Talk:Critical thinking/Archive 1

editing well researched entries
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)


 * Confirmation that the article is o.k. now? Tag removed.  Sunray 16:25, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)


 * Looks hunky-dory to me, 'cepting some capitals in the See-also list. It was still showing up in the Cleanup/Leftovers list (which is where I found it).  ...and now it isn't.  All better. Blair P. Houghton 22:01, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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've added the link as you suggest. Sunray 18:57, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)


 * The only problem with that is that the Erich Fromm article doesn't mention a "concept of man," so I don't know what the author who inserted that was referring to. Jon the Geek 00:56, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

merge with "critical thought"
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:


 * verifies the coherence and consistency of a viewpoint, a statement, an action, a policy or an interpretation.


 * probes, identifies and questions the assumptions on which a viewpoint etc. is logically (or factually) based.


 * seeks to draw out the logical (or factual) implications, consequences and limits of a viewpoint, to assess whether those who uphold it could agree with those implications and thus continue to maintain that viewpoint.

Therefore, critical thought requires:


 * the ability to question and inquire, in contrast to just accepting a parent's, teacher's or authority's say-so as "the truth".


 * a concern to discover and verify independently what is really the truth, regardless of what particular people may say is the truth.


 * a willingness to pursue a line of thought to its ultimate conclusion, which may take courage, perseverance, discipline and an open-minded approach.


 * an ability to approach the object of critical thought in a sufficiently sympathetic way, so that it is fairly, accurately and validly represented, rather than misrepresented.


 * an ability for self-criticism, to the extent that one's capacity for understanding something correctly may be limited by various factors; one must allow for at least the possibility that one's own interpretation could be wrong in part or as a whole.


 * an ability in practical life to "live with" the results or consequences of one's critical thought, which might not be accepted straightaway by many people.

Perhaps a degree of confusion?
"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


 * Don: You raise an interesting point and one that resonates with me. Of course you are *right* that the meaning of the word analysis has come to be that "division and ordering process."  The first definition in several dictionaries is "the separation of something into its constitutent parts in order to..." So it thus becomes subject to whichever discipline the analyst subscribes to.  The term "disciplinary matrix," perhaps, captures the dilemma you pose.  Kuhn used the term "disciplinary" to refer to the "common possession of the practitioners of a particular discipline" and "'matrix' because it is composed of ordered elements of various sorts, each requiring further specification" (emphasis mine).  In short, most analysis subscribes to a particular paradigm.  I agree that such a process is not critique in its purest form.


 * Interestingly, in light of what you've said, the roots of the word "analysis" do not forsee this disciplinary spin. The word comes from the Greek analusis, a dissolving, from analein, to undo : ana-, throughout.  Many dictionary definitions seem to have drifted away from this original meaning.  The definition I like is: "The separation of a whole into its constituent parts for individual study."   So a division, but not necessarily an ordering (which would necessarily be along disciplinary lines).


 * What could we do to differentiate true critical thought from the "ordering process" that you describe? One option might be to summarize what you have said and incorporate it into the lead.   Sunray 18:30, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

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)


 * I agree with you about Foucault (who has one of the most nuanced perspectives on disciplinary control I've ever encountered--control through surveilance) and mounts a withering critique.  I've never been able to get interested enough in Derrida's stuff to read more than a paragraph at one sitting, so I don't know whether or not he gets it either.  The dilemma you pose of the student who arrives with a course in critical thinking and proceeds to deploy its concepts in your class is both intriguing and disquieting.   It is interesting to me that "critical thinking" is taught in critical thinking "mills" (as I found out when I was doing some research for this article).  I had always thought that it was something acquired in a good liberal arts education.  But of course, with much of our education being brought to us by Coca Cola, etc., is it any wonder?   I'm beginning to visualise a section near the top of the article covering this discussion. Also, we could adjust the lead, if you like.  Why not just wade in?  Be bold and take your "pen" to it as you deem necessary. Sunray 21:06, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Scope
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


 * Not sure what you mean here
 * Among other things, "intelligence" is spoken in several senses. Sadly, the several senses seem often to have a common referent, and that is a prima facie case for the likelihood that no clear discussion is going to be possible.


 * Then there is my absolutely all-time favorite Kant quote:


 * "Der Mangel an Urteilskraft ist eigentlich das, was man Dummheit nennt, und einem solchen Gebrechen ist gar nicht abzuhelfen. Ein stumpfer oder eingeschränkter Kopf, dem es an nichts, als am gehörigen Grade des Verstandes und eigenen Begriffen desselben mangelt, ist durch Erlernung sehr wohl, sogar bis zur Gelehrsamkeit, auszurüsten. Da es aber gemeiniglich alsdann auch an jenem (der secunda Petri) zu fehlen pflegt, so ist es nichts ungewöhnliches, sehr gelehrte Männer anzutreffen, die, im Gebrauche ihrer Wissenschaft, jenen nie zu bessernden Mangel häufig blicken lassen." [Immanuel Kant, Kritik der reinen Vernunft, A135/B173]


 * [The full quote in English (Kemp Smith):
 * Deficiency in judgment is just what is ordinarily called stupidity, and for such a failing there is no remedy. An obtuse or narrowminded person to whom nothing is wanting save a proper degree of understanding and the concepts appropriate thereto, may indeed be trained through study, even to the extent of becoming learned. But as such people are commonly still lacking in judgment, it is not unusual to meet learned men who in the application of their scientific knowledge betray that original want, which can never be made good.]


 * Admittedly, more a bon mot than a brilliant analysis. Still, an interesting insight which others have also expressed for the last, O, 2,700 years or so:  Intelligence has very little to do with it.  Critical thinking seems to be tied to judgment -- prudence and so on -- and the ability to intuit what is universal in a unique particular moment.


 * Quite a lot of intelligent people, seems to me, are good at analyzing a particular case, and determining in that analysis under what extant universal explanatory schemata it can be subsumed. It is sufficiently ordinary that folks do it quite accurately from partial, even defective data.  [Consider "evidence-based" medical practice, which (regardless of the Wikipedia article's claim), can be shown to allow quite remarkable leaps across wide gaps in solid, scientific, ætiologically sound explanation.  This is a good thing, by the bye; medical practice would collapse if physicians weren't good at this.]  It seems to me pretty clear, this is what it comes down to, in most discussions of "critical reasoning": really good analysis.


 * We want something more than that, though. We want to be able to deal with the case that is sui generis.  We need to be able to assess events that come to pass that are not much like things that have gone before.  And so on.  This is where critique plays, and I submit that some very intelligent people (Messrs. Rumsfeld and Cheney, e. g.) just don't do that very well.  [This is a much kindlier assessment than other possible explanations, and fits better with the sort of ancien regime that seems to obtain in the U. S..]
 * --djenner 02:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

More Links...
... and online guides to critical thinking please!
 * Wikipedia is not a collection of web links. It is an encyclopedia :) Dlohcierekim 19:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed a few links but this list of links is way to big. More weeding is in order here to leave the three of four best links. LarryQ 21:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm about to remove links to anything selling something... books, study guides, etc. All going away. -- Xinit 00:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverte
I removed a plug for a book. :) Dlohcierekim 19:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Extraneous?
"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)


 * I agree and think that your changes to the article are a big improvement. Sunray 09:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Foreign language?
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)

long/repetitive
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 itMerkinsmum 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)

What does this mean?
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)

GCE : what and where ?
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 ?)
 * thanks, Mercmisfire 01:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I expect you'll want to read General Certificate of Education. -Phoenixrod 19:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Content from the Foundation
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)

Just out of curiosity...
Shouldn't the article's title use a noun (thought) rather than a gerund (thinking)? Just wondering. Paul 03:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Your grammar is impeccable. Nevertheless, I see a difference between the two terms: Critical thinking is a structured thinking process that is learned in schools and universities and, sometimes, taught in courses. Critical thought simply a component of criticism. Comparing the prevalence of the two terms on the Internet, critical thinking is by far the most common (2.3M vs. 736K). Sunray 15:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree Sunray, Critical Thinking is the established term. Another aspect as I see it is that use of Critical Thinking reminds one that it an ongoing active process. DanBlanchard 18:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Overall Cruddiness
This article really sucks. It's one person's narrow perspective of a large and interesting subject. This topic deserves better.


 * It is poorly written yes, but it is not written by one person’s bias opinion. There are actually universal standards of critical thinking, and this follows them. Andrew Colvin (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Advertising?
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)
 * Learning for a Cause, a non-profit organization which promotes critical thinking through the promotion and publishing of student voices.


 * I agree. It is link spam to my mind. Sunray 15:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

oh gawd
''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. ;-)


 * Yes, please be bold, this article has a lot of "how to" and an awful lot of poor writing. Please, go right ahead!
 * And please remember to sign your posts. :-) SociableLiberal 14:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Stuff removed on August 29
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/w/index.php?title=Critical_thinking&diff=154324028&oldid=151998698

Proposal for a new first paragraph
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)


 * I would be very careful about the identification of critique and informal logic &c.. Logic, formal or otherwise, is inherently analytic, aiming at figuring out what extant rules apply.  Critique is a matter of judgment, when the rules are for one or another reason no longer obvious and one needs to synthesize them anew.  The universe changes, changing the constellation of what we experience, and we need to organize that new constellation under quite possibly very different rules.  That's a very different way of thinking.  I seem to recall some very appropriate comments on the differences in KDie Rekonstrruktion der politischen Urteilskraft.--djenner (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism?
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)


 * I think there is a definite difference. Philosophy mostly concerns exploring a single point of view in as great a depth as possible. If one person's brain should process information differently from another's, then the differences in viewpoint between the two of them are subjective. (consider the Amodio research on political leanings being matters of differences in brain processing). A philospher's skepticism is ultimately against that which they have no confidence in. Scientific skepticism integrates subjective views, scrutening the weakness in any given view by means of its opposite, and correcting it by means of its complement. By such means, the objective reality -- the understanding of what is there denied or not -- is determined. Tcaudilllg (talk) 10:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that reconizing "group think" has been added as one of the things to watch out for how does this article promote or not-promote such a POV.  Also being critical of "true" critical thinking (perhaps the wording of the article misleads to feel the above) a oxymoronic stance.  Namely if your are critical of something it means your are skeptical of it and that is the very purpose of "real" critical thinking? Forgot to mention a few places I rewrote the "remove" bias to "be aware of the limits of your belief system and don't try to use it in areas that you do not yet have the necessary information"--Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this an advertisement
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


 * You are right. I added a few templates to prod editors in the right direction. --Adoniscik(t, c) 23:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense
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)


 * Agreed. This is an ad for a very specific line of thinking associated with certain cognitive psychologists pushing a particular approach. It is, moreover, fundamentally mysterious, wrongheaded and mistaken. "Though the term "analytical thinking" may seem to convey the idea more accurately, critical thinking clearly involves synthesis, evaluation, and reconstruction of thinking, in addition to analysis" is simply not correct. What is being presented is a variant on dogmatic thinking, and dogmatic thinking is always rooted in analysis merely.--djenner (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Intro re-write
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)


 * Took a crack at this page, trying to keep much of what exists but removing a good deal of redundancy. Much work still needed. Cathalwoods (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The thing lacking
(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)

What's so weird about this page?
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 [] 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 original video I watched

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)

For better or for worse, tied into Philosophy of Education
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)

Revising the opening paragraphs
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." 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. 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.
 * I like this very much. If I were being fussy (which, of course, I am...), I would somehow like to see included the contrast with dogmatic thinking (that is, the subsumption of the particular case at hand under a general principle — the usual sort of judgment, increasingly dominant according to some commentators after the age of about 25). I am sensitive to this (and to the problems it entails, but that's something else) because I know so many teachers and advocates of "critical thinking" who spend so much of their time being dogmatic. This is especially annoying when their dogmatic view fails to agree with mine, to be sure.... --djenner (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

___#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.

____
 * 3

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

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
 * Ah. Another thing to read.  Actually, sounds interesting and I think we are close to the same page, if not both on it.  I am perhaps less than enamored of the cognitive psychology crowd, but I am constantly intrigued by the noticeable time difference in experience.  One of my favorite tricks in class: I will be lecturing away and suddenly, with as little warning as possible, shriek at the top of my still-stentorious professorial best.  Inevitably, students react with shock, then tittering (the professor did something strange...).  There seems to be an explanation of this in the quick evolutionarily old neurological bits doing a fight-or-flight-or-whatever response and a less speedy "higher brain function" reflection (the professor did something strange).  Not one judgment, but two?  Cf: Joseph LeDoux's fascinating and erudite volume, The Emotional Brain.  Add in all that well-we're-built-that-way stuff makes your observation quite acute and raises some interesting problems. --djenner (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

Types of Thinking
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)

Discrimination
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)


 * I doubt irony was intended. I've addressed it. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

removed How To/Self Help &sect;
besides its other shortcomings, the below is grossly unencyclop&aelig;dic, however well intentioned. To my mind "intellectual empathy" is something of an oxymoron.

Cultivation of critical thinkers
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:
 * 1) accepting that everyone has subconscious biases, and accordingly questioning any reflexive judgments;
 * 2) adopting an ego-sensitive and, indeed, intellectually humble stance;
 * 3) recalling previous beliefs that one once held strongly but now rejects;
 * 4) tendency towards group think; the amount one's belief system is formed by what those around them say instead of what one has personally witnessed;
 * 5) realizing one still has numerous blind spots, despite the foregoing.

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.

Other Current Tagging
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 &sect; above may have something that could be salvaged into a rewritten "In Schooling"/Education &sect; 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)

Needs a clearer opening paragraph
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)


 * 3-14-11 Hopefully my contributions today will clarify some of these issues. I would appreciate feedback as to whether this contribution is helpful and what else I might add or clarify Aksoldat (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Multiple issues?
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:
 * the lead is skimpy and should be expanded to summarize the contents of the article
 * there are sections that list multiple factors that could be rewritten in prose format
 * while the references are diverse and there is an adequate number of them, some sections are lacking references.

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)


 * This is my first time coming to this page, but I would posit that the article does indeed have "multiple issues", and the "B" is overly generous. The biggest issue is references.  There is not an adequate number for an article of this length, and it's not just "some sections".  Without them, it leads me to believe that the article has serious POV problems.  For me, coming to this article with no preconceived notions of the topic, the article currently reads like an advertisement for the various people who seem to profit off of "critical thinking" (apparently all of whom have links at the bottom of the page). The introduction is meaningless.  The bullet points are excessive.  WHAT IS CRITICAL THINKING?  A pedagogical method?  A path to salvation?  I read the whole article, and didn't get an answer to that essential question. 208.81.227.198 (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Critical Thinking in the English examination system
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)

Massive issues with this article
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.  S ven M anguard  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)

Operational Definitions
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)

=Irony on wikipedia's critical thinking page= 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)
 * Please be bold and fix it. Joja  lozzo  06:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Restructure article
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:
 * Intro
 * Definition (structured and all based on proper references)
 * Education
 * Psychology
 * Philosophy
 * History
 * Etymology
 * Biological development in humans
 * Development in culture, science, civilisation, society, education
 * Factors required for critical thinking and higher order thinking (I admit that this should be further split into more specific categories, but I'm not sure which)
 * Situations requiring critical thinking/real examples of critical thinking/applications/real-life

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)

Change/restructure introduction
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)

Kelley
Added clause about Kelley seems dubious. Where is the source? Let someone knowledgeable check this.Super48paul (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Through the looking glass
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)

Background/Description
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)
 * The whole section titled "Description" is unsourced. Please read WP:OR.  I don't think it improves the encyclopedia artice to insert a personal essay without sources.  I am deleting this material.  It would be great if you added some sourced material, though.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

External links edits
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)

Page history
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)

Fails to be a neutral point of view
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 m
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.

What is the difference with discourse analysis?
To me both have the same goals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.178.41.181 (talk) 09:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Lacks history of critical thinking as topic of inquiry, and lacks survey of relevant literature
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)

Thinking disciplines
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Critical thinking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080411150135/http://www.ocr.org.uk:80/qualifications/asa_levelgceforfirstteachingin2008/critical_thinking/faqs.html to http://www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications/asa_levelgceforfirstteachingin2008/critical_thinking/faqs.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080217221100/http://www.aqa.org.uk:80/qual/gce/critical_thinking_new.php to http://www.aqa.org.uk/qual/gce/critical_thinking_new.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140419220638/http://www.qu.edu.qa/offices/research/CAM/dmsprogram/index.php to http://www.qu.edu.qa/offices/research/CAM/dmsprogram/index.php
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071215112052/http://www.insightassessment.com:80/articles.html to http://www.insightassessment.com/articles.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Tagged for lead rewrite - November 2016
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.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  05:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Only "first wave" of stated two waves is described. (And the source has said there are three waves.)
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)

First sentence
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)

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: "Critical thinking...the awakening of the intellect to the study of itself."
 * Critical Thinking as Defined by the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking, 1987
 * Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness
 * It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue; assumptions; concepts; empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions; implications and consequences; objections from alternative viewpoints; and frame of reference. Critical thinking — in being responsive to variable subject matter, issues, and purposes — is incorporated in a family of interwoven modes of thinking, among them: scientific thinking, mathematical thinking, historical thinking, anthropological thinking, economic thinking, moral thinking, and philosophical thinking.

Def.2 from same website:
 * Critical thinking is self-guided, self-disciplined thinking which attempts to reason at the highest level of quality in a fair-minded way.    People who think critically consistently attempt to live rationally, reasonably, empathically.      They are keenly aware of the inherently flawed nature of human thinking when left unchecked.     They strive to diminish the power of their egocentric and sociocentric tendencies.  * * *

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)

Lack off
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)

Definition, part 8
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)

Adding a relevant type of link to a word in the article.
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)
 * Okay, a couple of things:


 * 1) Please read WP:PROMO, which outlines our policy on promotional material. (Linking to your own blog post is a form of self-promotion.)
 * 2) Please read WP:OR which outlines our policy on original research. (Using your own blog post to support or define claims in the article is considered original research.)
 * 3) Please read WP:RS which outlines our policy on acceptable sources. (If you want to support or define a term from a source, this will help you identify what sources are acceptable.)
 * 4) Please read WP:EL which outlines our policy on external links. (This includes all links to any site other than Wikipedia or one of our sister projects.)
 * 5) Please read WP:SIG which outlines our policy on signatures (Tip: Use four tildes at the end of your post to automatically sign it. Just type  after you're done writing.)
 * 6) Please read WP:TPG which is a guideline on how to use talk pages. (For example, the extra spaces you added to your first line breaks typical formatting. I have fixed it for you.)
 * 7) Please feel free to ask questions if you are unsure how to do something. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Waves of Critical Thinking
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)

Shouldn't it be abduction instead of adduction
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)

The example given for induction isn't inductive reasoning?
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)

Bad example of induction?
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.
 * - You are quite right that the summary of induction in the article is wrong, confusing inductive reasoning with structural induction. The summary of abduction is also wrong: it in fact summarises induction. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
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)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
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)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
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
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)


 * The talk pages are not for general discussion, but for discussion supporting improvement of the article or related pages. Have you an idea for an improvement to the article? If not, this thread should be closed. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 11:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Suggested lede redact
native -> naive (egocentrism). The current text is an unsupportable and false value judgment. 98.4.112.204 (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)