Critical Thinking

Why Should I Care?

When people hear something new, or read information, they need to evaluate that information, and their ability to evaluate the information. It's not easy. Especially when we are bombarded with new information every day. Being a critical thinker does not mean you are criticizing everything you hear. It means you are sorting what you know, from what you don't know, and what you trust, from what you don't trust.

This lesson has 5 parts

• What is Knowledge?
• Knowledge Level
  
• Logic Test
  
• Bias Check
  
• Critical Thinking Map

What is Critical Thinking?

This is a complex idea which might have different meanings to different people.

The word ’’critical’’ derives from two Ancient Greek words: kriticos (discerning judgment) and kriterion (standards). Etymologically, then, the word implies "discerning judgment based on standards" (Foundation for Critical Thinking, 2023).

For this reason, we will use three definitions of critical thinking, based in approaches used in the social sciences. Together, these three definitions will allow us to evaluate any decision you need to make, about any opinion, statement or observation, in a disinterested, logical and unbiased manner.

First, critical thinking involves the use of available knowledge to sort between valid and invalid information.

Second, critical thinking involves the ability to determine if a statement is supported by the rules of logical reasoning.

Third, critical thinking involves the identification of bias in the process or the intentions, or interests of those who produce the statement.

There may be other ways of thinking critically. For example, the technological fields, such as engineering, are constantly problem solving. To find new solutions, and to be creative, one must be open to dissenting views, willing to try something new that may seem to be illogical, and try to think ''outside the box''. Our three definitions are insufficient to guide them as critical thinkers. So let's keep an open mind to new possibilities.

• What is Knowledge?

According to the dictionary, knowledge is (1) the fact or condition of being aware of something, or (2) the range of one's information or understanding (Merriam Webster).

As scientists, it is important to differentiate knowledge from belief.

According to the dictionary, belief is (1) a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing, (2) something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion, or (3) conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence (Merriam Webster).

In daily life, a common tendency among many individuals is to discuss knowledge and belief as synonymous concepts. Religious leaders often do, saying that they 'know' that God exists.

For scientists, knowledge represents the facts of life on earth that have been verified with the scientific method, and for which there are no better explanations. Knowledge is not set in stone; it evolves with every scientific discovery.

Scientists are often agnostics. This means that they see beliefs as facts of life that may not be verified, and are usually not verifiable scientifically. Beliefs are therefore not Knowledge. Beliefs are thus a function of trust. Scientists do not associate trust to knowledge, because it is not necessary to trust a fact that has been verified. What you know, you don't need to trust.

For example, someone points to a chair, and asks a scientist what this is. The scientist replies it's a chair. It looks like a chair, has the characteristics of a chair, and we can verify that it is not anything else but a chair. The scientist is using knowledge about chairs and can verify this fact. You can do the same thing. You don't need to trust someone saying this is a chair or not. You know it is.

Sometimes we don't know, so we have to trust someone who does have this knowledge, such as an elder, an expert, or a professional.

In another example, someone brings their car to the mechanic, and asks about a bizarre noise coming from the rear of the car. The mechanic inspects the vehicle and says the coils in the suspension are broken and need to be replaced. The car owner cannot see the coils, and must TRUST the mechanic. The car owner thus believes the mechanic because he does not know if this is true or not, and he cannot fix it himself.

Having to believe someone else puts us in a vulnerable position. This is why people are so upset when they feel betrayed by someone they trusted. This is why everyone says it's so hard to find an honest mechanic. When you have to trust someone else, your knowledge is low or lacking. Then your only other choice is to believe the other person's statements, which makes you vulnerable to them. There are ways to evaluate their honesty, such as diplomas and protected professional titles, or reviews from neighbours and other clients.

Knowledge and Belief

	Verifiable	Not verifiable
Trust	n. a.	Vulnerability / Belief
Do not trust	Knowledge	Suspect / Disbelief

• Knowledge Level
  

When you are confronted by a statement, you can use the first definition of critical thinking to self-evaluate your level of knowledge about the information.

Remember, critical thinking involves the use of available knowledge to sort between valid and invalid information.

So the first step is to ask yourself if you have extensive knowledge about this question. Try to rank yourself: as a subject expert, someone who knows alot, someone who knows a little, or someone who has absolutely no knowledge about this question.

If you know alot, then you can validate the information yourself. You can sort the information as valid, or not valid, on your own.

Remind yourself that no one knows everything about everything. No one can personally validate every single observation, or statement, that is proposed to them.

For example, you probably learned in school that the earth is round. Scientists have validated this and it's now part of human knowledge. However, you might not be able to validate this yourself. Have you ever been in outer space to look back on the earth to see if it's really round? Have you measured your shade, in different spots of the planet, to see if it's longer or shorter (this is a way to measure the earth's shape)?

Probably not. This does not mean that the earth is not round. It just means that YOU actually don't know, for yourself.

• Logic Test
  

Another way to validate a statement is to analyze its use of logical reasoning, which is a field of philosophy with very strict rules for using premises, arguments, statements, deductions, and conclusions. This is especially useful for arguments, but may not be useful for other types of statements such as observations (ex: is this a chair?).

A simple way to do this is to try and apply a logical fallacy to the statement proposed. Logical fallacies are faulty arguments based on poor logic.

For example, you can't observe if the earth is round or not, but you have taken flights and noticed that some of the flight paths were surprising. A direct flight from Toronto, Canada, to Mumbai, India, will fly over Nunavut, rather than fly over Africa. This is the kind of information that would not be logical if the earth were flat. This is called a demonstration a contrario, using a contrary argument.

Here are a few common ones that you may come across in the social sciences:à1-    Hasty generalization: Making assumptions about a whole group based on an examination of a case study (one single person) or a small number of interviews conducted in the context of an anthropological, sociological, religious, psychological research. 

Appeal to unreliable authority. We can give a few examples. (A viral mental health creator vs. psychologist discussing a diagnosis of a psychological disorder)

Post-hoc or Fallacy of False Cause or: Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B. Ex. from political science: The Prime Minister raised taxes, and then the rate of violent crime went up. The Prime Minister is responsible for the rise in crime.” 

Circular reasoning: When an argument  depends on or is the same as the conclusion. Trait theory in psychology: people’s behaviors are used to determine their personality, and their personality is then used to explain behavior.  When someone enjoys being alone and doing quiet activities, we assume that it is because they are introverted but this is a circular explanation because the enjoyment of being alone and doing quiet activities is used to determine extroversion.

Fallacy of the wrong level or ecological fallacy. Make conclusions about individuals based only on analyses of group data. Ex., the crime rates are high in neighborhood X. Danny resides in neighborhood X, and a a result, the police views Dan with high suspicion. OR another example: exploring the link between poverty an gun violence, and making inferences about a causal link between those things at the individual level. 

 If you would like to learn more about these, we recommend a class in Logical Reasoning, with a Philosophy professor, in your college. You can also find more information on the link below, from the Purdue University Online Writing Lab: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/logic_in_argumentative_writing/fallacies.html

• Bias Check
  

Third, critical thinking involves the identification of bias in the process of making the statement, bias in the intentions of the person making the statement, or interests of those who produce the statement.

A major red flag is the lack of transparency in the process and interests behind the research. Scientists will verify their colleagues data, re-examine their methodology, and try to replicate the results in various environments. They expect credible sources of information to be transparent about the whole process of designing studies and collecting data.

Another red flag is a lack of counter-views, or counter-studies, in the literature cited. The best way to be right about something is to ignore those who disagree. Scientists appreciate authors who acknowledge dissent and divergent views, and discuss them.

Another red flag is the appearance of a conflict of interest, or worse, the existence of a conflict of interests. Scientific procedures expect those involved to be disinterested from the results. This does not mean that the scientists don't care about the study. It means they are not subject to an interest, either personal or collective, that could interfere with their autonomy, independence, honesty, and willingness to share results that could harm their personal advantages.

Forms of interests can include personal preferences, cultural history, group affiliations, or political interests. It is human nature to argue for changes that improve your own situation, either personally, or as part of a group. Look for a disclaimer of any potential conflicts of interests. Cross-reference the author's political leanings or affiliations.

Look for sources of financing. Money is a major factor that influences people. Follow the money, and you will might find reasons to doubt of the validity of a statement. University professors are not volunteers. They are well paid by their universities. However, this allows them to be independent from outside money. They are not supposed to accept money from political or industrial lobbies to further their agendas.

Many professionals (liberal professions) charge quite a bit of money for their services, but they are required to be honest with their clients, or they risk losing their title and practice. This is the case for doctors, lawyers and engineers. In this case, the money is not a main source of bias because an angry client can sue the professional, or have them removed from their profession. This allows regular people to trust these professionals, even when there is money involved.

• Critical Thinking Map
  

Here is a three step decision tree that can help you be a thorough critical thinker.

Let's use an example to go through the map.

A salesperson comes by your house and says you need a new roof. This costs 25,000$. What do you decide?

First - Evaluate your knowledge.

If you are a construction professional, you might be able to tell if the salesperson is right or not. In this case, you can validate the information yourself. You climb onto the roof and check. Whether you need a new roof or not, you don't need to follow any more steps of the process.

If are like us, you probably couldn't tell if you had a great roof, or an old roof that looks alright. In this case you have to decide on whether or not you learn about roofs, so that you can evaluate this yourself, or if you should try to see if you can trust this salesperson. Go to the next step: logic.

Second - Test the logic

Did the salesperson use any deductive logic to argue that the roof needs to be replaced? There might be signs of wear, materials broken, or discolouring. Are these elements part of a logical argument?

Did the salesperson use any faulty logic, any fallacies? For example, arguing that you should change the roof because your neighbours did, is a faulty argument. This logical fallacy is called Guilt by association.

If you find that the salesperson is not applying strong logic, then you should immediately be suspicious of his conclusion that the roof needs to be changed.

If you find that the salesperson is being logical, then you should also consider his potential bias.

Third - Check for bias

Does the salesperson have a personal or financial incentive to change your roof? Yes, of course he does. Now, this does not mean that the salesperson is lying. However, keep in mind they have an incentive.

Ask about remuneration. Is the salesperson paid hourly, or on commission? If the salesperson is only paid when there is a sale, it adds pressure to bend the rules.

Ask about other evaluations. Are there any reviews about this company in local media, or a government regulatory body? Has the company ever been sued and found guilty of poor work, or lying to clients? Can a licensed technician, or engineer, certify that the roof needs to be changed? A professional can stand to lose their whole career for lying on such an evaluation. It's not worth the risk for them.

If your evaluation of bias comes out as acceptable, then you can trust the company to do the work.

If your evaluation of bias comes out as having too many red flags, then you should be weary of this company and refuse their offer.

References and Further Reading

Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2023). Our Conception of Critical Thinking. https://www.criticalthinking.org/template.php?pages_id=411&fbclid=IwAR0DEuo0Ynft4FpsbLxANDTNAD20oJsRdSgwFbzsZmodXI_c6UtuKZDU-vk

Le Poidevin, R. (2010). Agnosticism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford Academic / Oxford University Press.

Merriam Webster Dictionary Online. (2023). Belief. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

OWL: Online Writing Lab. (2023). Fallacies. Purdue University. https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/logic_in_argumentative_writing/fallacies.html

Plato, J. V. (2013). Elements of Logical Reasoning. Cambridge University Press. https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Elements_of_Logical_Reasoning/QrdEAgAAQBAJ?hl=fr&gbpv=1