Critical thinking as a fundamental life skill

I read a handful of blogs, and some of them are political or sports-related. (This post is NOT about politics or sports.)

One thing that I have noticed when reading the comments is just how much dogma is accepted as fact. The core beliefs are never questioned. Those who do the questioning are labeled "trolls" and attacked back into anonymity. This is especially true of political blogs, where a mix of group-identity, political doctrine, dogmatic beliefs, and culture serves to limit dialogue and crush civil discourse. Many of these blogs seem to encourage a comfortable insularity where one is always right and every one else agrees.

Then there are the sports blogs. Clearly, rooting for a team or person and disliking another is all part of the fan experience, so one would expect a certain level of trash talking. Civil discourse really isn't expected here, but the consequences of a lack of civility are far less important. My main problem with sports blogs is the adoption of "truths" with a lack of evidence. In fact, in the world of 24 hour sports coverage, it makes its way into television, radio, and print media. It's as if we need a simple short hand to understand complex issues. But that short hand leads to some really silly conclusions by both the writers and the consumers of sports news and opinion.

I think what we lack is the ability to think critically. For me, these are the two areas where this lack of ability routinely and visibly manifests itself everyday.

One of my favorite books in recent years is Critical Thinking by Richard W. Paul and Linda Elder. It is intended to be a textbook for a college course in critical thinking, but it really reads as a great introduction and handbook on the subject. (The book is apparently in a 2nd edition now. I have the first.)

I've always thought of myself as a decent critical thinker, but I have never thought about critical thinking. Paul and Elder have done a lot of thinking on that topic. They have come up with a model for critical thinking that satisfies both the theoretical and the practical.

The base for the model is the Universal Structures of Thought. These structures are there whether we think of them or not. If we're to improve our thinking then we'll need to think about these structures also. I'll note the structure in a moment.

They have also developed the "standards" of critical thinking that are applied to the "elements" of critical thinking (these elements are the components of the Universal Structures of Thought) while we continue to develop our intellectual "traits". I know, I know, that all sounds like a lot of mumbledepan gobbledegook theoretical nonsense. For now, just trust me that it isn't, please. It does make sense.

What I would like to do over a series of posts is define the standards, elements, and traits. I'll present them in no particular order. We'll dig in to what they mean and how they apply to our daily practical lives. As much as I would like to apply them to the stuff I read online, I don't want to violate my own rules. Application of this knowledge will be left up to you.

I encourage you to buy the book. The 2nd edition is a little larger than my 1st edition, so I'll probably obtain it to see what was added.

For now, though, let's look at a statement about the elements (or universal structures) of thinking. I'll italicize the elements.

Whenever we think,
we think for a purpose (What is my fundamental purpose?)
within a point of view (What is my point of view with respect to this issue?)
based on assumptions (What assumptions am I using in my reasoning?)
leading to implications and consequences (What are the implications of my reasoning if I am correct?)
we use data, facts, and experiences (What information do I need to answer my question?)
to make inferences and judgments (What are my most fundamental inferences or conclusions?)
based on concepts and theories (What is the most basic concept in the question?)
to answer a question or solve a problem. (What is the key question I am trying to answer?)

I've read people talking about deporting, attacking, taxing, spending, arresting, outlawing, enforcing, building, razing, voting, etc. and you can tell that they have never asked more than one or two of the above questions of themselves related to the topic on which they pontificate.

Ah, I've bored you enough with this. Let me know what you THINK about it though.