Ship of Fools: "Critical Thinking"

Thread: "Critical Thinking" Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025266

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

I was just about to post this as a tangent on the All Saints "Teaching" thread, but it seemed more Purgatorial, so let's try it here instead.

Many schools have a subject called "Critical Thinking" in which the idea is... well, I'm not entirely clear what it is, but I think it is to encourage clear, logical thinking and sound judgement in the evaluation of ideas. (Please correct me if I'm wrong!)

My problem is - isn't this a bit like having a class called "Working Hard" or "Being Enthusiastic"? It's very important to work hard, but you have to work hard at something, surely? Similarly, it's very important to encourage critical thinking, but isn't it a skill that you exercise while focussing on some other subject?

For discussion - is my rough definition of "Critical Thinking" adequate? Does my critique of it miss the point?

Also more generally - in education one sometimes hears that "the most important thing is to learn how to learn". But I would maintain that the best way of "learning how to learn" is to practise your learning skills by learning something - it almost doesn't matter what - rather than by having large quantities of time devoted to classes entitled "Study Skills" (although I would acknowledge that a bit of meta- now and then might be helpful). Agree/disagree?

[edited for splling typpo]

[ 10. April 2013, 10:30: Message edited by: TurquoiseTastic ]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I was just about to post this as a tangent on the All Saints "Teaching" thread, but it seemed more Purgatorial, so let's try it here instead.

Many schools have a subject called "Critical Thinking" in which the idea is... well, I'm not entirely clear what it is, but I think it is to encourage clear, logical thinking and sound judgement in the evaluation of ideas. (Please correct me if I'm wrong!)

I'm speculating rather than speaking from experience, but I imagine you could have great fun in such classes by focusing on specific controversial issues and encouraging debate, investigation of the contrasting positions etc. Topical issues like the MMR vaccine scare, man-made climate change, evolution-creation and so on.

So, yes, I agree that you need to make it concrete; I don't see how one can teach something like critical thinking in the abstract, without any reference to real issues.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

I have to say that "Critical Thinking" sounds very Dawkinsian (of the Richard Dawkins school) and probably translates to "We wish to CONTROL your thinking."

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I have to say that "Critical Thinking" sounds very Dawkinsian (of the Richard Dawkins school) and probably translates to "We wish to CONTROL your thinking."

Hmm, do you have any experience of critical thinking as a school subject, or some other context which has informed your view of what it means?

I'm a bit confused as to where you've got your ideas from, as I thought critical thinking was all about thinking for oneself and coming to one's own conclusion based on the available evidence. Those are good things, right?

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

Having had this discussion with Mark Betts on another thread, it's not clear why he's so convinced that it's atheist brain-washing.

I suspect that "Critical Thinking" as a class could be used to discuss logic and fallacies and then apply everything in some debates or discussions. Would that be appropriate in a history or social studies class? Yes, but at this point those are mostly about learning facts nobody will remember...

Posted by marsupial. (# 12458) on :

When taught in philosophy courses "critical thinking" is usually training in informal logic -- inductive vs. deductive reasoning, modes of reasoning in specific disciplines, and how to recognize and avoid fallacies. For some people much of this is common sense, but not for everyone.

And not all of this is common sense. It would be good to see more emphasis e.g. on the use and misuse of statistics in these kinds of courses.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I dislike the idea of critical thinking being taught as a separate subject.

When students study history, literature, or many other subjects where there is controversy, they should be encouraged to think for themselves.

Moo

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Don't know whether my 'university' students have had that as a subject at school, but if they have, it's made bugger all difference to most of them.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
[QUOTE] Topical issues like the MMR vaccine scare, man-made climate change, evolution-creation and so on.

So, yes, I agree that you need to make it concrete; I don't see how one can teach something like critical thinking in the abstract, without any reference to real issues.

The trouble with those issues is that there are right and wrong answers and a clear base of scientific evidence for the right answers, as well as an overwhelming scientific consensus. And then there are a few people who disagree, in some cases very strongly. If you teach it as a debate in which there is no verifiable right answer (such as you might do with, say, the morality of capital punishment) then you're essentially saying that the evidence doesn't matter. If you teach it as "here is the scientific evidence, here are the people who disagree and here's why those people are wrong" you're going to hit upon some very strongly held beliefs - not just from students, but from their parents as well. If I were a teacher I would not want to take that on.

I think in this day and age there is an increasing conflict between people who've learned to think in a scientific, evidence-based way, and people who've learned to think more in tune with the humanities. In humanities subjects, you'll often hear "it doesn't matter which side of the debate you come down on, as long as you argue it well." People then take that attitude into issues of science, where it's absolutely no longer the case.

Generally the critical thinking stuff fits into subjects as part of what the subject essentially is. So in a science class you ask "what is science?" and that should lead you into the scientific method, data analysis, good experimental design and so on. In History you go into the different kinds of sources, bias, and motivation etc.

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I dislike the idea of critical thinking being taught as a separate subject.

When students study history, literature, or many other subjects where there is controversy, they should be encouraged to think for themselves.

Moo

Even when it's taught as a separate subject, the idea is that students apply what they learn there to other subjects.

These courses at the uni level are usually taught as philosophy courses, as marsupial said. I'm proofing a uni text right now on critical thinking, and it goes deeply into the technical aspects of mapping arguments and using symbolic logic.

In secondary school texts that I've worked on, critical thinking is incorporated into different subjects -- for example, in a history text, students might be asked to apply critical thinking to a short article, to analyze the arguments it contains.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
Even when it's taught as a separate subject, the idea is that students apply what they learn there to other subjects.

I know that's the idea, but many students keep their different subjects in separate, unrelated compartments.

I think a presentation in a history class of all the evidence about Richard III would encourage students to think about both sides of other historical topics.

Moo

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
Even when it's taught as a separate subject, the idea is that students apply what they learn there to other subjects.
I know that's the idea, but many students keep their different subjects in separate, unrelated compartments.

I think a presentation in a history class of all the evidence about Richard III would encourage students to think about both sides of other historical topics.

Moo

In my experience, that's exactly how history and other subjects are taught in Canadian secondary schools. YMMV, of course.

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Don't know whether my 'university' students have had that as a subject at school, but if they have, it's made bugger all difference to most of them.

Well I think that's probably true of a lot of things across the board ... e.g. when university profs complain that students come in not knowing the basics of grammar and punctuation. It's not that it's not being taught.

There's a post circulating around Facebook at the moment listing a bunch of "useful things I never learned in high school" (e.g. how to balance a chequebook, how to vote, etc etc) ending with "but thanks, I know all about the fucking Pythagorean theorem." The first time I saw it (posted by one of my own former students) I pointed out to her that in fact, virtually everything on the list WAS taught in high school, and for good measure I made a note of the course name and number in which that skill had been taught (admittedly, some were electives and the student might have chosen not to take that course).

I realize there are some who say "if the student hasn't learned, the teacher hasn't taught" but after 20+ years in the education system I politely beg to differ. Sometimes the student just wasn't interested, or didn't see the relevance, or only cared about getting a grade and did not really internalize the material because they didn't realize it would ever be relevant, despite the teacher's best efforts to point out that it was. The same is true of critical thinking skills whether taught as a separate course or integrated into other courses -- some students simply won't make the leap to apply those skills in other contexts.

But some will, which is what makes it worth teaching in the first place, I suppose.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I have to say that "Critical Thinking" sounds very Dawkinsian (of the Richard Dawkins school) and probably translates to "We wish to CONTROL your thinking."

It is quite the opposite - we want to teach you to evaluate everything that anyone says to you so you NOBODY can control your thinking apart from yourselves.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

In our local comprehensive school, Critical Thinking was taught at AS level as a way of boosting points for University Entrance.

The Grammar School preferred to make General Studies compulsory instead.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I have to say that "Critical Thinking" sounds very Dawkinsian (of the Richard Dawkins school) and probably translates to "We wish to CONTROL your thinking."
It is quite the opposite - we want to teach you to evaluate everything that anyone says to you so you NOBODY can control your thinking apart from yourselves.

Unfortunately, I find many of my students seem to think "critical thinking" means "all opinions are equally valid regardless of evidence or lack thereof" which translates into "I don't need to learn/read what anyone else thinks about this issue I just need to express my passionately held if completely unsubstantiated default position; any challenges to What I've Always Thought are intrusive, bullying, bigoted attempts at Thought Control."

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
[QUOTE] Topical issues like the MMR vaccine scare, man-made climate change, evolution-creation and so on...
The trouble with those issues is that there are right and wrong answers and a clear base of scientific evidence for the right answers, as well as an overwhelming scientific consensus. And then there are a few people who disagree, in some cases very strongly. If you teach it as a debate in which there is no verifiable right answer (such as you might do with, say, the morality of capital punishment) then you're essentially saying that the evidence doesn't matter. If you teach it as "here is the scientific evidence, here are the people who disagree and here's why those people are wrong" you're going to hit upon some very strongly held beliefs - not just from students, but from their parents as well. If I were a teacher I would not want to take that on.

I wonder how feasible it is to set up critical thinking lessons so an issue like the ones I mentioned is discussed, maybe with students being allocated to one side or other of the argument and being told to present the most persuasive case they can.

Then hopefully the students on the 'correct' (by which I mean 'accepted by the vast majority of people working in the area') side of the argument will do justice to the weight of evidence in favour of their position; with the teacher being ready to guide and nudge towards the 'correct' position if the students aren't doing such a good job. Perhaps this would be rather manipulative though...

In any case, I wasn't suggesting a 'teach the controversy' approach like creationists are campaigning for! Maybe to avoid the strong feelings you mentioned, Liopleurodon, one could pick issues which used to be controversial but are now seen as settled. Things like the heliocentric view of the Solar System, or continental plate tectonics perhaps. That might work, no?

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I have to say that "Critical Thinking" sounds very Dawkinsian (of the Richard Dawkins school) and probably translates to "We wish to CONTROL your thinking."
It is quite the opposite - we want to teach you to evaluate everything that anyone says to you so you NOBODY can control your thinking apart from yourselves.
Unfortunately, I find many of my students seem to think "critical thinking" means "all opinions are equally valid regardless of evidence or lack thereof" which translates into "I don't need to learn/read what anyone else thinks about this issue I just need to express my passionately held if completely unsubstantiated default position; any challenges to What I've Always Thought are intrusive, bullying, bigoted attempts at Thought Control."

And that is not critical thinking. Which is why it is so important to try to encourage the up-coming generations to think critically (By what means? -- i'm not sure) Merely thinking (critical or otherwise) may be analogous to "being enthusiastic" or "working hard" as mentioned in the OP, but critical thinking is not. Critical thinking is not a quick and easy thing to develop. Among other things, critical thinking requires the development of real reasoning skills. It also requires the development of observational skills, and the development of an understanding of nuance. It most definitely requires a development of an understanding that everything is not just black or white. Otherwise it leads to the unfortunate attitudes that cliffdweller sees in many of her or his students.

Not to single out USA education (but i am less familiar with education systems elsewhere) the unfortunate focus in U.S. education for teaching for the mere purpose of passing standardized tests has pretty much killed the idea that critical thinking is even considered necessary. But the primary purpose of U.S. education today seems clearly to create drones to serve as "human resources" for businesses. Creating thinking, inquiring, citizens is the last thing big business wants.

[ 10. April 2013, 17:02: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Unfortunately, I find many of my students seem to think "critical thinking" means "all opinions are equally valid regardless of evidence or lack thereof" which translates into "I don't need to learn/read what anyone else thinks about this issue

Which is UNcritical thinking. The opposite of what I thought we were talking about.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

The critical thinking courses I've taken (recently completed one on Coursera.com), are in the logic or philosophy dept. They are NOT about "what is the right answer." They are solely about "did that argument use a reasoning process that gives us reason to trust the answer?

Examples of bad argument range from improperly constructed syllogisms and inductive or deductive reasonings and unreliable sampling - "this city dweller likes beans so all city dwellers like beans" - to the personal - "I worked really hard, therefore the product of my work is good" or "my favorite movie star drives this car so it must be a good car for me." Or assuming all people share the same value system and building a genuinely logical argument, but on a foundation many disagree with. Any political debate is rampant with illogic, and too many people not trained in critical thinking don't notice whether the conclusions really follow from the premises or whether the premises are universally agreed to be valid.

It can be overdone. In any critical thinking class some atheists argue that because God's existence cannot be proved via logic only illogical people believe in God. That argument falsely assumes logic addresses all human experiences, including love.

Considering how rampant poor reasoning is, at least in USA, I wish critical thinking courses were mandatory.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Unfortunately, I find many of my students seem to think "critical thinking" means "all opinions are equally valid regardless of evidence or lack thereof" which translates into "I don't need to learn/read what anyone else thinks about this issue
Which is UNcritical thinking. The opposite of what I thought we were talking about.

Yes, that was my point. Sadly.

Posted by Ophicleide16 (# 16344) on :

Critical Thinking was offered at my school recently as a subject in its own right. I have no doubt that classical logic and rhetoric may have featured in their discussions, but the CT classes were sometimes seen flying box kites and taping multilingual signs to doors, which is even stranger when one considers that this class was only open to those who achieved high marks in previous years.

My University (and many others!) was very explicit in its assertion that it did not accept CT as a valid A level subject in its entry requirements.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0