge even though the chances of a wreck are fairly low and you're making the trip longer than it has to be.

Maybe we just like to argue and don't have anything better to do.Think about it, critically

Are they just "passing through", or should they be identified as a native species by the DNR?It has ramifications for how people should deal with them. They're not recognized as a native species by the DNR, so if there's one on your property I think you can just shoot it. But if they really are native, then I don't think people should be shooting them.