A Definition of Critical Thinking

I posted my initial reaction to the assigned readings and related links within the Forum. Here, on my blog, I would like to expand a little on what I have learned from pondering on the topic and our discussions.

As mentioned earlier, I believe that to think critically is to think with deliberation - nothing is accepted on face value. 

In critical thinking, problems/statements/issues are analyzed according to a set of criteria that are ultimately set by the individual, but which share some common elements:

... Is it clearly stated or defined?
... Does that definition have supporting evidence - does it fit observation?
... And for me, who believes that intuition plays a valid role in assessment, does it 'seem' right?

One topic of particular interest for me, that grew out of this discussion, is the area of  New Media and Education in critical thinking.

Isn't it ironic that we now have some many vehicles for instant information, and yet people are getting their facts from fewer and fewer places? So, in this sense, while the media provides many avenues of information, the population is not taking advantage of them. Find one place that has the info (Google, Wikipedia, CNN) and move on.

As a child, I can remember that my parents always had 4-5 newspapers in the house - the NY Times, the Tribune, the Post, the Daily News, and others. These papers certainly did not express the same viewpoint on politics or any other issue, but my parents and their generation were open to reading and hearing other views. There was ranting at some of the writing, but that in itself was a stage of thinking critical thinking - accepting as well as rejecting.

I also remember politics as a young adult. I recall how Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill used to shake hands and drink beer together no matter how different their political views and how hard they fought for them.There

was an ability to listen and argue and convince (or not), but through it all there was a respect for the process and the individual. When Ted Kennedy died, many spoke of his ability to defend his legislative beliefs, but also reach "across the aisle". I unfortunately think that is gone now. We will need a change in mindset and a lot of work to get it back.

So, when did this complete inability to discuss and argue without malice occur?
It is certainly a recent occurrence. Clearly, challenge was a part of the culture in the 1960s ad 70s, and Reagan's time was the 80s, so it must have started then or shortly after. When and why the shift? When did it become unacceptable to speak out and to have different beliefs? When did it become acceptable to call someone who disagrees with you disloyal or unAmerican?

Is it possible that there has been a shift in the Educational system that can account for this?

I cannot, of course, say one way or the other, but here are some of my thoughts. We have a two-track educational system within the country, the public and private. In studying for my BA in Education, I learned the early history of public education, and was quite shocked to learn that, as eventually implemented, it was not designed to provide an education equal to that of private (college preparatory) schools for those who could not afford it. Instead, an initial aim was to provide an education that molded a diverse community (usually of recent immigrants) into a new, American culture, and for the students to achieve a basic level of comprehension and reading skills... to make them the ideal factory worker for the emerging industrial complex. Make them able to read and follow the directions, nothing more – certainly, encouraging them to question directions or authority was not a goal.  

So, if you want to see why our schools are not built on the Socratic method, look to its early history.

                      Dewey                                       Socrates

It was the college elite population that went into Politics and big Business, and so disagreement was accepted as if they were John Dewey still part of the Debating Club. The Rockefellers and the Kennedys were politically opposite but attended the same social engagements. They were part of the same strata. Not anymore.

Now, politics and business and media are composed of a great diversity of people, not a core elite, and people are having to learn how to deal with people of different backgrounds, different viewpoints - and not everyone is good at handling diversity. They need to build the bridges of understanding that used to be inherently there when it was only one sector of our population that held the power.

Is it any wonder that given this history critical thinking is severely lacking in our schools?

Among our readings on Wikipedia was a section on the "Status of Instruction on Critical Thinking" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking#cite_note-5, section 5, 9/5/2009). One of the studies cited (Gardiner, L., 1995) looked at 68 public and private colleges in CA, with the results that while 89% of the teachers claimed CT was a primary objective in teaching, only 19% could elucidate what they thought CT was. How can you teach what you do not understand?

I taught in a public school in Hawaii, and I had to buy my own set of books to introduce the skill of critical thinking into my science courses. It was a totally foreign concept to these kids.

My own schooling was a mix of the two worlds - a start in a parochial school where strict obedience and adherence to thought (rote learning and memorization) were the norm, followed by an education in a leading private school where critical thought and full expression were encouraged.

What is my feeling about all this now? That those leading education have gotten it wrong... the importance of education is not how much you can jam into a day, and how well children can recite back, orally or on a standards test, what is taught - especially in these days of instant access to information! The importance of education is to teach you how to think, how to learn.

How different recent US history would be if critical thought and open dialogue was fostered among the public, even among just the politicians!

For anyone alive today, learning is going to be a continually process of reinvention and readjustment to an ever changing environment. The facts are not the focus - the process is!