critical thinking elements of reasoning

• Accessibility
• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy

FocusedThink

Elements of Reasoning within Critical Thinking

• March 11, 2024 March 25, 2024

Tired of confusing headlines and misleading ads? Critical thinking is the key…

In this article, we look at different critical thinking techniques to analyze information with confidence and avoid making snap judgments. We’ll break down the key elements – assumptions, evidence, and even hidden fallacies – that can confuse you or lead to mistakes.

Let’s begin!.

Table of Contents

The Building Blocks of Reasoning

What is reasoning.

Reasoning is the cornerstone of critical thinking. It involves gathering evidence and using logic to reach conclusions. A good example is choosing a new movie. Good reasoning considers reviews (evidence) and your preferred genre (logic) to pick the perfect film. 

Good reasoning considers multiple reviews (evidence), your preferred genre and the movie’s plot (relationships between elements) to pick a satisfying film. Bad reasoning might pick a movie just because of the actors (limited information) without considering the genre or director (ignoring connections). 

 Critical thinking is double-checking your plan (evidence) to ensure a fun movie night (sound decision)! 

Key Elements of Reasoning

Evidence, the building block of reasoning, comes in various forms. 

A news article with research from medical professionals (factual) provides a solid foundation for understanding new treatments. 

Statistical evidence adds quantitative weight to the claims. For example, a study showing 80% of patients experienced improvement with a new treatment bolsters the findings in a medical research article.” 

However, a social media post with a friend’s “miracle cure” story (anecdotal) offers just one, uncertain piece of evidence. 

Good reasoning requires a variety of reliable evidence, not just a single, extraordinary claim. Choose your evidence wisely, build a strong case for your conclusion, and avoid shaky foundations!  

Assumptions

Assumptions are silent influencers, shaping the foundation of arguments. 

They are unspoken beliefs that underpin reasoning, guiding the trajectory of conclusions. Finding these hidden assumptions is crucial for unraveling the validity of arguments.  

Ads use assumptions a lot.

A commercial showing a happy family using a product assumes you value family time, and this product enhances it (hidden assumption). To understand arguments better, question hidden messages. Ask “why?” Why is this image used? What belief is it trying to trigger? Challenge these assumptions. Consider different viewpoints. Maybe family fun doesn’t require that product! By questioning assumptions, you become a more critical thinker and avoid falling for misleading ads. 

Inferences are conclusions derived from evidence. They are like connecting the dots between evidence and conclusions. They need logical steps to make sense.

You gather clues (facts) and use logic to form an educated guess. Strong inferences involve clear steps:

• Evidence: What information is given?
• Reasoning: How does this suggest something else?
• Conclusion: What can you logically decide?

For instance, if it’s raining heavily and you see dark puddles everywhere, you can infer the ground is wet (evidence: rain, puddles).

Faulty Inferences: Not all inferences are perfect. Imagine a headline: “Local library overstocked with mysteries! Crime on the rise?” This leaps from book selection to a crime wave, ignoring other possibilities (popular genre, bulk purchase). Careful analysis of evidence is key to forming solid inferences.

Conclusions

Conclusions are the final answers we reach after piecing together evidence. Think of it like solving a puzzle. Strong evidence acts like the right puzzle pieces, leading to a clear picture. For instance, if a plant wither(evidence) and the soil is dry (more evidence), we can conclude it needs water (conclusion).

Weak evidence makes shaky conclusions. A headline like “Gym Membership Soars – Everyone Must Be Getting Fit!” jumps to a conclusion (increased fitness) without solid proof (gym membership doesn’t guarantee exercise). A better conclusion, based on stronger evidence (exercise tracking data), might be: “Fitness App Downloads Rise Alongside Gym Memberships.” Remember, solid conclusions rely on good evidence, not just assumptions.

Techniques for Evaluating Reasoning: Sharpening Your Critical Thinking Skills 

Unmasking hidden assumptions.

An assumption is an unstated belief or premise that is accepted without explicit evidence. They serve as the foundation for arguments, decisions, or reasoning but are often implicit. Spotting hidden assumptions is key to evaluating any argument.

Let’s see how this trips up companies:

Imagine “FitLife,” a fitness tracker company, launches a high-end watch with advanced calorie tracking and workout suggestions. They assume busy professionals, their target audience, crave detailed data and personalized routines. However, launch sales flop. Why? FitLife overlooked an assumption: busy professionals might prioritize convenience over in-depth tracking. A simpler band for basic activity monitoring might have resonated better.

Sharpen your critical thinking by uncovering hidden assumptions in marketing strategies. These assumptions can sink a product launch! Here’s your critical thinking toolkit:

• Question the “Why”: Why is this product designed this way? Who is the ideal user, and what are their unstated needs ?
• Consider Opposites: What if the opposite of the assumed preference is true? For example, if a fitness tracker touts in-depth data analysis, would someone actually prefer a simpler model?
• Seek Diverse Perspectives: Talk to people outside the target audience. Do their needs align with the assumptions?

By actively questioning and analyzing, you become a more informed consumer. These skills also empower you to find faulty logic in everyday arguments, avoiding manipulation and promoting sound decision-making.

Evaluating Evidence:

Don’t be fooled by flashy marketing! Develop skills to assess evidence used to support claims. Here’s your toolkit:

• Source Check: Who is presenting the information? Are they a reputable organization or someone with a stake in the outcome?
• Bias Removing: Is the evidence presented fairly? Look for language that slants the message (e.g., “most doctors recommend” vs. “studies show”).
• Stat Examination: Statistics can be misleading! Check sample sizes and how data is presented. A cereal ad might boast “40% more fiber!” But if the baseline serving is tiny, the actual increase might be insignificant.
• Get the Full Picture: Don’t fall for data taken out of context. Always consider the broader situation. (e.g., “Don’t judge job numbers without looking at the bigger economic picture—see if it’s part of a larger trend…”
• Fact-Check: Use fact-checking websites to confirm if what you’re hearing is true.
• Ask the Experts: See if experts in the field agree with the information.
• Stick to Reliable Sources: Prefer info from trusted places, like well-known journals or established publications.
• Double-Check: Confirm details with multiple reliable sources for more certainty.

Real-world example :

A juice brand highlights a study showing their product has “twice the antioxidants” of competitor X. But the fine print reveals the study compared their large serving to competitor’s small one. Scrutinize evidence to be a smarter consumer and avoid falling victim to marketing manipulation.

Addressing Common Fallacies

A fallacy is a mistake in thinking or reasoning. It’s like a trap that can make an argument seem good even when it’s not. Fallacies often happen when there are errors in logic, misleading information, or an attempt to play with emotions instead of using solid reasoning.

• Ad Hominem: Attacking the person, not the argument. Example: “You can’t trust their opinion on the matter; they’re always changing their mind.”
• Appeal to Emotion: Using feelings instead of logic. Example: “Support this cause; think of the children suffering without your help.”
• Appeal to Authority: Relying on a person or institution, not evidence. Example: “Believe in this product because a celebrity said it’s amazing.”
• Begging the Question: Assuming what you’re trying to prove. Example: “The policy is good because it’s the right choice for us.”
• Circular Reasoning: Using the conclusion to support itself. Example: “He’s the best candidate because he’s the most qualified, which is why he’s the best.”
• False Analogy: Comparing unrelated things. Example: “A good politician is like a good coach – they need to be tough and yell to get results.” (Leadership styles in politics and sports can differ greatly).
• False Dichotomy: Presenting only two options when more exist. Example: “Either agree with this plan, or you’re against progress.”
• Hasty Generalization: Drawing a broad conclusion from limited data. Example: “I met one rude person from that city, so everyone there must be rude.”
• Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: Assuming causation because of chronological order. Example: “I wore my lucky socks, and we won the game, so the socks brought luck.”
• Straw Man: Misrepresenting an opponent’s argument. Example: “They want to cut education funding entirely, leaving our kids with nothing.”
• Slippery Slope: Predicting a chain of undesirable events. Example: “Allowing a small tax increase will lead to economic disaster.

Putting it into Practice: Applying Critical Thinking in Daily Life

Real-world scenarios:.

Turn yourself into a critical thinking detective! Here’s how to dissect arguments you encounter daily:

1. News Article: A headline loudly declares: “Coffee Drinkers Live Longer – New Research!” Apply Techniques : Look deeper. Does the study control for other factors like overall lifestyle? A correlation (coffee drinking, longer life) doesn’t guarantee coffee itself makes you live longer.

2. Online Review: A harsh review of a new movie reads: “The acting was awful, and the plot made no sense! Worst movie ever!” Apply Techniques: Find hidden assumptions. Does the reviewer dislike this specific genre? Are there any positive aspects of the movie mentioned?

3. Social Media Post: A friend enthusiastically shares a meme: “This politician is the only one who can save the country!” Apply Techniques: Check for fallacies. Is this an Appeal to Authority (celebrity endorsement) or a Straw Man (misrepresenting an opponent’s views)? Research the politician’s policies for a more informed decision .

4. Conversation with a Friend: This new restaurant is amazing! Everyone’s been raving about it.” Apply Techniques: Is this Appeal to the People (popularity)? Ask your friend about specifics: food, service, price. Their taste might differ from yours. Don’t blindly follow trends, decide based on your own preferences.

By actively analyzing evidence, assumptions, and potential fallacies, you become a more discerning thinker. You’ll be able to navigate arguments with confidence, avoiding manipulation and making well-informed choices in any situation.

Developing a Critical Thinking Habit : 

Sharpen Your Thinking: Everyday Critical Thinking Hacks  

Turn critical thinking into a superpower! Here are simple strategies to integrate these techniques into your daily life:

1. The “5W Method”: Before accepting information at face value, ask yourself the “who, what, when, where, and why” behind any claim.

• Who is presenting the information? Are they credible?
• What evidence supports the claim? Is it strong or anecdotal?
• When was this information published? Is it outdated?
• Where did you find this information? Is it a reliable source?
• Why might someone be making this claim? Is there a bias?

2. Challenge Assumptions: Don’t take things at face value. Ask yourself: “What is being left unsaid?” Consider alternative perspectives.

3. Beware of Fallacies: Learn to recognize common fallacies like bandwagon appeals (everyone’s doing it) or hasty generalizations (one bad experience doesn’t define everything).

User Stories

Saving smarter.

Mark, a recent college graduate, was bombarded with credit card offers promising low introductory rates and “free” rewards. He felt pressured to sign up, but something felt off.  Remembering his lessons on critical thinking, Mark applied the 5W method. He researched the “low” interest rates – how long did they last? He scrutinized the reward programs – were the points valuable or difficult to redeem? He questioned the hidden fees and potential debt traps.

By deconstructing the flashy marketing with critical thinking skills, Mark avoided impulsive decisions. He chose a credit card with a transparent fee structure and a rewards program that aligned with his spending habits. Mark learned that critical thinking empowers him to make informed financial decisions, saving him money and avoiding unnecessary debt.

Between Two Offers

Sarah thinks carefully about two job offers. She considers her goals and avoids sticking only to her first thoughts by asking others for their opinions. Sarah also looks at different options, like negotiating or finding entirely new opportunities, staying open-minded. She thinks about possible challenges, making sure her decision matches her goals and is not influenced by biases.

Financial Goals

Maria thinks critically about her financial goals. She looks closely at possible thinking mistakes, like confirmation bias (preferring information that agrees with what she already believes) and hasty generalizations in other investment options. Maria uses evidence and careful decision-making to guide her wealth strategy, avoiding these pitfalls.

By incorporating these techniques, you too can become a more informed and empowered thinker, navigating the world with a healthy dose of skepticism and a thirst for truth.

Benefits of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking isn’t just about dissecting arguments; it’s about empowering yourself! Here’s how these skills transform your life:

1. Better Decision-Making: Critical thinking helps you make smarter decisions, like avoiding scams or choosing good investments, by teaching you how to analyze information effectively.

2. Improved Communication: Critical thinking sharpens your communication edge. By understanding reasoning patterns, you can identify logical fallacies in others’ arguments and build stronger ones yourself. You’ll learn to express your ideas clearly and concisely, considering different perspectives. Renowned thinker Richard Paul emphasizes that clear communication is vital for success.

3. Reduced Bias . Critical thinking enables you to spot your own biases and those present in information you come across, promoting a more fair and balanced approach. 

According to psychologist, Daniel Kahneman we often overestimate our understanding and underestimate chance. In simpler terms, critical thinking empowers you to think clearly, make better choices, and see through biases for a more informed and balanced life.

Final Thoughts

So, what are the elements of reasoning within critical thinking, the cornerstone of sound decision-making. They involve questioning assumptions, analyzing evidence, and avoiding thinking pitfalls like biases and fallacies. 

Embrace this mindset to navigate life’s complexities, making informed choices in all areas of your life, like entertainment and personal finance. 

This skill sharpens decision-making and communication , promoting a fair and balanced approach.   Cultivating critical thinking equips you to precisely analyze arguments from various points of view, pose questions that sharpen your focus , and challenge assumptions.

Let critical thinking be your guiding light, empowering every decision to align with your goals. Take charge, question, analyze, and transform your life through the lens of critical thinking!

Khan Academy: Reasoning

Was this helpful.

Unstable Decision Making

Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Tools & Concepts

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a widely accepted educational goal. Its definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. Conceptions differ with respect to the scope of such thinking, the type of goal, the criteria and norms for thinking carefully, and the thinking components on which they focus. Its adoption as an educational goal has been recommended on the basis of respect for students’ autonomy and preparing students for success in life and for democratic citizenship. “Critical thinkers” have the dispositions and abilities that lead them to think critically when appropriate. The abilities can be identified directly; the dispositions indirectly, by considering what factors contribute to or impede exercise of the abilities. Standardized tests have been developed to assess the degree to which a person possesses such dispositions and abilities. Educational intervention has been shown experimentally to improve them, particularly when it includes dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring. Controversies have arisen over the generalizability of critical thinking across domains, over alleged bias in critical thinking theories and instruction, and over the relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking.

2.1 Dewey’s Three Main Examples

2.2 dewey’s other examples, 2.3 further examples, 2.4 non-examples, 3. the definition of critical thinking, 4. its value, 5. the process of thinking critically, 6. components of the process, 7. contributory dispositions and abilities, 8.1 initiating dispositions, 8.2 internal dispositions, 9. critical thinking abilities, 10. required knowledge, 11. educational methods, 12.1 the generalizability of critical thinking, 12.2 bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, 12.3 relationship of critical thinking to other types of thinking, other internet resources, related entries.

Use of the term ‘critical thinking’ to describe an educational goal goes back to the American philosopher John Dewey (1910), who more commonly called it ‘reflective thinking’. He defined it as

active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends. (Dewey 1910: 6; 1933: 9)

and identified a habit of such consideration with a scientific attitude of mind. His lengthy quotations of Francis Bacon, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill indicate that he was not the first person to propose development of a scientific attitude of mind as an educational goal.

In the 1930s, many of the schools that participated in the Eight-Year Study of the Progressive Education Association (Aikin 1942) adopted critical thinking as an educational goal, for whose achievement the study’s Evaluation Staff developed tests (Smith, Tyler, & Evaluation Staff 1942). Glaser (1941) showed experimentally that it was possible to improve the critical thinking of high school students. Bloom’s influential taxonomy of cognitive educational objectives (Bloom et al. 1956) incorporated critical thinking abilities. Ennis (1962) proposed 12 aspects of critical thinking as a basis for research on the teaching and evaluation of critical thinking ability.

Since 1980, an annual international conference in California on critical thinking and educational reform has attracted tens of thousands of educators from all levels of education and from many parts of the world. Also since 1980, the state university system in California has required all undergraduate students to take a critical thinking course. Since 1983, the Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking has sponsored sessions in conjunction with the divisional meetings of the American Philosophical Association (APA). In 1987, the APA’s Committee on Pre-College Philosophy commissioned a consensus statement on critical thinking for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (Facione 1990a). Researchers have developed standardized tests of critical thinking abilities and dispositions; for details, see the Supplement on Assessment . Educational jurisdictions around the world now include critical thinking in guidelines for curriculum and assessment.

For details on this history, see the Supplement on History .

2. Examples and Non-Examples

Before considering the definition of critical thinking, it will be helpful to have in mind some examples of critical thinking, as well as some examples of kinds of thinking that would apparently not count as critical thinking.

Dewey (1910: 68–71; 1933: 91–94) takes as paradigms of reflective thinking three class papers of students in which they describe their thinking. The examples range from the everyday to the scientific.

Transit : “The other day, when I was down town on 16th Street, a clock caught my eye. I saw that the hands pointed to 12:20. This suggested that I had an engagement at 124th Street, at one o’clock. I reasoned that as it had taken me an hour to come down on a surface car, I should probably be twenty minutes late if I returned the same way. I might save twenty minutes by a subway express. But was there a station near? If not, I might lose more than twenty minutes in looking for one. Then I thought of the elevated, and I saw there was such a line within two blocks. But where was the station? If it were several blocks above or below the street I was on, I should lose time instead of gaining it. My mind went back to the subway express as quicker than the elevated; furthermore, I remembered that it went nearer than the elevated to the part of 124th Street I wished to reach, so that time would be saved at the end of the journey. I concluded in favor of the subway, and reached my destination by one o’clock.” (Dewey 1910: 68–69; 1933: 91–92)

Ferryboat : “Projecting nearly horizontally from the upper deck of the ferryboat on which I daily cross the river is a long white pole, having a gilded ball at its tip. It suggested a flagpole when I first saw it; its color, shape, and gilded ball agreed with this idea, and these reasons seemed to justify me in this belief. But soon difficulties presented themselves. The pole was nearly horizontal, an unusual position for a flagpole; in the next place, there was no pulley, ring, or cord by which to attach a flag; finally, there were elsewhere on the boat two vertical staffs from which flags were occasionally flown. It seemed probable that the pole was not there for flag-flying.

“I then tried to imagine all possible purposes of the pole, and to consider for which of these it was best suited: (a) Possibly it was an ornament. But as all the ferryboats and even the tugboats carried poles, this hypothesis was rejected. (b) Possibly it was the terminal of a wireless telegraph. But the same considerations made this improbable. Besides, the more natural place for such a terminal would be the highest part of the boat, on top of the pilot house. (c) Its purpose might be to point out the direction in which the boat is moving.

“In support of this conclusion, I discovered that the pole was lower than the pilot house, so that the steersman could easily see it. Moreover, the tip was enough higher than the base, so that, from the pilot’s position, it must appear to project far out in front of the boat. Moreover, the pilot being near the front of the boat, he would need some such guide as to its direction. Tugboats would also need poles for such a purpose. This hypothesis was so much more probable than the others that I accepted it. I formed the conclusion that the pole was set up for the purpose of showing the pilot the direction in which the boat pointed, to enable him to steer correctly.” (Dewey 1910: 69–70; 1933: 92–93)

Bubbles : “In washing tumblers in hot soapsuds and placing them mouth downward on a plate, bubbles appeared on the outside of the mouth of the tumblers and then went inside. Why? The presence of bubbles suggests air, which I note must come from inside the tumbler. I see that the soapy water on the plate prevents escape of the air save as it may be caught in bubbles. But why should air leave the tumbler? There was no substance entering to force it out. It must have expanded. It expands by increase of heat, or by decrease of pressure, or both. Could the air have become heated after the tumbler was taken from the hot suds? Clearly not the air that was already entangled in the water. If heated air was the cause, cold air must have entered in transferring the tumblers from the suds to the plate. I test to see if this supposition is true by taking several more tumblers out. Some I shake so as to make sure of entrapping cold air in them. Some I take out holding mouth downward in order to prevent cold air from entering. Bubbles appear on the outside of every one of the former and on none of the latter. I must be right in my inference. Air from the outside must have been expanded by the heat of the tumbler, which explains the appearance of the bubbles on the outside. But why do they then go inside? Cold contracts. The tumbler cooled and also the air inside it. Tension was removed, and hence bubbles appeared inside. To be sure of this, I test by placing a cup of ice on the tumbler while the bubbles are still forming outside. They soon reverse” (Dewey 1910: 70–71; 1933: 93–94).

Dewey (1910, 1933) sprinkles his book with other examples of critical thinking. We will refer to the following.

Weather : A man on a walk notices that it has suddenly become cool, thinks that it is probably going to rain, looks up and sees a dark cloud obscuring the sun, and quickens his steps (1910: 6–10; 1933: 9–13).

Disorder : A man finds his rooms on his return to them in disorder with his belongings thrown about, thinks at first of burglary as an explanation, then thinks of mischievous children as being an alternative explanation, then looks to see whether valuables are missing, and discovers that they are (1910: 82–83; 1933: 166–168).

Typhoid : A physician diagnosing a patient whose conspicuous symptoms suggest typhoid avoids drawing a conclusion until more data are gathered by questioning the patient and by making tests (1910: 85–86; 1933: 170).

Blur : A moving blur catches our eye in the distance, we ask ourselves whether it is a cloud of whirling dust or a tree moving its branches or a man signaling to us, we think of other traits that should be found on each of those possibilities, and we look and see if those traits are found (1910: 102, 108; 1933: 121, 133).

Suction pump : In thinking about the suction pump, the scientist first notes that it will draw water only to a maximum height of 33 feet at sea level and to a lesser maximum height at higher elevations, selects for attention the differing atmospheric pressure at these elevations, sets up experiments in which the air is removed from a vessel containing water (when suction no longer works) and in which the weight of air at various levels is calculated, compares the results of reasoning about the height to which a given weight of air will allow a suction pump to raise water with the observed maximum height at different elevations, and finally assimilates the suction pump to such apparently different phenomena as the siphon and the rising of a balloon (1910: 150–153; 1933: 195–198).

Diamond : A passenger in a car driving in a diamond lane reserved for vehicles with at least one passenger notices that the diamond marks on the pavement are far apart in some places and close together in others. Why? The driver suggests that the reason may be that the diamond marks are not needed where there is a solid double line separating the diamond lane from the adjoining lane, but are needed when there is a dotted single line permitting crossing into the diamond lane. Further observation confirms that the diamonds are close together when a dotted line separates the diamond lane from its neighbour, but otherwise far apart.

Rash : A woman suddenly develops a very itchy red rash on her throat and upper chest. She recently noticed a mark on the back of her right hand, but was not sure whether the mark was a rash or a scrape. She lies down in bed and thinks about what might be causing the rash and what to do about it. About two weeks before, she began taking blood pressure medication that contained a sulfa drug, and the pharmacist had warned her, in view of a previous allergic reaction to a medication containing a sulfa drug, to be on the alert for an allergic reaction; however, she had been taking the medication for two weeks with no such effect. The day before, she began using a new cream on her neck and upper chest; against the new cream as the cause was mark on the back of her hand, which had not been exposed to the cream. She began taking probiotics about a month before. She also recently started new eye drops, but she supposed that manufacturers of eye drops would be careful not to include allergy-causing components in the medication. The rash might be a heat rash, since she recently was sweating profusely from her upper body. Since she is about to go away on a short vacation, where she would not have access to her usual physician, she decides to keep taking the probiotics and using the new eye drops but to discontinue the blood pressure medication and to switch back to the old cream for her neck and upper chest. She forms a plan to consult her regular physician on her return about the blood pressure medication.

Candidate : Although Dewey included no examples of thinking directed at appraising the arguments of others, such thinking has come to be considered a kind of critical thinking. We find an example of such thinking in the performance task on the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA+), which its sponsoring organization describes as

a performance-based assessment that provides a measure of an institution’s contribution to the development of critical-thinking and written communication skills of its students. (Council for Aid to Education 2017)

A sample task posted on its website requires the test-taker to write a report for public distribution evaluating a fictional candidate’s policy proposals and their supporting arguments, using supplied background documents, with a recommendation on whether to endorse the candidate.

Immediate acceptance of an idea that suggests itself as a solution to a problem (e.g., a possible explanation of an event or phenomenon, an action that seems likely to produce a desired result) is “uncritical thinking, the minimum of reflection” (Dewey 1910: 13). On-going suspension of judgment in the light of doubt about a possible solution is not critical thinking (Dewey 1910: 108). Critique driven by a dogmatically held political or religious ideology is not critical thinking; thus Paulo Freire (1968 [1970]) is using the term (e.g., at 1970: 71, 81, 100, 146) in a more politically freighted sense that includes not only reflection but also revolutionary action against oppression. Derivation of a conclusion from given data using an algorithm is not critical thinking.

What is critical thinking? There are many definitions. Ennis (2016) lists 14 philosophically oriented scholarly definitions and three dictionary definitions. Following Rawls (1971), who distinguished his conception of justice from a utilitarian conception but regarded them as rival conceptions of the same concept, Ennis maintains that the 17 definitions are different conceptions of the same concept. Rawls articulated the shared concept of justice as

a characteristic set of principles for assigning basic rights and duties and for determining… the proper distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation. (Rawls 1971: 5)

Bailin et al. (1999b) claim that, if one considers what sorts of thinking an educator would take not to be critical thinking and what sorts to be critical thinking, one can conclude that educators typically understand critical thinking to have at least three features.

• It is done for the purpose of making up one’s mind about what to believe or do.
• The person engaging in the thinking is trying to fulfill standards of adequacy and accuracy appropriate to the thinking.
• The thinking fulfills the relevant standards to some threshold level.

One could sum up the core concept that involves these three features by saying that critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking. This core concept seems to apply to all the examples of critical thinking described in the previous section. As for the non-examples, their exclusion depends on construing careful thinking as excluding jumping immediately to conclusions, suspending judgment no matter how strong the evidence, reasoning from an unquestioned ideological or religious perspective, and routinely using an algorithm to answer a question.

If the core of critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking, conceptions of it can vary according to its presumed scope, its presumed goal, one’s criteria and threshold for being careful, and the thinking component on which one focuses. As to its scope, some conceptions (e.g., Dewey 1910, 1933) restrict it to constructive thinking on the basis of one’s own observations and experiments, others (e.g., Ennis 1962; Fisher & Scriven 1997; Johnson 1992) to appraisal of the products of such thinking. Ennis (1991) and Bailin et al. (1999b) take it to cover both construction and appraisal. As to its goal, some conceptions restrict it to forming a judgment (Dewey 1910, 1933; Lipman 1987; Facione 1990a). Others allow for actions as well as beliefs as the end point of a process of critical thinking (Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b). As to the criteria and threshold for being careful, definitions vary in the term used to indicate that critical thinking satisfies certain norms: “intellectually disciplined” (Scriven & Paul 1987), “reasonable” (Ennis 1991), “skillful” (Lipman 1987), “skilled” (Fisher & Scriven 1997), “careful” (Bailin & Battersby 2009). Some definitions specify these norms, referring variously to “consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (Dewey 1910, 1933); “the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning” (Glaser 1941); “conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication” (Scriven & Paul 1987); the requirement that “it is sensitive to context, relies on criteria, and is self-correcting” (Lipman 1987); “evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations” (Facione 1990a); and “plus-minus considerations of the product in terms of appropriate standards (or criteria)” (Johnson 1992). Stanovich and Stanovich (2010) propose to ground the concept of critical thinking in the concept of rationality, which they understand as combining epistemic rationality (fitting one’s beliefs to the world) and instrumental rationality (optimizing goal fulfillment); a critical thinker, in their view, is someone with “a propensity to override suboptimal responses from the autonomous mind” (2010: 227). These variant specifications of norms for critical thinking are not necessarily incompatible with one another, and in any case presuppose the core notion of thinking carefully. As to the thinking component singled out, some definitions focus on suspension of judgment during the thinking (Dewey 1910; McPeck 1981), others on inquiry while judgment is suspended (Bailin & Battersby 2009, 2021), others on the resulting judgment (Facione 1990a), and still others on responsiveness to reasons (Siegel 1988). Kuhn (2019) takes critical thinking to be more a dialogic practice of advancing and responding to arguments than an individual ability.

In educational contexts, a definition of critical thinking is a “programmatic definition” (Scheffler 1960: 19). It expresses a practical program for achieving an educational goal. For this purpose, a one-sentence formulaic definition is much less useful than articulation of a critical thinking process, with criteria and standards for the kinds of thinking that the process may involve. The real educational goal is recognition, adoption and implementation by students of those criteria and standards. That adoption and implementation in turn consists in acquiring the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker.

Conceptions of critical thinking generally do not include moral integrity as part of the concept. Dewey, for example, took critical thinking to be the ultimate intellectual goal of education, but distinguished it from the development of social cooperation among school children, which he took to be the central moral goal. Ennis (1996, 2011) added to his previous list of critical thinking dispositions a group of dispositions to care about the dignity and worth of every person, which he described as a “correlative” (1996) disposition without which critical thinking would be less valuable and perhaps harmful. An educational program that aimed at developing critical thinking but not the correlative disposition to care about the dignity and worth of every person, he asserted, “would be deficient and perhaps dangerous” (Ennis 1996: 172).

Dewey thought that education for reflective thinking would be of value to both the individual and society; recognition in educational practice of the kinship to the scientific attitude of children’s native curiosity, fertile imagination and love of experimental inquiry “would make for individual happiness and the reduction of social waste” (Dewey 1910: iii). Schools participating in the Eight-Year Study took development of the habit of reflective thinking and skill in solving problems as a means to leading young people to understand, appreciate and live the democratic way of life characteristic of the United States (Aikin 1942: 17–18, 81). Harvey Siegel (1988: 55–61) has offered four considerations in support of adopting critical thinking as an educational ideal. (1) Respect for persons requires that schools and teachers honour students’ demands for reasons and explanations, deal with students honestly, and recognize the need to confront students’ independent judgment; these requirements concern the manner in which teachers treat students. (2) Education has the task of preparing children to be successful adults, a task that requires development of their self-sufficiency. (3) Education should initiate children into the rational traditions in such fields as history, science and mathematics. (4) Education should prepare children to become democratic citizens, which requires reasoned procedures and critical talents and attitudes. To supplement these considerations, Siegel (1988: 62–90) responds to two objections: the ideology objection that adoption of any educational ideal requires a prior ideological commitment and the indoctrination objection that cultivation of critical thinking cannot escape being a form of indoctrination.

Despite the diversity of our 11 examples, one can recognize a common pattern. Dewey analyzed it as consisting of five phases:

• suggestions , in which the mind leaps forward to a possible solution;
• an intellectualization of the difficulty or perplexity into a problem to be solved, a question for which the answer must be sought;
• the use of one suggestion after another as a leading idea, or hypothesis , to initiate and guide observation and other operations in collection of factual material;
• the mental elaboration of the idea or supposition as an idea or supposition ( reasoning , in the sense on which reasoning is a part, not the whole, of inference); and
• testing the hypothesis by overt or imaginative action. (Dewey 1933: 106–107; italics in original)

The process of reflective thinking consisting of these phases would be preceded by a perplexed, troubled or confused situation and followed by a cleared-up, unified, resolved situation (Dewey 1933: 106). The term ‘phases’ replaced the term ‘steps’ (Dewey 1910: 72), thus removing the earlier suggestion of an invariant sequence. Variants of the above analysis appeared in (Dewey 1916: 177) and (Dewey 1938: 101–119).

The variant formulations indicate the difficulty of giving a single logical analysis of such a varied process. The process of critical thinking may have a spiral pattern, with the problem being redefined in the light of obstacles to solving it as originally formulated. For example, the person in Transit might have concluded that getting to the appointment at the scheduled time was impossible and have reformulated the problem as that of rescheduling the appointment for a mutually convenient time. Further, defining a problem does not always follow after or lead immediately to an idea of a suggested solution. Nor should it do so, as Dewey himself recognized in describing the physician in Typhoid as avoiding any strong preference for this or that conclusion before getting further information (Dewey 1910: 85; 1933: 170). People with a hypothesis in mind, even one to which they have a very weak commitment, have a so-called “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998): they are likely to pay attention to evidence that confirms the hypothesis and to ignore evidence that counts against it or for some competing hypothesis. Detectives, intelligence agencies, and investigators of airplane accidents are well advised to gather relevant evidence systematically and to postpone even tentative adoption of an explanatory hypothesis until the collected evidence rules out with the appropriate degree of certainty all but one explanation. Dewey’s analysis of the critical thinking process can be faulted as well for requiring acceptance or rejection of a possible solution to a defined problem, with no allowance for deciding in the light of the available evidence to suspend judgment. Further, given the great variety of kinds of problems for which reflection is appropriate, there is likely to be variation in its component events. Perhaps the best way to conceptualize the critical thinking process is as a checklist whose component events can occur in a variety of orders, selectively, and more than once. These component events might include (1) noticing a difficulty, (2) defining the problem, (3) dividing the problem into manageable sub-problems, (4) formulating a variety of possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (5) determining what evidence is relevant to deciding among possible solutions to the problem or sub-problem, (6) devising a plan of systematic observation or experiment that will uncover the relevant evidence, (7) carrying out the plan of systematic observation or experimentation, (8) noting the results of the systematic observation or experiment, (9) gathering relevant testimony and information from others, (10) judging the credibility of testimony and information gathered from others, (11) drawing conclusions from gathered evidence and accepted testimony, and (12) accepting a solution that the evidence adequately supports (cf. Hitchcock 2017: 485).

Checklist conceptions of the process of critical thinking are open to the objection that they are too mechanical and procedural to fit the multi-dimensional and emotionally charged issues for which critical thinking is urgently needed (Paul 1984). For such issues, a more dialectical process is advocated, in which competing relevant world views are identified, their implications explored, and some sort of creative synthesis attempted.

If one considers the critical thinking process illustrated by the 11 examples, one can identify distinct kinds of mental acts and mental states that form part of it. To distinguish, label and briefly characterize these components is a useful preliminary to identifying abilities, skills, dispositions, attitudes, habits and the like that contribute causally to thinking critically. Identifying such abilities and habits is in turn a useful preliminary to setting educational goals. Setting the goals is in its turn a useful preliminary to designing strategies for helping learners to achieve the goals and to designing ways of measuring the extent to which learners have done so. Such measures provide both feedback to learners on their achievement and a basis for experimental research on the effectiveness of various strategies for educating people to think critically. Let us begin, then, by distinguishing the kinds of mental acts and mental events that can occur in a critical thinking process.

• Observing : One notices something in one’s immediate environment (sudden cooling of temperature in Weather , bubbles forming outside a glass and then going inside in Bubbles , a moving blur in the distance in Blur , a rash in Rash ). Or one notes the results of an experiment or systematic observation (valuables missing in Disorder , no suction without air pressure in Suction pump )
• Feeling : One feels puzzled or uncertain about something (how to get to an appointment on time in Transit , why the diamonds vary in spacing in Diamond ). One wants to resolve this perplexity. One feels satisfaction once one has worked out an answer (to take the subway express in Transit , diamonds closer when needed as a warning in Diamond ).
• Wondering : One formulates a question to be addressed (why bubbles form outside a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , how suction pumps work in Suction pump , what caused the rash in Rash ).
• Imagining : One thinks of possible answers (bus or subway or elevated in Transit , flagpole or ornament or wireless communication aid or direction indicator in Ferryboat , allergic reaction or heat rash in Rash ).
• Inferring : One works out what would be the case if a possible answer were assumed (valuables missing if there has been a burglary in Disorder , earlier start to the rash if it is an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug in Rash ). Or one draws a conclusion once sufficient relevant evidence is gathered (take the subway in Transit , burglary in Disorder , discontinue blood pressure medication and new cream in Rash ).
• Knowledge : One uses stored knowledge of the subject-matter to generate possible answers or to infer what would be expected on the assumption of a particular answer (knowledge of a city’s public transit system in Transit , of the requirements for a flagpole in Ferryboat , of Boyle’s law in Bubbles , of allergic reactions in Rash ).
• Experimenting : One designs and carries out an experiment or a systematic observation to find out whether the results deduced from a possible answer will occur (looking at the location of the flagpole in relation to the pilot’s position in Ferryboat , putting an ice cube on top of a tumbler taken from hot water in Bubbles , measuring the height to which a suction pump will draw water at different elevations in Suction pump , noticing the spacing of diamonds when movement to or from a diamond lane is allowed in Diamond ).
• Consulting : One finds a source of information, gets the information from the source, and makes a judgment on whether to accept it. None of our 11 examples include searching for sources of information. In this respect they are unrepresentative, since most people nowadays have almost instant access to information relevant to answering any question, including many of those illustrated by the examples. However, Candidate includes the activities of extracting information from sources and evaluating its credibility.
• Identifying and analyzing arguments : One notices an argument and works out its structure and content as a preliminary to evaluating its strength. This activity is central to Candidate . It is an important part of a critical thinking process in which one surveys arguments for various positions on an issue.
• Judging : One makes a judgment on the basis of accumulated evidence and reasoning, such as the judgment in Ferryboat that the purpose of the pole is to provide direction to the pilot.
• Deciding : One makes a decision on what to do or on what policy to adopt, as in the decision in Transit to take the subway.

By definition, a person who does something voluntarily is both willing and able to do that thing at that time. Both the willingness and the ability contribute causally to the person’s action, in the sense that the voluntary action would not occur if either (or both) of these were lacking. For example, suppose that one is standing with one’s arms at one’s sides and one voluntarily lifts one’s right arm to an extended horizontal position. One would not do so if one were unable to lift one’s arm, if for example one’s right side was paralyzed as the result of a stroke. Nor would one do so if one were unwilling to lift one’s arm, if for example one were participating in a street demonstration at which a white supremacist was urging the crowd to lift their right arm in a Nazi salute and one were unwilling to express support in this way for the racist Nazi ideology. The same analysis applies to a voluntary mental process of thinking critically. It requires both willingness and ability to think critically, including willingness and ability to perform each of the mental acts that compose the process and to coordinate those acts in a sequence that is directed at resolving the initiating perplexity.

Consider willingness first. We can identify causal contributors to willingness to think critically by considering factors that would cause a person who was able to think critically about an issue nevertheless not to do so (Hamby 2014). For each factor, the opposite condition thus contributes causally to willingness to think critically on a particular occasion. For example, people who habitually jump to conclusions without considering alternatives will not think critically about issues that arise, even if they have the required abilities. The contrary condition of willingness to suspend judgment is thus a causal contributor to thinking critically.

Now consider ability. In contrast to the ability to move one’s arm, which can be completely absent because a stroke has left the arm paralyzed, the ability to think critically is a developed ability, whose absence is not a complete absence of ability to think but absence of ability to think well. We can identify the ability to think well directly, in terms of the norms and standards for good thinking. In general, to be able do well the thinking activities that can be components of a critical thinking process, one needs to know the concepts and principles that characterize their good performance, to recognize in particular cases that the concepts and principles apply, and to apply them. The knowledge, recognition and application may be procedural rather than declarative. It may be domain-specific rather than widely applicable, and in either case may need subject-matter knowledge, sometimes of a deep kind.

Reflections of the sort illustrated by the previous two paragraphs have led scholars to identify the knowledge, abilities and dispositions of a “critical thinker”, i.e., someone who thinks critically whenever it is appropriate to do so. We turn now to these three types of causal contributors to thinking critically. We start with dispositions, since arguably these are the most powerful contributors to being a critical thinker, can be fostered at an early stage of a child’s development, and are susceptible to general improvement (Glaser 1941: 175)

8. Critical Thinking Dispositions

Educational researchers use the term ‘dispositions’ broadly for the habits of mind and attitudes that contribute causally to being a critical thinker. Some writers (e.g., Paul & Elder 2006; Hamby 2014; Bailin & Battersby 2016a) propose to use the term ‘virtues’ for this dimension of a critical thinker. The virtues in question, although they are virtues of character, concern the person’s ways of thinking rather than the person’s ways of behaving towards others. They are not moral virtues but intellectual virtues, of the sort articulated by Zagzebski (1996) and discussed by Turri, Alfano, and Greco (2017).

On a realistic conception, thinking dispositions or intellectual virtues are real properties of thinkers. They are general tendencies, propensities, or inclinations to think in particular ways in particular circumstances, and can be genuinely explanatory (Siegel 1999). Sceptics argue that there is no evidence for a specific mental basis for the habits of mind that contribute to thinking critically, and that it is pedagogically misleading to posit such a basis (Bailin et al. 1999a). Whatever their status, critical thinking dispositions need motivation for their initial formation in a child—motivation that may be external or internal. As children develop, the force of habit will gradually become important in sustaining the disposition (Nieto & Valenzuela 2012). Mere force of habit, however, is unlikely to sustain critical thinking dispositions. Critical thinkers must value and enjoy using their knowledge and abilities to think things through for themselves. They must be committed to, and lovers of, inquiry.

A person may have a critical thinking disposition with respect to only some kinds of issues. For example, one could be open-minded about scientific issues but not about religious issues. Similarly, one could be confident in one’s ability to reason about the theological implications of the existence of evil in the world but not in one’s ability to reason about the best design for a guided ballistic missile.

Facione (1990a: 25) divides “affective dispositions” of critical thinking into approaches to life and living in general and approaches to specific issues, questions or problems. Adapting this distinction, one can usefully divide critical thinking dispositions into initiating dispositions (those that contribute causally to starting to think critically about an issue) and internal dispositions (those that contribute causally to doing a good job of thinking critically once one has started). The two categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, open-mindedness, in the sense of willingness to consider alternative points of view to one’s own, is both an initiating and an internal disposition.

Using the strategy of considering factors that would block people with the ability to think critically from doing so, we can identify as initiating dispositions for thinking critically attentiveness, a habit of inquiry, self-confidence, courage, open-mindedness, willingness to suspend judgment, trust in reason, wanting evidence for one’s beliefs, and seeking the truth. We consider briefly what each of these dispositions amounts to, in each case citing sources that acknowledge them.

• Attentiveness : One will not think critically if one fails to recognize an issue that needs to be thought through. For example, the pedestrian in Weather would not have looked up if he had not noticed that the air was suddenly cooler. To be a critical thinker, then, one needs to be habitually attentive to one’s surroundings, noticing not only what one senses but also sources of perplexity in messages received and in one’s own beliefs and attitudes (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
• Habit of inquiry : Inquiry is effortful, and one needs an internal push to engage in it. For example, the student in Bubbles could easily have stopped at idle wondering about the cause of the bubbles rather than reasoning to a hypothesis, then designing and executing an experiment to test it. Thus willingness to think critically needs mental energy and initiative. What can supply that energy? Love of inquiry, or perhaps just a habit of inquiry. Hamby (2015) has argued that willingness to inquire is the central critical thinking virtue, one that encompasses all the others. It is recognized as a critical thinking disposition by Dewey (1910: 29; 1933: 35), Glaser (1941: 5), Ennis (1987: 12; 1991: 8), Facione (1990a: 25), Bailin et al. (1999b: 294), Halpern (1998: 452), and Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo (2001).
• Self-confidence : Lack of confidence in one’s abilities can block critical thinking. For example, if the woman in Rash lacked confidence in her ability to figure things out for herself, she might just have assumed that the rash on her chest was the allergic reaction to her medication against which the pharmacist had warned her. Thus willingness to think critically requires confidence in one’s ability to inquire (Facione 1990a: 25; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001).
• Courage : Fear of thinking for oneself can stop one from doing it. Thus willingness to think critically requires intellectual courage (Paul & Elder 2006: 16).
• Open-mindedness : A dogmatic attitude will impede thinking critically. For example, a person who adheres rigidly to a “pro-choice” position on the issue of the legal status of induced abortion is likely to be unwilling to consider seriously the issue of when in its development an unborn child acquires a moral right to life. Thus willingness to think critically requires open-mindedness, in the sense of a willingness to examine questions to which one already accepts an answer but which further evidence or reasoning might cause one to answer differently (Dewey 1933; Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b; Halpern 1998, Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). Paul (1981) emphasizes open-mindedness about alternative world-views, and recommends a dialectical approach to integrating such views as central to what he calls “strong sense” critical thinking. In three studies, Haran, Ritov, & Mellers (2013) found that actively open-minded thinking, including “the tendency to weigh new evidence against a favored belief, to spend sufficient time on a problem before giving up, and to consider carefully the opinions of others in forming one’s own”, led study participants to acquire information and thus to make accurate estimations.
• Willingness to suspend judgment : Premature closure on an initial solution will block critical thinking. Thus willingness to think critically requires a willingness to suspend judgment while alternatives are explored (Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Halpern 1998).
• Trust in reason : Since distrust in the processes of reasoned inquiry will dissuade one from engaging in it, trust in them is an initiating critical thinking disposition (Facione 1990a, 25; Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001; Paul & Elder 2006). In reaction to an allegedly exclusive emphasis on reason in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, Thayer-Bacon (2000) argues that intuition, imagination, and emotion have important roles to play in an adequate conception of critical thinking that she calls “constructive thinking”. From her point of view, critical thinking requires trust not only in reason but also in intuition, imagination, and emotion.
• Seeking the truth : If one does not care about the truth but is content to stick with one’s initial bias on an issue, then one will not think critically about it. Seeking the truth is thus an initiating critical thinking disposition (Bailin et al. 1999b: 294; Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001). A disposition to seek the truth is implicit in more specific critical thinking dispositions, such as trying to be well-informed, considering seriously points of view other than one’s own, looking for alternatives, suspending judgment when the evidence is insufficient, and adopting a position when the evidence supporting it is sufficient.

Some of the initiating dispositions, such as open-mindedness and willingness to suspend judgment, are also internal critical thinking dispositions, in the sense of mental habits or attitudes that contribute causally to doing a good job of critical thinking once one starts the process. But there are many other internal critical thinking dispositions. Some of them are parasitic on one’s conception of good thinking. For example, it is constitutive of good thinking about an issue to formulate the issue clearly and to maintain focus on it. For this purpose, one needs not only the corresponding ability but also the corresponding disposition. Ennis (1991: 8) describes it as the disposition “to determine and maintain focus on the conclusion or question”, Facione (1990a: 25) as “clarity in stating the question or concern”. Other internal dispositions are motivators to continue or adjust the critical thinking process, such as willingness to persist in a complex task and willingness to abandon nonproductive strategies in an attempt to self-correct (Halpern 1998: 452). For a list of identified internal critical thinking dispositions, see the Supplement on Internal Critical Thinking Dispositions .

Some theorists postulate skills, i.e., acquired abilities, as operative in critical thinking. It is not obvious, however, that a good mental act is the exercise of a generic acquired skill. Inferring an expected time of arrival, as in Transit , has some generic components but also uses non-generic subject-matter knowledge. Bailin et al. (1999a) argue against viewing critical thinking skills as generic and discrete, on the ground that skilled performance at a critical thinking task cannot be separated from knowledge of concepts and from domain-specific principles of good thinking. Talk of skills, they concede, is unproblematic if it means merely that a person with critical thinking skills is capable of intelligent performance.

Despite such scepticism, theorists of critical thinking have listed as general contributors to critical thinking what they variously call abilities (Glaser 1941; Ennis 1962, 1991), skills (Facione 1990a; Halpern 1998) or competencies (Fisher & Scriven 1997). Amalgamating these lists would produce a confusing and chaotic cornucopia of more than 50 possible educational objectives, with only partial overlap among them. It makes sense instead to try to understand the reasons for the multiplicity and diversity, and to make a selection according to one’s own reasons for singling out abilities to be developed in a critical thinking curriculum. Two reasons for diversity among lists of critical thinking abilities are the underlying conception of critical thinking and the envisaged educational level. Appraisal-only conceptions, for example, involve a different suite of abilities than constructive-only conceptions. Some lists, such as those in (Glaser 1941), are put forward as educational objectives for secondary school students, whereas others are proposed as objectives for college students (e.g., Facione 1990a).

The abilities described in the remaining paragraphs of this section emerge from reflection on the general abilities needed to do well the thinking activities identified in section 6 as components of the critical thinking process described in section 5 . The derivation of each collection of abilities is accompanied by citation of sources that list such abilities and of standardized tests that claim to test them.

Observational abilities : Careful and accurate observation sometimes requires specialist expertise and practice, as in the case of observing birds and observing accident scenes. However, there are general abilities of noticing what one’s senses are picking up from one’s environment and of being able to articulate clearly and accurately to oneself and others what one has observed. It helps in exercising them to be able to recognize and take into account factors that make one’s observation less trustworthy, such as prior framing of the situation, inadequate time, deficient senses, poor observation conditions, and the like. It helps as well to be skilled at taking steps to make one’s observation more trustworthy, such as moving closer to get a better look, measuring something three times and taking the average, and checking what one thinks one is observing with someone else who is in a good position to observe it. It also helps to be skilled at recognizing respects in which one’s report of one’s observation involves inference rather than direct observation, so that one can then consider whether the inference is justified. These abilities come into play as well when one thinks about whether and with what degree of confidence to accept an observation report, for example in the study of history or in a criminal investigation or in assessing news reports. Observational abilities show up in some lists of critical thinking abilities (Ennis 1962: 90; Facione 1990a: 16; Ennis 1991: 9). There are items testing a person’s ability to judge the credibility of observation reports in the Cornell Critical Thinking Tests, Levels X and Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). Norris and King (1983, 1985, 1990a, 1990b) is a test of ability to appraise observation reports.

Emotional abilities : The emotions that drive a critical thinking process are perplexity or puzzlement, a wish to resolve it, and satisfaction at achieving the desired resolution. Children experience these emotions at an early age, without being trained to do so. Education that takes critical thinking as a goal needs only to channel these emotions and to make sure not to stifle them. Collaborative critical thinking benefits from ability to recognize one’s own and others’ emotional commitments and reactions.

Questioning abilities : A critical thinking process needs transformation of an inchoate sense of perplexity into a clear question. Formulating a question well requires not building in questionable assumptions, not prejudging the issue, and using language that in context is unambiguous and precise enough (Ennis 1962: 97; 1991: 9).

Imaginative abilities : Thinking directed at finding the correct causal explanation of a general phenomenon or particular event requires an ability to imagine possible explanations. Thinking about what policy or plan of action to adopt requires generation of options and consideration of possible consequences of each option. Domain knowledge is required for such creative activity, but a general ability to imagine alternatives is helpful and can be nurtured so as to become easier, quicker, more extensive, and deeper (Dewey 1910: 34–39; 1933: 40–47). Facione (1990a) and Halpern (1998) include the ability to imagine alternatives as a critical thinking ability.

Inferential abilities : The ability to draw conclusions from given information, and to recognize with what degree of certainty one’s own or others’ conclusions follow, is universally recognized as a general critical thinking ability. All 11 examples in section 2 of this article include inferences, some from hypotheses or options (as in Transit , Ferryboat and Disorder ), others from something observed (as in Weather and Rash ). None of these inferences is formally valid. Rather, they are licensed by general, sometimes qualified substantive rules of inference (Toulmin 1958) that rest on domain knowledge—that a bus trip takes about the same time in each direction, that the terminal of a wireless telegraph would be located on the highest possible place, that sudden cooling is often followed by rain, that an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug generally shows up soon after one starts taking it. It is a matter of controversy to what extent the specialized ability to deduce conclusions from premisses using formal rules of inference is needed for critical thinking. Dewey (1933) locates logical forms in setting out the products of reflection rather than in the process of reflection. Ennis (1981a), on the other hand, maintains that a liberally-educated person should have the following abilities: to translate natural-language statements into statements using the standard logical operators, to use appropriately the language of necessary and sufficient conditions, to deal with argument forms and arguments containing symbols, to determine whether in virtue of an argument’s form its conclusion follows necessarily from its premisses, to reason with logically complex propositions, and to apply the rules and procedures of deductive logic. Inferential abilities are recognized as critical thinking abilities by Glaser (1941: 6), Facione (1990a: 9), Ennis (1991: 9), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 99, 111), and Halpern (1998: 452). Items testing inferential abilities constitute two of the five subtests of the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (Watson & Glaser 1980a, 1980b, 1994), two of the four sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), three of the seven sections in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005), 11 of the 34 items on Forms A and B of the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992), and a high but variable proportion of the 25 selected-response questions in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Experimenting abilities : Knowing how to design and execute an experiment is important not just in scientific research but also in everyday life, as in Rash . Dewey devoted a whole chapter of his How We Think (1910: 145–156; 1933: 190–202) to the superiority of experimentation over observation in advancing knowledge. Experimenting abilities come into play at one remove in appraising reports of scientific studies. Skill in designing and executing experiments includes the acknowledged abilities to appraise evidence (Glaser 1941: 6), to carry out experiments and to apply appropriate statistical inference techniques (Facione 1990a: 9), to judge inductions to an explanatory hypothesis (Ennis 1991: 9), and to recognize the need for an adequately large sample size (Halpern 1998). The Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) includes four items (out of 52) on experimental design. The Collegiate Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) makes room for appraisal of study design in both its performance task and its selected-response questions.

Consulting abilities : Skill at consulting sources of information comes into play when one seeks information to help resolve a problem, as in Candidate . Ability to find and appraise information includes ability to gather and marshal pertinent information (Glaser 1941: 6), to judge whether a statement made by an alleged authority is acceptable (Ennis 1962: 84), to plan a search for desired information (Facione 1990a: 9), and to judge the credibility of a source (Ennis 1991: 9). Ability to judge the credibility of statements is tested by 24 items (out of 76) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level X (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005) and by four items (out of 52) in the Cornell Critical Thinking Test Level Z (Ennis & Millman 1971; Ennis, Millman, & Tomko 1985, 2005). The College Learning Assessment’s performance task requires evaluation of whether information in documents is credible or unreliable (Council for Aid to Education 2017).

Argument analysis abilities : The ability to identify and analyze arguments contributes to the process of surveying arguments on an issue in order to form one’s own reasoned judgment, as in Candidate . The ability to detect and analyze arguments is recognized as a critical thinking skill by Facione (1990a: 7–8), Ennis (1991: 9) and Halpern (1998). Five items (out of 34) on the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (Facione 1990b, 1992) test skill at argument analysis. The College Learning Assessment (Council for Aid to Education 2017) incorporates argument analysis in its selected-response tests of critical reading and evaluation and of critiquing an argument.

Judging skills and deciding skills : Skill at judging and deciding is skill at recognizing what judgment or decision the available evidence and argument supports, and with what degree of confidence. It is thus a component of the inferential skills already discussed.

Lists and tests of critical thinking abilities often include two more abilities: identifying assumptions and constructing and evaluating definitions.

In addition to dispositions and abilities, critical thinking needs knowledge: of critical thinking concepts, of critical thinking principles, and of the subject-matter of the thinking.

We can derive a short list of concepts whose understanding contributes to critical thinking from the critical thinking abilities described in the preceding section. Observational abilities require an understanding of the difference between observation and inference. Questioning abilities require an understanding of the concepts of ambiguity and vagueness. Inferential abilities require an understanding of the difference between conclusive and defeasible inference (traditionally, between deduction and induction), as well as of the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. Experimenting abilities require an understanding of the concepts of hypothesis, null hypothesis, assumption and prediction, as well as of the concept of statistical significance and of its difference from importance. They also require an understanding of the difference between an experiment and an observational study, and in particular of the difference between a randomized controlled trial, a prospective correlational study and a retrospective (case-control) study. Argument analysis abilities require an understanding of the concepts of argument, premiss, assumption, conclusion and counter-consideration. Additional critical thinking concepts are proposed by Bailin et al. (1999b: 293), Fisher & Scriven (1997: 105–106), Black (2012), and Blair (2021).

According to Glaser (1941: 25), ability to think critically requires knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning. If we review the list of abilities in the preceding section, however, we can see that some of them can be acquired and exercised merely through practice, possibly guided in an educational setting, followed by feedback. Searching intelligently for a causal explanation of some phenomenon or event requires that one consider a full range of possible causal contributors, but it seems more important that one implements this principle in one’s practice than that one is able to articulate it. What is important is “operational knowledge” of the standards and principles of good thinking (Bailin et al. 1999b: 291–293). But the development of such critical thinking abilities as designing an experiment or constructing an operational definition can benefit from learning their underlying theory. Further, explicit knowledge of quirks of human thinking seems useful as a cautionary guide. Human memory is not just fallible about details, as people learn from their own experiences of misremembering, but is so malleable that a detailed, clear and vivid recollection of an event can be a total fabrication (Loftus 2017). People seek or interpret evidence in ways that are partial to their existing beliefs and expectations, often unconscious of their “confirmation bias” (Nickerson 1998). Not only are people subject to this and other cognitive biases (Kahneman 2011), of which they are typically unaware, but it may be counter-productive for one to make oneself aware of them and try consciously to counteract them or to counteract social biases such as racial or sexual stereotypes (Kenyon & Beaulac 2014). It is helpful to be aware of these facts and of the superior effectiveness of blocking the operation of biases—for example, by making an immediate record of one’s observations, refraining from forming a preliminary explanatory hypothesis, blind refereeing, double-blind randomized trials, and blind grading of students’ work. It is also helpful to be aware of the prevalence of “noise” (unwanted unsystematic variability of judgments), of how to detect noise (through a noise audit), and of how to reduce noise: make accuracy the goal, think statistically, break a process of arriving at a judgment into independent tasks, resist premature intuitions, in a group get independent judgments first, favour comparative judgments and scales (Kahneman, Sibony, & Sunstein 2021). It is helpful as well to be aware of the concept of “bounded rationality” in decision-making and of the related distinction between “satisficing” and optimizing (Simon 1956; Gigerenzer 2001).

Critical thinking about an issue requires substantive knowledge of the domain to which the issue belongs. Critical thinking abilities are not a magic elixir that can be applied to any issue whatever by somebody who has no knowledge of the facts relevant to exploring that issue. For example, the student in Bubbles needed to know that gases do not penetrate solid objects like a glass, that air expands when heated, that the volume of an enclosed gas varies directly with its temperature and inversely with its pressure, and that hot objects will spontaneously cool down to the ambient temperature of their surroundings unless kept hot by insulation or a source of heat. Critical thinkers thus need a rich fund of subject-matter knowledge relevant to the variety of situations they encounter. This fact is recognized in the inclusion among critical thinking dispositions of a concern to become and remain generally well informed.

Experimental educational interventions, with control groups, have shown that education can improve critical thinking skills and dispositions, as measured by standardized tests. For information about these tests, see the Supplement on Assessment .

What educational methods are most effective at developing the dispositions, abilities and knowledge of a critical thinker? In a comprehensive meta-analysis of experimental and quasi-experimental studies of strategies for teaching students to think critically, Abrami et al. (2015) found that dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring each increased the effectiveness of the educational intervention, and that they were most effective when combined. They also found that in these studies a combination of separate instruction in critical thinking with subject-matter instruction in which students are encouraged to think critically was more effective than either by itself. However, the difference was not statistically significant; that is, it might have arisen by chance.

Most of these studies lack the longitudinal follow-up required to determine whether the observed differential improvements in critical thinking abilities or dispositions continue over time, for example until high school or college graduation. For details on studies of methods of developing critical thinking skills and dispositions, see the Supplement on Educational Methods .

12. Controversies

Scholars have denied the generalizability of critical thinking abilities across subject domains, have alleged bias in critical thinking theory and pedagogy, and have investigated the relationship of critical thinking to other kinds of thinking.

McPeck (1981) attacked the thinking skills movement of the 1970s, including the critical thinking movement. He argued that there are no general thinking skills, since thinking is always thinking about some subject-matter. It is futile, he claimed, for schools and colleges to teach thinking as if it were a separate subject. Rather, teachers should lead their pupils to become autonomous thinkers by teaching school subjects in a way that brings out their cognitive structure and that encourages and rewards discussion and argument. As some of his critics (e.g., Paul 1985; Siegel 1985) pointed out, McPeck’s central argument needs elaboration, since it has obvious counter-examples in writing and speaking, for which (up to a certain level of complexity) there are teachable general abilities even though they are always about some subject-matter. To make his argument convincing, McPeck needs to explain how thinking differs from writing and speaking in a way that does not permit useful abstraction of its components from the subject-matters with which it deals. He has not done so. Nevertheless, his position that the dispositions and abilities of a critical thinker are best developed in the context of subject-matter instruction is shared by many theorists of critical thinking, including Dewey (1910, 1933), Glaser (1941), Passmore (1980), Weinstein (1990), Bailin et al. (1999b), and Willingham (2019).

McPeck’s challenge prompted reflection on the extent to which critical thinking is subject-specific. McPeck argued for a strong subject-specificity thesis, according to which it is a conceptual truth that all critical thinking abilities are specific to a subject. (He did not however extend his subject-specificity thesis to critical thinking dispositions. In particular, he took the disposition to suspend judgment in situations of cognitive dissonance to be a general disposition.) Conceptual subject-specificity is subject to obvious counter-examples, such as the general ability to recognize confusion of necessary and sufficient conditions. A more modest thesis, also endorsed by McPeck, is epistemological subject-specificity, according to which the norms of good thinking vary from one field to another. Epistemological subject-specificity clearly holds to a certain extent; for example, the principles in accordance with which one solves a differential equation are quite different from the principles in accordance with which one determines whether a painting is a genuine Picasso. But the thesis suffers, as Ennis (1989) points out, from vagueness of the concept of a field or subject and from the obvious existence of inter-field principles, however broadly the concept of a field is construed. For example, the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning hold for all the varied fields in which such reasoning occurs. A third kind of subject-specificity is empirical subject-specificity, according to which as a matter of empirically observable fact a person with the abilities and dispositions of a critical thinker in one area of investigation will not necessarily have them in another area of investigation.

The thesis of empirical subject-specificity raises the general problem of transfer. If critical thinking abilities and dispositions have to be developed independently in each school subject, how are they of any use in dealing with the problems of everyday life and the political and social issues of contemporary society, most of which do not fit into the framework of a traditional school subject? Proponents of empirical subject-specificity tend to argue that transfer is more likely to occur if there is critical thinking instruction in a variety of domains, with explicit attention to dispositions and abilities that cut across domains. But evidence for this claim is scanty. There is a need for well-designed empirical studies that investigate the conditions that make transfer more likely.

It is common ground in debates about the generality or subject-specificity of critical thinking dispositions and abilities that critical thinking about any topic requires background knowledge about the topic. For example, the most sophisticated understanding of the principles of hypothetico-deductive reasoning is of no help unless accompanied by some knowledge of what might be plausible explanations of some phenomenon under investigation.

Critics have objected to bias in the theory, pedagogy and practice of critical thinking. Commentators (e.g., Alston 1995; Ennis 1998) have noted that anyone who takes a position has a bias in the neutral sense of being inclined in one direction rather than others. The critics, however, are objecting to bias in the pejorative sense of an unjustified favoring of certain ways of knowing over others, frequently alleging that the unjustly favoured ways are those of a dominant sex or culture (Bailin 1995). These ways favour:

• reinforcement of egocentric and sociocentric biases over dialectical engagement with opposing world-views (Paul 1981, 1984; Warren 1998)
• distancing from the object of inquiry over closeness to it (Martin 1992; Thayer-Bacon 1992)
• indifference to the situation of others over care for them (Martin 1992)
• orientation to thought over orientation to action (Martin 1992)
• being reasonable over caring to understand people’s ideas (Thayer-Bacon 1993)
• being neutral and objective over being embodied and situated (Thayer-Bacon 1995a)
• doubting over believing (Thayer-Bacon 1995b)
• reason over emotion, imagination and intuition (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
• solitary thinking over collaborative thinking (Thayer-Bacon 2000)
• written and spoken assignments over other forms of expression (Alston 2001)
• attention to written and spoken communications over attention to human problems (Alston 2001)
• winning debates in the public sphere over making and understanding meaning (Alston 2001)

A common thread in this smorgasbord of accusations is dissatisfaction with focusing on the logical analysis and evaluation of reasoning and arguments. While these authors acknowledge that such analysis and evaluation is part of critical thinking and should be part of its conceptualization and pedagogy, they insist that it is only a part. Paul (1981), for example, bemoans the tendency of atomistic teaching of methods of analyzing and evaluating arguments to turn students into more able sophists, adept at finding fault with positions and arguments with which they disagree but even more entrenched in the egocentric and sociocentric biases with which they began. Martin (1992) and Thayer-Bacon (1992) cite with approval the self-reported intimacy with their subject-matter of leading researchers in biology and medicine, an intimacy that conflicts with the distancing allegedly recommended in standard conceptions and pedagogy of critical thinking. Thayer-Bacon (2000) contrasts the embodied and socially embedded learning of her elementary school students in a Montessori school, who used their imagination, intuition and emotions as well as their reason, with conceptions of critical thinking as

thinking that is used to critique arguments, offer justifications, and make judgments about what are the good reasons, or the right answers. (Thayer-Bacon 2000: 127–128)

Alston (2001) reports that her students in a women’s studies class were able to see the flaws in the Cinderella myth that pervades much romantic fiction but in their own romantic relationships still acted as if all failures were the woman’s fault and still accepted the notions of love at first sight and living happily ever after. Students, she writes, should

be able to connect their intellectual critique to a more affective, somatic, and ethical account of making risky choices that have sexist, racist, classist, familial, sexual, or other consequences for themselves and those both near and far… critical thinking that reads arguments, texts, or practices merely on the surface without connections to feeling/desiring/doing or action lacks an ethical depth that should infuse the difference between mere cognitive activity and something we want to call critical thinking. (Alston 2001: 34)

Some critics portray such biases as unfair to women. Thayer-Bacon (1992), for example, has charged modern critical thinking theory with being sexist, on the ground that it separates the self from the object and causes one to lose touch with one’s inner voice, and thus stigmatizes women, who (she asserts) link self to object and listen to their inner voice. Her charge does not imply that women as a group are on average less able than men to analyze and evaluate arguments. Facione (1990c) found no difference by sex in performance on his California Critical Thinking Skills Test. Kuhn (1991: 280–281) found no difference by sex in either the disposition or the competence to engage in argumentative thinking.

The critics propose a variety of remedies for the biases that they allege. In general, they do not propose to eliminate or downplay critical thinking as an educational goal. Rather, they propose to conceptualize critical thinking differently and to change its pedagogy accordingly. Their pedagogical proposals arise logically from their objections. They can be summarized as follows:

• Focus on argument networks with dialectical exchanges reflecting contesting points of view rather than on atomic arguments, so as to develop “strong sense” critical thinking that transcends egocentric and sociocentric biases (Paul 1981, 1984).
• Foster closeness to the subject-matter and feeling connected to others in order to inform a humane democracy (Martin 1992).
• Develop “constructive thinking” as a social activity in a community of physically embodied and socially embedded inquirers with personal voices who value not only reason but also imagination, intuition and emotion (Thayer-Bacon 2000).
• In developing critical thinking in school subjects, treat as important neither skills nor dispositions but opening worlds of meaning (Alston 2001).
• Attend to the development of critical thinking dispositions as well as skills, and adopt the “critical pedagogy” practised and advocated by Freire (1968 [1970]) and hooks (1994) (Dalgleish, Girard, & Davies 2017).

A common thread in these proposals is treatment of critical thinking as a social, interactive, personally engaged activity like that of a quilting bee or a barn-raising (Thayer-Bacon 2000) rather than as an individual, solitary, distanced activity symbolized by Rodin’s The Thinker . One can get a vivid description of education with the former type of goal from the writings of bell hooks (1994, 2010). Critical thinking for her is open-minded dialectical exchange across opposing standpoints and from multiple perspectives, a conception similar to Paul’s “strong sense” critical thinking (Paul 1981). She abandons the structure of domination in the traditional classroom. In an introductory course on black women writers, for example, she assigns students to write an autobiographical paragraph about an early racial memory, then to read it aloud as the others listen, thus affirming the uniqueness and value of each voice and creating a communal awareness of the diversity of the group’s experiences (hooks 1994: 84). Her “engaged pedagogy” is thus similar to the “freedom under guidance” implemented in John Dewey’s Laboratory School of Chicago in the late 1890s and early 1900s. It incorporates the dialogue, anchored instruction, and mentoring that Abrami (2015) found to be most effective in improving critical thinking skills and dispositions.

What is the relationship of critical thinking to problem solving, decision-making, higher-order thinking, creative thinking, and other recognized types of thinking? One’s answer to this question obviously depends on how one defines the terms used in the question. If critical thinking is conceived broadly to cover any careful thinking about any topic for any purpose, then problem solving and decision making will be kinds of critical thinking, if they are done carefully. Historically, ‘critical thinking’ and ‘problem solving’ were two names for the same thing. If critical thinking is conceived more narrowly as consisting solely of appraisal of intellectual products, then it will be disjoint with problem solving and decision making, which are constructive.

Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives used the phrase “intellectual abilities and skills” for what had been labeled “critical thinking” by some, “reflective thinking” by Dewey and others, and “problem solving” by still others (Bloom et al. 1956: 38). Thus, the so-called “higher-order thinking skills” at the taxonomy’s top levels of analysis, synthesis and evaluation are just critical thinking skills, although they do not come with general criteria for their assessment (Ennis 1981b). The revised version of Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson et al. 2001) likewise treats critical thinking as cutting across those types of cognitive process that involve more than remembering (Anderson et al. 2001: 269–270). For details, see the Supplement on History .

As to creative thinking, it overlaps with critical thinking (Bailin 1987, 1988). Thinking about the explanation of some phenomenon or event, as in Ferryboat , requires creative imagination in constructing plausible explanatory hypotheses. Likewise, thinking about a policy question, as in Candidate , requires creativity in coming up with options. Conversely, creativity in any field needs to be balanced by critical appraisal of the draft painting or novel or mathematical theory.

• Abrami, Philip C., Robert M. Bernard, Eugene Borokhovski, David I. Waddington, C. Anne Wade, and Tonje Person, 2015, “Strategies for Teaching Students to Think Critically: A Meta-analysis”, Review of Educational Research , 85(2): 275–314. doi:10.3102/0034654314551063
• Aikin, Wilford M., 1942, The Story of the Eight-year Study, with Conclusions and Recommendations , Volume I of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers. [ Aikin 1942 available online ]
• Alston, Kal, 1995, “Begging the Question: Is Critical Thinking Biased?”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 225–233. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00225.x
• –––, 2001, “Re/Thinking Critical Thinking: The Seductions of Everyday Life”, Studies in Philosophy and Education , 20(1): 27–40. doi:10.1023/A:1005247128053
• American Educational Research Association, 2014, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing / American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education , Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
• Anderson, Lorin W., David R. Krathwohl, Peter W. Airiasian, Kathleen A. Cruikshank, Richard E. Mayer, Paul R. Pintrich, James Raths, and Merlin C. Wittrock, 2001, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives , New York: Longman, complete edition.
• Bailin, Sharon, 1987, “Critical and Creative Thinking”, Informal Logic , 9(1): 23–30. [ Bailin 1987 available online ]
• –––, 1988, Achieving Extraordinary Ends: An Essay on Creativity , Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2780-3
• –––, 1995, “Is Critical Thinking Biased? Clarifications and Implications”, Educational Theory , 45(2): 191–197. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1995.00191.x
• Bailin, Sharon and Mark Battersby, 2009, “Inquiry: A Dialectical Approach to Teaching Critical Thinking”, in Juho Ritola (ed.), Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09 , CD-ROM (pp. 1–10), Windsor, ON: OSSA. [ Bailin & Battersby 2009 available online ]
• –––, 2016a, “Fostering the Virtues of Inquiry”, Topoi , 35(2): 367–374. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9307-6
• –––, 2016b, Reason in the Balance: An Inquiry Approach to Critical Thinking , Indianapolis: Hackett, 2nd edition.
• –––, 2021, “Inquiry: Teaching for Reasoned Judgment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 31–46. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_003
• Bailin, Sharon, Roland Case, Jerrold R. Coombs, and Leroi B. Daniels, 1999a, “Common Misconceptions of Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 269–283. doi:10.1080/002202799183124
• –––, 1999b, “Conceptualizing Critical Thinking”, Journal of Curriculum Studies , 31(3): 285–302. doi:10.1080/002202799183133
• Blair, J. Anthony, 2021, Studies in Critical Thinking , Windsor, ON: Windsor Studies in Argumentation, 2nd edition. [Available online at https://windsor.scholarsportal.info/omp/index.php/wsia/catalog/book/106]
• Berman, Alan M., Seth J. Schwartz, William M. Kurtines, and Steven L. Berman, 2001, “The Process of Exploration in Identity Formation: The Role of Style and Competence”, Journal of Adolescence , 24(4): 513–528. doi:10.1006/jado.2001.0386
• Black, Beth (ed.), 2012, An A to Z of Critical Thinking , London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
• Bloom, Benjamin Samuel, Max D. Engelhart, Edward J. Furst, Walter H. Hill, and David R. Krathwohl, 1956, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Boardman, Frank, Nancy M. Cavender, and Howard Kahane, 2018, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Boston: Cengage, 13th edition.
• Browne, M. Neil and Stuart M. Keeley, 2018, Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking , Hoboken, NJ: Pearson, 12th edition.
• Center for Assessment & Improvement of Learning, 2017, Critical Thinking Assessment Test , Cookeville, TN: Tennessee Technological University.
• Cleghorn, Paul. 2021. “Critical Thinking in the Elementary School: Practical Guidance for Building a Culture of Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessmen t, Leiden: Brill, pp. 150–167. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_010
• Cohen, Jacob, 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2nd edition.
• College Board, 1983, Academic Preparation for College. What Students Need to Know and Be Able to Do , New York: College Entrance Examination Board, ERIC document ED232517.
• Commission on the Relation of School and College of the Progressive Education Association, 1943, Thirty Schools Tell Their Story , Volume V of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Council for Aid to Education, 2017, CLA+ Student Guide . Available at http://cae.org/images/uploads/pdf/CLA_Student_Guide_Institution.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Dalgleish, Adam, Patrick Girard, and Maree Davies, 2017, “Critical Thinking, Bias and Feminist Philosophy: Building a Better Framework through Collaboration”, Informal Logic , 37(4): 351–369. [ Dalgleish et al. available online ]
• Dewey, John, 1910, How We Think , Boston: D.C. Heath. [ Dewey 1910 available online ]
• –––, 1916, Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education , New York: Macmillan.
• –––, 1933, How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process , Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
• –––, 1936, “The Theory of the Chicago Experiment”, Appendix II of Mayhew & Edwards 1936: 463–477.
• –––, 1938, Logic: The Theory of Inquiry , New York: Henry Holt and Company.
• Dominguez, Caroline (coord.), 2018a, A European Collection of the Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions Needed in Different Professional Fields for the 21st Century , Vila Real, Portugal: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO1 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• ––– (coord.), 2018b, A European Review on Critical Thinking Educational Practices in Higher Education Institutions , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http://bit.ly/CRITHINKEDUO2 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• ––– (coord.), 2018c, The CRITHINKEDU European Course on Critical Thinking Education for University Teachers: From Conception to Delivery , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU03; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Dominguez Caroline and Rita Payan-Carreira (eds.), 2019, Promoting Critical Thinking in European Higher Education Institutions: Towards an Educational Protocol , Vila Real: UTAD. Available at http:/bit.ly/CRITHINKEDU04; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Ennis, Robert H., 1958, “An Appraisal of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal”, The Journal of Educational Research , 52(4): 155–158. doi:10.1080/00220671.1958.10882558
• –––, 1962, “A Concept of Critical Thinking: A Proposed Basis for Research on the Teaching and Evaluation of Critical Thinking Ability”, Harvard Educational Review , 32(1): 81–111.
• –––, 1981a, “A Conception of Deductive Logical Competence”, Teaching Philosophy , 4(3/4): 337–385. doi:10.5840/teachphil198143/429
• –––, 1981b, “Eight Fallacies in Bloom’s Taxonomy”, in C. J. B. Macmillan (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1980: Proceedings of the Thirty-seventh Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Bloomington, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 269–273.
• –––, 1984, “Problems in Testing Informal Logic, Critical Thinking, Reasoning Ability”, Informal Logic , 6(1): 3–9. [ Ennis 1984 available online ]
• –––, 1987, “A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities”, in Joan Boykoff Baron and Robert J. Sternberg (eds.), Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice , New York: W. H. Freeman, pp. 9–26.
• –––, 1989, “Critical Thinking and Subject Specificity: Clarification and Needed Research”, Educational Researcher , 18(3): 4–10. doi:10.3102/0013189X018003004
• –––, 1991, “Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception”, Teaching Philosophy , 14(1): 5–24. doi:10.5840/teachphil19911412
• –––, 1996, “Critical Thinking Dispositions: Their Nature and Assessability”, Informal Logic , 18(2–3): 165–182. [ Ennis 1996 available online ]
• –––, 1998, “Is Critical Thinking Culturally Biased?”, Teaching Philosophy , 21(1): 15–33. doi:10.5840/teachphil19982113
• –––, 2011, “Critical Thinking: Reflection and Perspective Part I”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 26(1): 4–18. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews20112613
• –––, 2013, “Critical Thinking across the Curriculum: The Wisdom CTAC Program”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(2): 25–45. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20132828
• –––, 2016, “Definition: A Three-Dimensional Analysis with Bearing on Key Concepts”, in Patrick Bondy and Laura Benacquista (eds.), Argumentation, Objectivity, and Bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 18–21 May 2016 , Windsor, ON: OSSA, pp. 1–19. Available at http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/105 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• –––, 2018, “Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Vision”, Topoi , 37(1): 165–184. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9401-4
• Ennis, Robert H., and Jason Millman, 1971, Manual for Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level X, and Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level Z , Urbana, IL: Critical Thinking Project, University of Illinois.
• Ennis, Robert H., Jason Millman, and Thomas Norbert Tomko, 1985, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publication, 3rd edition.
• –––, 2005, Cornell Critical Thinking Tests Level X & Level Z: Manual , Seaside, CA: Critical Thinking Company, 5th edition.
• Ennis, Robert H. and Eric Weir, 1985, The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test: Test, Manual, Criteria, Scoring Sheet: An Instrument for Teaching and Testing , Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Facione, Peter A., 1990a, Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction , Research Findings and Recommendations Prepared for the Committee on Pre-College Philosophy of the American Philosophical Association, ERIC Document ED315423.
• –––, 1990b, California Critical Thinking Skills Test, CCTST – Form A , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 1990c, The California Critical Thinking Skills Test--College Level. Technical Report #3. Gender, Ethnicity, Major, CT Self-Esteem, and the CCTST , ERIC Document ED326584.
• –––, 1992, California Critical Thinking Skills Test: CCTST – Form B, Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• –––, 2000, “The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill”, Informal Logic , 20(1): 61–84. [ Facione 2000 available online ]
• Facione, Peter A. and Noreen C. Facione, 1992, CCTDI: A Disposition Inventory , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Noreen C. Facione, and Carol Ann F. Giancarlo, 2001, California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory: CCTDI: Inventory Manual , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
• Facione, Peter A., Carol A. Sánchez, and Noreen C. Facione, 1994, Are College Students Disposed to Think? , Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press. ERIC Document ED368311.
• Fisher, Alec, and Michael Scriven, 1997, Critical Thinking: Its Definition and Assessment , Norwich: Centre for Research in Critical Thinking, University of East Anglia.
• Freire, Paulo, 1968 [1970], Pedagogia do Oprimido . Translated as Pedagogy of the Oppressed , Myra Bergman Ramos (trans.), New York: Continuum, 1970.
• Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2001, “The Adaptive Toolbox”, in Gerd Gigerenzer and Reinhard Selten (eds.), Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 37–50.
• Glaser, Edward Maynard, 1941, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking , New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
• Groarke, Leo A. and Christopher W. Tindale, 2012, Good Reasoning Matters! A Constructive Approach to Critical Thinking , Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, 5th edition.
• Halpern, Diane F., 1998, “Teaching Critical Thinking for Transfer Across Domains: Disposition, Skills, Structure Training, and Metacognitive Monitoring”, American Psychologist , 53(4): 449–455. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449
• –––, 2016, Manual: Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment , Mödling, Austria: Schuhfried. Available at https://pdfcoffee.com/hcta-test-manual-pdf-free.html; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Hamby, Benjamin, 2014, The Virtues of Critical Thinkers , Doctoral dissertation, Philosophy, McMaster University. [ Hamby 2014 available online ]
• –––, 2015, “Willingness to Inquire: The Cardinal Critical Thinking Virtue”, in Martin Davies and Ronald Barnett (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education , New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 77–87.
• Haran, Uriel, Ilana Ritov, and Barbara A. Mellers, 2013, “The Role of Actively Open-minded Thinking in Information Acquisition, Accuracy, and Calibration”, Judgment and Decision Making , 8(3): 188–201.
• Hatcher, Donald and Kevin Possin, 2021, “Commentary: Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking Assessment”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 298–322. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_017
• Haynes, Ada, Elizabeth Lisic, Kevin Harris, Katie Leming, Kyle Shanks, and Barry Stein, 2015, “Using the Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) as a Model for Designing Within-Course Assessments: Changing How Faculty Assess Student Learning”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 30(3): 38–48. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201530316
• Haynes, Ada and Barry Stein, 2021, “Observations from a Long-Term Effort to Assess and Improve Critical Thinking”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 231–254. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_014
• Hiner, Amanda L. 2021. “Equipping Students for Success in College and Beyond: Placing Critical Thinking Instruction at the Heart of a General Education Program”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 188–208. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_012
• Hitchcock, David, 2017, “Critical Thinking as an Educational Ideal”, in his On Reasoning and Argument: Essays in Informal Logic and on Critical Thinking , Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 477–497. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-53562-3_30
• –––, 2021, “Seven Philosophical Implications of Critical Thinking: Themes, Variations, Implications”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 9–30. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_002
• hooks, bell, 1994, Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom , New York and London: Routledge.
• –––, 2010, Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom , New York and London: Routledge.
• Johnson, Ralph H., 1992, “The Problem of Defining Critical Thinking”, in Stephen P, Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 38–53.
• Kahane, Howard, 1971, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life , Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Kahneman, Daniel, 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow , New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Kahneman, Daniel, Olivier Sibony, & Cass R. Sunstein, 2021, Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment , New York: Little, Brown Spark.
• Kenyon, Tim, and Guillaume Beaulac, 2014, “Critical Thinking Education and Debasing”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 341–363. [ Kenyon & Beaulac 2014 available online ]
• Krathwohl, David R., Benjamin S. Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia, 1964, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II: Affective Domain , New York: David McKay.
• Kuhn, Deanna, 1991, The Skills of Argument , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511571350
• –––, 2019, “Critical Thinking as Discourse”, Human Development, 62 (3): 146–164. doi:10.1159/000500171
• Lipman, Matthew, 1987, “Critical Thinking–What Can It Be?”, Analytic Teaching , 8(1): 5–12. [ Lipman 1987 available online ]
• –––, 2003, Thinking in Education , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition.
• Loftus, Elizabeth F., 2017, “Eavesdropping on Memory”, Annual Review of Psychology , 68: 1–18. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044138
• Makaiau, Amber Strong, 2021, “The Good Thinker’s Tool Kit: How to Engage Critical Thinking and Reasoning in Secondary Education”, in Daniel Fasko, Jr. and Frank Fair (eds.), Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Theory, Development, Instruction, and Assessment , Leiden: Brill, pp. 168–187. doi: 10.1163/9789004444591_011
• Martin, Jane Roland, 1992, “Critical Thinking for a Humane World”, in Stephen P. Norris (ed.), The Generalizability of Critical Thinking , New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 163–180.
• Mayhew, Katherine Camp, and Anna Camp Edwards, 1936, The Dewey School: The Laboratory School of the University of Chicago, 1896–1903 , New York: Appleton-Century. [ Mayhew & Edwards 1936 available online ]
• McPeck, John E., 1981, Critical Thinking and Education , New York: St. Martin’s Press.
• Moore, Brooke Noel and Richard Parker, 2020, Critical Thinking , New York: McGraw-Hill, 13th edition.
• Nickerson, Raymond S., 1998, “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises”, Review of General Psychology , 2(2): 175–220. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
• Nieto, Ana Maria, and Jorge Valenzuela, 2012, “A Study of the Internal Structure of Critical Thinking Dispositions”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 27(1): 31–38. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20122713
• Norris, Stephen P., 1985, “Controlling for Background Beliefs When Developing Multiple-choice Critical Thinking Tests”, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , 7(3): 5–11. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1988.tb00437.x
• Norris, Stephen P. and Robert H. Ennis, 1989, Evaluating Critical Thinking (The Practitioners’ Guide to Teaching Thinking Series), Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.
• Norris, Stephen P. and Ruth Elizabeth King, 1983, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1984, The Design of a Critical Thinking Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland. ERIC Document ED260083.
• –––, 1985, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
• –––, 1990a, Test on Appraising Observations , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• –––, 1990b, Test on Appraising Observations: Manual , St. John’s, NL: Institute for Educational Research and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2nd edition.
• OCR [Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations], 2011, AS/A Level GCE: Critical Thinking – H052, H452 , Cambridge: OCR. Past papers available at https://pastpapers.co/ocr/?dir=A-Level/Critical-Thinking-H052-H452; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013, The Ontario Curriculum Grades 9 to 12: Social Sciences and Humanities . Available at http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/ssciences9to122013.pdf ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Passmore, John Arthur, 1980, The Philosophy of Teaching , London: Duckworth.
• Paul, Richard W., 1981, “Teaching Critical Thinking in the ‘Strong’ Sense: A Focus on Self-Deception, World Views, and a Dialectical Mode of Analysis”, Informal Logic , 4(2): 2–7. [ Paul 1981 available online ]
• –––, 1984, “Critical Thinking: Fundamental to Education for a Free Society”, Educational Leadership , 42(1): 4–14.
• –––, 1985, “McPeck’s Mistakes”, Informal Logic , 7(1): 35–43. [ Paul 1985 available online ]
• Paul, Richard W. and Linda Elder, 2006, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools , Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking, 4th edition.
• Payette, Patricia, and Edna Ross, 2016, “Making a Campus-Wide Commitment to Critical Thinking: Insights and Promising Practices Utilizing the Paul-Elder Approach at the University of Louisville”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 31(1): 98–110. doi:10.5840/inquiryct20163118
• Possin, Kevin, 2008, “A Field Guide to Critical-Thinking Assessment”, Teaching Philosophy , 31(3): 201–228. doi:10.5840/teachphil200831324
• –––, 2013a, “Some Problems with the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment (HCTA) Test”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 28(3): 4–12. doi:10.5840/inquiryct201328313
• –––, 2013b, “A Serious Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) Test”, Informal Logic , 33(3): 390–405. [ Possin 2013b available online ]
• –––, 2013c, “A Fatal Flaw in the Collegiate Learning Assessment Test”, Assessment Update , 25 (1): 8–12.
• –––, 2014, “Critique of the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Test: The More You Know, the Lower Your Score”, Informal Logic , 34(4): 393–416. [ Possin 2014 available online ]
• –––, 2020, “CAT Scan: A Critical Review of the Critical-Thinking Assessment Test”, Informal Logic , 40 (3): 489–508. [Available online at https://informallogic.ca/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/6243]
• Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Rear, David, 2019, “One Size Fits All? The Limitations of Standardised Assessment in Critical Thinking”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 44(5): 664–675. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1526255
• Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1762, Émile , Amsterdam: Jean Néaulme.
• Scheffler, Israel, 1960, The Language of Education , Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
• Scriven, Michael, and Richard W. Paul, 1987, Defining Critical Thinking , Draft statement written for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction. Available at http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766 ; last accessed 2022 07 16.
• Sheffield, Clarence Burton Jr., 2018, “Promoting Critical Thinking in Higher Education: My Experiences as the Inaugural Eugene H. Fram Chair in Applied Critical Thinking at Rochester Institute of Technology”, Topoi , 37(1): 155–163. doi:10.1007/s11245-016-9392-1
• Siegel, Harvey, 1985, “McPeck, Informal Logic and the Nature of Critical Thinking”, in David Nyberg (ed.), Philosophy of Education 1985: Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society , Normal, IL: Philosophy of Education Society, pp. 61–72.
• –––, 1988, Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education , New York: Routledge.
• –––, 1999, “What (Good) Are Thinking Dispositions?”, Educational Theory , 49(2): 207–221. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1999.00207.x
• Simon, Herbert A., 1956, “Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment”, Psychological Review , 63(2): 129–138. doi: 10.1037/h0042769
• Simpson, Elizabeth, 1966–67, “The Classification of Educational Objectives: Psychomotor Domain”, Illinois Teacher of Home Economics , 10(4): 110–144, ERIC document ED0103613. [ Simpson 1966–67 available online ]
• Skolverket, 2018, Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preschool Class and School-age Educare , Stockholm: Skolverket, revised 2018. Available at https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.31c292d516e7445866a218f/1576654682907/pdf3984.pdf; last accessed 2022 07 15.
• Smith, B. Othanel, 1953, “The Improvement of Critical Thinking”, Progressive Education , 30(5): 129–134.
• Smith, Eugene Randolph, Ralph Winfred Tyler, and the Evaluation Staff, 1942, Appraising and Recording Student Progress , Volume III of Adventure in American Education , New York and London: Harper & Brothers.
• Splitter, Laurance J., 1987, “Educational Reform through Philosophy for Children”, Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children , 7(2): 32–39. doi:10.5840/thinking1987729
• Stanovich Keith E., and Paula J. Stanovich, 2010, “A Framework for Critical Thinking, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence”, in David D. Preiss and Robert J. Sternberg (eds), Innovations in Educational Psychology: Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Human Development , New York: Springer Publishing, pp 195–237.
• Stanovich Keith E., Richard F. West, and Maggie E. Toplak, 2011, “Intelligence and Rationality”, in Robert J. Sternberg and Scott Barry Kaufman (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3rd edition, pp. 784–826. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511977244.040
• Tankersley, Karen, 2005, Literacy Strategies for Grades 4–12: Reinforcing the Threads of Reading , Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Thayer-Bacon, Barbara J., 1992, “Is Modern Critical Thinking Theory Sexist?”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines , 10(1): 3–7. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199210123
• –––, 1993, “Caring and Its Relationship to Critical Thinking”, Educational Theory , 43(3): 323–340. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.1993.00323.x
• –––, 1995a, “Constructive Thinking: Personal Voice”, Journal of Thought , 30(1): 55–70.
• –––, 1995b, “Doubting and Believing: Both are Important for Critical Thinking”, Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines , 15(2): 59–66. doi:10.5840/inquiryctnews199515226
• –––, 2000, Transforming Critical Thinking: Thinking Constructively , New York: Teachers College Press.
• Toulmin, Stephen Edelston, 1958, The Uses of Argument , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Turri, John, Mark Alfano, and John Greco, 2017, “Virtue Epistemology”, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition). URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/epistemology-virtue/ >
• Vincent-Lancrin, Stéphan, Carlos González-Sancho, Mathias Bouckaert, Federico de Luca, Meritxell Fernández-Barrerra, Gwénaël Jacotin, Joaquin Urgel, and Quentin Vidal, 2019, Fostering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking: What It Means in School. Educational Research and Innovation , Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Warren, Karen J. 1988. “Critical Thinking and Feminism”, Informal Logic , 10(1): 31–44. [ Warren 1988 available online ]
• Watson, Goodwin, and Edward M. Glaser, 1980a, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form A , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• –––, 1980b, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal: Forms A and B; Manual , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation,
• –––, 1994, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Form B , San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
• Weinstein, Mark, 1990, “Towards a Research Agenda for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking”, Informal Logic , 12(3): 121–143. [ Weinstein 1990 available online ]
• –––, 2013, Logic, Truth and Inquiry , London: College Publications.
• Willingham, Daniel T., 2019, “How to Teach Critical Thinking”, Education: Future Frontiers , 1: 1–17. [Available online at https://prod65.education.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/main-education/teaching-and-learning/education-for-a-changing-world/media/documents/How-to-teach-critical-thinking-Willingham.pdf.]
• Zagzebski, Linda Trinkaus, 1996, Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139174763

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking (AILACT)
• Critical Thinking Across the European Higher Education Curricula (CRITHINKEDU)
• Critical Thinking Definition, Instruction, and Assessment: A Rigorous Approach
• Critical Thinking Research (RAIL)
• Foundation for Critical Thinking
• Insight Assessment
• Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21)
• The Critical Thinking Consortium
• The Nature of Critical Thinking: An Outline of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities , by Robert H. Ennis

abilities | bias, implicit | children, philosophy for | civic education | decision-making capacity | Dewey, John | dispositions | education, philosophy of | epistemology: virtue | logic: informal

Copyright © 2022 by David Hitchcock < hitchckd @ mcmaster . ca >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Critical Thinking

• What is Critical Thinking?
• Intellectual Standards

Elements of Thought

Critical thinking - standards of thought - part 1 - by richard paul, critical thinking and the basic elements of thought - by richard paul.

• Intellectual Traits
• Helpful Resources
• Cite Sources Accurately

The elements of reasoning, or structures of thought - is the idea that all reasoning contains parts, and that these parts enable one to analyze thinking, any thinking whatsoever, in order to best understand it. - Richard Paul, The Foundation for Critical Thinking

Paul’s theory points out that all reasoning contains the eight elements, and therefore can be analyzed into eight specific parts – in determining the full logic of the reasoning. , because all human reasoning contains these eight parts, all products of reasoning (conversations, articles, books, speeches, editorials, video programs, etc.) can be analyzed according to the eight elements. - the  foundation for critical thinking.

• The Elements of Reasoning - The Foundation for Critical Thinking Reasoning occurs when we draw conclusions based upon reasons. We can upgrade the quality of our reasoning when we understand the intellectual processes that underlie our reasoning.
• Beginning the Paper: Elements of Reasoning - Critical Writing : A Guide to Writing a Paper Using the Concepts and Processes of Critical Thinking The elements of reasoning are tools both for developing your thinking about a topic you are writing about and for constructing a strong, articulated overall plan for your paper.

Dr. Richard Paul defines the universal standards with which thinking may be "taken apart" evaluated and assessed. Excerpted from the Socratic Questioning Video Series from the Foundation for Critical Thinking. (8:33)

Dr. richard paul discusses and defines the basic elements of thought involved in critical thinking. excerpted from the socratic questioning video series. (5:00).

• << Previous: Intellectual Standards
• Next: Intellectual Traits >>
• Last Updated: Jan 22, 2024 6:00 PM
• URL: https://paradisevalley.libguides.com/critical_thinking

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

1: Introduction to Critical Thinking, Reasoning, and Logic

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 29580

• Golden West College via NGE Far Press

What is thinking? It may seem strange to begin a logic textbook with this question. ‘Thinking’ is perhaps the most intimate and personal thing that people do. Yet the more you ‘think’ about thinking, the more mysterious it can appear. It is the sort of thing that one intuitively or naturally understands, and yet cannot describe to others without great difficulty. Many people believe that logic is very abstract, dispassionate, complicated, and even cold. But in fact the study of logic is nothing more intimidating or obscure than this: the study of good thinking.

• 1.1: Prelude to Chapter
• 1.2: Introduction and Thought Experiments- The Trolley Problem
• 1.3: Truth and Its Role in Argumentation - Certainty, Probability, and Monty Hall Only certain sorts of sentences can be used in arguments. We call these sentences propositions, statements or claims.
• 1.4: Distinction of Proof from Verification; Our Biases and the Forer Effect
• 1.5: The Scientific Method The procedure that scientists use is also a standard form of argument. Its conclusions only give you the likelihood or the probability that something is true (if your theory or hypothesis is confirmed), and not the certainty that it’s true. But when it is done correctly, the conclusions it reaches are very well-grounded in experimental evidence.
• 1.6: Diagramming Thoughts and Arguments - Analyzing News Media
• 1.7: Creating a Philosophical Outline

A Guide To Critical Thinking think.maresh.info

What is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking is the art of analyzing and evaluating thinking with a view to improving it in order to make an informed decision that is most likely to result in desired effects .

Critical thinking describes a process of uncovering and checking our assumptions and reasoning. First, we analyze to discover the assumptions that guide our decisions, actions, and choices. Next, we check the accuracy of these assumptions by exploring as many different perspectives, viewpoints, and sources as possible. Finally, we make informed decisions or judgments that are based on these researched assumptions.

Life is a series of decisions, some small, some much larger. Whom we date or choose as friends, the work or career we pursue, which political candidates we support, what we choose to eat, where we live, what consumer goods we buy, if and whom we marry, if and how we raise children—all these decisions are based on assumptions. We assume our friends will be trustworthy and won't talk about us behind our backs. We assume our career choices will be personally fulfilling or financially remunerative. We assume politicians we vote for have our, or the community's, best interests at heart. We assume that the foods we choose to eat are healthy for us, and so on.

These assumptions are sometimes correct. At other times, however, the assumptions we base our decisions on have never been examined. Sometimes we hold these assumptions because people we respect (friends, parents, teachers, religious leaders) have told us they are right. At other times we have picked these assumptions up as we travel through life but can't say exactly where they've come from. To make good decisions in life we need to be sure that these assumptions are accurate and valid – that they fit the situations and decisions we are facing. Critical thinking describes the process we use to uncover and check our assumptions. Decisions based on critical thinking are more likely to be ones we feel confident about and to have the effects we want them to have.

Your Mental Models

Mental models are the filters we use to understand the world. A mental model is a representation of how something works. Everyday we encounter so much information that we cannot store it all and the phenomena we encounter are too complex to understand every detail. Therefore, we use filtering models to simplify the complex into organizable and understandable chunks, conceptual models to file and organize new information, and reasoning models to create new ideas and make decisions.

Mental models shape what we think, how we interpret what we value most, where we direct our attention, how we reason, and where we perceive opportunities. The quality of our thinking is only as good as the models in our head and their usefulness in a given situation. The best models improve our likelihood of making the best decisions. By critically examining our assumptions, we can adjust them to be in better accord with reality and they become more powerful mental models in the toolkit through which we understand reality.

All of us go through life with many incorrect core assumptions about reality. For example, most of us believe (1) we are perceiving reality accurately, (2) our perceptions are valid, and (3) that what is obvious to us must be obvious to others. Let that sink in for a minute: these are incorrect assumptions. It is simply not possible to perceive reality accurately and everyone's reality is different. Our sensory nervous system sends gigabytes per minute of data to the brain but the brain has the attentional bandwidth to process megabytes per minute. On top of that, we are always allocating some of our bandwidth to our thoughts (have you every been lost in thought and missed an important detail?). To improve our thinking, first we have to accept that our perceptions of the moment are filtered through mental models , that our most dearly held beliefs may not correctly describe reality, and be open to improving them.

Building your toolkit of mental models is a lifelong project. Stick with it, and you'll find that your ability to understand reality, accomplish your goals, deepen your relationships, and make the best decisions will always improve. Critical thinking is a set of reasoning tools that we use to improve our other models about the world. They are the foundation upon which we can build our best mental models. In the next section, you will find an overview of the reasoning tools described in this website.

Organization of this Resource

Learn to analyze the elements of reasoning.

The Critical Analysis page is dedicated to the first step in the process of developing critical thinking skills, recognizing elements of reasoning that are present in the mind whenever we reason. I categorize six elements of reasoning: purposes, questions, points of view, information, assumptions, and reasoning. Note how these elements are related in the following paragraph.

To take command of our thinking, first we need to clearly formulate both our purpose and the question at issue. To uncover truths, we need to make logical inferences based on sound assumptions and information that is both accurate and relevant to the question we are dealing with. We need to understand our own point of view and fully consider other relevant viewpoints. We also need to recognize problems created by bugs in the human operating system by formally working around them. These bugs can be categorized into two major categories, each of which has it's own page.

Fallacies of reasoning are found in unsound arguments that may sound persuasive on the surface.

Cognitive biases are a predictably systematic patterns of deviation rationality in judgment. Cognitive biases can lead to irrational thought through distortions of perceived reality, inaccurate judgment, or illogical interpretation. For example, confirmation bias is the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs and filter-out information that does not confirm one's existing beliefs.

Learn to evaluate reasoning

The Critical Evaluation page describes the second step in the process of critical thinking, evaluating the quality of thought. We need to use concepts justifiably and follow out the implications of decisions we are considering.

Learn to avoid other common mistakes

No one is a master of every discipline, however there are some common misconceptions that people have of other disciplines that you should learn to avoid.

Additionally, I have created a page of common writing errors that I have observed in developing student writing.

Before submitting your writing, I suggest that you please consult these resources as checklists and verify that you have done your best to avoid these mistakes.

Critical Analysis

Analysis is the act of breaking something complex down into simpler parts that you examine in detail. To critically analyze a text or idea, identify its purpose, the question at issue, the author's point of view, the kinds of information involved, the reasoning, and the conclusions.

Unless a text is simply presenting information, it will often contain arguments. An argument is a series of statements that reach a logical conclusion that is intended to reveal the degree of truth of another statement. Arguments begin with premises (kinds of information) that are related to each other using valid forms of reasoning (a process) to arrive at a logical conclusion, new information. A logical conclusion is a new kind of information that is true in light of premises being true (if the premises are all facts) or seeming to be true (if the premises contain some opinions). A logical conclusion may be false, if the premises are false or the reasoning is poor.

1. Identify the Purposes

All texts or ideas have a purpose .

• What do you think the author wants us to do, think about, or believe?
• Periodically check that the text or you are still on target with the purpose

2. Identify the Questions at Issue

When reasoning is present, the author is attempting to figure something out, to answer some question, or to solve a problem.

• Take time to clearly and precisely state the question at issue
• Express the question in several ways to clarify its meaning and scope
• Break down the question into sub questions
• Identify if the question has one right answer, is a matter of opinion, or requires reasoning from more than one point of view

3. Identify Points of View

All reasoning is done from some point of view. We often experience the world in such a way as to assume that we are observing things just as they are, as though we were seeing the world without the filter of a point of view. Nonetheless, we also recognize that others have points of view that lead them to conclusions we fundamentally disagree with. One of the key dispositions of critical thinking is the on-going sense that, as humans, we always think within a perspective, that we virtually never experience things totally and absolutely. There is a connection, therefore, between thinking so as to be aware of our assumptions and intellectual humility. Therefore, it is often helpful to open your mind and involve other people (friends, family, work colleagues) who help us see ourselves and our actions from unfamiliar perspectives. Sometimes reading books, watching videos, or having new experiences such as traveling to other cultures, going to college, or being an intern help us become aware of our assumptions. It is equally important to recognize that one person's is biased by their world view and experiences, and therefore all points of view should be examined critically.

• Identify your point of view
• Identify author's point of view
• Compare and contrast differing points of view

4. Distinguish Types of Information

Uncritical thinkers treat their conclusions as something given to them through experience, as something they directly observes in the world. As a result, they find it difficult to see why anyone might disagree with their conclusions. After all, they believe that the truth of their views is right there for everyone to see! Such people find it difficult to describe evidence without interpreting it through their point of view. Critical thinking requires the ability to label types of information and evaluate their quality before accepting an argument.

Information is true if it is accord accord with reality. Since our knowledge of reality is always incomplete, in practice truth is measured by its accord with the best information we have about reality. All information has an associated degree of belief (a feeling about truth) or confidence (the scientific term for statistical likelihood of truth) in its truth value. When analyzing, we are simply categorizing rather than evaluating the quality of the information.

All arguments are based on information. Premises are information that is used in the context of an argument. Information can be classified with four characteristics that describe the context in which it is used.

1. Evidence is information upon which conclusions are based. There are two categories of evidence:

• Facts (objective truth)
• Opinions (a feeling about the truth)

2. Assumptions are statements that we accept as true without proof or demonstration.

3. Conclusions are the results or reasoning, irrespective of their truth value.

4. Propaganda is information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda

4A. Identify Evidence

Evidence is information that is relevant to question at issue. Both facts and opinions are evidence.

• Unless necessary facts unavailable, you should restrict your evidence to facts, verifiable information.
• Restrict your conclusions to those supported by the evidence you have.

A fact is an accurate description of an object, event, or statement that is independently verifiable by empirical means .

There are two distinct senses of the word "factual." The word may refer to a verified fact. However, "factual" may also refer to claims that are "factual in nature" in the sense that they can be verified or disproven by observation or empirical study, but those claims must be evaluated to determine if they are true. People often confuse these two senses, even to the point of accepting as true, statements which merely "seem factual", for example, "29.23 % of Americans suffer from depression." Before I accept this as true, I should assess it. I should ask such questions as "How do you know? How could this be known? Did you merely ask people if they were depressed and extrapolate those results? How exactly did you arrive at this figure?"

Purported facts should be assessed for their accuracy, completeness, and relevance to the issue. Sources of purported facts should be assessed for their qualifications, track records, and impartiality. Many students have experienced an education which stressed retention and repetition of factual claims. Such an emphasis stunts students' desire and ability to assess alleged facts, leaving them open to manipulation. Likewise, activities in which students "distinguish fact from opinion" often confuse these two senses. They encourage students to accept as true statements which merely "look like" facts.

To identify facts, look for these signal words in italics: "The annual report confirms ...," "Scientists have recently discovered ...," " According to the results of the tests...," "The investigation demonstrated ... "

Credible facts reference the observer of the information. You should accept a fact only after you have identified confirmation by many different independent observers and evaluated their credibility and potential bias. Even before this evaluation, you should reject a fact that does not have a clear source

As an example, in the debate we watched, Nick Gillespie says, "[drugs are] not addictive for 99 percent of people." This is factual only in the sense that may be empirically possible to measure, but you should not accept this as fact without more context such as a source.

If you have the opportunity, ask someone, "where did you get that information?" to give them the chance to confirm a fact. Until, you actually understand the limits and source of the fact, you should regard the information as suspicious and categorize it as an opinion that someone believes is true.

An opinion is a statement that expresses either how a person feels about something or what a person thinks is true . With objective verification, opinions can become facts. If they cannot be proven or disproven, they will always be opinions.

Since we cannot examine the facts in all situations, sometimes we must rely on an opinion as evidence in an argument. Any conclusion derived from an argument that uses an opinion in place of a fact will generally be less reliable. You should always acknowledge such uncertainty when presenting such a conclusion.

• Look for these signal words in italics: "He claimed that...," "It is the officer's view that...," "The report argues that...," "Many scientists suspect that... "
• Some opinions are more reliable than others. An opinion that is based on the objective consideration of a large amount of incomplete information will be more reliable than an opinion based on one observation and a feeling.
• Understand that things are not always as they appear to be. At times, writers, whether consciously or not, will frame opinion as fact and vice versa.
• Note that statements can contain both fact and opinion. They should be separately when analyzing an argument.

4B. Identify Assumptions

An assumption is a statement that we accept as true without proof or demonstration. It is an unstated premise, presupposition, or opinion that is required to connect data to conclusions.

All human thought and experience is based on assumptions. Our thought must begin with something we believe to be true in a particular context. We are typically unaware of what we assume and therefore rarely question our assumptions. Much of what is wrong with human thought can be found in the uncritical or unexamined assumptions that underlie it. Identifying and evaluating accuracy and validity of assumptions is arguably the most important application of critical thinking. Accurate and valid assumptions can become facts.

Assumptions are often very difficult to identify. Usually they are something we previously learned and do not question. They are part of our system of beliefs. We assume our beliefs to be true and use them to interpret the world about us.

This packet of exercises has many excellent examples assumptions identified in short scenarios.

4C. Identify Conclusions

Conclusions are the results or reasoning.

In logic, conclusions can be categorized based on their truth value:

• Sound conclusions result from true premises and valid reasoning.
• Unsound conclusions result from false premises and/or invalid reasoning.

Additionally, conclusions are often categorized as either:

• accurate/inaccurate based on the truth of the premises
• logical/illogical based on the quality of the reasoning
• justified/unjustified based on whether or not the truth value has been critically evaluated

Conclusions also can be categorized based on their role in an argument:

• Inferences (conclusions from a single step of reasoning that are used as a premise in a successive argument)
• Drawn conclusions (conclusions that relate back to the question at issue)

It should be noted that different disciplines that study human thought (i.e. philosophy, cognitive psychology, artificial intelligence, etc.) define the distinction between a conclusion and an inference differently. To avoid confusion, I will make the following distinctions. When analyzing reasoning, a logical conclusion refers to the result of any argument. When analyzing a complex argument focused on a question at issue, an inference is a logical conclusion drawn from a single step in reasoning and may be used as information in the premise of a successive step of reasoning. A drawn conclusion describes a logical conclusion that specifically answers the question at issue by logically relating many inferences as premises. The example in this article, effectively illustrates my distinction between an inference and drawn conclusion (Note that other sources may define these word in the exact opposite way!).

Conclusions are generally straight-forward to identify in context. When analyzing a complex argument focused on a complex question at issue, inferences are often made implicitly in the course of reasoning. For this reason, an inference may be more difficult to identify. Critical thinkers try to monitor their inferences to keep them in line with what is actually implied by what they know. When speaking, critical thinkers try to use words that imply only what they can legitimately justify. They recognize that there are established word usages which generate established implications.

• If we assume that it is dangerous to walk late at night in big cities and we move to Chicago, we will infer that it is dangerous to go for a walk late at night in Chicago. We probably take for granted our assumption that it is dangerous to walk late at night in big cities and in Chicago implicitly.
• To infer that an act that was murder, is to infer that it was intentional and unjustified. The implications of this inference are severe, thus sufficient evidence must exist to justify this opinion or fact.

A helpful tool is to first identify an inference (what do we infer from the situation being evaluated?) then identify an assumption that is the premise to that inference ("If the inference is true, what did I assume about the situation?"). Often an assumption you identify this way is an inference that can be further unpacked by repeating the second step to identify deeper core assumptions.

Situation: I heard a scratch at the door. I got up to let the cat in.

Inference: I inferred that the cat was at the door.

Ask: If that is true, what did I infer about the situation?

Assumptions: Only the cat makes that noise, and he makes it only when he wants to be let in.

Since different people can have difference assumptions, they will make different inferences about the reality of the same situation.

4D. Identify Propaganda

Propaganda is a special category of information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience to reach a specific conclusion. Propaganda attempts to arouse emotions and biases to short-circuit rational judgment. The author of propaganda deliberately designs an argument that does not hold up to critical thinking. It's use indicates an intent to, at worst mislead, or at best persuade without the use of reasoning. Whether or not propaganda is ethical is a personal and context-dependent value judgment that is separate from critical thinking.

Students often find analysis of propaganda to be confusing because it is an extra feature of information, rather than its own type. Information that is propaganda can be any non-objective type (opinion, assumption, and/or inference) if it is deliberately used to manipulate opinions using poor reasoning. Moreover, propaganda quite utilizes poor reasoning—it often employs logical fallacies or takes advantage of cognitive biases to mislead.

The following is a list of common propaganda techniques:

• Bandwagon . It aims at persuading people to do a certain thing because many other people are doing it. An example can be a soft drink advertisement wherein a large group of people is shown drinking the same soft drink. People feel induced to opt for that drink as it is shown to be consumed by many. Similarly, by simply declaring without evidence that something is America's Favorite, significantly increases sales. Snob appeal is the reverse of bandwagon. It indicates that buying a certain product will make you stand out from the rest, as the masses won't afford to buy it.
• Card Stacking Propaganda. Now, this technique is perhaps most popularly used. It involves the deliberate omission of certain facts to fool the target audience. The term card stacking originates from gambling and occurs when players try to stack decks in their favor. A similar ideology is used by companies to make their products appear better than they actually are. Most brands use this propaganda technique to downplay unsavory details about their products and services. For instance, some companies may cleverly conceal "hidden charges" and only talk about the benefits of their products and services. Changing the shape of french fries so that one pays more for less food, still doesn't change the fact that eating fried food is unhealthy.
• Glittering Generalities Propaganda uses emotional appeal or/and vague statements to influence the audience. Advertising agencies thus use of phrases like as "inspiring you from within" or "to kick-start your day" to create positive anecdotes. This makes the product look more appealing, resulting in better sales.
• Hacking Identity: The Pride-Fear-Outrage-Hatred Formula. Critically examine when identity categories become significant to an argument. In some cases it may be appropriate, in others it may be an emotionally manipulative red herring.
• Example: In recent years, the Russian government has planted appeals to pride to amplify difference and strengthen online social communities. This is then followed by stories designed to invoke fear and outrage. A 2018 report to the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence details how these tactics are apparently designed to "hack" the minds of citizens in democratic nations into feeling disillusioned with social and political institutions. The goal is to weaken democratic participation and nudge countries towards increasingly pro-authoritarian values.
• Repetition. It is when the product name is repeated many times during an advertisement. This technique may use a jingle, which is appealing to the masses and fits in their minds. This takes advantage of the illusory truth effect, a cognitive bias that is encapsulated in the old adage, "if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." It is an unfortunate reality that the Internet is often used to make make untrue information seem true by repetition.
• Slogans. A slogan is a brief, striking phrase that may include labeling and stereotyping. Although slogans may be enlisted to support reasoned ideas, in practice they tend to act only as emotional appeals. Opponents of the US's invasion and occupation of Iraq use the slogan "blood for oil" to suggest that the invasion and its human losses was done to access Iraq's oil riches. On the other hand, supporters who argue that the US should continue to fight in Iraq use the slogan "cut and run" to suggest withdrawal is cowardly or weak. Similarly, the names of the military campaigns, such as "enduring freedom" or "just cause" can also be considered slogans, devised to influence people.
• Testimonial propaganda is popular advertising technique that uses renowned or celebrity figures to endorse products and services. Now in this case, when a famous person vouches for something, viewers are likely to take account of the credibility and popularity of that person. Watch Drake's Sprite commercial as an example.

Wikipedia has an extensive list of propaganda techniques with numerous examples.

5. Analyze Reasoning

The identification of poor reasoning invalidates the conclusion of an argument. The conclusion of the argument may or may not be true. You must formulate an alternative valid argue ment to support the conclusion.

5A. Identify Logical Fallacies

Fallacies are faulty reasoning used in the construction of an argument. This topic is so vast that I have created a separate fallacies of reasoning page.

5B. Identify Cognitive Biases

A cognitive bias is a cognitive shortcut that leads to a loss of objectivity. Cognitive biases can lead to irrational thought through distortions of perceived reality, inaccurate judgment, or illogical interpretation. By learning about some of the most common biases, you can learn and how to avoid falling victim to them.

The identification of cognitive biases at work in an argument should make you skeptical. Like fallacies, this topic is so vast that I have created a separate cognitive biases page to explain them.

Critical Evaluation

After we have cataloged the elements of reasoning, we must evaluate texts and our own reasoning for clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, significance, logic, and fairness. When making a decision with incomplete information, it is critical to recognize that truth is often a degree of belief based on our evaluation of the quality of the information and reasoning .

1. Evaluate point of view

• Playing the devil's advocate by arguing from a different point of view is a powerful exercise
• After reading a text, examine how much influence the author's point of view had on you

 Critically evaluate the reliability of an author (and publisher):

• What qualifications does the author have for writing on this subject? (Or what are the qualifications of the people the author quotes?)
• Based on your research on the author's background, what factors may have influenced his or her point of view?
• When and where was the article first published? Does this information affect the credibility of the article?

  Compare and contrast points of view to reveal how related material is presented by different authors and different purposes of their writing. After reading two texts on the same topic, ask yourself:

• What is the author's point of view in each of these articles?
• Why do you think that the points of view presented are so different?
• How much influence did each author's point of view have on you?

1A. Evaluate a Scientific Author's Qualifications

• Examine the primary source of information . ls there a reference to the source of information? If not, it cannot be verified. If so, is the source reputable?
• Examine the reputation of the author . Do the author(s) have training in science? If so, have they had formal training leading to an advanced degree such as a Master's degree or doctorate, and have they published widely in reputable journals? If not, then are they working with a reputable scientist(s) to evaluate the data?
• Does the discoverer say that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work? Often, the discoverer describes mainstream science as part of a larger conspiracy that includes industry and government. The idea is that the establishment will presumably stop at nothing to suppress discoveries that might shift the balance of wealth and power in society. This is not how science actually works. Science is an open and international enterprise focused on uncovering true descriptions of reality.
• Determine if the work was published in a peer-reviewed journal . Peer review is the standard process for scientific publications. Peer-reviewed manuscripts have been read by several scholars in the same field (called peers), and these peers have indicated that the experiments and conclusions meets the standards of their discipline and are suitable for publication. In the absence of peer-review the significance and quality of the data cannot be assessed.
• Has the discovery been pitched directly to the media? The integrity of science rests on the willingness of scientists to expose new ideas and findings to the scrutiny of other scientists. Thus, scientists expect their colleagues to reveal new findings to them initially. An attempt to bypass peer review by taking a new result directly to the media, and thence to the public, suggests that the work is unlikely to stand up to close examination by other scientists.
• Check if the journal has a good reputation for scientific research . If a peer-reviewed paper is cited, where was it published? Is the journal widely respected? One tool that is commonly used for ranking, evaluating, categorizing, and comparing journals is the frequency with which the "average article" in a journal has been cited in a particular year or period. The frequency of citation reflects acknowledgment of importance by the scientific community. High-impact and widely respected journals include Science and Nature. Therefore, a citation in Science generally suggests scholarly acceptance, whereas publication in a nonscientific or little-known journal does not.
• Determine if there is an independent confirmation by another published study . Even if a study is peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal, independent assessment is critical to confirm or extend the findings. Even the best journals or scientists will occasionally make mistakes and publish papers that are later retracted. Sometimes there may be outright fabrication that is overlooked by the reviewers and not detected until later. In other cases, the scientific report may be accurate but its significance may be misrepresented by the media. Although it is a slow process ro establish a scientific "truth," a particular scientific conclusion will eventually either gain broad acceptance or be discarded.
• Assess whether a potential conflict of interest exists . Most of the high-impact journals require a conflict of interest statment on the first page of an article.
• Assess the quality of institution or panel . Does the report emanate from a University accredited by the U.S. Department of Education or equivalent society? Such information is generally more reliable than that issued from a single individual putting information out on the web. In the United States, government research arms such as the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Health and professional scientific societies generally provide up-to-date, high-quality information.

2. Evaluate of Degree of Truth in Information

After analyzing to identify the different kinds of information, we must be explicit about the quality of each piece of information used in the text or our own thinking. Using the highest quality information in arguments increases the degree of belief in the truth of the argument. We must acknowledge when poor quality information is used in an argument and clearly state that we have low confidence in the truth of the argument.

• Search for information that opposes your position as well as information that supports it
• Make sure that all information used is clear, accurate, and relevant to the question at issue
• Make sure you have gathered sufficient information
• We can have the most confidence in facts that have been confirmed by many different independent observers.

A scientist's perspective on facts

In everyday language most of us consider a confirmed fact to be truth. However, scientists consider all truth to be provisional, the current facts serve as description of truth only for the time being. Scientists assume that all knowledge has the potential to be overturned if new information suggests that it should be. Scientists use the uncertainty and percent confidence to describe the statistical likelihood that a fact is true.

Physicist Richard P. Feynman once said, "In physics and in human affairs... whatever is not surrounded by uncertainty, cannot be the truth." He said this in reference to a newspaper article that asserted absolute belief in a scandalous rumor regarding a colleague. He observed that a responsible reporter should have referred to an "alleged incident." With no reference to a process that had first evaluated the quality of the truth, he considered accusation to be opinion, not fact.

• Is a particular measurement 78 ± 50 or 78 ± 1 meters? As you can see, the uncertainty deeply affects how you will use that information.
• It is a scientific formalism that any measurement missing a stated uncertainty has an uncertainty of ±1 in a last significant digit. Therefore, 78 seconds is understood to be 78 ± 1 seconds and 78.0 seconds is 78.0 ± 0.1 seconds.
• "The crash test results indicate a 98% chance that a head-on collision will kill you. As a professional scientist I cannot say that a head-on collision will kill you."

This last example highlight the property that all scientific information is actually a statement probability . Nothing in science is ever "proven" or "100% certain." Always avoid saying that science has proven something. This is a discipline-specific error in reasoning commonly made by non-scientists. Non-scientists sometimes misinterpret when scientists attach uncertainty to every fact. If there is 95% confidence that climate change is being caused by human activity, people with a psychological bias to avoid taking action around this crisis may focus on the 5% uncertainty in the truth value. On the other hand, people who are convinced of this fact and want to take action get frustrated that scientists refuse to say that it has been proven, we are certain. In practice, 95% confidence in science is the gold standard for a complex phenomenon being "as good as proven," but scientists always keep open the possibility that they don't have all the data and keep open the possibility that this fact may be more nuanced or simply wrong in the future.

Comparing and Contrasting Information

By comparing and contrasting information, you can identify facts, make inferences, and draw conclusions that would not otherwise be possible. After reading two texts, ask yourself:

• How do the articles differ in the information each one presents?
• Are the articles different in how they present information?
• Does the information appear to be complete and accurate? Why or why not?

2. Evaluate assumptions

[Unfinished]

Contrasting Assumptions

If two sides are arguing from different assumptions, it is very effective to focus on these in critical evaluation. Controversies generally rest on different sides interpreting the same information through different assumptions.

Assumptions, can be unjustified or justified, depending upon whether we do or do not have good reasons for them. Likewise, if two sides of a controversy share assumptions that are found faulty, both arguments become invalid.

• Ethan Nadelmann, founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Foundation, argues that law enforcement officials are overzealous in prosecuting individuals for marijuana possession citing that 87% of marijuana arrests are for possession of small amounts.
• The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) contends that marijuana is not a harmless drug and must remain restricted. Besides causing physical problems, marijuana affects academic performance and emotional adjustment.
• Underlying both of their arguments is the assumption that adults cannot be permitted to make their own decisions about the use of particular drugs as they choose. A libertarian who worries about governmental restrictions on personal liberty would immediately recognize this shared deep assumption and challenge it. If convincingly challenged, both arguments lose validity.

3. Evaluate reasoning

When an argument doesn't "feel" right, first analyze it as follows. Write down the information that forms each premise of the argument and categorize them. Write down the conclusion and label it. Write your best general description of the reasoning that links them. The mechanics of the reasoning are usually found in a "therefore" type statement. To unmask the logic, replace the premise statements with letters that represent concepts and properties. Example: "It's raining and the sun is shining, therefore it's raining." The logical form is "X has property Q and P, therefore X has property Q". The logic is sound. [I will link some more examples later.]

3A. Logical Fallacies

Fallacies are faulty reasoning used in the construction of an argument. This topic is so vast that I have created a separate fallacies of reasoning page. The identification of fallacious reasoning invalidates an argument and we then forced to formulate our own arguments to uncover truth.

3B. Evaluate Propaganda

Propaganda is information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience to reach a specific conclusion. Propaganda attempts to arouse emotions to short-circuit rational judgment. It is not by definition "good" or "bad." However, it's use indicates possible intent to, at worst mislead, or at best persuade without the use of reasoning. The techniques of propaganda are utilized in some logical fallacies and you will find some conceptual overlap. The following is a list of common propaganda techniques:

• Hacking Identity: The Pride, Fear, Outrage, Hatred Formula. Critically examine when identity categories become significant to an argument. In some cases it may be appropriate, in others it may be an emotionally manipulative red herring. Example: In recent years, the Russian government has planted appeals to pride to amplify difference and strengthen online social communities. This is then followed by stories designed to invoke fear and outrage. The effort is apparently designed to "hack" the minds of people in democratic nations into feeling disillusioned with social and political institutions.
• Stereotyping. People or objects are lumped together under simplistic labels, also called labeling. Example: Blonde women are beautiful, but dumb.
• Overgeneralizations . Treating a complex general thing as if it were a concrete thing. Example: " The UN's bureaucracy has forsaken its commitment... " or " The City extends strike deadline."

3C. Evaluate Cognitive Biases

A cognitive bias is a cognitive shortcut that leads to a loss of objectivity. Cognitive biases can lead to irrational thought through distortions of perceived reality, inaccurate judgment, or illogical interpretation. By learning about some of the most common biases, you can learn and how to avoid falling victim to them. The identification of cognitive biases at work in an argument should make you skeptical. Like fallacies, this topic is so vast that I have created a separate cognitive biases page to explain them.

4. Evaluate Judgments and Conclusions

After you read an article, you should be able to answer these questions:

• What judgments and conclusions were drawn by the author of this article?
• Are their faults of reasoning that make the drawn conclusion unjustified?
• Does the drawn conclusion challenge your assumptions?
• What other drawn conclusions are possible to draw using the same information?
• What other information might be important to know before making any judgment on the value and importance of this text?

5. Predict future Implications and Consequences

The alignment of reasonable future implications and consequences of a conclusion or judgment with your values should inform your reasoning.

• Trace the implications and consequences that follow from your reasoning
• Search for negative as well as positive implications
• Attempt to consider all possible consequences

Fallacies are faulty reasoning used in the construction of an argument . They make an argument appear to be better than it is. Here are some major fallacies of reasoning that you be able to recognize. All of the following fallacies are known as informal fallacies because they originate in a reasoning error. In contrast, formal fallacies , also known as non sequiturs, arise from the logical form of the argument. The following article introduces the most common fallacies.

In this video example we see rapid fire deployment of straw man, false dichotomy, and some formal fallacies on a kid who, impressively, recognizes each flaw of reasoning.

Identifying fallacies

Remember that arguments begin with premises that are related to each other using valid forms of reasoning to arrive at a logical conclusion .

Once you have analyzed the parts of an argument, evaluate:

Is the reasoning faulty?

• If the error in the argument is in the logical connection between two premises in drawing a conclusion it is likely to be a formal fallacy, also known as a non sequitur.
• If the truth revealed by the conclusion is a cause-effect relationship, it may be a questionable cause fallacy.
• Does the reasoning neglect many other possibilities? The argument might be a false dilemma or slippery slope fallacy.

Is/are the premise(s) faulty?

• If the premise of the argument must assume the conclusion to be true then read the section on improper premise fallacies.
• If weak premises and incomplete information lead to a strong conclusion, the argument contains a weak premise fallacy, also known as a faulty generalization.

Are the premises and/or the arguments a distraction from the actual issue in question?

• If any part of the argument is irrelevant to the actual issue, a relevance fallacy or red herring is at work.

Are you still not able to identify the error in reasoning?

• Consult the comprehensive list of fallacies at Wikipedia or ask your instructor for assistance.

Formal Fallacies (Non Sequiturs)

An error in the argument's form. Invalid logic is applied to the premises.

Fallacy fallacy. This is the inferrence that an argument containing a fallacy must have a false conclusion. It is entirely possible for someone to pose a bad argument for something that is true. Try not to get so caught-up in identification of logical fallacies that you are quick to dismiss a flawed argument—instead, try to make the argument reasonable.

• Example: "Some of your key evidence is missing, incomplete, or even faked! That proves I'm right!"

Syllogistic fallacies. There are many kinds of these. Syllogisms are generally three step arguments that use two premises to derive a conclusion. The premises and conclusion all take the form of categorical propositions that somehow relate two categories. These fallacies derive from incorrect application of logic. These fallacies are often more obvious if you draw a Venn diagram of the categories and shared features.

• Example: "All birds have beaks. That creature has a beak. Therefore, that creature is a bird."
• Form: All Z is B. This Y is B. Therefore, all Y is Z.
• Problem: B cannot be generalized as an exclusive feature of Z. Y could be an octopus.
• Example: "People in Kentucky support a border fence. People in New York do not support a border fence. Therefore, people in New York do not support people in Kentucky."
• Form: All Z is B. All Y is not B. Therefore, all Y is not Z.
• Problem: From the lack of shared B, nothing more can be logically implied about the features of either Z or Y. Z and Y may in fact agree on the desired outcomes for the question at issue but disagree over the means for achieving the outcomes.

Informal Fallacies

The proposed conclusion is not supported by the premises.

Whereas formal fallacies can be identified by form, informal fallacies are identified by examining the argument's content. There are many subcategories.

Improper Premise Fallacies

Any form of argument in which the conclusion occurs as one of the premises.

Begging the question. Providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise. You assume without proof the stand/position that is in question. To "beg the question" is to put forward an argument whose validity requires that its own conclusion is true. Formally, begging the question statements are not structured as an argument and are harder to detect than circular arguments. Some authors consider circular reasoning to be a special case of begging the question. In the following examples, notice that the question at issue answers itself without argument.

• Example: "This whole abortion debate about when human life begins is ridiculous. We should be thinking about the rights of the baby."
• The question at issue: Should with examine when rights begin under the law? Premise: Rights begin after a baby is born. Conclusion: The debate is ridiculous.

Circular reasoning. Formally, circular reasoning differs from begging the question by specifically referring to arguments in which the reasoner simply repeats what they already assumed beforehand in different words without actually arriving at any new conclusion. Circular reasoning is not persuasive because a listener who doubts the conclusion will also doubt the premise that leads to it. This may sound silly, but people make such statements quite often when put under pressure.

• "Whatever is less dense than water will float, because such objects don't sink in water."
• "Of course smoking causes cancer. The smoke from cigarettes is a carcinogen."
• "The rights of the minority are every bit as sacred as the rights of the majority, for the majority's rights have no greater value than those of the minority."
• "Everyone wants the new iPhone because it is the hottest new gadget on the market!"
• Note that this could be factually true in the situation that popularity was the sole driver of consumer desire for the new iPhone. Even so, it is still a fallacy of circular reasoning because its popularity must be logically explainable for reasons other than the conclusion.
• Video example

Loaded question . Asking a question that has an assumption built into it so that it can't be answered without appearing guilty.

• Example: Prosecutor to defendant: "So how did you feel when you murdered your wife?"
• The question at issue: Did the suspect murder his wife? Premise: "you murdered your wife." Conclusion: "you murdered your wife." Possible responses: Any answer that the defendant gives to "how did you feel?" could construed as admission that he murdered his wife. The best response is to point-out the fallacy and refuse to answer the question as stated.

Weak Premise Fallacies

These reach a conclusion from weak premises. Unlike fallacies of relevance, the premises are related to the conclusions and yet only weakly support the conclusions. A faulty generalization is thus produced.

Cherry Picking / Card Stacking. The presentation of only that information or those arguments most favorable to a particular point of view.

• Example: "I'm a really good driver. In the past thirty years, I have gotten only four speeding tickets." (What other kind of tickets has he gotten? How long has he been driving?)

Faulty/Weak analogy. Comparison is carried too far, or the things compared have nothing in common.

• Example: Apples and oranges are both fruit. Both grow on trees. Therefore, apples and oranges taste the same.

Hasty Generalization (from an Unrepresentitve Sample). A judgment is made on the basis of inaccurate or insufficient evidence. They are extremely common because there is often no agreement about what constitutes sufficient evidence. Generalization from one person's experience is a common example of this fallacy.

• Example: "My grandfather smoked four packs of cigarettes a day since age fourteen and lived until age ninety-two. Therefore, smoking really can't be that bad for you."
• Example: "Ducks and geese migrate south for the winter. Therefore, all water-fowl migrate south for the winter."

No True Scotsman . Making what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of an argument.

• Example: Angus declares that Scotsmen do not put sugar on their porridge, to which Lachlan points out that he is a Scotsman and puts sugar on his porridge. Furious, like a true Scot, Angus yells that no true Scotsman sugars his porridge.

Questionable Cause Fallacies

The primary basis for these errors is either inappropriate deduction (or rejection) of causation or a broader failure to properly investigate the cause of an observed effect.

Correlation Without Causation / Cum Hoc. A faulty assumption that, because there is a correlation between two variables, one caused the other.

• Coincidence. The two variables aren't related at all, but correlate by chance.
• Third Cause. A third factor is the cause of the correlation. Example: Young children who sleep with the light on are much more likely to develop myopia in later life. Therefore, sleeping with the light on causes myopia. (In 1999, this was conclusion was popularized by the media from a study containing such a correlation. It is more likely that myopia has a genetic cause and myopic parents use nightlights because they have poor night vision without their glasses.)
• Wrong direction . Cause and effect are reversed. Example: The faster windmills are observed to rotate, the more wind is observed to be. Therefore wind is caused by the rotation of windmills. Real Life Example: When a country's debt rises above 90% of GDP, growth slows. Therefore, high debt causes slow growth.

Gamblers Fallacy. The incorrect belief that separate, independent events can affect the likelihood of another random event.

• Example: After having multiple children of the same sex, some parents may believe that they are due to have a child of the opposite sex. (In reality, the probability is still 0.5.)

False Cause / Post Hoc. Treating coincidence of one event following another as causation.

• Example: Every time we wash our car, it rains. Therefore, if we wash our car today, it will rain.
• Example: Specific vaccinations are given at the same age that obvious symptoms of autism typically manifest. When some parents see their children diagnosed with autism shortly after receiving vaccinations they assume that the vaccinations caused the autism (even though the autism could have been diagnosed by a professional

Single Cause Fallacy / Causal Oversimplification. It is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes or a third cause.

• Example: The "Gateway Drug Theory" argues that marijuana usage leads to usage of harder drugs and has been a major justification for why marijuana laws should be highly restrictive. However, the same data could be explained by marijuana simply being easier to obtain and therefore more likely to be the first drug tried by people who were likely to become hard drug users for many other reasons such as genetic factors or simple illegality of marijuana making it attractive to risk-taking people.
• Example: Traffic fatalities were cut when the highway speed limit was reduced to 55 mph Therefore, the lower speed limit has resulted in safer highways. (The fact that people are driving less and seat belt laws were also passed may be equally or more important.)

Relevance Fallacies

These are distractions from the argument typically with some distracting sentiment that seems to be relevant but isn't really on-topic. Red Herrings are a specific sub-category Relevance fallacy that is distinguished by an intent to mislead often due the lack of a real argument.

Ad Hominem Argument . Rejection of a person's view on the basis of personal characteristics, background, physical appearance, or other features irrelevant to the argument at issue. Pay close attention to words that question an opponent's character. Examples: slob, prude, moron, embarrassing, stubborn.

Ambiguity . Using double meanings or other ambiguities of language to mislead or misrepresent the truth. Meaning in language can be so slippery that there are at least a dozen sub-fallacies including ambiguous grammar, equivocation, and quoting out of context (a tactic most often encountered on the Internet).

Appeal to Authority. This fallacy happens when we misuse an authority. This misuse of authority can occur in a number of ways. We can cite only authorities — steering conveniently away from other testable and concrete evidence as if expert opinion is always correct. Or we can cite irrelevant authorities, poor authorities, or false authorities.

Appeal to Emotion. The use of non-objective words, phrases, or expressions that arouse emotion having the effect of short-circuiting reason. Common examples include appeals to fear, flattery, outrage, pity, pride, ridicule of opponent's argument, spite, wishful thinking. Emotional appeals are also a powerful tool in propaganda.

• Example: A commercial for a security company that shows someone breaking into a home in the middle of the night.
• Example: "Any intelligent person knows... " (appeal to pride).

Appeal to Nature. Any argument that assumes "natural" things are "good" and "unnatural" things are "bad" is flawed because concepts of the natural, good, and bad are all vague and ambiguous. The person creating the argument can define these in any way that supports their position. Appeals to Nature also employ the begging the question fallacy (above).

• Example: This tobacco ad claims that their product is more natural and thus better for you.
• Example: This ad attempts to convince the reader that margarine, one the most processed foods in a grocery store, is natural and aligns with the readers assumed yearning for a simpler, better life in the country.
• The marketing copy for products in a store like Whole Foods is rife of appeals to Nature. Practice spotting them.

Argument from ignorance / burden of proof. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This type of argument asserts a truth and shifts the burden of providing counter-evidence onto someone else. Logically, we should remain skeptical and demand legitimate evidence from the person asserting the proposition.

• Example of two contradictory positions using this fallacy: "No one has ever been able to prove definitively that extra-terrestrials exist, so they must not be real." "No one has ever been able to prove definitively that extra-terrestrials do not exist, so they must be real."
• Video Example

Argument from incredulity (appeal to common sense) . Saying that because one finds something difficult to understand that it's therefore not true.

Association fallacy. Inferring either guilt or honor by association. It is an irrelevant attempt to transfer the qualities of one thing to another by merely invoking them together. Sometimes fallacies of this kind may also be appeals to emotion, hasty generalizations, and/or ad hominem arguments.

• Example: An attractive spokesperson will say that a specific product is good. The attractiveness of the spokesperson gives the product good associations.
• Example: "Galileo was ridiculed in his time but later acknowledged to be right. Likewise, Dr. Andrew Wakefield's work demonstrating that vaccines cause autism will later be recognized as correct too." (Taking an unpopular position is no guarantee of its correctness. Additionally, the two scenarios are not comparable. Galileo was ridiculed by the Catholic Church. His scientific peers generally confirmed his work. In contrast, Dr. Wakefield's scientific peers have failed to replicate his observations and have invalidate his conclusions based on methodological flaws. The source of negative public opinion around Dr. Wakefield derives from valid expert criticism.)

Bandwagon / FOMO. The use of the fear of being "different" or "missing-out" is used to influence behavior.

• Example: "Twenty million people jog for their health. Shouldn't you?

Genetic fallacy . Judging something good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it comes.

• Example: "You're not going to wear a wedding ring, are you? Don't you know that the wedding ring originally symbolized ankle chains worn by women to prevent them from running away from their husbands? I would not have thought you would be a party to such a sexist practice." There are numerous motives explaining why people choose to wear wedding rings, but it would be a fallacy to presume those who continue the tradition are promoting sexism. (page 196 of ref)

Ignoring The Question. Digression, obfuscation, or similar techniques are used to avoid answering a question.

• Example: When asked about the possibility of a tax increase, a senator replies: "I have always met my obligations to those I represent."

Missing the point / Irrelevant Conclusion. Presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid and sound, but whose conclusion fails to address the issue in question.

• Example: The Chewbacca Defense from South Park .

Straw Man Argument. Appearing to refute an opponent's argument by instead creating an oversimplified or extreme version of the argument (a "straw man") and refuting that instead.

Texas sharpshooter . A conclusion is drawn from data with a stress on similarities while ignoring differences. An example is seeing localized patterns where none exist. The name comes from a joke about a Texan who fires some gunshots at the side of a barn, then paints a target centered on the tightest cluster of hits and claims to be a sharpshooter.

Tu Quoque Fallacy. Latin for "you too," is also called the "appeal to hypocrisy" because it distracts from the argument by pointing out hypocrisy in the opponent. This tactic doesn't prove one's point, because even hypocrites can tell the truth.

Informal Fallacies with Multiple Structural Problems

Composition / Division . The fallacy of composition infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of a part of the whole. The opposite reasoning is the fallacy of division.

False dilemma / false dichotomy / black and white. Reducing an issue to only two possible decisions.

• Example: Either we go to war, or we appear weak.

Middle ground / false compromise / argument to moderation . Arguing that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes is the truth.

• Example: Holly said that vaccinations caused autism in children, but her scientifically well-read friend Caleb said that this claim had been debunked and proven false. Their friend Alice offered a compromise that vaccinations cause some autism. (ref)

Slippery Slope. Moving from a seemingly benign premise or starting point and working through a number of small steps to an improbable extreme when many other outcomes could have been possible. Although this form of slippery slope is a sub-type of the formal appeal of probability fallacy (it assumes something will occur based on probability and thus breaks rules of formal logic), slippery slope arguments can take on many other forms and should are generally categorized as informal fallacies.

• Video examples: Don't Wake Up In A Roadside Ditch commercial and the children's book If You Give a Mouse a Cookie .

Special pleading . Moving the goalposts to create exceptions when a claim is shown to be false. Applying a double standard, generally to oneself.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool." –Richard Feynman

As we examine our assumptions and improve our mental models , we have to confront the reality that we all have inescapable hardwired biases that we cannot change through critical thinking. Because we all have them, science can teach us a lot about our biases. Biases are an inescapable feature of being human. No training will stop you from commiting them. However, learning about them can help you second guess the validity of your judgment, think more critically, consider other points-of-view, and develop empathy for the biases in others.

The operating system of our brains uses biologically evolved shortcuts in our thinking. Many of these shortcuts are useful and essential. However, we have also inherited bugs in the code that make many of our judgments irrational. A cognitive bias is a cognitive shortcut that leads to a loss of objectivity. By learning about some of the most common biases, you can learn and how to avoid falling victim to them. For example many of the biases below occur because the brain tends to find patterns where none exist and uses irrational biases to reduce cognitive dissonance when stressed with contradictory ideas. To learn more, I recommend reading Thinking Fast and Slow and You Are Not So Smart .

Common Cognitive Biases

Anchoring . The first thing you judge influences your judgment of all that follows.

Human minds are associative in nature, so the order in which we receive information helps determine the course of our judgments and perceptions. For instance, the first price offered for a used car sets an 'anchor' price which will influence how reasonable or unreasonable a counter-offer might seem. Even if we feel like an initial price is far too high, it can make a slightly less-than-reasonable offer seem entirely reasonable in contrast to the anchor price.

Be especially mindful of this bias during financial negotiations such as houses, cars, and salaries. The initial price offered has proven to have a significant effect.

Availability heuristic . Your judgments are influenced by what springs most easily to mind.

How recent, emotionally powerful, or unusual your memories are can make them seem more relevant. This, in turn, can cause you to apply them too readily. For instance, when we see news reports about homicides, child abductions, and other terrible crimes it can make us believe that these events are much more common and threatening to us than is actually the case.

Try to gain different perspectives and relevant statistical information rather than relying purely on first judgments and emotive influences.

Barnum effect . You see personal specifics in vague statements by filling in the gaps (e.g. interpreting your horoscope).

Because our minds are given to making connections, it's easy for us to take nebulous statements and find ways to interpret them so that they seem specific and personal. The combination of our egos wanting validation with our strong inclination to see patterns and connections means that when someone is telling us a story about ourselves, we look to find the signal and ignore all the noise.

Psychics, astrologers and others use this bias to make it seem like they're telling you something relevant. Consider how things might be interpreted to apply to anyone, not just you.

Belief bias . You are more likely to accept an argument that supports a conclusion that aligns with his values, beliefs and prior knowledge, while rejecting counter arguments to the conclusion.

It's difficult for us to set aside our existing beliefs to consider the true merits of an argument. In practice this means that our ideas become impervious to criticism, and are perpetually reinforced. Instead of thinking about our beliefs in terms of 'true or false' it's probably better to think of them in terms of probability. For example we might assign a 95%+ chance that thinking in terms of probability will help us think better, and a less than 1% chance that our existing beliefs have no room for any doubt. Thinking probabalistically forces us to evaluate more rationally.

A useful thing to ask is 'when and how did I get this belief?' We tend to automatically defend our ideas without ever really questioning them.

Belief perserverance . When some aspect of your core beliefs is challenged, it can cause you to believe even more strongly.

We can experience being wrong about some ideas as an attack upon our very selves, or our tribal identity. This can lead to motivated reasoning which causes a reinforcement of beliefs, despite disconfirming evidence. Recent research shows that the backfire effect certainly doesn't happen all the time. Most people will accept a correction relating to specific facts, however the backfire effect may reinforce a related or 'parent' belief as people attempt to reconcile a new narrative in their understanding.

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." —Mark Twain

Bystander effect . You presume someone else is going to do something in an emergency situation.

When something terrible is happening in a public setting we can experience a kind of shock and mental paralysis that distracts us from a sense of personal responsibility. The problem is that everyone can experience this sense of deindividuation in a crowd. This same sense of losing our sense of self in a crowd has been linked to violent and anti-social behaviors. Remaining self-aware requires some amount of effortful reflection in group situations.

If there's an emergency situation, presume to be the one who will help or call for help. Be the change you want to see in the world.

Confirmation bias . You favor things that confirm your existing beliefs.

We are primed to see and agree with ideas that fit our preconceptions, and to ignore and dismiss information that conflicts with them. You could say that this is the mother of all biases, as it affects so much of our thinking through motivated reasoning. To help counteract its influence we ought to presume ourselves wrong until proven right. "When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted either by what you wish to believe or by what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed." – Bertrand Russell

Think of your ideas and beliefs as software you're actively trying to find problems with rather than things to be defended.

Curse of knowledge . Once you understand something you presume it to be obvious to everyone.

Things makes sense once they make sense, so it can be hard to remember why they didn't. We build complex networks of understanding and forget how intricate the path to our available knowledge really is. This bias is closely related to the hindsight bias wherein you will tend to believe that an event was predictable all along once it has occurred. We have difficulty reconstructing our own prior mental states of confusion and ignorance once we have clear knowledge.

When teaching someone something new, go slow and explain like they're ten years old (without being patronizing). Repeat key points and facilitate active practice to help embed knowledge.

Declinism . You remember the past as better than it was, and expect the future to be worse than it will likely be.

Despite living in the most peaceful and prosperous time in history, many people believe things are getting worse. The 24 hour news cycle, with its reporting of overtly negative and violent events, may account for some of this effect. We can also look to the generally optimistic view of the future in the early 20th century as being shifted to a dystopian and apocalyptic expectation after the world wars, and during the cold war. The greatest tragedy of this bias may be that our collective expectation of decline may contribute to a real-world self-fulfilling prophecy. For some real data,

Instead of relying on nostalgic impressions of how great things used to be, use measurable metrics such as life expectancy, levels of crime and violence, and prosperity statistics.

Dunning-Kruger effect . The more you know, the less confident you're likely to be. The less you know, the more confident you are likely to be.

Because experts know just how much they don't know, they tend to underestimate their ability; but it's easy to be over-confident when you have only a simple idea of how things are. Try not to mistake the cautiousness of experts as a lack of understanding, nor to give much credence to lay-people who appear confident but have only superficial knowledge.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, yet wiser people so full of doubts." —Bertrand Russell

Framing effect . You allow yourself to be unduly influenced by context and delivery.

We all like to think that we think independently, but the truth is that all of us are, in fact, influenced by delivery, framing and subtle cues. This is why the ad industry is a thing, despite almost everyone believing they're not affected by advertising messages. The phrasing of how a question is posed, such as for a proposed law being voted on, has been shown to have a significant effect on the outcome.

Only when we have the intellectual humility to accept the fact that we can be manipulated, can we hope to limit how much we are. Try to be mindful of how things are being put to you.

Fundamental attribution error . You judge others on their character, but yourself on the situation.

If you haven't had a good night's sleep, you know why you're being a bit slow; but if you observe someone else being slow you don't have such knowledge and so you might presume them to just be a slow person. Because of this disparity in knowledge we often overemphasize the influence of circumstance for our own failings, as well as underestimating circumstantial factors to explain other people's problems.

It's not only kind to view others' situations with charity, it's more objective too. Be mindful to also err on the side of taking personal responsibility rather than justifying and blaming.

Groupthink . You let the social dynamics of a group situation override the best outcomes.

Dissent can be uncomfortable and dangerous to one's social standing, and so often the most confident or first voice will determine group decisions. Because of the Dunning-Kruger effect, the most confident voices are also often the most ignorant.

Rather than openly contradicting others, seek to facilitate objective means of evaluation and critical thinking practices as a group activity.

In-group bias . You unfairly favor those who belong to your group.

We presume that we're fair and impartial, but the truth is that we automatically favor those who are most like us, or belong to our groups. This blind tribalism has evolved to strengthen social cohesion, however in a modern and multicultural world it can have the opposite effect.

Try to imagine yourself in the position of those in out-groups; whilst also attempting to be dispassionate when judging those who belong to your in-groups.

Just world hypothesis . Your preference for justice makes you presume it exists.

A world in which people don't always get what they deserve, hard work doesn't always pay off, and injustice happens is an uncomfortable one that threatens our preferred narrative. However, it is also the reality. This bias is often manifest in ideas such as 'what goes around comes around' or an expectation of 'karmic balance', and can also lead to blaming victims of crime and circumstance.

A more just world requires understanding rather than blame. Remember that everyone has their own life story, we're all fallible, and bad things happen to good people.

Halo effect . How much you like someone, or how attractive they are, influences your other judgments of them.

Our judgments are associative and automatic, and so if we want to be objective we need to consciously control for irrelevant influences. This is especially important in a professional setting. Things like attractiveness can unduly influence issues as important as a jury deciding someone's guilt or innocence. If someone is successful or fails in one area, this can also unfairly color our expectations of them in another area.

If you notice that you're giving consistently high or low marks across the board, it's worth considering that your judgment may be suffering from the halo effect.

Negativity bias . You allow negative things to disproportionately influence your thinking.

The pain of loss and hurt are felt more keenly and persistently than the fleeting gratification of pleasant things. We are primed for survival, and our aversion to pain can distort our judgment for a modern world. In an evolutionary context it makes sense for us to be heavily biased to avoid threats, but because this bias affects our judgments in other ways it means we aren't giving enough weight to the positives.

Pro-and-con lists, as well as thinking in terms of probabilities, can help you evaluate things more objectively than relying on a cognitive impression.

Optimism bias . You overestimate the likelihood of positive outcomes.

There can be benefits to a positive attitude, but it's unwise to allow such an attitude to adversely affect our ability to make rational judgments (they're not mutually exclusive). Wishful thinking can be a tragic irony insofar as it can create more negative outcomes, such as in the case of problem gambling.

If you make rational, realistic judgments you'll have a lot more to feel positive about.

Pessimism bias . You overestimate the likelihood of negative outcomes.

Pessimism is often a defense mechanism against disappointment, or it can be the result of depression and anxiety disorders. Pessimists often justify their attitude by saying that they'll either be vindicated or pleasantly surprised, however a pessimistic attitude may also limit potential positive outcomes. It should also be noted that pessimism is something very different to skepticism: the latter is a rational approach that seeks to remain impartial, while the former is an expectation of bad outcomes.

Perhaps the worst aspect of pessimism is that even if something good happens, you'll probably feel pessimistic about it anyway.

Placebo effect . If you believe you're taking medicine it can sometimes 'work' even if it's fake.

The placebo effect can work for stuff that our mind influences (such as pain) but not so much for things like viruses or broken bones. Things like the size and color of pills can have an influence on how strong the effect is and may even result in real physiological outcomes. We can also falsely attribute getting better to an inert substance simply because our immune system has fought off an infection i.e. we would have recovered in the same amount of time anyway.

Homeopathy, acupuncture, and many other forms of natural 'medicine' have been proven to be no more effective than placebo. Keep a healthy body and bank balance by using evidence-based medicine from a qualified doctor.

Reactance . You'd rather do the opposite of what someone is trying to make you do.

When we feel our liberty is being constrained, our inclination is to resist, however in doing so we can over-compensate. While blind conformity is far from an ideal way to approach things, neither is being a knee-jerk contrarian.

Be careful not to lose objectivity when someone is being coercive/manipulative, or trying to force you do something. Wisdom springs from reflection, folly from reaction.

Self-serving bias . You believe your failures are due to external factors, yet you're responsible for your successes.

Many of us enjoy unearned privileges, luck and advantages that others do not. It's easy to tell ourselves that we deserve these things, whilst blaming circumstance when things don't go our way. Our desire to protect and exalt our own egos is a powerful force in our psychology. Fostering humility can help countermand this tendency, whilst also making us nicer humans.

When judging others, be mindful of how this bias interacts with the just-world hypothesis, fundamental attribution error, and the in-group bias.

Spotlight effect . You overestimate how much people notice how you look and act.

Most people are much more concerned about themselves than they are about you. Absent overt prejudices, people generally want to like and get along with you as it gives them validation too. It's healthy to remember that although we're the main character in the story of our own life, everyone else is center-stage in theirs too. This bias causes so many people to attribute to motives of malice when there may have been a simple misunderstanding.

Instead of worrying about how you're being judged, consider how you make others feel. They'll remember this much more, and you'll make the world a better place.

Sunk cost fallacy . You irrationally cling to things that have already cost you something.

When we've invested our time, money, or emotion into something, it hurts us to let it go. This aversion to pain can distort our better judgment and cause us to make unwise investments. A sunk cost means that we can't recover it, so it's rational to disregard the cost when evaluating. For instance, if you've spent money on a meal but you only feel like eating half of it, it's irrational to continue to stuff your face just because 'you've already paid for it'; especially considering the fact that you're wasting actual time doing so.

To regain objectivity, ask yourself: had I not already invested something, would I still do so now? What would I counsel a friend to do if they were in the same situation?

Discipline-specific misconceptions often made in arguments

• Everything is made of chemicals. Avoid saying that chemicals are "unnatural" or "dangerous."
• Medicine is not strictly a scientific profession. It can be, but is not required to be. A lot of what doctors actually do is non-scientific. The art of medicine is just as important as the science. For example, simply creating the feeling that the doctor understands a patient's problem and shares the patient's values increases the likelihood of positive health outcomes. Avoid the assumption that doctors are scientists.
• It can be just as dangerous to over-medicalize mental illness as it is to moralize about it. This is why recent writers like Johann Hari focus on non-medical aspects of addiction. From his popular TED Talk you might conclude that he dismisses the model that addiction is a physical medical condition. But if you read his book Chasing The Scream, you would learn that he actually accepts the medical model as part of a bigger picture, considers it mainstream in medicine, and has chosen to make a case for the significance of the social contributors to addiction. From Hari's point-of-view, the American medical system is incentivized to offer the lowest-cost quick fix (like a pill) so treating addiction as a solely medical condition can lead to oversimplified treatments that are less effective that complex, tailored treatments that consider an addict's social circumstances. His slogan, "the opposite of addiction is connection," is effective because it is memorable, however it is just as oversimplified as the purely medical model.

Neuroscience

• Everything alters the brain. Reading these words physically alters your brain by creating memories. In your writing, it is not enough to say the "repeated cocaine use alters the brain." Be specific about how the brain is altered and what the consequence is.
• Every human quality we care about has a dual nature . On one hand its character is limited by biology and the laws of physics. And on the other hand its experience is shaped by culture and personal experience. Thinkers who amplify the importance of biology in shaping behavior are making essentialist arguments. Thinkers who focus on the culturally constructed nature of a human quality are making constructivist arguments. It is important to study and understand the essential and constructed qualities of such concepts as gender, intelligence, athletic ability, extroversion, honesty, mental illness, etc. By separating "nature" from "nurture" we can learn how each contributes to the total phenomenon. But by taking either position, without acknowledging the role of the other, ignores the complexity of reality and leads to weak models. Avoid such overly simplifying models in your own thinking and question them in others.
• Avoid the words "prove," "proven," "proof," etc. Outside of mathematics, nothing is actually "proven" in life. Instead of writing, "It's been proven..." try "It's been observed..." or "Scientists have support for the theory..."

A longer list of misconceptions

Wikipedia has a great list of common misconceptions on many other topics.

Writing Tips

General style tips .

• For essays, refer to the MLA Writing guidelines.
• For scientific and technical writing, refer to the ACS Style Guide .

Citing and Referencing

• If you do not reference a fact in your writing, assume that a critical thinker will give it low likely hood of being true.
• When you quote someone, state their title and credentials. Give context to who they are to help your reader determine if the person being quoted is trustworthy and/or qualified.
• Cite the page number when citing a book.
• Avoid citing websites whenever possible. With the exception of a few online academic journals, assume that anything published online may be gone tomorrow and your reader will not be able to find it.
• A website is not a journal. Before citing a website, try to locate a print citation.
• Google is not a dictionary. If you cite a definition you got from Google, visit the "Google Dictionary" Wikipedia entry to discover who their current content provider is for definitions.
• Google is not a book publisher. Books you find in Google Books, were published somewhere else. Check the title page.

Presenting Information

• When you quote someone , always explain who they are. If they are an expert or researcher, state their qualifications and connect them to reputable organizations that sponsor their work. Doing this makes your writing more persuasive and makes it easier for your reader to research this person to come to their own conclusions.
• Example: "Michael Kuhar, an addiction researcher at the Emory University School of Medicine, explains that..."
• Give credit to the primary source of an idea , even if you encountered it in a secondary source. You should make an effort to read the primary source before quoting it's information and conclusion. If you are unable to, then be clear that you are repeating another author's interpretation of the primary source.

Glossary 

Why are precise definitions of concepts and ideas important.

Humans think within concepts or ideas. We can never achieve command over our thoughts unless we learn how to achieve command over our concepts or ideas. Thus we must learn how to identify the concepts or ideas we are using, contrast them with alternative concepts or ideas, and clarify what we include and exclude by means of them. For example, most people say they believe strongly in democracy, but few can clarify with examples what that word does and does not imply. Most people confuse the meaning of words with cultural associations, with the result that "democracy" means to people whatever we do in running our government—any country that is different is undemocratic. We must distinguish the concepts implicit in the English language from the psychological associations surrounding that concept in a given social group or culture. The failure to develop this ability is a major cause of uncritical thought and selfish critical thought.

• Consider alternative concepts
• Consider that others may be using alternative definitions of concepts
• Make sure you are using concepts with care and precision
• If you suspect a difference in definitions betwen you and another person, attempt to clarify each other's meaning

Fundamental Definitions

Argument. An argument is a series of statements that reach a conclusion that is intended to reveal the degree of truth of another statement. Arguments begin with premises (kinds of information) that are related to each other using valid forms of reasoning (a process) to arrive at the logical conclusion , new information. A logical conclusion is a new kind of information that is true in light of premises being true (if the premises are all facts) or seeming to be true (if the premises contain opinions).

Critical thinker. A well-cultivated critical thinker raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely; gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively; comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards; thinks open mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; is committed to overcoming our native confirmation bias, egocentrism, and sociocentrism; and communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems. ( https://www.criticalthinking.org )

Concept . A concept is a generalized idea of a thing or of a class of things that make up the fundamental building blocks of thoughts. Concepts are your brain's representations of past experiences (Barsalou 2003 and 2008). Using concepts, your brain groups some things together and separates others. You can look at three mounds of dirt and perceive two of them as "Hills" and one as a "Mountain," based on your concepts. The dominant psychological/philosophical school of thought known as constructivism assumes that the world like a sheet of pastry and your concepts are cookie cutters that carve boundaries, not because the boundaries are natural , but because they're useful or desirable . These boundaries have physical limitations of course; you'd never perceive a mountain as a lake (Boghossian 2006).

Empirical. Relying on or derived from experiment, observation, or experience as opposed to conceptual or evaluative.

Idea. An idea is anything existing in the mind as an object of knowledge or thought based on concepts regarding particular instances of a class of things. The word specifically refers to something conceived in the mind or imagined. An idea can be specific whereas concepts are generalized.

Thought refers to any idea, whether or not expressed, that occurs to the mind in reasoning or contemplation.

Additional Definitions

For additional definitions of the objects of mind and parts of thinking, I suggest this glossary: https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/glossary-of-critical-thinking-terms/4

• Programs & Services
• Delphi Center

Ideas to Action (i2a)

• What is Critical Thinking?

The ability to think critically calls for a higher-order thinking than simply the ability to recall information.

Definitions of critical thinking, its elements, and its associated activities fill the educational literature of the past forty years. Critical thinking has been described as an ability to question; to acknowledge and test previously held assumptions; to recognize ambiguity; to examine, interpret, evaluate, reason, and reflect; to make informed judgments and decisions; and to clarify, articulate, and justify positions (Hullfish & Smith, 1961; Ennis, 1962; Ruggiero, 1975; Scriven, 1976; Hallet, 1984; Kitchener, 1986; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Mines et al., 1990; Halpern, 1996; Paul & Elder, 2001; Petress, 2004; Holyoak & Morrison, 2005; among others).

After a careful review of the mountainous body of literature defining critical thinking and its elements, UofL has chosen to adopt the language of Michael Scriven and Richard Paul (2003) as a comprehensive, concise operating definition:

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.

Paul and Scriven go on to suggest that critical thinking is based on: "universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness. It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue, assumptions, concepts, empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions, implication and consequences, objections from alternative viewpoints, and frame of reference. Critical thinking - in being responsive to variable subject matter, issues, and purposes - is incorporated in a family of interwoven modes of thinking, among them: scientific thinking, mathematical thinking, historical thinking, anthropological thinking, economic thinking, moral thinking, and philosophical thinking."

This conceptualization of critical thinking has been refined and developed further by Richard Paul and Linder Elder into the Paul-Elder framework of critical thinking. Currently, this approach is one of the most widely published and cited frameworks in the critical thinking literature. According to the Paul-Elder framework, critical thinking is the:

• Analysis of thinking by focusing on the parts or structures of thinking ("the Elements of Thought")
• Evaluation of thinking by focusing on the quality ("the Universal Intellectual Standards")
• Improvement of thinking by using what you have learned ("the Intellectual Traits")

Selection of a Critical Thinking Framework

The University of Louisville chose the Paul-Elder model of Critical Thinking as the approach to guide our efforts in developing and enhancing our critical thinking curriculum. The Paul-Elder framework was selected based on criteria adapted from the characteristics of a good model of critical thinking developed at Surry Community College. The Paul-Elder critical thinking framework is comprehensive, uses discipline-neutral terminology, is applicable to all disciplines, defines specific cognitive skills including metacognition, and offers high quality resources.

Why the selection of a single critical thinking framework?

The use of a single critical thinking framework is an important aspect of institution-wide critical thinking initiatives (Paul and Nosich, 1993; Paul, 2004). According to this view, critical thinking instruction should not be relegated to one or two disciplines or departments with discipline specific language and conceptualizations. Rather, critical thinking instruction should be explicitly infused in all courses so that critical thinking skills can be developed and reinforced in student learning across the curriculum. The use of a common approach with a common language allows for a central organizer and for the development of critical thinking skill sets in all courses.

• SACS & QEP
• Planning and Implementation
• Why Focus on Critical Thinking?
• Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Framework
• Culminating Undergraduate Experience
• Community Engagement
• Frequently Asked Questions
• What is i2a?

Copyright © 2012 - University of Louisville , Delphi Center

• Sourcebook Home

Science Teaching Series

• The Sourcebook for Teaching Science
• Hands-On Physics Activities
• Hands-On Chemistry Activities

Internet Resources

I. developing scientific literacy.

• 1 - Building a Scientific Vocabulary
• 2 - Developing Science Reading Skills
• 3 - Developing Science Writing Skills
• 4 - Science, Technology & Society

II. Developing Scientific Reasoning

• 5 - Employing Scientific Methods
• 6 - Developing Scientific Reasoning
• 7 - Thinking Critically & Misconceptions

III. Developing Scientific Understanding

• 8 - Organizing Science Information
• 9 - Graphic Oganizers for Science
• 10 - Learning Science with Analogies
• 11 - Improving Memory in Science
• 12 - Structure and Function in Science
• 13 - Games for Learning Science

IV. Developing Scientific Problem Solving

• 14 - Science Word Problems
• 15 - Geometric Principles in Science
• 16 - Visualizing Problems in Science
• 17 - Dimensional Analysis
• 18 - Stoichiometry

V. Developing Scientific Research Skills

• 19 - Scientific Databases
• 20 - Graphing & Data Analysis
• 21 - Mapping & Visualizing Data
• 22 - Science Inquiry & Research
• 23 - Science Projects & Fairs

VI. Resources for Teaching Science

• 24 - Science Curriculum & Instruction
• 25 - Planning Science Instruction
• 26 - The Science Laboratory
• 27 - Science Reference Information

Elements of Critical Thinking

Definition of critical thinking.

• Identification of premises and conclusions .  Critical thinkers break arguments into basic statements and draw logical implications.
• Clarification of arguments : Critical thinkers locate ambiguity and vagueness in arguments and propositions.
• Establishment of facts :   Critical thinkers determine if the premises are reasonable and identify information that has been omitted or not collected.  They determine if the implications are logical and search for potentially contradictory data.
• Evaluation of Logic : Critical thinkers determine if the premises support the conclusion. In deductive arguments, the conclusions must be true if the premises are true.  In inductive arguments, the conclusions are likely if the premises are true.
• Final evaluation :  Critical thinkers weigh the evidence and arguments.  Supporting data, logic and evidence increase the weight of an argument.  Contradictions and lack of evidence decrease the weight of an argument.  Critical thinkers do not accept propositions if they think there is more evidence against them or if the argument is unclear, omits significant information, or has false premises or poor logic.
• Norman Herr, Ph.D.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Introduction to the Paul-Elder Model of Critical Thinking

Dr. sara rich .

Before choosing your own pseudoscience adventure to think critically through, let’s take a moment to explain our methodology. Namely, we have used the Paul-Elder Model of Critical Thinking to work through each question at issue and to arrive at a well-reasoned conclusion. This process has been made transparent for our readers: each section of each chapter represents one step of the Paul-Elder Model, which leads up to the written research component where all those steps are put together into a coherent argument. Each unit concludes with some critical thinking exercises pertaining to that particular pseudoscience, inspired by Gerald Nosich’s Learning to Think Things Through . This will help readers to further think and apply their learning to the pseudoscience of interest.

Step 1: Elements of Reasoning

The first step of the Paul-Elder Model is the Elements of Reasoning (Fig. 1). We start with the question at issue – identifying the key question that you have about a given topic. Why? All answers first require a question. Furthermore, starting with the question at issue also sets up the thinker with a sense of epistemic humility. In other words, with every question asked, there is an implicit recognition of a gap in knowledge. The questioner becomes like Socrates, who recognized all the things that he did not know. There are limits to human knowledge, and no one knows everything. Critical thinkers recognize the gaps in their knowledge and use ambition and curiosity to rectify them with integrity and responsibility.

Once the question at issue is established, the critical thinker should proceed around the wheel of the 8+ Elements of Reasoning (always considering the context that undergirds the problem as a whole and alternatives to each element), until finally arriving at conclusions and interpretations. Arriving at a conclusion or interpretation is arriving at a reasoned answer to the question at issue. To go one step further, the critical thinker may return to implications and consequences in order to understand the real-world effects of the conclusion drawn. Many pseudosciences, including science denialism and the conspiracy theories that inform them, are highly consequential on individual and societal scales.

Step 2: Disciplinary Lenses

To fine-tune this conclusion even further, the critical thinker should use relevant disciplinary lenses to think about the problem the way an expert would (Fig. 2).

To provide another example, if your question is about Atlantis, some relevant disciplinary lenses to think with would be history, geology, and archaeology. Using the disciplinary lenses is like taking on the point of view (one of the elements of reasoning) of unbiased experts in relevant fields of study. It also offers the opportunity think using different types of reasoning: namely inductive (history), deductive (geology), and abductive (archaeology). This practice will help ensure that final conclusions are drawn from all the relevant evidence (primary source documents, geological data, and archaeological excavations), that they are placed in context (historical, geological, and archaeological), and that they demonstrate a complete understanding of the most important related concepts (Platonism, plate tectonics, artifact typologies, etc.).

Step 3: Standards of Critical Thinking

Once the fine-tuned conclusion is reached, it should be self-evaluated using the Standards of Critical Thinking (Fig. 3). These standards can be used to evaluate any empirical claim and the evidence used to support it, but it again requires a certain level of epistemic humility to apply them to your own argument. How well an argument holds up against the standards is a good indicator of how well it has been reasoned.

All relevant empirical claims should also be inspected for weak inductive, deductive, or abductive reasoning. Relevant claims and arguments should also be scrutinized for logical fallacies. Psuedosciences and conspiracy theories are generally brimming with logical fallacies, and learning to identify them can even be a fun pastime for the critical thinker! To learn more about logical fallacies, we recommend the open-access textbooks by Matthew Van Cleave, Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking , and Andrew Lavin, Thinking Well .

Step 4: SEE-I Method

The SEE-I method is an outline for creating a complete and coherent argument (Fig. 4). The SEE-I method can consist of as few as four sentences, or an entire doctoral dissertation can be organized this way. Effectively, the thesis statement – or concise response to the research question – comes first, followed by further elaboration and explanation (provision of context, definition of key concepts, address of the counterargument, etc.). The next section of the argument consists of examples, each in support of the thesis statement. The final step is to illustrate the thesis statement by using an analogy.

Analogy drives home the purpose of the argument and leaves an unforgettable image in the mind of the audience. Analogies compare two dissimilar things in order to make a point; in this way, analogy is different from metaphor or simile, which often function to beautify or elaborate a concept. Composing strong analogies is difficult for many people because it works at the intersection of critical and creative thinking. But as with all things, with some practice, composing original and powerful analogies to illustrate your point will become second nature, and the quality of your arguments will increase as a result. However, always be wary of the false analogy, a common logical fallacy that bring into comparison two things that only share traits in common on a superficial level. Strong analogies still work even after digging deeper into the connections and commonalities between these two dissimilar things.

Step 5: Counterarguments

Now that the argument is structured, it should again be inspected for weak points. This step requires changing your point of view to that of an audience member hearing your argument. If you were presenting this argument at a professional conference, how might a naysayer in the audience counter your claims? If you were a lawyer presenting this argument in a court of law, what might the opposition point out in your argument to prove their own case? What would a skeptical reader find fault with about your argument? Make note of those weak points and counterarguments and address them.

Step 6: Composing the Final Argument

Combining all the above steps, the final step is writing out the complete argument in the form of a research paper (Fig. 5). All the relevant information and evidence has been gathered and evaluated. The argument has been reasoned through and outlined with the SEE-I model. The standards of critical thinking are upheld in every instance. Counterarguments and weak points have been addressed and rectified as needed. Now it’s time to communicate the answer to your research question and how you followed the evidence to arrive at that conclusion.

Embarking on a research project is like setting out on a journey to a place you’ve never been; you may have some idea of the destination, but the path will almost certainly change courses many times, with unexpected encounters along the way, and where you end up will almost certainly be a little different from the idea you first had in mind. So enjoy the adventure!

Science or Pseudoscience? Copyright © by Sara Rich. All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book

What is Critical thinking? 

There are many definitions of Critical thinking. Some of them very long and comprehensive in coverage of everything critical thinking includes, while others are short definitions but  very succintly summarize what Critical thinking is and what leads to becoming a critical thinker. Here are three of them.

1. "Critical thinking is the process of making clear reasoned judgments" ...Beyer, 1995

2. “Critical thinking is the ability to look at a situation and clearly understand it from multiple perspectives while separating facts from opinions, myths, prejudices, hunches (intuition) and assumptions”….. Pearsons

3. "It involves the ability to questions assumptions etc. in order to make logical decisions based on consideration of the options and evaluation of all facts". … Pearsons

What do you need to learn to become a critical thinker? 

All of us know critical thinking by its absence or critical thinking traits that we see in a person. When someone makes a foolish decision or applies the first solution that comes to their mind in problem-solving, we know that critical thinking has not been exercised. But critical thinking itself has not been defined for  most of us -either in our education or later in the workplace.

Maybe we see Critical thinking as applied common sense. Critical thinking may also be defined as the process of making clear reasoned judgments about any claim, issue, or solution to a problem. Some also define it as the process of determining whether a claim is true or false. There are more complex definitions such as Critical thinking is skilled and active participation and evaluation of observations and communications, information, and argumentation (Fisher and Scriven). 

None of the academic definitions manage to communicate what Critical thinking is, its elements, and how it could be useful in the workplace, education, or life. To better understand what Critical thinking is, it is useful to look at the actual elements that go into Critical thinking, and see how they apply in various situations at work and in life.

Critical thinking is the process of making clear reasoned judgements. 

Elements of critical thinking

There are three elements that aid in critical thinking, and another three that obstruct critical thinking.

Logical reasoning: You would not expect an accountant to draw up a balance sheet without the knowledge of the debit/credit system. However, we are expected to be absolutely logical in our reasoning about problems and decision making. The absence of a formal introduction to logical reasoning results in even the most intelligent people miss a few steps in their reasoning. There are three main types of reasoning: Deductive reasoning, Inductive reasoning, and Causal reasoning. Of these, Inductive reasoning and Causal reasoning as the most commonly applied systems of logic in the workplace, education, and our daily life.

Clear thinking and communication: Discussions often end up at cross-purposes and pointless due to a lack of clear communication, and this lack of clarity is often due to a lack of definition of terms, ambiguity, and deliberated or unintended use of vague language.

Credibility: We are often required to evaluate suppliers and people to decide whether to work with them or not. We also rely on the opinions of others to make a varying range of decisions for the business, in education and life. How do we know how much credibility we should attach to the advice we get from these people, or how do we determine whether a supplier will be dependable or not? There are some simple principles that we can use to help us in our process of making judgments about credibility.

Elements that obstruct 

  Rhetoric: In the context of Critical thinking, rhetoric is the use of language to evoke emotions in us and persuade us into belief or action. Words have the power to express, elicit images, and evoke emotions in us. They have tremendous persuasive power or what can be called rhetoric force or emotive force. When a leader calls on soldiers to sacrifice lives for the sake of their country, or when citizens are passionately asked to join a protest to protect freedom, these are appeals to our emotions and not our logical reasoning. Rhetorical language and devices can cloud our ability to reason logically.  

Cognitive biases: A cognitive bias is a systematic error in our thinking and judgment and can be due to a number of different reasons such as faulty memory or perception and processing errors of our brains. There could be a number of other reasons, and scientists are still researching the causes of these cognitive biases. A cognitive bias is different from Fallacies in the sense that these errors are based on our incorrect perception and processing of information by our brains, whereas fallacies are simple errors in reasoning. Knowledge of fallacies can help us avoid reasoning errors, but cognitive biases may arise even if we have knowledge of these biases. Often the only way to mitigate errors due to cognitive biases is to rely on data or seek third party opinions.

Critical Thinking Academy is founded with an intention of disseminating Critical thinking skills to executives…

(Ep. 3) The Analysis of Reasoning: Going Deeper - Questions, Part 1: Questions Implied by the Elements, Standards, and Virtues

• Feb 16 2024
• Length: 1 hr and 25 mins

Failed to add items

Add to cart failed., add to wish list failed., remove from wishlist failed., adding to library failed, follow podcast failed, unfollow podcast failed.

One element of reasoning is questions. Questions emerge from the problems or issues that must or should be addressed in pursuit of a given purpose. In this episode, Drs. Linda Elder and Gerald Nosich begin to explore questions that inherently emerge from three core sets of concepts in critical thinking: the Elements of Thought, Intellectual Standards, and Intellectual Virtues.

For over 40 years, the Foundation for Critical Thinking – along with its sister organization, the Center for Critical Thinking – have worked toward the advancement of critical societies.

To see and register for upcoming events, courses, study groups, and so on, visit us at: https://www.criticalthinking.org We hope you will also become a member of The Center for Critical Thinking Community Online, which features the world’s largest digital library of critical thinking articles, guides, books, videos, and interactive exercises, along with exclusive webinars, guided study groups, a social media component, and more. Join our Community Online at: www.criticalthinkingcommunity.org We invite you to donate to our mission at: https://www.criticalthinking.org/donate.php Join us on social media: Facebook https://www.facebook.com/CriticalThinkingFoundation/ Linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/in/foundation-for-critical-thinking-a99b1455/ X / Twitter https://twitter.com/4thethinkers YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/@criticalthinkingorg

What listeners say about (Ep. 3) The Analysis of Reasoning: Going Deeper - Questions, Part 1: Questions Implied by the Elements, Standards, and Virtues

Reviews - please select the tabs below to change the source of reviews., audible.com reviews, amazon reviews.

• Help Center
• Redeem promo code
• About Audible
• Business Inquiries
• Audible in the News
• Accessibility
• ACX for Creators
• Bestsellers
• New York Times Best Sellers
• New releases
• Non-English Audiobooks
• Latino & Hispanic Voices
• Audible in Chinese
• How to listen
• Listen on Apple Devices
• Listen in the car
• Whispersync for Voice