Critical Thinking
        Philosophy

DRAFT - 01/04/2007 - Copyright - Chris Storer

INTRODUCTION

“Critical Thinking, Problem Solving, and Dialogue” is being developed as a student and faculty resource to aid anyone in improving their critical thinking abilities. Five fundamental convictions have guided the selection of topics, the organizational structure, and the level of discourse in the development and discussion of topics.

1. While stand alone critical thinking courses are necessary in bridging the gap in current higher education curricula, a common terminology used across all disciplines in referring to the fundamentals of all thought processes will encourage the inclusion of critical thinking pedagogy in courses throughout lower division curricula, and even in primary and secondary education. This will, in turn, give students a needed common foundation for upper division courses and specialization in their major. Consequently, terminology for the discussion has been selected from ordinary language as much as possible while at the same time a strong effort has been made to give key terms coherent and consistent meanings when seen in the greater context of the academic disciplines. It is hoped that, as a whole, the terminology thereby presents a useful technical analysis of the issues.

2. Critical thinking is necessarily a conscious process and can only be improved through becoming consciously aware of these thought processes (self-consciousness).

3. Thinking of the type we are interested in only takes place in the context of problems. The notion of a problem should be understood as any conflict between our expectations and our experience.

4. The human community has improved the quality of thought over the millennia, improving our ability to solve problems through the discovery, development and application of self-imposed intellectual standards that guide critical thinkers.

5. Language, language skills, and available terminology establish the potential and limitations of an individual’s critical thinking abilities.

Critical Thinking as a Common Curricular Foundation.

For many decades educators and citizens have deplored an increasing deficit of critical thinking abilities in our students, shown by both their poor ability in increasingly advanced curricula and in their poor ability to master the requirements of an increasingly complex world of work and social interaction.

Responding to this perception in 1981, the California State University System implemented a universal critical thinking course requirement for lower division students. This was followed by a 1991 agreement in the California Intersegmental Council which established a General Education Transfer Core Curriculum (IGETC), and which included a combined course in critical thinking and advanced written composition.

The California Intersegmental Council is a body composed of representatives of the three statewide institutions of higher education. These are The University of California, The California State University System and the California Community College System. All told, these represent about 140 colleges and universities scattered throughout the state.

From the point of view of transfer to upper division work (the student’s Junior and Senior years), general education is seen as important in two ways. First, it provides students with a common breadth of knowledge and the skills that are accepted as important and necessary for any college educated person, whether they are seeking a degree beyond the Associate level or not.

Secondly, general education requirements are presupposed in the design of curriculum in upper division programs. That is, the knowledge and skills demonstrated by the successful completion of a sound general education program are seen as necessary for successful achievement of upper division goals.

The Critical Thinking and Writing component of the IGETC Curriculum is primarily a skills component designed to help students improve their level of skill in reading (and listening), writing (and speaking), interpretation, and inquiry in general. Students need to improve these skills to an adequate level to allow success in upper division courses where they must be able to learn outside of the classroom, on their own or with their classmates, to a much greater extent than in lower division work.

These skills all involve the activity of mental processes (processes we call thinking). The improvement of these skills is therefore dependent on one’s ability to become consciously aware of their own thinking so that they may take control of it, guide it, and change it in ways that reduce error and increase the quality of success.

Conscious Awareness of Thought Processes

One must begin to understand just what thinking is so that it can be perceived as a controllable process. We are familiar with the outer perception of objects and events in the world by sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste, the five physical senses, and we have developed during our lives a wide variety of concepts to use in understanding the world of physical perception (the empirical world). We also have corresponding words which we use to describe these physical perceptions to others (and to ourselves). However, most of us have a very limited and vaguely understood vocabulary of words and concepts for describing our inner perception (the world of ideas).

We should note here that this distinction between an empirical world and a world of ideas is a subject of much ongoing philosophical debate. I am not implying any particular position on this issue here. Rather, I am simply calling our attention to the fact that, at any given point in the history of inquiry into a problem, there are certain subjects about which there is general agreement tied to empirical (experimental) evidence, while there are other subjects about which such agreement has not been attained.

For example, if there is disagreement about whether a particular object is 30 or 31 inches tall, we can turn to a standard measuring stick to arbitrate the debate. There is a truth or falsity to be found here given the community in which we live. On the other hand, if there is disagreement about whether the death penalty is right or wrong, things become significantly different. It is not so much that we don't have standards within the community. Rather, we have too many different standards and it is not at all clear which to apply or how to prioritize them. That is, our idea about what constitutes the death penalty, when and how it should be applied and to whom, and our idea about right and wrong in this context, are simply not clearly enough connected to our shared world of sensory experience to be simply arbitrated by some measuring device.

However, this does not necessarily mean we could never reach such a consensus. You and a friend may disagree about whether regular gas is right for your car, but with a little discussion and research, you will probably discover that "regular," in this context, means 87 octane (which can be empirically measured), and that "right" means, provides best performance without damaging your engine (which, while somewhat complex, can also be empirically measured). Within the community of automotive engineers, these are clear empirical issues, and they become so for you and your friend through dialogue and inquiry. It is only this distinction (the distinction between where we have an agreed upon empirical reference and where we have not yet found such agreement) we need to be concerned about.

Does this mean that we will eventually reach agreement about the death penalty or abortion or ...? If we knew, then we would be well on the way to actually reaching the desired agreement. What we do know is that, looking back at the last 3000 years or so, a great many very complex disagreements have, in fact, found consensus among a very large number of people, and those people have, as a direct result, been able to increase their options, live longer, and create societies in which many other people live longer with increased options.

A consequence of this is that, to improve thinking one must develop a vocabulary of words and concepts that begins to allow a more detailed access to mental processes (the objects of this inner perception). In particular, since it is thinking that is at the center of our interest in developing the skills needed for upper division one must begin to develop a concept of what thinking is.  Chapter 1 of this text [not yet written] will provide a a more extended discussion of the process of “Thinking as Problem Solving,” distinguishing the sense we are interested in from some of the more informal senses of our common use of the term “thinking.” However, some brief introductory comments will be useful here.

Thinking as Problem Solving

In our ordinary every-day language (as opposed to the formal language of an academic discipline), we use the word “thinking” to refer to almost everything that goes on in our mind, from the simplest images of sensation or dreaming to the images of memory or imagination to the most complex mental processes of scientific theorizing, religious speculation, or technological calculation. That is, the concept of thinking has an extended reference to the entire range of inner life, failing to draw any useful distinction that will help us understand these complex mental processes. Without such an understanding, one can gain little control over the critical thinking skills we are interested in improving.

If you try to remember what has been going on in your mind for the past day while you were awake, you will find that most of the time, while you were going about the business of your life, your mind was basically passively watching what was happening. However, scattered here and there during this time, there were probably occasions when there was a change, when your attention was required for a period of time before you could continue acting in the world while your mind returned to passive observation.

I hope that what I am suggesting you try to remember, try to discover in yourself, is something you can begin to get a glimpse of. To improve critical thinking skills, one must work to perceive this distinction between the mind as observer and the mind as actor because the latter, the period when one is not simply observing, is the thinking process this course, the Glossary of Critical Thinking Terms, and our textbook, seek to focus on. Through the concepts we will develop, one can grasp the thinking process in a way that will allow us to control and improve thinking, thus allowing us to improve the skills of reading (and listening), writing (and speaking), interpretation and inquiry.

As you try to remember when you were you thinking in this deliberate and conscious sense, thinking actively rather than passively, I believe you will discover that such thinking only occurs in response to a problem. A problem is, in its very nature, a conflict between our expectations about the way things should be and our experience of the way things are turning out to be. We have interests, values, goals, and plans to satisfy these interests, values and goals. These all motivate our actions, from the simplest act of getting dressed in the morning or having a drink of water to the complex acts of getting a college education, building a bridge, or governing a society. So long as our experience while acting, while living our lives, does not conflict with the expectations generated by our past, our conscious mind will only observe what is going on.

At a habitual, unthinking level, our body and unconscious mind continually make minor adjustments to the new information our physical senses provides. Our foot feels an unevenness in the sidewalk and our muscles adjust without thought. A car  in front of us slows while we are driving and we raise our foot from the accelerator. But if there is no habit, no established pattern of response to a situation, or if the situation is ambiguous, then activity is interrupted and thought begins. Activity cannot resume toward the goal it had been pursuing until a decision has been made which we hope will resolve the conflict between expectation and experience.

For example, at a simple level, you come to the checkout counter in the grocery store and, finding that the total you owe is 5 dollars and forty three cents, you take a five form your billfold or purse and reach into your pocket for the change you thought you had, but you find only one quarter and a few pennies. Momentarily you pause, remember that the five was your last bill, and decide to put back the candy bar, thus reducing the total. You pocket the change and go on your way. The minor conflict (problem) caused by the lack of expected change (caused by a mistaken belief, caused by a momentary lapse in memory) is easily resolved.

But consider a more serious problem. You are in the same basic situation only you have just shopped for the week. The bill is $85.65 and you only have a 10 and two fives. Habitually, you start to take out your ATM card but you hesitate, remembering that you had just mailed the rent check to the landlord. While the ATM transaction would clear, you are unsure whether or not it would leave enough money in your account for the check. This is a more complicated problem. You don’t have your checkbook so you can’t calculate your balance. Now you need to truly think.

You quickly recognize several options. You could use the ATM card and hope it leaves enough money (but if the rent check bounces your relationship with the landlord will be damaged). You could use all your cash and cover the rest with the card, but then you won’t have any cash for your evening out with friends. You could use your credit card, but it is nearly maxed out. It would sure be embarrassing if it were rejected. Then you remember that it is Friday. You could use the ATM card and plan on being at the bank first thing on Monday morning to transfer enough money from savings to cover the rent check. Seems good, but what about your morning classes?

And so the alternatives multiply and the issues each raises come to light as subsidiary conflicts, each needing resolution before comparative evaluation and prioritization of the alternatives can take place. The thinking we are interested in improving is the conscious process of inquiry that proceeds hypothetically in our mind starting from such real problems, such conflicts between expectation and experience. A goal of this course is to focus attention on terminology that will help us understand this process of inquiry more clearly so that it can be improved to yield a better understanding of the world and ourselves, and thus, a better resolution of issues, a better solution to problems, and a better future for ourselves and those we love.

Understanding the process of inquiry will allow us to work on the related skills, exercising them, strengthening them, sharpening them, making them more natural and more satisfying. Also, understanding the process of inquiry will let us understand why certain skills have developed along the paths they have in the educational community, and when they can be usefully applied.

Language and Critical Thinking

The connection between language and thought, and its implications become obvious once seen.  All education depends on the development of a common disciplinary terminology if  an area of inquiry and knowledge is to proceed beyond the most superficial level. A specialized disciplinary terminology gives, through language, public access to the dialogue of professional understanding within the discipline. Such terminologies embody the conceptual structure that has proven useful in coming to a progressively more comprehensive and coherent understanding of some circumscribed subject matter.  To repeat, we will need to develop a “vocabulary of words and concepts for describing our inner perception,” a vocabulary of words and concepts that begins to allow us more detailed access to our mental processes. It is a bit odd to speak of a vocabulary of concepts, but I chose these words quite deliberately.

The nature of the relation between language and thinking is very much a philosophical problem. Some have argued that thought can only take place through the medium of language, that we can only think about ideas we have words for, while others argue that we have thoughts first and later learn to apply language to those thoughts. We are not going to resolve this issue here, and while it is a fascinating question, we don’t really need to resolve it for our purposes.

Whatever the relation is between thought and language, it is clearly very close, and there is one point that must be noted. In a discussion between different people, it is clear that each one’s thoughts are quite private and inaccessible to the other in any direct manner.

You can’t perceive what is going on in my mind and I can’t perceive what is going on in yours. Thus, for us to respond to each other’s thoughts, for us to agree or disagree or comment about anything another believes in or thinks about, for us to merely communicate, requires that we use a language. For practical purposes, what each one says and writes is the best access others have, or can have, to what was thought. This is not to say that we can’t lie to one another (or even to ourselves). Nor is it to say that we do not occasionally say or write things that we did not intend (or think). But usually, when it is important to us, what we say or write is an honest attempt to communicate to others what we are thinking.

The implication of all this for the improvement of critical thought is that much time must be spent talking about language, communication, and in particular, written composition. One often needs the insight of another’s evaluation to gain objectivity on one’s own thought processes. Written composition provides a stable access to an author’s thoughts, and the improvement of composition has been found to yield an improvement in the thought behind composition.

Also, the intellectual standards I spoke of previously (we will concentrate on Clarity, Completeness, Coherence, and Charity in what follows) all apply to written composition and to conversation, as well as to thought. Thus, this course, and particularly its Glossary of Critical Thinking terms, includes many words needed for the description and analysis of language and linguistic processes.

[Please note, this is a work in process. To anyone who reads it, I would most appreciate their comments, criticisms and suggestions. While each educator has their own favorite terms, I believe we will do everyone a great service by developing some consensus on a core of critical thinking terminology.]

The Standards of Critical Thought

The skills of inquiry are creative and constructive activities, constrained by intellectual standards set within particular communities of inquiry. There are broad general standards which shape knowledge and communication within the international intellectual community as a whole, but these standards have various more specific manifestations in more specialized communities such as specific cultures, societies or religious communities. Such specific sets of standards are more rigorous in educational disciplines than in less formalized settings.

The intellectual standards I am speaking of are not rigid criteria such as laws since this would stifle the creative dialogue of individuals working within communities of inquiry. Inquiry requires freedom to change, grow, and achieve success at a given level of ability.

However, activity within a community of inquiry does initially require a conscious attention to these standards. Without such attention, inquiry would become an arbitrary and aimless wandering, chaotic and without structure, purpose or worth. Without commitment to these standards one might actually uncover the solution to a problem that initiated inquiry, but pass it right by since it could not be recognized as the solution being sought.

Thus, for one to gain the skills needed to accomplish upper division work in a four year college, they must be an active participant in their lower division courses, committed to constantly improving their skill level in reading, interpretation, writing, thinking, and inquiry in general. Like becoming a better tennis player, swimmer, basketball player or weight lifter, success is not a singular achievement. Rather it is a constant improvement among a whole constellation of interrelated skills that must be exercised, practiced, evaluated and modified. The  terminology developed here and gathered in the Glossary of Critical Thinking Terms will allow one to understand more clearly evaluative feedback from classmates and teachers, and it will aid in the development of self-evaluative skills.

The intellectual standards may be usefully compared to the standard of strength needed in athletics. There is no level that is optimum or minimal. Rather, the athlete becomes better with greater strength, and in general, the more the better. Correspondingly, intellectual standards are directions for improvement, not goals to be attained.

To continue the metaphor, great strength by itself is not enough. The strength must be under control and balanced by stamina. Equally, the intellectual skills must be developed together. One without the others becomes the mark of a pedant and is antithetical to understanding and wisdom.

To name these intellectual standards will not explain what they are but it will be a start. Careful rethinking of their meaning over time will increase understanding and a recognition of the value gained by commitment to them.

The first is the standard of Clarity. Clarity is undone by two problems: vagueness and ambiguity. Like all problems, they have no affect on us until we recognize them. The person who has poor eyesight often has no real understanding of their weakness until they look at the world through their first pair of glasses. We must seek to always increase the clarity of 1. our ideas, 2. our interpretation of another’s ideas and the world itself, 3. our communication, and 4. our understanding. One of our major efforts while developing critical thinking skills must be to uncover how we can seek what we do not know and cannot see.

The second standard is that of Completeness. Our search for completeness of understanding is undone by the march of time, by the infinite complexity of our lives and the world, and by the simple uniqueness and individuality of our experience and point-of-view. The completeness of our understanding of any aspect of reality is partly a function of the depth an analysis can accomplish and partly a function of the breadth of relations we grasp between disparate aspects of the world (synthesis). We cannot stop time but we can use what time we have more efficiently and effectively. While we cannot grasp the infinite, we can expand our awareness and simplify complexity by understanding structure and process. And while we cannot change our past, we can incorporate our understanding and the understandings of others into our present, multiplying our perspective and shaping the future.

The third standard is the demand of Coherence. Coherence is the mark of reality itself, and of health in mind. Its lack is our only awareness of hallucination, illusion or error. Coherence is undone by carelessness which allows clarity to be obscured and incompleteness to satisfy. Incoherence is chaos, hidden from view by narrowness of focus, superficiality of analysis, and a rush to judgment. It is contradiction made imperceptible by vagueness and ambiguity. We discover incoherence through uncovering contradiction or meaninglessness. We discover or construct coherence through learning about the past and caring about the future.

The final standard is Charity. Charity is our granting to others a voice. It recognizes our own limitations, our fallibility, and it understands that there is some element of truth to be understood in the voice from each and every mind (even the mind intent on deceiving us). Thus, charity is a means to reach beyond our individuality and limitations, a means to transcend our fallibility and finitude. By accepting the possibility of our own error, we can turn error into growth of understanding through a glimpse at another’s point-of-view on the world.

As I said, this does little more than name the intellectual standards. One’s understanding of them and how to apply them in conscious deliberation, in thinking and inquiry, will grow as one becomes actively engaged with ideas and their relationships.

DRAFT - 01/04/2007 - Copyright - Chris Storer