what is critical thinking?

What Is Critical Thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing? When Arthur was in" rel="nofollow">in the first grade, the teacher directed the class to “thin" rel="nofollow">ink.” “Now, class,” she said, “I know this problem is a little harder than the ones we’ve been doin" rel="nofollow">ing, but I’m goin" rel="nofollow">ing to give you a few extra min" rel="nofollow">inutes to thin" rel="nofollow">ink about it. Now start thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing.” It was not the first time Arthur had heard the word used. He’d heard it many times at home, but never quite this way. The teacher seemed to be askin" rel="nofollow">ing for some special activity, somethin" rel="nofollow">ing he should know how to start and stop—like his father’s car. “Vroom-m-m,” he muttered half aloud. Because of his confusion, he was unaware he was makin" rel="nofollow">ing the noise. “Arthur, please stop makin" rel="nofollow">ing noises and start thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing.” Embarrassed and not knowin" rel="nofollow">ing quite what to do, he looked down at his desk. Then, out of the corner of his eye, he noticed that the little girl next to him was starin" rel="nofollow">ing at the ceilin" rel="nofollow">ing. “Maybe that’s the way you start thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing,” he guessed. He decided the others had probably learned how to do it last year, that time he was home with the measles. So he stared at the ceilin" rel="nofollow">ing. As he progressed through grade school and high school, he heard that same direction hundreds of times. “No, that’s not the answer, you’re not thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing—now thin" rel="nofollow">ink!” And occasionally he would hear from particu- larly self-pityin" rel="nofollow">ing teachers given to mutterin" rel="nofollow">ing to themselves aloud: “What did I do to deserve this? Don’t they teach them anythin" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">in the grades anymore? Don’t you people care about ideas? Thin" rel="nofollow">ink, dammit, THINK.” So Arthur learned to feel somewhat guilty about the whole matter. Obviously, this thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing was an important activity that he’d failed to learn. Maybe he lacked the brain" rel="nofollow">in power. But he was resourceful enough. He watched the other students and did what they did. Whenever a teacher started in" rel="nofollow">in about thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing, he screwed up his face, furrowed his brow, scratched his head, stroked his chin" rel="nofollow">in, stared off in" rel="nofollow">into space or up at the ceilin" rel="nofollow">ing, and repeated silently to himself, “Let’s see now, I’ve got to thin" rel="nofollow">ink about that, thin" rel="nofollow">ink, thin" rel="nofollow">ink—I hope he doesn’t call on me—thin" rel="nofollow">ink.” appreciate believe cerebrate cogitate conceive consider consult fancy contemplate imagin" rel="nofollow">ine deliberate meditate digest muse discuss ponder dream realize reason reflect rumin" rel="nofollow">inate speculate suppose weigh Though Arthur didn’t know it, that’s just what the other students were sayin" rel="nofollow">ing to themselves. Your experience may have been similar to Arthur’s. In other words, many people may have simply told you to thin" rel="nofollow">ink without ever explain" rel="nofollow">inin" rel="nofollow">ing what thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing is and what qualities a good thin" rel="nofollow">inker has that a poor thin" rel="nofollow">inker lacks. If that is the case, you have a lot of company. Extensive, effective train" rel="nofollow">inin" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">in thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing is the exception rather than the rule. This fact and its unfortunate consequences are suggested by the followin" rel="nofollow">ing comments from accomplished observers of the human condition: The most in" rel="nofollow">interestin" rel="nofollow">ing and astoundin" rel="nofollow">ing contradiction in" rel="nofollow">in life is to me the con- stant in" rel="nofollow">insistence by nearly all people upon “logic,” “logical reasonin" rel="nofollow">ing,” “sound reasonin" rel="nofollow">ing,” on the one hand, and on the other their in" rel="nofollow">inability to display it, and their unwillin" rel="nofollow">ingness to accept it when displayed by others.1 Most of our so-called reasonin" rel="nofollow">ing consists in" rel="nofollow">in fin" rel="nofollow">indin" rel="nofollow">ing arguments for goin" rel="nofollow">ing on believin" rel="nofollow">ing as we already do.2 Clear thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing is a very rare thin" rel="nofollow">ing, but even just plain" rel="nofollow">in thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing is almost as rare. Most of us most of the time do not thin" rel="nofollow">ink at all. We believe and we feel, but we do not thin" rel="nofollow">ink.3 Mental in" rel="nofollow">indolence is one of the commonest of human traits.4 What is this activity that everyone claims is important but few people have mastered? Thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing is a general term used to cover numerous activ- ities, from daydreamin" rel="nofollow">ing to reflection and analysis. Here are just some of the synonyms listed in" rel="nofollow">in Roget’s Thesaurus for thin" rel="nofollow">ink: All of those are just the names that thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing goes under. They really don’t explain" rel="nofollow">in it. The fact is, after thousands of years of humans’ experi- encin" rel="nofollow">ing thought and talkin" rel="nofollow">ing and writin" rel="nofollow">ing about thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing, it remain" rel="nofollow">ins in" rel="nofollow">in many respects one of the great mysteries of our existence. Still, though much is yet to be learned, a great deal is already known. Min" rel="nofollow">ind, Brain" rel="nofollow">in, or Both? Most modern researchers use the word min" rel="nofollow">ind synonymously with brain" rel="nofollow">in, as if the physical organ that resides in" rel="nofollow">in the human skull were solely responsi- ble for thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing. This practice conveniently presupposes that a problem that has challenged the greatest thin" rel="nofollow">inkers for millennia—the relationship between min" rel="nofollow">ind and physical matter—was somehow solved when no one was lookin" rel="nofollow">ing. The problem itself and the in" rel="nofollow">individuals who spent their lives wrestlin" rel="nofollow">ing with it deserve better. Neuroscience has provided a number of valuable in" rel="nofollow">insights in" rel="nofollow">into the cognitive or thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing activities of the brain" rel="nofollow">in. It has documented that the left hemisphere of the brain" rel="nofollow">in deals main" rel="nofollow">inly with detailed language process- in" rel="nofollow">ing and is associated with analysis and logical thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing, that the right hemisphere deals main" rel="nofollow">inly with sensory images and is associated with in" rel="nofollow">in- tuition and creative thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing, and that the small bundle of nerves that lies between the hemispheres—the corpus callosum—in" rel="nofollow">integrates the various functions. The research that produced these in" rel="nofollow">insights showed that the brain" rel="nofollow">in is necessary for thought, but it has not shown that the brain" rel="nofollow">in is sufficient for thought. In fact, many philosophers claim it can never show that. They argue that the min" rel="nofollow">ind and the brain" rel="nofollow">in are demonstrably different. Whereas the brain" rel="nofollow">in is a physical entity composed of matter and therefore subject to decay, the min" rel="nofollow">ind is a metaphysical entity. Examin" rel="nofollow">ine brain" rel="nofollow">in cells under the most powerful microscope and you will never see an idea or concept— for example, beauty, government, equality, or love—because ideas and concepts are not material entities and so have no physical dimension. Where, then, do these nonmaterial thin" rel="nofollow">ings reside? In the nonmaterial min" rel="nofollow">ind.5 The late American philosopher William Barrett observed that “his- tory is, fundamentally, the adventure of human consciousness” and “the fundamental history of humankin" rel="nofollow">ind is the history of min" rel="nofollow">ind.” In his view, “one of the supreme ironies of modern history” is the fact that science, which owes its very existence to the human min" rel="nofollow">ind, has had the audacity to deny the reality of the min" rel="nofollow">ind. As he put it, “the offsprin" rel="nofollow">ing denies the parent.”6 The argument over whether the min" rel="nofollow">ind is a reality is not the only issue about the min" rel="nofollow">ind that has been hotly debated over the centuries. One espe- cially important issue is whether the min" rel="nofollow">ind is passive, a blank slate on which experience writes, as John Locke held, or active, a vehicle by which we take the in" rel="nofollow">initiative and exercise our free will, as G. W. Leibnitz argued. This book is based on the latter view. Critical Thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing Defin" rel="nofollow">ined Let’s begin" rel="nofollow">in by makin" rel="nofollow">ing the important distin" rel="nofollow">inction between thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing and feelin" rel="nofollow">ing. I feel and I thin" rel="nofollow">ink are sometimes used in" rel="nofollow">interchangeably, but that practice causes confusion. Feelin" rel="nofollow">ing is a subjective response that reflects emotion, sentiment, or desire; it generally occurs spontaneously rather than through a conscious mental act. We don’t have to employ our min" rel="nofollow">inds to feel angry when we are in" rel="nofollow">insulted, afraid when we are threatened, or compassionate when we see a picture of a starvin" rel="nofollow">ing child. The feelin" rel="nofollow">ings arise automatically. Feelin" rel="nofollow">ing is useful in" rel="nofollow">in directin" rel="nofollow">ing our attention to matters we should thin" rel="nofollow">ink about; it also can provide the enthusiasm and commitment necessary to complete arduous mental tasks. However, feelin" rel="nofollow">ing is never a good substi- tute for thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing because it is notoriously unreliable. Some feelin" rel="nofollow">ings are beneficial, honorable, even noble; others are not, as everyday experience demonstrates. We often feel like doin" rel="nofollow">ing thin" rel="nofollow">ings that will harm us—for example, smokin" rel="nofollow">ing, sunbathin" rel="nofollow">ing without sunscreen, tellin" rel="nofollow">ing off our profes- sor or employer, or spendin" rel="nofollow">ing the rent money on lottery tickets. Zin" rel="nofollow">inedin" rel="nofollow">ine Zidane was one of the greatest soccer players of his genera- tion, and many experts believed that in" rel="nofollow">in his fin" rel="nofollow">inal season (2006) he would lead France to the pin" rel="nofollow">innacle of soccer success—win" rel="nofollow">innin" rel="nofollow">ing the coveted World Cup. But then, toward the end of the championship game again" rel="nofollow">inst Italy, he viciously head-butted an Italian player in" rel="nofollow">in full view of hundreds of mil- lions of people. The referee banished him from the field, France lost the match, and a sin" rel="nofollow">ingle surrender to feelin" rel="nofollow">ing forever stain" rel="nofollow">ined the brilliant career Zidane had dedicated his life to buildin" rel="nofollow">ing. In contrast to feelin" rel="nofollow">ing, thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing is a conscious mental process per- formed to solve a problem, make a decision, or gain" rel="nofollow">in understandin" rel="nofollow">ing.* Whereas feelin" rel="nofollow">ing has no purpose beyond expressin" rel="nofollow">ing itself, thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing aims beyond itself to knowledge or action. This is not to say that thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing is in" rel="nofollow">infallible; in" rel="nofollow">in fact, a good part of this book is devoted to exposin" rel="nofollow">ing errors in" rel="nofollow">in thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing and showin" rel="nofollow">ing you how to avoid them. Yet for all its shortcom- in" rel="nofollow">ings, thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing is the most reliable guide to action we humans possess. To sum up the relationship between feelin" rel="nofollow">ing and thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing, feelin" rel="nofollow">ings need to be tested before bein" rel="nofollow">ing trusted, and thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing is the most reasonable and reli- able way to test them. There are three broad categories of thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing: reflective, creative, and critical. The focus of this book is on critical thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing. The essence of criti- cal thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing is evaluation. Critical thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing, therefore, may be defin" rel="nofollow">ined as the process by which we test claims and arguments and determin" rel="nofollow">ine which have merit and which do not. In other words, critical thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing is a search for answers, a quest. Not surprisin" rel="nofollow">ingly, one of the most important tech- niques used in" rel="nofollow">in critical thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing is askin" rel="nofollow">ing probin" rel="nofollow">ing questions. Where the un- critical accept their first thoughts and other people’s statements at face value, critical thin" rel="nofollow">inkers challenge all ideas in" rel="nofollow">in this manner: *Some in" rel="nofollow">informal defin" rel="nofollow">initions of thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">include daydreamin" rel="nofollow">ing. It is excluded from this defin" rel="nofollow">ini- tion because daydreamin" rel="nofollow">ing is a passive mental state over which we exercise little or no con- trol. It is therefore of little use in" rel="nofollow">in evaluatin" rel="nofollow">ing ideas. Thought Professor Vile cheated me in" rel="nofollow">in my composition grade. He weighted some themes more heavily than others. Before women entered the work force, there were fewer divorces. That shows that?a woman’s place is in" rel="nofollow">in the home. A college education isn’t worth what you pay for it. Some people never reach?a salary level appreciably higher than the level they would have reached without the degree. Question Did he grade everyone on the same standard? Were the dif- ferent weightin" rel="nofollow">ings justified? How do you know that this factor, and not some other one(s), is responsible for the in" rel="nofollow">increase in" rel="nofollow">in divorces? Is money the only measure of the worth of an education? What about in" rel="nofollow">increased under- standin" rel="nofollow">ing of self and life and in" rel="nofollow">increased ability to cope with challenges? Critical thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing also employs questions to analyze issues. Consider, for example, the subject of values. When it is bein" rel="nofollow">ing discussed, some peo- ple say, “Our country has lost its traditional values” and “There would be less crime, especially violent crime, if parents and teachers emphasized moral values.” Critical thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing would prompt us to ask, 1. What is the relationship between values and beliefs? Between values and convictions? ? 2. Are all values valuable? ? 3. How aware is the average person of his or her values? Is it possible ?that many people deceive themselves about their real values? ? 4. Where do one’s values origin" rel="nofollow">inate? Within" rel="nofollow">in the in" rel="nofollow">individual or outside? In thought or in" rel="nofollow">in feelin" rel="nofollow">ing? ? 5. Does education change a person’s values? If so, is this change always for the better? ? 6. Should parents and teachers attempt to shape children’s values? ?Characteristics of Critical Thin" rel="nofollow">inkers ? A number of misconceptions exist about critical thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing. One is that bein" rel="nofollow">ing able to support beliefs with reasons makes one a critical thin" rel="nofollow">inker. Virtually everyone has reasons, however weak they may be. The test of critical thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing is whether the reasons are good and sufficient. Another misconception is that critical thin" rel="nofollow">inkers never imitate others in" rel="nofollow">in thought or action. If that were the case, then every eccentric would be a critical thin" rel="nofollow">inker. Critical thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing means makin" rel="nofollow">ing sound decisions, regard- less of how common or uncommon those decisions are. CHAPTER 2 What Is Critical Thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing? 21 It is also a misconception that critical thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing is synonymous with havin" rel="nofollow">ing a lot of right answers in" rel="nofollow">in one’s head. There’s nothin" rel="nofollow">ing wrong with havin" rel="nofollow">ing right answers, of course. But critical thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">involves the process of fin" rel="nofollow">indin" rel="nofollow">ing answers when they are not so readily available. And yet another misconception is that critical thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing cannot be learned, that one either has it or does not. On the contrary, critical thin" rel="nofollow">ink- in" rel="nofollow">ing is a matter of habit. The most careless, sloppy thin" rel="nofollow">inker can become a critical thin" rel="nofollow">inker by developin" rel="nofollow">ing the characteristics of a critical thin" rel="nofollow">inker. This is not to say that all people have equal thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing potential but rather that everyone can achieve dramatic improvement. We have already noted one characteristic of critical thin" rel="nofollow">inkers—skill in" rel="nofollow">in askin" rel="nofollow">ing appropriate questions. Another is control of one’s mental activi- ties. John Dewey once observed that more of our time than most of us care to admit is spent “triflin" rel="nofollow">ing with mental pictures, random recollec- tions, pleasant but unfounded hopes, flittin" rel="nofollow">ing, half-developed impres- sions.”7 Good thin" rel="nofollow">inkers are no exception. However, they have learned better than poor thin" rel="nofollow">inkers how to stop that casual, semiconscious drift of images when they wish and how to fix their min" rel="nofollow">inds on one specific matter, examin" rel="nofollow">ine it carefully, and form a judgment about it. They have learned, in" rel="nofollow">in other words, how to take charge of their thoughts, to use their min" rel="nofollow">inds ac- tively as well as passively. Here are some additional characteristics of critical thin" rel="nofollow">inkers, as con- trasted with those of uncritical thin" rel="nofollow">inkers: Critical Thin" rel="nofollow">inkers . . . Are honest with themselves, acknowledgin" rel="nofollow">ing what they don’t know, recognizin" rel="nofollow">ing their limitations, and bein" rel="nofollow">ing watch- ful of their own errors. Regard problems and contro- versial issues as excitin" rel="nofollow">ing challenges. Strive for understandin" rel="nofollow">ing, keep curiosity alive, remain" rel="nofollow">in patient with complexity, and are ready to in" rel="nofollow">invest time to overcome confusion. Base judgments on evidence rather than personal preferences, deferrin" rel="nofollow">ing judgment whenever evidence is in" rel="nofollow">insufficient. They revise judgments when new evidence reveals error. Uncritical Thin" rel="nofollow">inkers . . . Pretend they know more than they do, ignore their limitations, and assume their views are error-free. Regard problems and contro- versial issues as nuisances?or threats to their ego. Are impatient with complexity and thus would rather remain" rel="nofollow">in confused than make the effort to understand. Base judgments on first impres- sions and gut reactions.?They are unconcerned?about the amount or quality of evidence and clin" rel="nofollow">ing to their views steadfastly. Are in" rel="nofollow">interested in" rel="nofollow">in other people’s ideas and so are willin" rel="nofollow">ing to read and listen atten- tively, even when they tend to disagree with the other person. Recognize that extreme views (whether conservative or liberal) are seldom correct,?so they avoid them, practice fairmin" rel="nofollow">indedness, and seek a balanced view. Practice restrain" rel="nofollow">int, controllin" rel="nofollow">ing their feelin" rel="nofollow">ings rather than bein" rel="nofollow">ing controlled by them, and thin" rel="nofollow">ink- in" rel="nofollow">ing before actin" rel="nofollow">ing. Are preoccupied with them- selves and their own opin" rel="nofollow">inions and so are unwillin" rel="nofollow">ing to pay attention to others’ views. At the first sign of disagreement, they tend to thin" rel="nofollow">ink, “How can I refute this?” Ignore the need for balance and give preference to views that support their established views. Tend to follow their feelin" rel="nofollow">ings and act impulsively. As the desirable qualities suggest, critical thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing depends on men- tal disciplin" rel="nofollow">ine. Effective thin" rel="nofollow">inkers exert control over their mental life, direct their thoughts rather than bein" rel="nofollow">ing directed by them, and withhold their endorsement of any idea—even their own—until they have tested and confirmed it. John Dewey equated this mental disciplin" rel="nofollow">ine with freedom. That is, he argued that people who do not have it are not free persons but slaves to whim or circumstance: If a man’s actions are not guided by thoughtful conclusions, then they are guided by in" rel="nofollow">inconsiderate impulse, unbalanced appetite, caprice, or the circumstances of the moment. To cultivate unhin" rel="nofollow">indered, unreflective external activity is to foster enslavement, for it leaves the person at the mercy of appetite, sense, and circumstance.8 The Role of Intuition Intuition is commonly defin" rel="nofollow">ined as immediate perception or compre- hension of somethin" rel="nofollow">ing—that is, sensin" rel="nofollow">ing or understandin" rel="nofollow">ing somethin" rel="nofollow">ing without the use of reasonin" rel="nofollow">ing. Some everyday experiences seem to sup- port this defin" rel="nofollow">inition. You may have met a stranger and in" rel="nofollow">instantly “known” that you would be partners for life. When a car salesman told you that the price he was quotin" rel="nofollow">ing you was his fin" rel="nofollow">inal, rock-bottom price, your in" rel="nofollow">intuition may have told you he was lyin" rel="nofollow">ing. On the first day of a particular course, you may have had a strong sense that you would not do well in" rel="nofollow">in it. Some important discoveries seem to have occurred in" rel="nofollow">instantaneously. For example, the German chemist Kekule found the solution to a difficult chemical problem in" rel="nofollow">intuitively. He was very tired when he slipped in" rel="nofollow">into a daydream. The image of a snake swallowin" rel="nofollow">ing its tail came to him—and that provided the clue to the structure of the benzene molecule, which is a rin" rel="nofollow">ing, rather than a chain" rel="nofollow">in, of atoms.9 The German writer Goethe had been experiencin" rel="nofollow">ing great difficulty organizin" rel="nofollow">ing a large mass of material for one of his works when he learned of the tragic suicide of a close friend. At that very in" rel="nofollow">instant, the plan for organizin" rel="nofollow">ing his material occurred to him in" rel="nofollow">in detail.10 The English writer Samuel Taylor Coleridge (you may have read his Rime of the Ancient Marin" rel="nofollow">iner in" rel="nofollow">in high school) awoke from a dream with 200–300 lin" rel="nofollow">ines of a new and complex poem clearly in" rel="nofollow">in min" rel="nofollow">ind. Such examples seem to suggest that in" rel="nofollow">intuition is very different from reasonin" rel="nofollow">ing and is not in" rel="nofollow">influenced by it. But before acceptin" rel="nofollow">ing that conclu- sion, consider these facts: Breakthrough ideas favor train" rel="nofollow">ined, active min" rel="nofollow">inds. It is unusual for someone totally untrain" rel="nofollow">ined in" rel="nofollow">in a subject to make a significant new dis- covery about it. Thus, if Kekule had been a plumber, Goethe a book- keeper, and Coleridge a hairdresser, they would almost certain" rel="nofollow">inly not have received the in" rel="nofollow">intuitions for which they are famous. Some in" rel="nofollow">intuitions eventually prove to be mistaken. That attractive stranger may turn out to be not your lifelong partner but a person for whom you develop a strong dislike. The car salesman’s fin" rel="nofollow">inal price may have proved to be exactly that. And in" rel="nofollow">instead of doin" rel="nofollow">ing poorly in" rel="nofollow">in that course, you may have done well. It is difficult to make an overall assessment of the quality of our in" rel="nofollow">intu- itions because we tend to forget the ones that prove mistaken in" rel="nofollow">in much the same way a gambler forgets his losses. These facts have led some scholars to conclude that in" rel="nofollow">intuition is sim- ply a consequence of thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing. They would say that somethin" rel="nofollow">ing about the stranger appealed to you, somethin" rel="nofollow">ing the salesman said or did suggested in" rel="nofollow">insin" rel="nofollow">incerity, somethin" rel="nofollow">ing about the professor frightened you. In each case, they would explain" rel="nofollow">in, you made a quick decision—so quick, in" rel="nofollow">in fact, that you were unaware that you’d been thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing. In the case of the break- through ideas, the scholars would say that when people become en- grossed in" rel="nofollow">in problems or issues, their unconscious min" rel="nofollow">inds often contin" rel="nofollow">inue workin" rel="nofollow">ing on them long after they have turned their attention elsewhere. Thus, when an in" rel="nofollow">insight seems to come “out of nowhere,” it is actually a delayed result of thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing. Which view of in" rel="nofollow">intuitions is the correct one? Are in" rel="nofollow">intuitions different from and in" rel="nofollow">independent of thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing or not? Perhaps, for now, the most pru- dent answer is that sometimes they are in" rel="nofollow">independent and sometimes they are not; we can’t be sure when they are, and therefore it is imprudent to rely on them. Basic Activities in" rel="nofollow">in Critical Thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing The basic activities in" rel="nofollow">in critical thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing are in" rel="nofollow">investigation, in" rel="nofollow">interpretation, and judgment, in" rel="nofollow">in that order. The followin" rel="nofollow">ing chart summarizes each activ- ity in" rel="nofollow">in relation to the other two. Activity Investigation Interpretation Judgment Defin" rel="nofollow">inition Fin" rel="nofollow">indin" rel="nofollow">ing evidence—that is, data that will answer key questions about the issue Decidin" rel="nofollow">ing what the evidence means Reachin" rel="nofollow">ing a conclusion about the issue Requirements The evidence must be both relevant and suf- ficient. The in" rel="nofollow">interpretation must be more reason- able than competin" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">interpretations. The conclusion must meet the test of logic. As we noted previously, irresponsible thin" rel="nofollow">inkers first choose their con- clusions and then seek out evidence to justify their choices. They fail to realize that the only conclusion worth drawin" rel="nofollow">ing is one based on a thor- ough understandin" rel="nofollow">ing of the problem or issue and its possible solutions or resolutions. Is it acceptable to speculate, guess, and form hunches and hy- potheses? Absolutely. Such activities provide a helpful startin" rel="nofollow">ing poin" rel="nofollow">int for the thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing process. (Besides, we couldn’t avoid doin" rel="nofollow">ing so even if we tried.) The crucial thin" rel="nofollow">ing is not to let hunches and hypotheses manipulate our thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing and dictate our conclusion in" rel="nofollow">in advance. Critical Thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing and Writin" rel="nofollow">ing Writin" rel="nofollow">ing may be used for either of two broad purposes: to discover ideas or to communicate them. Most of the writin" rel="nofollow">ing you have done in" rel="nofollow">in school is undoubtedly the latter kin" rel="nofollow">ind. But the former can be very helpful, not only in" rel="nofollow">in sortin" rel="nofollow">ing out ideas you’ve already produced, but also in" rel="nofollow">in stimulatin" rel="nofollow">ing the flow of new ideas. For some reason, the very act of writin" rel="nofollow">ing down one idea seems to generate additional ideas. Whenever you write to discover ideas, focus on the issue you are ex- amin" rel="nofollow">inin" rel="nofollow">ing and record all your thoughts, questions, and assertions. Don’t worry about organization or correctness. If ideas come slowly, be patient. If they come suddenly, in" rel="nofollow">in a rush, don’t try to slow down the process and develop any one of them; simply jot them all down. (There will be time for elaboration and correction later.) Direct your min" rel="nofollow">ind’s effort, but be sensitive to ideas on the frin" rel="nofollow">inge of consciousness. Often they, too, will prove valuable. If you have done your discovery writin" rel="nofollow">ing well and have thought critically about the ideas you have produced, the task of writin" rel="nofollow">ing to communicate will be easier and more enjoyable. You will have many more ideas—carefully evaluated ones—to develop and organize. Critical Thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing and Discussion11 At its best, discussion deepens understandin" rel="nofollow">ing and promotes problem solvin" rel="nofollow">ing and decision makin" rel="nofollow">ing. At its worst, it frays nerves, creates animosity, and leaves important issues unresolved. Unfortunately, the most promi- nent models for discussion in" rel="nofollow">in contemporary culture—radio and TV talk shows—often produce the latter effects. Many hosts demand that their guests answer complex questions with simple “yes” or “no” answers. If the guests respond that way, they are at- tacked for oversimplifyin" rel="nofollow">ing. If, in" rel="nofollow">instead, they try to offer a balanced answer, the host shouts, “You’re not answerin" rel="nofollow">ing the question,” and proceeds to an- swer it himself. Guests who agree with the host are treated warmly; others are dismissed as ignorant or dishonest. Often as not, when two guests are debatin" rel="nofollow">ing, each takes a turn in" rel="nofollow">interruptin" rel="nofollow">ing while the other shouts, “Let me fin" rel="nofollow">inish.” Neither shows any desire to learn from the other. Typically, as the show draws to a close, the host thanks the participants for a “vigorous debate” and promises the audience more of the same next time. Here are some simple guidelin" rel="nofollow">ines for ensurin" rel="nofollow">ing that the discussions you engage in" rel="nofollow">in—in" rel="nofollow">in the classroom, on the job, or at home—are more civil, meanin" rel="nofollow">ingful, and productive than what you see on TV. By followin" rel="nofollow">ing these guidelin" rel="nofollow">ines, you will set a good example for the people around you. Whenever possible, prepare in" rel="nofollow">in advance. Not every discussion can be prepared for in" rel="nofollow">in advance, but many can. An agenda is usually circu- lated several days before a busin" rel="nofollow">iness or committee meetin" rel="nofollow">ing. In college courses, the assignment schedule provides a reliable in" rel="nofollow">indication of what will be discussed in" rel="nofollow">in class on a given day. Use this in" rel="nofollow">information to prepare: Begin" rel="nofollow">in by reflectin" rel="nofollow">ing on what you already know about the topic. Then decide how you can expand your knowledge and devote some time to doin" rel="nofollow">ing so. (Fifteen or twenty min" rel="nofollow">inutes of focused searchin" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">in the library or on the Internet can produce a significant amount of in" rel="nofollow">information on almost any subject.) Try to anticipate the different poin" rel="nofollow">ints of view that might be expressed in" rel="nofollow">in the discussion and consider the relative merits of each. Keep your conclusions tentative at this poin" rel="nofollow">int, so that you will be open to the facts and in" rel="nofollow">interpretations others will present. Set reasonable expectations. Have you ever left a discussion disap- poin" rel="nofollow">inted that others hadn’t abandoned their views and embraced yours? Have you ever felt offended when someone disagreed with you or asked you what evidence you had to support your opin" rel="nofollow">inion? If the answer to either question is yes, you probably expect too much of others. People seldom change their min" rel="nofollow">inds easily or quickly, particularly in" rel="nofollow">in the case of long-held convictions. 26 PART ONE The Context And when they encounter ideas that differ from their own, they naturally want to know what evidence supports those ideas. Expect to have your ideas questioned, and be cheerful and gracious in" rel="nofollow">in respondin" rel="nofollow">ing. Leave egotism and personal agendas at the door. To be productive, discussion requires an atmosphere of mutual respect and civility. Egotism produces disrespectful attitudes toward others—notably, “I’m more important than other people,” “My ideas are better than anyone else’s,” and “Rules don’t apply to me.” Personal agendas, such as dislike for another participant or excessive zeal for a poin" rel="nofollow">int of view, can lead to personal attacks and unwillin" rel="nofollow">ingness to listen to others’ views. Contribute but don’t domin" rel="nofollow">inate. If you are the kin" rel="nofollow">ind of person who loves to talk and has a lot to say, you probably contribute more to discus- sions than other participants. On the other hand, if you are more re- served, you may seldom say anythin" rel="nofollow">ing. There is nothin" rel="nofollow">ing wrong with bein" rel="nofollow">ing either kin" rel="nofollow">ind of person. However, discussions tend to be most pro- ductive when everyone contributes ideas. For this to happen, loquacious people need to exercise a little restrain" rel="nofollow">int, and more reserved people need to accept responsibility for sharin" rel="nofollow">ing their thoughts. Avoid distractin" rel="nofollow">ing speech mannerisms. Such mannerisms in" rel="nofollow">include startin" rel="nofollow">ing one sentence and then abruptly switchin" rel="nofollow">ing to another; mumblin" rel="nofollow">ing or slurrin" rel="nofollow">ing your words; and punctuatin" rel="nofollow">ing every phrase or clause with audible pauses (“um,” “ah,”) or meanin" rel="nofollow">ingless expressions (“like,” “you know,” “man”). These annoyin" rel="nofollow">ing mannerisms distract people from your message. To overcome them, listen to yourself when you speak. Even better, tape your conversations with friends and family (with their permission), then play the tape back and listen to yourself. Whenever you are engaged in" rel="nofollow">in a discussion, aim for clarity, directness, and economy of expression. Listen actively. When the participants don’t listen to one another, discussion becomes little more than serial monologue—each person tak- in" rel="nofollow">ing a turn at speakin" rel="nofollow">ing while the rest ignore what is bein" rel="nofollow">ing said. This can happen quite unin" rel="nofollow">intentionally because the min" rel="nofollow">ind can process ideas faster than the fastest speaker can deliver them. Your min" rel="nofollow">ind may get tired of waitin" rel="nofollow">ing and wander about aimlessly like a dog off its leash. In such cases, in" rel="nofollow">instead of listenin" rel="nofollow">ing to the speaker’s words, you may thin" rel="nofollow">ink about her clothin" rel="nofollow">ing or hairstyle or look outside the win" rel="nofollow">indow and observe what is happenin" rel="nofollow">ing there. Even when you make a serious effort to listen, it is easy to lose focus. If the speaker’s words trigger an unrelated memory, you may slip away to that earlier time and place. If the speaker says some- thin" rel="nofollow">ing you disagree with, you may begin" rel="nofollow">in framin" rel="nofollow">ing a reply. The best way to main" rel="nofollow">intain" rel="nofollow">in your attention is to be alert for such distractions and to resist them. Strive to enter the speaker’s frame of min" rel="nofollow">ind, understand what is said, and connect it with what was said previously. Whenever you realize your min" rel="nofollow">ind is wanderin" rel="nofollow">ing, drag it back to the task. CHAPTER 2 What Is Critical Thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing? 27 Judge ideas responsibly. Ideas range in" rel="nofollow">in quality from profound to ridiculous, helpful to harmful, ennoblin" rel="nofollow">ing to degradin" rel="nofollow">ing. It is therefore ap- propriate to pass judgment on them. However, fairness demands that you base your judgment on thoughtful consideration of the overall strengths and weaknesses of the ideas, not on in" rel="nofollow">initial impressions or feel- in" rel="nofollow">ings. Be especially careful with ideas that are unfamiliar or different from your own because those are the ones you will be most in" rel="nofollow">inclin" rel="nofollow">ined to deny a fair hearin" rel="nofollow">ing. Resist the urge to shout or in" rel="nofollow">interrupt. No doubt you understand that shoutin" rel="nofollow">ing and in" rel="nofollow">interruptin" rel="nofollow">ing are rude and disrespectful behaviors, but do you realize that in" rel="nofollow">in many cases they are also a sign of in" rel="nofollow">intellectual in" rel="nofollow">insecu- rity? It’s true. If you really believe your ideas are sound, you will have no need to raise your voice or to silence the other person. Even if the other person resorts to such behavior, the best way to demonstrate confidence and character is by refusin" rel="nofollow">ing to reciprocate. Make it your rule to disagree without bein" rel="nofollow">ing disagreeable. Avoidin" rel="nofollow">ing Plagiarism12 Once ideas are put in" rel="nofollow">into words and published, they become in" rel="nofollow">intellectual property, and the author has the same rights over them as he or she has over a material possession such as a house or a car. The only real differ- ence is that in" rel="nofollow">intellectual property is purchased with mental effort rather than money. Anyone who has ever wracked his or her brain" rel="nofollow">in tryin" rel="nofollow">ing to solve a problem or tryin" rel="nofollow">ing to put an idea in" rel="nofollow">into clear and meanin" rel="nofollow">ingful words can appreciate how difficult mental effort can be. Plagiarism is passin" rel="nofollow">ing off other people’s ideas or words as one’s own. It is doubly offensive in" rel="nofollow">in that it both steals and deceives. In the academic world, plagiarism is considered an ethical violation and is punished by a failin" rel="nofollow">ing grade for a paper or a course or even by dismissal from the in" rel="nofollow">institu- tion. Outside the academy, it is a crime that can be prosecuted if the per- son to whom the ideas and words belong wishes to brin" rel="nofollow">ing charges. Either way, the offender suffers dishonor and disgrace, as the followin" rel="nofollow">ing exam- ples illustrate: • Whenauniversityin" rel="nofollow">inSouthAfricalearnedthatprofessorMarks Chabel had plagiarized most of his doctoral dissertation from Kimberly Lanegran of the University of Florida, the university fired Chabel. Moreover, the university that had awarded him his Ph.D. revoked it. ? • WhenU.S.SenatorJosephBidenwasseekin" rel="nofollow">ingthe1988Democraticpres- idential nomin" rel="nofollow">ination, it was revealed that he had plagiarized passages from speeches by British politician Neil Kin" rel="nofollow">innock and by Robert Kennedy. It was also learned that, while in" rel="nofollow">in law school, he had plagiarized a ??number of pages from a legal article. The ensuin" rel="nofollow">ing scandal led Biden to withdraw his candidacy and has contin" rel="nofollow">inued to stain" rel="nofollow">in his reputation. • ThereputationofhistorianStephenAmbrosewastarnishedbyalle- gations that over the years he plagiarized the work of several authors. Doris Kearns Goodwin" rel="nofollow">in, historian and advisor to President Lyndon Johnson, suffered a similar embarrassment when she was discovered to have plagiarized from more than one source in" rel="nofollow">in one of her books. ? • WhenJamesA.Mackay,aScottishhistorian,publishedabiography of Alexander Graham Bell in" rel="nofollow">in 1998, Robert Bruce presented evidence that the book was largely plagiarized from his 1973 biography, which had won a Pulitzer Prize. Mackay was forced to withdraw his book from the market. (Incredibly, he did not learn from the experi- ence because he then published a biography of John Paul Jones, which was plagiarized from a 1942 book by Samuel Eliot Morison.) ? • WhenNewYorkTimesreporterJasonBlairwasdiscoveredtohave plagiarized stories from other reporters and fabricated quotations and details in" rel="nofollow">in his stories, he resigned his position in" rel="nofollow">in disgrace. Soon afterward, the two senior editors who had been his closest mentors also resigned, reportedly because of their irresponsible handlin" rel="nofollow">ing of Blair’s reportage and the subsequent scandal. ?Some cases of plagiarism are attributable to in" rel="nofollow">intentional dishonesty, others to carelessness. But many, perhaps most, are due to misunder- standin" rel="nofollow">ing. The in" rel="nofollow">instructions “Base your paper on research rather than on your own unfounded opin" rel="nofollow">inions” and “Don’t present other people’s ideas as your own” seem contradictory and may confuse students, especially if no clarification is offered. Fortunately, there is a way to honor both in" rel="nofollow">in- structions and, in" rel="nofollow">in the process, to avoid plagiarism. ?Step 1: When you are researchin" rel="nofollow">ing a topic, keep your sources’ ideas separate from your own. Begin" rel="nofollow">in by keepin" rel="nofollow">ing a record of each source of in" rel="nofollow">information you consult. For an Internet source, record the Web site address, the author and title of the item, and the date you visited the site. For a book, record the author, title, place of publication, publisher, and date of publication. For a magazin" rel="nofollow">ine or journal article, record the author, title, the name of the publication, and its date of issue. For a TV or radio broadcast, record the program title, station, and date of transmission. ?Step 2: As you read each source, note the ideas you want to refer to in" rel="nofollow">in your writin" rel="nofollow">ing. If the author’s words are unusually clear and concise, copy them exactly and put quotation marks around them. Otherwise, paraphrase— that is, restate the author’s ideas in" rel="nofollow">in your own words. Write down the num- ber(s) of the page(s) on which the author’s passage appears. ?If the author’s idea triggers a response in" rel="nofollow">in your min" rel="nofollow">ind—such as a ques- tion, a connection between this idea and somethin" rel="nofollow">ing else you’ve read, or an experience of your own that supports or challenges what the author says—write it down and put brackets (not parentheses) around it so that ?you will be able to identify it as your own when you review your notes. Here is a sample research record illustratin" rel="nofollow">ing these two steps: Adler, Mortimer J. The Great Ideas: A Lexicon of Western Thought (New York: Macmillan, 1992) Says that throughout the ages, from ancient Greece, philosophers have argued about whether various ideas are true. Says it’s remarkable that most renowned thin" rel="nofollow">inkers have agreed about what truth is—”a correspondence between thought and reality.” 867 Also says that Freud saw this as the scientific view of truth. Quotes Freud: “This corre- spondence with the real external world we call truth. It is the aim of scien- tific work, even when the practical value of that work does not in" rel="nofollow">interest us.” 869 [I say true statements fit the facts; false statements do not.] Whenever you look back on this record, even a year from now, you will be able to tell at a glance which ideas and words are the author’s and which are yours. The first three sentences are, with the exception of the directly quoted part, paraphrases of the author’s ideas. Next is a direct quotation. The fin" rel="nofollow">inal sentence, in" rel="nofollow">in brackets, is your own idea. Step 3: When you compose your paper, work borrowed ideas and words in" rel="nofollow">into your own writin" rel="nofollow">ing by judicious use of quotin" rel="nofollow">ing and paraphras- in" rel="nofollow">ing. In addition, give credit to the various authors. Your goal here is to elimin" rel="nofollow">inate all doubt about which ideas and words belong to whom. In for- mal presentations, this creditin" rel="nofollow">ing is done in" rel="nofollow">in footnotes; in" rel="nofollow">in in" rel="nofollow">informal ones, it is done simply by mentionin" rel="nofollow">ing the author’s name. Here is an example of how the material from Mortimer Adler might be worked in" rel="nofollow">into a composition. (Note the form that is used for the footnote.) The second paragraph illustrates how your own idea might be expanded: Mortimer J. Adler explain" rel="nofollow">ins that throughout the ages, from the time of the ancient Greeks, philosophers have argued about whether various ideas are true. But to Adler the remarkable thin" rel="nofollow">ing is that, even as they argued, most renowned thin" rel="nofollow">inkers have agreed about what truth is. They saw it as “a correspondence between thought and reality.” Adler poin" rel="nofollow">ints out that Sigmund Freud believed this was also the scientific view of truth. He quotes Freud as follows: “This correspondence with the real external world we call truth. It is the aim of scientific work, even when the practical value of that work does not in" rel="nofollow">interest us.”* This correspondence view of truth is consistent with the commonsense rule that a statement is true if it fits the facts and false if it does not. For example, the statement “The twin" rel="nofollow">in towers of New York’s World Trade Center were destroyed on September 11, 2002,” is false because they were destroyed the previous year. I may sin" rel="nofollow">incerely believe that it is true, but my believin" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">in no way affects the truth of the matter. In much the same way, if an in" rel="nofollow">innocent man is convicted of a crime, neither the court’s deci- sion nor the world’s acceptance of it will make him any less in" rel="nofollow">innocent. We may be free to thin" rel="nofollow">ink what we wish, but our thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing can’t alter reality.