http://www.criticalthinking.

org/page
Type equation here .

s/becoming-a-critic-of-your-thinking/478
Becoming a Critic Of Your Thinking

by Dr. Linda Elder and Dr. Richard Paul

Learning the Art of Critical Thinking
There is nothing more practical than sound thinking. No matter what your
circumstance or goals, no matter where you are, or what problems you
face, you are better off if your thinking is skilled. As a manager, leader,
employee, citizen, lover, friend, parent — in every realm and situation of
your life — good thinking pays off. Poor thinking, in turn, inevitably
causes problems, wastes time and energy, engenders frustration and
pain.
Critical thinking is the disciplined art of ensuring that you use the best
thinking you are capable of in any set of circumstances. The general
goal of thinking is to “figure out the lay of the land” in any situation we
are in. We all have multiple choices to make. We need the best
information to make the best choices.
What is really going on in this or that situation? Are they trying to take
advantage of me? Does so-and-so really care about me? Am I deceiving
myself when I believe that . . .? What are the likely consequences of
failing to . . .? If I want to do . . . , what is the best way to prepare for it?
How can I be more successful in doing . . .? Is this my biggest problem,
or do I need to focus my attention on something else?
Successfully responding to such questions is the daily work of thinking.
However, to maximize the quality of your thinking, you must learn how to
become an effective "critic" of your thinking. And to become an effective
critic of your thinking, you have to make learning about thinking a
priority.
Ask yourself these — rather unusual — questions: What have you
learned about how you think? Did you ever study your thinking? What do
you know about how the mind processes information? What do you
really know about how to analyze, evaluate, or reconstruct your thinking?
Where does your thinking come from? How much of it is of “good”
quality? How much of it is of “poor” quality? How much of your thinking is
vague, muddled, inconsistent, inaccurate, illogical, or superficial? Are
you, in any real sense, in control of your thinking? Do you know how to
test it? Do you have any conscious standards for determining when you
are thinking well and when you are thinking poorly? Have you ever
discovered a significant problem in your thinking and then changed it by
a conscious act of will? If anyone asked you to teach them what you
have learned, thus far in your life, about thinking, would you really have
any idea what that was or how you learned it?
If you are like most, the only honest answers to these questions run
along the lines of, “Well, I suppose I really don’t know much about my
thinking or about thinking in general. I suppose in my life I have more or
less taken my thinking for granted. I don’t really know how it works. I
have never really studied it. I don’t know how I test it, or even if I do test
it. It just happens in my mind automatically.“
It is important to realize that serious study of thinking, serious thinking
about thinking, is rare. It is not a subject in most colleges. It is seldom
found in the thinking of our culture. But if you focus your attention for a
moment on the role that thinking is playing in your life, you may come to
recognize that, in fact, everything you do, or want, or feel is influenced
by your thinking. And if you become persuaded of that, you will be
surprised that humans show so little interest in thinking.
To make significant gains in the quality of your thinking you will have to
engage in a kind of work that most humans find unpleasant, if not
painful — intellectual work. Yet once this thinking is done and we move
our thinking to a higher level of quality, it is not hard to keep it at that
level. Still, there is the price you have to pay to step up to the next level.
One doesn’t become a skillful critic of thinking over night, any more than
one becomes a skillful basketball player or musician over night. To
become better at thinking, you must be willing to put the work into
thinking that skilled improvement always requires.
This means you must be willing to practice special “acts” of thinking that
are initially at least uncomfortable, and sometimes challenging and
difficult. You have to learn to do with your mind “moves” analogous to
what accomplished athletes learn to do (through practice and feedback)
with their bodies. Improvement in thinking, in other words, is similar to
improvement in other domains of performance where progress is a
product of sound theory, commitment, hard work, and practice.
Consider the following key ideas, which, when applied, result in a mind
practicing skilled thinking. These ideas represent just a few of the many
ways in which disciplined thinkers actively apply theory of mind to the
mind by the mind in order to think better. In these examples, we focus on
the significance of thinking clearly, sticking to the point (thinking with
relevance), questioning deeply, and striving to be more reasonable. For
each example, we provide a brief overview of the idea and its
importance in thinking, along with strategies for applying it in life. Realize
that the following ideas are immersed in a cluster of ideas within critical
thinking. Though we chose these particular ideas, many others could
have instead been chosen. There is no magic in these specific ideas. In
short, it is important that you understand these as a sampling of all the
possible ways in which the mind can work to discipline itself, to think at a
higher level of quality, to function better in the world.
. 
1. Clarify Your Thinking
Be on the look-out for vague, fuzzy, formless, blurred thinking. Try to
figure out the real meaning of what people are saying. Look on the
surface. Look beneath the surface. Try to figure out the real meaning of
important news stories. Explain your understanding of an issue to
someone else to help clarify it in your own mind. Practice summarizing in
your own words what others say. Then ask them if you understood them
correctly. You should neither agree nor disagree with what anyone says
until you (clearly) understand them.
Our own thinking usually seems clear to us, even when it is not. But
vague, ambiguous, muddled, deceptive, or misleading thinking are
significant problems in human life. If we are to develop as thinkers, we
must learn the art of clarifying thinking, of pinning it down, spelling it out,
and giving it a specific meaning. Here’s what you can do to begin. When
people explain things to you, summarize in your own words what you
think they said. When you cannot do this to their satisfaction, you don’t
really understand what they said. When they cannot summarize what
you have said to your satisfaction, they don’t really understand what you
said. Try it. See what happens.
Strategies for Clarifying Your Thinking
 State one point at a time.
 Elaborate on what you mean 
 Give examples that connect your thoughts to life experiences 
 Use analogies and metaphors to help people connect your ideas to
a variety of things they already understand (for example, critical
thinking is like an onion. There are many layers to it. Just when you
think you have it basically figured out, you realize there is another
 layer, and then another, and another and another and on and on)

Here is One Format You Can Use

 I think . . . (state your main point) 
 In other words . . . (elaborate your main point) 
 For example . . . (give an example of your main point) 
 To give you an analogy . . . (give an illustration of your main point)

To Clarify Other People’s Thinking, Consider Asking the Following

 Can you restate your point in other words? I didn’t understand you.
 Can you give an example?
 Let me tell you what I understand you to be saying. Did I
understand you correctly?

2. Stick to the Point

Be on the lookout for fragmented thinking, thinking that leaps about with
no logical connections. Start noticing when you or others fail to stay
focused on what is relevant. Focus on finding what will aid you in truly
solving a problem. When someone brings up a point (however true) that
doesn’t seem pertinent to the issue at hand, ask, “How is what you are
saying relevant to the issue?” When you are working through a problem,
make sure you stay focused on what sheds light on and, thus, helps
address the problem. Don’t allow your mind to wander to unrelated
matters. Don’t allow others to stray from the main issue. Frequently ask:
“What is the central question? Is this or that relevant to it? How?”
When thinking is relevant, it is focused on the main task at hand. It
selects what is germane, pertinent, and related. It is on the alert for
everything that connects to the issue. It sets aside what is immaterial,
inappropriate, extraneous, and beside the point. What is relevant directly
bears upon (helps solve) the problem you are trying to solve. When
thinking drifts away from what is relevant, it needs to be brought back to
what truly makes a difference. Undisciplined thinking is often guided by
associations (this reminds me of that, that reminds me of this other thing)
rather than what is logically connected (“If a and b are true, then c must
also be true”). Disciplined thinking intervenes when thoughts wander
from what is pertinent and germane concentrating the mind on only
those things that help it figure out what it needs to figure out.

Ask These Questions to Make Sure Thinking is Focused on What is

Relevant
 Am I focused on the main problem or task?
 How is this connected? How is that?
 Does my information directly relate to the problem or task?
 Where do I need to focus my attention? 
 Are we being diverted to unrelated matters?
 Am I failing to consider relevant viewpoints?
 How is your point relevant to the issue we are addressing?
 What facts are actually going to help us answer the question?
What considerations should be set aside?
 Does this truly bear on the question? How does it connect?

3. Question Questions
Be on the lookout for questions. The ones we ask. The ones we fail to
ask. Look on the surface. Look beneath the surface. Listen to how
people question, when they question, when they fail to question. Look
closely at the questions asked. What questions do you ask, should you
ask? Examine the extent to which you are a questioner, or simply one
who accepts the definitions of situations given by others.
Most people are not skilled questioners. Most accept the world as it is
presented to them. And when they do question, their questions are often
superficial or “loaded.” Their questions do not help them solve their
problems or make better decisions. Good thinkers routinely ask
questions in order to understand and effectively deal with the world
around them. They question the status quo. They know that things are
often different from the way they are presented. Their questions
penetrate images, masks, fronts, and propaganda. Their questions make
real problems explicit and discipline their thinking through those
problems. If you become a student of questions, you can learn to ask
powerful questions that lead to a deeper and more fulfilling life. Your
questions become more basic, essential, and deep.
Strategies for Formulating More Powerful Questions
 Whenever you don’t understand something, ask a question of
clarification.
 Whenever you are dealing with a complex problem, formulate the
question you are trying to answer in several different ways (being as
precise as you can) until you hit upon the way that best addresses
the problem at hand.
 Whenever you plan to discuss an important issue or problem, write
out in advance the most significant questions you think need to be
 addressed in the discussion. Be ready to change the main question,
but once made clear, help those in the discussion stick to the
question, making sure the dialogue builds toward an answer that
makes sense.

Questions You Can Ask to Discipline Your Thinking

 What precise question are we trying to answer?                  
 Is that the best question to ask in this situation? 
 Is there a more important question we should be addressing? 
 Does this question capture the real issue we are facing? 
 Is there a question we should answer before we attempt to answer
this question? 
 What information do we need to answer the question? 
 What conclusions seem justified in light of the facts? 
 What is our point of view? Do we need to consider another? 
 Is there another way to look at the question? 
 What are some related questions we need to consider? 
 What type of question is this: an economic question, a political
question, a legal question, etc.?

4. Be Reasonable
Be on the lookout for reasonable and unreasonable behaviors — yours
and others. Look on the surface. Look beneath the surface. Listen to
what people say. Look closely at what they do. Notice when you are
unwilling to listen to the views of others, when you simply see yourself as
right and others as wrong. Ask yourself at those moments whether their
views might have any merit. See if you can break through your
defensiveness to hear what they are saying. Notice unreasonableness in
others. Identify times when people use language that makes them
appear reasonable, though their behavior proves them to be otherwise.
Try to figure out why you, or others, are being unreasonable. Might you
have a vested interested in not being open-minded? Might they?
One of the hallmarks of a critical thinker is the disposition to change
one’s mind when given good reason to change. Good thinkers want to
change their thinking when they discover better thinking. They can be
moved by reason. Yet, comparatively few people are reasonable. Few
are willing to change their minds once set. Few are willing to suspend
their beliefs to fully hear the views of those with which they disagree.
How would you rate yourself?
Strategies for Becoming More Reasonable
Say aloud, “I’m not perfect. I make mistakes. I’m often wrong.” See if you
have the courage to admit this during a disagreement: “Of course, I may
be wrong. You may be right.”

Practice saying in your own mind, “I may be wrong. I often am. I’m willing
to change my mind when given good reasons.” Then look for
opportunities to make changes in your thinking.

Ask yourself, “When was the last time I changed my mind because
someone gave me better reasons for his (her) views than I had for
mine?” (To what extent are you open to new ways of looking at things?
To what extent can you objectively judge information that refutes what
you already think?)

Realize That You are Being Close-Minded If You

     a. are unwilling to listen to someone’s reasons 

     b. are irritated by the reasons people give you 
     c. become defensive during a discussion

After you catch yourself being close-minded, analyze what was

going on in your mind by completing these statements:

     a. I realize I was being close-minded in this situation because . . .

     b. The thinking I was trying to hold onto is . . .
     c. Thinking that is potentially better is . . .
     d. This thinking is better because . . .
In closing, let me remind you that the ideas in this article are a very few
of the many ways in which critical thinkers bring intellectual discipline to
bear upon their thinking. The best thinkers are those who understand the
development of thinking as a process occurring throughout many years
of practice in thinking. They recognize the importance of learning about
the mind, about thoughts, feelings and desires and how these functions
of the mind interrelate. They are adept at taking thinking apart, and then
assessing the parts when analyzed. In short, they study the mind, and
they apply what they learn about the mind to their own thinking in their
own lives.
The extent to which any of us develops as a thinker is directly
determined by the amount of time we dedicate to our development, the
quality of the intellectual practice we engage in, and the depth, or lack
thereof, of our commitment to becoming more reasonable, rational,
successful persons.
Elder, L. and Paul, R. (2004). Adapted from The Thinker’s Guide to the
Art of Strategic Thinking: 25 Weeks to Better Thinking and Better
Living.
Thinking Gets Us Into Trouble Because We Often:
   
 jump to conclusions  fail to notice our assumptions
 fail to think-through  often make unjustified
implications assumptions
 lose track of their goal  miss key ideas
 are unrealistic  use irrelevant ideas
 focus on the trivial  form confused ideas
 fail to notice contradictions  form superficial concepts
 accept inaccurate information  misuse words
 ask vague questions  ignore relevant viewpoints
 give vague answers  cannot see issues from points
 ask loaded questions of view other than our own
 ask irrelevant questions  confuse issues of different
 confuse questions of different types
types  are unaware of our prejudices
 answer questions we are not  think narrowly
competent to answer  think imprecisely
 come to conclusions based on  think illogically
inaccurate or irrelevant  think one-sidedly
information  think simplistically
 ignore information that does  think hypocritically
not support our view  think superficially
 make inferences not justified  think ethnocentrically
by our experience  think egocentrically
 distort data and state it  think irrationally
inaccurately  do poor problem solving
 fail to notice the inferences we  make poor decisions
make  are poor communicators
 come to unreasonable  have little insight into our own
conclusions ignorance
A How-To List for Dysfunctional Living

Most people have no notion of what it means to take charge of their

lives. They don’t realize that the quality of their lives depends on the
quality of their thinking. We all engage in numerous dysfunctional
practices to avoid facing problems in our thinking. Consider the following
and ask yourself how many of these dysfunctional ways of thinking you
engage in:
1. Surround yourself with people who think like you. Then no one will
criticize you. 
 
2. Don’t question your relationships. You then can avoid dealing with
problems within them.

3. If critiqued by a friend or lover, look sad and dejected and say, “I

thought you were my friend!” or “I thought you loved me!” 
 
4. When you do something unreasonable, always be ready with an
excuse. Then you won’t have to take responsibility. If you can’t think
of an excuse, look sorry and say, “I can’t help how I am!” 
 
5. Focus on the negative side of life. Then you can make yourself
miserable and blame it on others.

6. Blame others for your mistakes. Then you won’t have to feel
responsible for your mistakes. Nor will you have to do anything about
them. 
 
7. Verbally attack those who criticize you. Then you don’t have to
bother listening to what they say. 
 
8. Go along with the groups you are in. Then you won’t have to figure
out anything for yourself. 
 
9. Act out when you don’t get what you want. If questioned, look
indignant and say, “I’m just an emotional person. At least I don’t keep
my feelings bottled up!” 
 
10. Focus on getting what you want. If questioned, say, “If I don’t look
out for number one, who will?”
As you see, the list is almost laughable. And so it would be if these
irrational ways of thinking didn’t lead to problems in life. But they do. And
often. Only when we are faced with the absurdity of dysfunctional
thinking, and can see it at work in our lives, do we have a chance to alter
it. The strategies outlined in this guide presuppose your willingness to do
so.

This article was adapted from the book, Critical Thinking: Tools for
Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life, by Richard Paul and
Linda Elder.

Critical Thinking in Every Domain of

Knowledge and Belief
The 27th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking --
July 23 -- 26, 2007
Keynote Address -- July 23, 2007
Richard Paul, Director of Research and Professional Development at the
Center for Critical Thinking,
Chair of the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking

Berkeley, CA — "Good morning! ...

My remarks center this morning on critical thinking in every domain of

knowledge and belief. And my subtext is something like this. Intellectual
work, deeply conceived, conduces to significant changes in intellectual
skill and understanding. Critical thinking, if somehow it became
generalized in the world, would produce a new and very different world,
a world which increasingly is not only in our interest but is necessary to
our survival.

But, what is critical

thinking? ... There are
many ways to initially
define it. Sometimes
I’ve thought of it as a
system for opening
every system (that
exists). It opens up
business. It opens up
Chemistry. It opens up
sports like tennis and
basketball. It opens up
professional practice. It
opens up Ethics and
enables us to see
through ideology. It
enables us to put things
into intellectual
perspective. A system that opens up systems is one way to think of
critical thinking.

Here’s another way. Critical thinking is thinking that analyzes thought,

that assesses thought, and that transforms thought for the better.
 
Here’s a third way to talk about critical thinking overlapping and related
to the other two. It’s thinking about thinking while thinking in order to
think better.
 
Everyone thinks. We have no choice about that. But, not everybody
thinks about their thinking. And not everyone who thinks about their
thinking thinks about it well. You can worry about your thinking. You can
think badly of your thinking. You can be embarrassed by your thinking.
You can focus on it in a dysfunctional way --- that is not critical thinking.
 
This morning, let’s think about it as a way of thinking that enables a
thinker to think regularly at a higher level (than most people are capable
of thinking). In other words, critical thinking, as I am conceiving it,
transforms thinking in two directions. You think more systematically as a
result. And you think more comprehensively as a result. And in thinking
more comprehensively, you think at a higher level. Not because you are
at a higher level as a person, but because you are able to put thinking
into the background and see it in a larger, more comprehensive
framework.
 
For example, we need  to discover the extent to which our thinking is
bound by a culture. Cultures are good in many ways. But, to the extent
that they lock us in to one way of looking at the world, we need to
transcend them. We need to think beyond them. Why is this important?
It’s important because we, as creatures, are deeply determined -- in our
life, and in our behavior, and in our character, and in other ways – are
determined by our thinking. We have no choice but to be governed by
thought. The question is, do we govern the thought that governs us? 
Ideas control us ... Do we control them? 

Reversing the process so that we’re in the driver’s seat -- so that we’re
doing the thinking we need to do as well as we can – is what critical
thinking is about. Our future as a species is dependent on whether we
can develop the wherewithal to raise our collective thinking so as to
produce positive changes in societies across the world.

The task before us collectively is a Herculean one. That of developing

critical societies. The idea of a critical society dates back many hundred
years, but it was very pointedly called for in 1906, by William Graham
Sumner, the great anthropologist, who emphasized in his seminal book,
"Folkways," that if a critical society existed – that is, a society in which
critical thinking was a major social value – if such a society were to
emerge, it would transform every dimension of life and practice. We are
far from such a society, but we need to think about it. It needs to be part
of our vision. The structure of this conference suggests some of the most
important dimensions of this vision.

The conference has a four-part structure. The first is titled: “Overcoming

the Barriers to Critical Thinking.” If you think about the task of developing
critical thinking, do not think that task is going to be accomplished easily
without facing barriers to critical thought, amongst which are the
following. Human egocentricity, our tendency to think with ourselves at
the center of the world. Sociocentricity, our tendency to think within the
confines of our social groups. Self-delusion, our tendency to create
pictures of the world that deceive us and others. Narrow-mindedness,
wherein we think of ourselves as broad, deep, and in touch with reality
when, if only we understood, we would see ourselves as narrow and
limited.

Or, think of the barrier of fear. Fear undermines thinking, fear drives us
to the lowest levels of thought, fear makes us defensive. It makes us
little and petty. And then there is human insecurity. And, then  human
habits, our tendencies to go through the same old patterns of thought
and behavior and be dominated by them; our inability to target our
negative habits and replace them with positive habits. Then there is
routine: Ordinary routine. When you go back to your home environment,
ordinary routine will click in and many of you will find that the things you
intended to do, the changes you intended to make, somehow are
swallowed up in the ordinary routine of things. And connected to routine
there is a huge obstacle: bureaucracy. We have created all kinds of
levels of monitoring and testing and controlling and limiting and
sanctioning, ordering, defining our behavior and our thoughts. And, very
often the bureaucrat forgets the purpose for which the institution exists.
Bureaucrats rarely think about questions like what is education? Are we
truly educating our students? Are we serving their long-term
development as thinkers? Then for us who are teaching, student
resistance to critical thinking is an obstacle, because critical thinking
asks those students to learn in a new way. And it is a way that is not
comfortable to most of them. Our thinking is limited by mistaken notions,
by ignorance, by our limited knowledge, and by stubbornness, our
activated ignorance.  And finally, our resistance to doing the intellectual
work necessary to critical thinking.

We need hundreds of millions

of people around the world
who have learned to take and
internalize the foundations of
critical thought. This can be
done only person-by-person
through a process, which we
call intellectual work. Think of
the "Elements of Thought:" 
Each element plays a crucial
role in thought. What is our
purpose? What questions are
we raising? What information
are we using? What
assumptions are we making?
What data are we gathering?
What data do we not have?
Given the data that we have, what is it telling us? And, when we come to
conclusions about the data, what do those conclusions imply? Within
what point of view are we thinking? Do we need to consider another
point of view? Where can we get access to such points of view?
Questions like this are questions that embody the elements in very
important ways. They are crucial questions. But, are we in the habit of
asking them? 

Ask yourself, how many students have ever said to you, “What is the
purpose of this course, and what are the questions we need to answer in
order to be successful?, What data do we need and how are we
interpreting the data?, What assumptions are we making, or what
assumptions are made, within the textbook?, From what point of view is
our textbook being written?, Are there other points of view from which it
could have been written?, What points of view are you taking in the
course?, Are there some points of view you might have taken that we
might hear about which you're not utilizing?"...  Students don’t ask
questions like these, and very often teachers don’t either so that the
logic of the process is left in obscurity — somewhere in a back room of
the mind.

We think,  but we’re not taking charge of our thinking. We don’t know
how to pull the system out of the thinking to see how purpose drives the
thinking; how it leads us to ask certain questions and not others; how
when we pose a question one way it calls for specific data to be
gathered,. On the other hand,  if you pose it in another way it requires
other, different data.

There's a wonderful book on historical thinking by Carr. The title of the

book is "What is History?" This book was written I think in the later '30s,
or possibly '40s, of the last century and, in it, Carr argues that there is no
longer such a thing as "our history." There are only "histories." To
construct a history is to tell a story about the past, but, as Carr reminds
us, there are infinite numbers of stories that could be told. Which story is
important?  The construction of history requires value judgments. It
requires that we consider whose story needs to be told. And, when that
story is told we need to critically consider what it is telling us; what is it
teaching us. In which case, then, if we understood Carr, we would
realize that we are all historical thinkers. We're not all historians, but we
all have a history. And the history can dominate us, or we can use it to
our advantage. Our thinking produces it.

Consider the phenomenon — which is worldwide — of patriotic history.

Patriotic history -- at least in my conception of patriotic history —
consists in telling the story of our past in such ways as to make us look
much better than we are and to take those who have come into conflict
with us and represent them as worse than they were and are. In other
words, patriotic history
is dishonest history that
makes us,
unjustifiably,  feel good
about ourselves. This is
what most societies
want of their historians.
Tell us about the past
so we can see how
heroic we are. Fine and
good, but what does
that imply about others.
If we are the chosen
people, then everyone
else is not chosen. If
we're number one, then
everyone else is below
us. If we're the most
important, then others
are unimportant or of lesser importance. And so, to penetrate history
critically — to see its dangers, and to see its values, and to be able to
think with a different sort of framework — is certainly crucial to our well
being.  

Here you see before you the diagram which we used as the central
organizer for the previous year's conference. In the center of the
diagram we see the Elements of Thought, the Standards of Thought,
and the Traits of Mind. So far I've only mentioned the Elements of
Thought as structures we need to become conversant in. But, think for a
moment of intellectual standards. Try this experiment. When you're with
a group of students, ask them the following question:

When someone presents you with a belief -- "I believe this is true," or an

argument to persuade you to accept a viewpoint or a premise or a
belief — when somebody presents you with such a case, how do you
know whether to accept it or not?  What standards do you use to assess
your thinking and the thinking of others? 

Now I've tried that many many times with students, and sometimes with
faculty. I've found that very few people can answer that question in an
intelligible fashion. Most students will say, I don't know what you're
talking about. What do you mean standards of assessment in thinking?
I've never ever had anyone respond — whether student or faculty —
with an answer like this: "I use the standards of clarity, accuracy,
precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logic and fairness.  I seek to be
clearer. I seek to be accurate. I seek to be precise. I seek to stay
focused on the issue. I assess my thinking for relevance.  I try to deepen
my thinking and notice when I'm being superficial. I try to broaden my
thinking to make my thinking more comprehensive. I try to notice when
other people's thinking is narrow and superficial rather than deep and
broad. I check my thinking for how logical it is. Does it really make sense
or am I contradicting myself/? Am I following through the implications of
my thought in a consistent logical fashion? Am I focusing on the
significant questions putting the insignificant questions, the peripheral
questions, in the background? And, am I able to assess other people's
thinking fair-mindedly even though they disagree with me ? Can I be fair
to them? "

I used to have students in some of the courses I taught write dialogues

in which they would take a belief that they felt committed to and then
discuss that belief in a dialogue with a hypothetical person who took the
opposite view. And I noticed — and of course I tried to help my students
 notice — how systematically
they undermined the
opposition to make the person
who disagreed with them look
bad. Something like this:
"Okay, you want me to
summarize that stupid position.
So, I shall do so."

And then finally, Traits of Mind,

which Gerald Nosich
mentioned. To what extent are
we teaching and cultivating in
students intellectual character?
Think of intellectual humility.
Intellectual humility is not humbleness in the ordinary sense of the word.
It is not thinking, "Gee my thoughts are not very important ... I'm not a
very important person ... I'm just poor old me in a modest position ... I
always remember how unimportant I am." That may be ordinary humility,
but it's not intellectual humility. Intellectual humility is crucial knowledge.
It is knowledge of our ignorance. It is knowing how little we know; how
limited our search for knowledge has been.

If you look, for example, into the array of disciplines at universities, and
you studied how various disciplines portray themselves — for example,
in college catalogs, what they say about what wonderful things students
are going to learn —assess the students at the end, at graduation. How
many of these wonderful things have the students learned?  And how
often are there petty disputes between scholars, how often do they
represent themselves in self serving ways? And how often do prejudices
exist between fields ... . Petty disputes, narrow thinking often rule
academic discussions..

During the preconference workshop, a friend of mine from my high

school days attended the session, and he also is participating in a
program at Stanford. And this program brings distinguished leaders in
the field he works in together and is supposed to showcase for the
participants emerging knowledge and insight within the field.

Well guess how the program is structured. Lecture, lecture, lecture,

break ... lecture, lecture, lecture, lecture. And he said, again and again
the experts are saying, "I know I'm over time, but I've just got to cover
this and this and this ... and you've really have to know this and this and
 this." My friend said, "THE
AUDIENCE IS LOST! " 
Professionals cannot follow
what these experts are
saying and the experts are
totally oblivious of the fact.
They live in a world
unconnected to the world of
the student who has to
somehow, magically, enter into complexity and make sense of it.

If these experts were thinking critically, they'd think about how they're
teaching. And they would see that the manner in which they're teaching
contradicts the goals that they say they're committed to.

Every discipline says it's focusing on critical thinking. The Foundation for
Critical Thinking did a three year study that focused on 28 private
universities and 38 public universities, including Stanford, UCLA,
Caltech, Berkeley and so forth. We interviewed faculty. We found, when
asked this question, "Is critical thinking a primary objective of your
instruction, a secondary objective of your instruction, or neither?," the
overwhelming majority of the faculty said, "Primary. One of my primary
goals is to foster the critical thinking of my students."  Then we asked
them, tell us a little bit about your concept of critical thinking and how
you go about teaching students. Here the characteristic answer was
either exceedingly vague — and you can't teach a vague concept — or
highly limited, in which some would say, "Oh, well I foster critical thinking
by reminding students to notice their assumptions." Others would say, "I
foster students considering other points of view." And a third might say,
"I warned them on how important the data are." 

Let me give you a logical parallel:  Suppose I claimed to teach carpentry

and explained how I did it as follows:  "Yes, I do teach carpentry. I
emphasize the hammer." Or, "Yes, I do.  I focus on the skillsaw." Critical
thinking is not one isolated skill. It is not even a random list of skills. It's
an orchestrated way of thinking that enables you to decompose your
thinking at any moment. It encompasses basic structures integrated
together into a whole. It assess thinking for its quality, for its clarity, for
its accuracy, for its precision, for its relevance. It raises thinking thereby
to a higher quality. It makes it better. Critical thinking is a way of
teaching, a way of learning, a way of being in the world in which the
thinker self-monitors and self-assesses.
We asked the faculty, "Do your students come to you with adequate
intellectual standards?" The overwhelming faculty in the study said, "No!
Students come to me without adequate intellectual standards." Do you
teach students intellectual standards. Virtually all respondents said
yes. We then asked: "Could you enumerate some of the intellectual
standards you teach, and give us some examples of how you encourage
their use in the classroom in the assignments and in the tests." ... "Oh,
well that's a hard question. I would need to think about that."... "Well, if
critical thinking and intellectual standards are something that is of
importance to faculty, they think about them. They know what they
are. They can explicitly explain them. Thus, self-deception exists at the
universities. Faculty commonly deceive themselves as to what their
students are learning. Frequently, they cannot see, truly, what the
process of schooling is doing to the minds of students.

Consider this fact:  We have armies of people who hate math. In other
words, we commonly teach students math in such a way that they come
to hate it; in such a way that they don't want to take another course in
math if they can possibly avoid it.

And so the lecturing continues — chapter one, chapter two, chapter

three, concept, concept, concept .... And in the mind of the student, all
these various concepts are simply there as something to remember.
"What did you say we do on this problem? ... Invert and multiply, invert
and multiply ... Why do we invert and multiply ... I don't know, you didn't
say what."  And so what we do is give the students standard formulas,
standard questions that can be answered with standard procedures and
move on even if they don't understand the procedures they do. It is
enough that they can give a correct answer. But if you modify the
problem so that it's slightly different, the student can't do it. Furthermore,
if you test them one month, two months, three months after the class is
completed, you'll find that very little of what was covered in the class is
still in the mind of the students.

But, for those who think within the field well, this is what the field looks
like: They see the parts relating to the whole, and realize that to
understand the part, you first need to look at and understand the whole.
They look at the whole from the point of view of the part. They  look at
the part from the point of view of the whole. Making sense?  Okay, let's
add another idea. Here's another part. Let's see how it fits into the
whole. Now let's look at what the whole looks like with this part in it. 
Whole .. part ... whole ... part ... whole ... part.
 Now let me juxtapose for a moment the
ordinary design of textbooks. Intro to
Biology: Chapter One, Introduction ... we
get a little bit of the whole. Then we get,
Chapter Two, a part of biology. Then we
get Chapter Three, another part of
biology. Chapter Four, another part. 
Chapter Five, another part. Here's the
structure that dominates textbooks: Whole, part, part, part, part, part,
more to memorize, more to memorize, more to memorize ... What
happened to the whole?  It's gone.  Meanwhile the student is
desperately trying to figure out. . . "Is this one going to be on the test? 
Do I have to remember that one over there?"  They're down-shifting into
rote memorization.

There are two kinds of students in our classrooms, even at elite

universities. The first are "the intellectually disabled students." These are
students who don't know how to beat the system.. They don't know how
to identify the points to rotely memorize. They don't know how to
manipulate faculty through flattery.  And so they don't succeed. They fail.
They're frustrated. They despise it. They wish it was over. And, on
graduation day they say with deep feeling, "Thank god it's over. No more
classes. How wonderful, I'm free, free at last. They don't say, "Wow, now
I can read all those books that I've been piling up, all those wonderful
books I did not have time to read."   No!  Now that they have their
degree, they will never again read serious books because they have
learned to dislike books and intellectual work. They are the intellectually
disabled. 

But, that's not all. There's the rest of the students; the rest of the
students who thrive on memorizing the bits and pieces that satisfy
professors. These I call the "elite disabled." The ordinary disabled — not
able to perform in the system — often fail as a result, or just barely get
by ... The elite disabled have some intellectual ability but use it mainly to
do the required minimum in order to get a diploma, to get a job and
move on. What a loss of brain power!  What a price the public pays!

The American Medical Association did a large study that was published
four years ago on unnecessary deaths due to the failure of medical
practitioners to do what is called for in standard practice. How many
Americans died unnecessarily because their medical practitioners —
their doctors and nurses — did the wrong thing and people died as a
result? According to the American Medical Association, somewhere
around 50,000 every year. Why are so many people dying through
malpractice? They're dying because of the way we have educated
medical practitioners. They are not learning to think critically about what
they're doing. They are not learning to monitor their behavior
accordingly. They are failing to follow basic good practice. They are
oversimplifying, jumping to conclusions, making faulty inferences,
misconceptualizing, etc.... Some diagnosis is put into the record and
then a patient is trapped by anyone who subsequently examines them
because "They have a diagnosis!"  Virtually no one says, "Forget the
standard diagnosis in your case, it's obviously not working, you're still
having problems ... let's rethink the case." That rarely happens. There's
a good book out on this subject, entitled something like, "How Doctors
Think."  It points out how there are patterns of thinking amongst doctors
not in the interest of patients, and there are very many basic things that
doctors, in subconscious states of intellectual arrogance, are failing to
do.

But, doctors are just one; the medical field is just one area.  I mean my
remarks to apply to every single area. Let's take one further example.

I was educated as a philosopher. Philosophers think of themselves as

helping people to live something like a rational life: Living the examined
life. College catalogs tell us about this. To be Socratic. To be a
questioner. Okay. So, I took a course that I was teaching —an upper
division course for philosophy majors — called Philosophical Reasoning
and I gave the students an essay by John Austin at Oxford — very clear
writing, very clear thinking — and I said, "State the purpose of the essay,
state the main question that Austin considers, state the information he
uses in answering these questions, give us his basic conclusion, identify
his assumptions, then characterize his point of view." (The Elements of
Thought. Standard turf in critical thinking.) Then I read the student
papers. What did they do? They argued with John Austin, disagreeing
with him, before they understood what he was saying. So I went back to
the department and said, "Look, we're turning our majors into sophists.
Our majors aren't learning to think with discipline. They're learning to be
argumentative. They're learning to be arguers. And furthermore, their
understanding is impeded because they're stereotyping authors they are
reading." What did the department do? "Thank you very much Richard.
Your thoughts are always provocative." Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.
Seemingly, they didn't care. They didn't care what the evidence was.
They questioned rather whether I had followed the protocol for research.
But this wasn't research. This was reporting on departmental
performance of a class ..."Oh no, they said, it became research when
you did this and this ... and, by the way, you didn't get the student's
permission for this" ...

What did they want to do? To shut me up, of course. And, they

successfully did. For, I thought, "Is it worth it? ... No!  This piddley
department ... it's not important. It's the big picture that's important. It's
the way the field does this systematically. It's the way faculty are
transformed into cultivators of argumentation rather than cultivators of
fair-minded critical thinking.

So, let us now come to what we're asking you to do in this conference as
a result of the structure of the conference. The answer is Intellectual
work, wall-to-wall intellectual work.  Every session: intellectual work.

Everyone of our sessions, in every part of every session, is designed so

that you must do intellectual work to take command of the fundamental
concepts of critical thinking. We begin with the need to internalize the
foundational concepts. Everyone here needs to do the intellectual work
to come to terms with the Elements of Thought, Universal Standards of
Thought, and Traits of Mind. Intellectual work is the only way that it can
be done.

Now let me give you an example of how a simply well designed

intellectual strategy can help bring students into the process. A very
simple thing: Take a deck of 3 X 5 cards and put one student name per
card. Show the students the cards and say, "Every so often I'm going to
stop and ask you to summarize what I've just said. I'm going to call on
you to summarize my main point; to state it, to elaborate it, and to
exemplify it in your own words with your own example."  State.
Elaborate. Exemplify. Every so often I walk over and I pick up the deck
of cards. What happens? The whole room comes to attention. Why?
Because now "I, the student, may be on stage. I may be called on to
perform." Now they listen. And so, if I have to pick up the cards five
times in the class I'm going to do that. I'm not going to just stare at minds
being dimmed, drifting off.

Or, consider this move: At every point in a class, at every moment of

instruction, there is a question on the floor. Why?  Because if there's no
question on the floor, there's nothing to think about. If there's no question
we're trying to answer, why are we thinking? Now, two possibilities:  At
any point in time you either know what question is on the floor, or you
don't. If you don't know what question is on the floor, then what we're
doing is irrelevant to you, because you're not connecting with any
 question, issue or problem. If
you do know what the
question is you can state it in
an interrogative sentence that
is clear and precise. So,
periodically, I'll stop and I'll
say, "Okay class, what is the
question on the floor right
now? I'll give them a few moments to think. They'll think about that. Then
I'll pick up a card, "Joan Rivers, are you there? There you are. Will you
tell us what was the question on the floor? Joan says, "Well I think it's
this (she states the question)? Let's call on someone else. "Frank, do
you agree with Joan or do you disagree with her?... I disagree with her ...
Well, she's right. Now, let me explain why she's right" .... So, by calling
on students unpredictably, drawing them into the intellectual work,
they're much more apt to do intellectual work.

Now let's look at the spectrum of things we need them to do. We need
them to read critically, write substantively, speak (with apparent
decision), listen actively (what I've been talking about on how to foster
active listening). We need to bring our intellectual work into
tests ... maybe have students write out, "What questions would you put
on the test and why?... We need you to write out one exam question for
the unit we just covered, indicating why you think it's a good question,
then I'll collect all the questions and I will include at least one question
from you on the exam." Then, questioning. Learning how to ask
questions. Questions drive thinking. If you have very few questions, you
have very little to think about.

We live increasingly in a world of accelerated change. Things are not

only changing, they're changing faster and faster and faster. And not
only is the world a world of accelerated change, it's a world of
intensifying complexity, and of  increasing danger. If our students are not
learning to think critically, how are they going to know how to change
their thinking in keeping with the changes of the world? ...

But what we're saying to students is we'll teach you how to think —
which usually means what to think — and then you go out into a world
where what you thought is no longer what is. New things are present,
new ideas, new technologies, new dangers, and old thinking is being
used to deal with these new problems, because those engaged in that
old thinking don't know how to operate with thinking as their object. 
They don't know how to analyze thinking, assess thinking, reconstruct
thinking.  They don't know how to enter and learn new systems.

Critical thinking requires you to work on your thinking  continually,  to

make your thinking the object of thought; to make your behavior the
object of your thinking; to make your beliefs the object of your thinking.

For example, take your religious thinking: All over the world there are
very many religious belief systems. And, for each belief system, there
are a certain number of true believers. The true believers are convinced
that their particular slant on god is plugged right into god. So, if you're
raised in one area where Buddhism is most common, then you become
a Buddhist. If you're raised where Hindu is most common, you become a
Hindu. Christian, you become a Christian. According to the Encyclopedia
Britannica, you have about 500 choices.

Now, how many people study alternative religions before they pick one?
What brings them into the religion? Usually it's because of a place of
birth or because they were brought into a group that treated them well.
But, because someone treats you well doesn't mean they're in
possession of the truth. Rather than making people questioners and
skeptical, the people become true believers even more persuaded that
they're plugged into god. Is this not intellectual arrogance?  If there is a
god, are you and I capable of understanding him, her, it? And consider
the various things people say god wants ... "cover this up, no cover that
up ... don't wear these clothes ... no this is the holy thing ... and this is
the true holy place, not that.  God wants you to eat his flesh and drink
his blood.  No, says someone else.  That is not so.  God wants you to
join a holy war against infidels ... no not that one this one" ... if we looked
seriously at the chaos that religious beliefs represent, we would
recognize it's a cognitive minefield. And, unfortunately, it's a minefield
literally for some who will die rather than question their beliefs. So the
number of people thinking critically about religious belief is small.  The
uncritical believers are many. 

I'd like to now turn to a summary --  A Video Clip (6MB Windows Media
Video) -- which gives you, in addition to what I've said, 100 reasons for
taking critical thinking seriously ...

Two final questions: Do your students need critical thinking? ... The

second: Are you truly cultivating it?

Thank you very much.

Open-minded inquiry
Helping Students Assess Their Thinking

by William Hare

Abstract
This is a brief guide to the ideal of open-minded
inquiry by way of a survey of related notions.
Making special reference to the educational
context, the aim is to offer teachers an insight into
what it would mean for their work to be influenced
by this ideal, and to lead students to a deeper
appreciation of open-minded inquiry. From
assumptions to zealotry, the glossary provides an
account of a wide range of concepts in this family
of ideas, reflecting a concern and a connection
throughout with the central concept of open-
mindedness itself. An intricate network of
relationships is uncovered that reveals the
richness of this ideal; and many confusions and
misunderstandings that hinder a proper
appreciation of open-mindedness are identified.
Introduction
Many people would agree with John Dewey and
Bertrand Russell that open-mindedness is one of
the fundamental aims of education, always elusive
but eminently worth pursuing. For Dewey, it is the
childlike attitude of wonder and interest in new
ideas coupled with a determination to have one's
beliefs properly grounded; and it is vitally important
because we live in a world that is characterized by
constant change. For Russell, open-mindedness is
the virtue that prevents habit and desire from
making us unable or unwilling to entertain the idea
that earlier beliefs may have to be revised or
abandoned; its main value lies in challenging the
fanaticism that comes from a conviction that our
views are absolutely certain. A review of certain
key ideas provides a clearer sense of the
dimensions of the ideal of open-mindedness for all
those who are determined to make this aim central
to their work as teachers. What follows is a road
map to the terrain which surrounds the idea of
open-minded inquiry.
Glossary
Assumptions: Always potentially problematic
when they remain invisible. Not being properly
aware of the beliefs we take for granted, we are in
no position to consider what is to be said for or
against them. What we presuppose about the
abilities of our students, about what is worth
learning in our subject, about the nature of
knowledge, about the teacher/student relationship,
about suitable pedagogical strategies, and so on,
affects our decisions as teachers, but these ideas
escape our scrutiny. The open-minded teacher
tries to uncover such ruling prepossessions, as
Dewey calls them, and subject them to critical
examination. Hidden assumptions of this kind are
not, of course, to be confused with assumptions
we consciously make in order to see what follows
if they are regarded as true.
Bias: Often mistakenly equated with simply having
an opinion or a preference. An opinion, however,
that results from an impartial review of the
evidence would precisely merit being seen as
unbiased. Similarly, a preference for reviewing
evidence in a fair-minded manner before drawing
conclusions is not a bias in favor of impartiality; it
is a determination to avoid bias. A biased view
distorts inquiry because factors have entered in
(favoritism, ignorance, omission, corruption,
misplaced loyalty, threats, and so on) that
undermine a fair examination. Open-minded
teachers seek to avoid bias in their teaching, or to
compensate for biases that experience tells them
they have a tendency to slip into, except when
they deliberately present a biased perspective in
order to stimulate open-minded reflection.
Critical Receptiveness: Russell's term for the
attitude which makes a virtue of openness to ideas
and experience while guarding against sheer
mindlessness. Open-mindedness would not be an
intellectual virtue if it implied a willingness to
accept an idea regardless of its merits. Ideas must
be given due consideration, of course, unless we
already have good reason to believe that they are
worthless, but the open-minded person is ready to
reject an idea that cannot withstand critical
appraisal. There may be good reason in the
context of teaching, of course, to postpone critical
scrutiny temporarily so that the ideas in question
are properly understood and appreciated before
difficulties and objections are raised, and to ensure
that mutual respect and trust will allow people to
entertain challenges to their views.
Dogmatism: Not to be thought of as equivalent to
having a firm view but rather a stubbornly inflexible
one that disrupts inquiry. An open-minded person
may have a firm conviction, yet be fully prepared
to reconsider it if contrary evidence begins to
emerge. The dogmatist fails on this score,
regarding the belief as having been laid down by
an authority that cannot be disputed. People may
seek the crutch of dogma, as Dewey puts it, but an
open-minded teacher challenges such tendencies
by ensuring that claims and theories remain open
to critical review and are not seen as fixed and
final, beyond all possibility of further thought.
Expertise: No one has the ability to make an
independent and critical judgment about every
idea, with the result that we must all, in some
circumstances, rely on expert opinion. Experts,
however, are not infallible, and some prove to be
only experts in name. The open-minded person
remains alive to these possibilities so as to avoid
falling into a dogmatic conviction or being duped.
Russell's advice remains relevant and needs to be
applied to the teacher's own presumed expertise:
When the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion
cannot be certain. When they are not agreed, no
opinion is certain. When the experts think the
evidence is insufficient, we should suspend
judgment.
Fallibility: The idea that our beliefs are subject to
error and liable to be falsified. If we reject absolute
certainty as unattainable, fallibilism allows us to
view our beliefs as being well-supported and
warranted in terms of presently available evidence
and current theories, but always subject to revision
in the light of further evidence and reflection. Our
beliefs are provisional and tentative, and the open-
minded teacher attempts to convey this view to
students and to offset any inclination to think that
what is called knowledge is settled for all time; but
such fallibilism does not entail outright skepticism
where any possibility of achieving knowledge is
simply dismissed.
Gullibility: The state in which we are so ready to
believe that we are easily taken in by false claims
and spurious ideas. Something is too good to be
true, but it is regarded as true nevertheless. The
desire to be open-minded is overwhelmed by a
flood of nonsense and deception against which the
person has insufficient critical defenses. Wishful
thinking, greed, persuasive advertising, ignorance,
and sheer naiveté all contribute to a situation in
which a person is easily taken advantage of. As
Carl Sagan observes, a great openness to ideas
needs to be balanced by an equally strong
skeptical spirit. Being well informed combined with
the ability to think critically is the chief defense
against credulity.
Humility: Recognizing one's own limitations and
liability to error, and avoiding the arrogance
sometimes displayed by teachers. Open-minded
teachers submit their ideas to the critical reactions
of their students, and they avoid the mistake of
thinking that any superior knowledge they
possess, as compared to the students', confers on
them infallibility or omniscience. They
acknowledge the risk that they may be shown to
have made a mistake. Dewey rightly emphasizes,
however, that humility does not mean that the
teacher should think that he or she has no more
expertise than the student and abandon whatever
insights and wisdom can be brought to the
teaching situation.
Indoctrination: Not to be identified with every
form of teaching, but rather with the kind of
teaching that tries to ensure that the beliefs
acquired will not be re-examined, or with
pedagogical methods that in fact tend to have
such a result. Indoctrination tends to lock the
individual into a set of beliefs that are seen as
fixed and final; it is fundamentally inconsistent with
open-minded teaching. R. M. Hare suggests a
helpful test for open-minded teachers who wonder
whether or not their own teaching may be drifting
in the direction of indoctrination: How pleased are
you when you learn that your students are
beginning to question your ideas?
Judgment: Unlike sheer guesswork, judgment
utilizes information to support a tentative factual
claim that goes beyond the available evidence.
Unlike ex-cathedra pronouncements, judgment
draws on information, together with general
principles, to determine what ought to be done or
what value something has. Open-minded teachers
bear in mind that their judgments rest on limited
information or even on misinformation; that we
need to be willing to suspend judgment when the
evidence is insufficient; that the judgment we
make may need to be revisited in the light of
subsequent experience and reflection; and that
others, drawing on the same evidence and the
same general principles, may well reach different
conclusions that we need to consider. La
Rochefoucauld's observation is salutary
concerning our own open-mindedness: Everyone
finds fault with his memory, but none with his
judgment.
Knowledge: Stephen Jay Gould speaks of certain
ideas being "confirmed to such a degree that it
would be perverse to withhold provisional
consent." This is a useful way for open-minded
teachers to think of knowledge. It stops well short
of identifying knowledge with apodictic certainty;
but it avoids the fashionable and debilitating
skepticism that prefers to speak of "knowledge",
rather than knowledge, on the grounds that no one
really knows anything. Dewey wisely recommends
teachers involving students in the making of
knowledge at school so as to open their minds to
the realization that certain ideas deserve to be
thought of as knowledge rather than mere opinion
or guesswork.
Listening: Not to be thought of as passive and
unquestioning, but rather as intimately connected
to the open-minded outlook. Good listening
involves really trying to connect with another
person's ideas in order to understand them and
consider their merits, what Russell calls a kind of
hypothetical sympathy. It carries with it the risk
that one's views will turn out to be faulty in some
way, requiring revision or rejection in an open-
minded appraisal, and demands a certain amount
of courage. Open-minded teachers listen to what
is said, to how it is said, and to what is not said;
and they are able and willing to limit their own
contributions so as to give appropriate recognition
to the voices of their students.
Manner: It is not just what we say and do as
teachers that matters with respect to our claim to
be open-minded, but also the atmosphere we
create, the tone we set, our demeanor and body
language, and the attitudes we convey. All of this
can make it far clearer to students than any verbal
declaration that a genuine engagement with ideas
is encouraged. Dewey speaks of the "collateral
learning" that goes on in classrooms, especially
the formation of attitudes on the part of students,
and a major influence here is the manner in which
teachers go about their work.
Neutrality: Not to be seen as a pedagogical
principle, but rather as a useful pedagogical
strategy, giving students an opportunity to develop
their own opinions before coming to know what the
teacher's opinions are — if the teacher decides to
reveal his or her views at all. Neutrality, in the
sense of a teacher trying never to disclose his or
her views, is not a necessary condition of being
open-minded. The teacher's manner may well
reveal that his or her declared views are open for
discussion and are not being presented in a
dogmatic fashion. Confusion about teacher
neutrality often results from drawing a general
conclusion about open-mindedness from the fact
that "keeping an open mind" on an issue typically
means not having yet made up one's mind and,
therefore, being neutral.
Open-mindedness: The central concept in this
family of ideas. Open-mindedness is an intellectual
virtue that involves a willingness to take relevant
evidence and argument into account in forming or
revising our beliefs and values, especially when
there is some reason why we might resist such
evidence and argument, with a view to arriving at
true and defensible conclusions. It means being
critically receptive to alternative possibilities, being
willing to think again despite having formed an
opinion, and sincerely trying to avoid those
conditions and offset those factors which constrain
and distort our reflections. The attitude of open-
mindedness is embedded in the Socratic idea of
following the argument where it leads and is a
fundamental virtue of inquiry.
Propaganda: A one-sided, biased presentation of
an issue, trading on emotional appeals and a wide
range of rhetorical devices in order to override
critical assessment and secure conviction. The
propagandist has found the truth and has no
interest in encouraging others to engage in
genuine inquiry. Russell distinguishes the educator
from the propagandist in terms of the former caring
for the students on their own account, not viewing
them as simply potential soldiers fighting for a
cause. The challenge to open-minded teachers is
to provide students with the skills to recognize and
cope with propaganda, and to refrain from
propaganda themselves even though a particular
cause may seem important enough to justify it.
Questions: Some questions discourage critical
inquiry by merely seeking answers deemed to be
correct; others create a double-bind by
incorporating a dubious presupposition; still others
arbitrarily restrict the range of one's inquiries. All of
this is inimical to open-mindedness. Engaging with
a question in an open-minded way involves
considering the widest range of possible
responses or solutions, and showing the kind of
curiosity that puts the desire to find out before
personal interest and convenience. Because good
questions serve to open our minds, Russell
remarks that philosophy is to be studied for the
sake of the questions themselves; and
Whitehead's comment that the "silly question" is
often the first hint of a totally novel development is
especially relevant in the context of open-minded
teaching.
Relativism: Because it is often associated with a
respectful and tolerant attitude towards cultural
differences concerning what is morally right and
wrong, and also with a sensitive appreciation of
pluralism with respect to methods, theories,
perspectives, and interpretations in inquiry,
relativism at first glance seems not only
compatible with open-mindedness but quite central
to it. If, however, relativism means that every
moral view is equally worthy, or that all knowledge
claims are equally true (since what is true is simply
true for someone or some group), then the ideal of
open-minded inquiry must vanish. If no view is
conceivably better than another, why consider
alternative views at all?
Surprise: A readiness for surprise is Robert Alter's
way of capturing a vital aspect of open-
mindedness. It means not being so locked into a
particular way of thinking that one fails to
appreciate or even notice some new and
surprising possibility. It means being ready to
welcome an unexpected, perhaps astonishing,
development or interpretation; it means being
prepared to recognize that a counter-intuitive idea
happens to be true. Open-minded teachers are not
only ready, but happy, to be surprised by their
students, recognizing along with Dewey that not
even the most experienced teacher can always
anticipate the ways in which things will strike their
students.
Tolerance: Not always considered to be a very
worthy stance, partly because it seems to suggest
grudgingly putting up with something rather than
showing appropriate respect; and partly because it
is clear that there is much that we should not
tolerate. Nevertheless, reasonable tolerance is
important since it is often desirable to allow or
permit that which we might prefer not to happen.
One problem with zero tolerance policies is simply
that strict liability prevents the exercise of open-
minded decision-making in particular cases.
Tolerance does not imply open-mindedness since
one might never give serious consideration to that
which one tolerates; but tolerance in society
creates exposure to a wide range of beliefs and
practices that may prove to be a stimulus to open-
minded inquiry.
Uncertainty: Deeply controversial issues,
disagreement among experts, insufficient and
conflicting information, lack of confidence in
institutions once admired, and newly emerging
problems and crises, all underline Dewey's point
that the world we live in is not settled and finished.
The absence of certainty requires a tolerance for
ambiguity — an ability and willingness to think
critically and weigh alternatives in situations where
decisions are problematic — and in these
circumstances open-mindedness in teaching has
the great value of stressing the provisional and
tentative nature of conclusions, while at the same
time committing us to the best use of whatever
evidence and argument we can muster.
Veracity: The virtue of truthfulness entails a
commitment to basing our views on an honest
assessment of the evidence, and adjusting the
degree of conviction we have in terms of the
weight of such evidence. In Peirce's words, it
involves a diligent inquiry into truth for truth's sake,
with no axe to grind, and a passion to learn. It
thrives on an open-minded willingness to take into
account all that is relevant to drawing a true
conclusion, but is defeated by ulterior motives,
wishful thinking, hasty judgment, resistance to
ideas, and a priori conviction. 
Wonder: Suggests insatiable curiosity, endless
questioning, imaginative speculation, openness to new
experiences, and the sense that we will never quite
exhaust our understanding and appreciation. Cursed be
the dullard who destroys wonder, says Whitehead, but
puzzlement and a fascination with ideas are all too often
crushed by an over-emphasis on precision and detail. A
person who is puzzled and wondering, says Aristotle,
thinks himself or herself ignorant, and a keen awareness
of one’s own lack of knowledge is often a spur to an
open-minded exploration of possibilities.
Xenophobia: A deep-seated fear or hatred of
other cultures or races, with the result that
prejudice, ignorance, contempt, and a feeling of
superiority prevent people from noticing and
appreciating what is of value in a different way of
life or from considering what they might learn from
other traditions. The open-minded person, by
contrast, recognizes enormous value in pluralism
and diversity, and sees such exposure as
potentially enriching rather than threatening. The
challenge for the open-minded teacher is to break
down barriers created by bigotry and narrow
provincialism.
You are obstinate, he is pigheaded: The
speaker, needless to say, merely has firm
opinions. This is Russell's memorable way of
making the point that it is enormously difficult to
recognize one's own tendencies towards closed-
mindedness. We see ourselves as eminently
reasonable, and our views as open to discussion,
even though it may be perfectly clear to others that
we are only going through the motions of giving a
serious hearing to a rival view. Russell labels this
"good form", rather than genuine open-
mindedness.
Zealotry: Enthusiasm, passion, and commitment
are powerful qualities that come through very
clearly in the teacher's manner, and students find
themselves caught up in the same excitement.
Hume reminds us, however, that no quality is
absolutely blamable or praiseworthy, and
commendable zeal can soon pass over into
undesirable zealotry. The zealot has a fanatical
commitment so unquestionably important that it
outweighs the fundamental commitment to the
promotion of independence and autonomy in
students. In the context of education, zealotry
translates into propaganda and indoctrination.
Christopher Hitchens offers sound advice when he
suggests that we "learn to recognize and avoid the
symptoms of the zealot and the person who knows
that he is right."
Concluding Comment

No general conclusion is really necessary. The

selection is itself the conclusion, showing as it
does a network of ideas criss-crossing and
doubling back, sometimes taking unexpected
twists and turns. To appreciate any particular part
of the terrain involves exploring the links with other
areas and seeing each from a variety of vantage
points, so that one gradually comes to a sense of
the whole. The attitude of open-mindedness is in
danger of being lost sight of in education if we
think of information and skills as our primary goals,
or if as teachers we allow our expertise and
authority to shut down our students' ideas. A map
which reveals the richness and texture of the ideal
of open-minded inquiry may serve to remind us of
its fundamental value.
Dewey’’s comment on our ruling prepossessions
comes from his essay "Why study
philosophy?", John Dewey: The Early Works Vol. 4: 62-
65;his remarks about an unsettled world are
in Democracy and Education, ch. 11; the phrase, "the
crutch of dogma", is from Democracy and Education, ch.
25; his reflections on the unanticipated aspects of
teaching are in Democracy and Education, ch. 22; his
views about the insights and wisdom of the
teacher can be found in Experience and Education ch. 4;
and his observation on "collateral learning" is in ch.
3 of the same book. Russell’’s concept of critical
receptiveness appears in his Sceptical Essays, ch.12;
his views on expertise appear in ch. 1 of the same
book; the distinction between education and
propaganda is found in his book Power, ch. 18; his
remark on the value of philosophy is from The
Problems of Philosophy, ch. 15; the comment on "good
form" is from Principles of Social Reconstruction, ch. 5; the
"irregular verb" ("I am firm, you are obstinate, he is
a fool") was introduced by Russell in a BBC Brains
Trust program, 26 April, 1948. Whitehead’’s
comment on the "silly question" is found in Lucien
Price, Dialogues of Alfred North Whitehead, ch. 22; his
remark about destroying wonder is from The Aims of
Education, ch. 3. Aristotle’’s comment on wonder is
from his Metaphysics Book 1, ch. 2. Sagan’’s views
about openness and skepticism are in "Wonder
and skepticism", The Skeptical Inquirer, 1995. R. M.
Hare’’s views on indoctrination are found in
"Adolescents into adults", reprinted in Hare’’s Essays
on Religion and Education, 1992. Gould’’s comment on
provisional consent comes from "Evolution as fact
and theory", Discover, 1981. Alter’’s remark about
surprise is from "A readiness to be surprised", Times
Literary Supplement, January 23, 1998. Peirce’’s
reference to a diligent inquiry into truth is from
Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss (eds.), Collected
Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce Vol. 1, #44. Hitchens’’
comment on the zealot is from his Letters to a Young
Contrarian, 2001. La Rochefoucauld’’s remark on
judgment is from the Maxims  No. 89.
Further Reading
 Hare, William. (2004). Assessing one's own open-
mindedness. Philosophy Now  47, 26-28.
Hare, William. (2003). Guest Editor. Special issue
on Open-mindedness and Education. Journal of
Thought 23, 3.
Hare, William. (2003). Is it good to be open-
minded? International Journal of Applied Philosophy 17, 1:
73-87.
Hare, William. (2002). Teaching and the attitude of
open-mindedness. Journal of Educational Administration and
Foundations16, 2: 103-24.
Hare, William. (2001). Bertrand Russell and the
ideal of critical receptiveness. Skeptical Inquirer 25, 3:
40-44.
This article was first published as "Open-minded inquiry: A glossary
of key concepts," in Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines
23, 3, 2004: 37-41.
William Hare is Professor of Education at Mount
Saint Vincent University, Halifax, Nova Scotia,
B3M 2J6. Email:[email protected]
Bibliographical Note
Valuable Intellectual Traits
 
 Intellectual Humility: Having a  
consciousness of the limits of one's  
knowledge, including a sensitivity to  
circumstances in which one's native  
egocentrism is likely to function self-  
deceptively; sensitivity to bias,  
prejudice and limitations of one's  
viewpoint. Intellectual humility depends  
on recognizing that one should not
claim more than one actually knows. It
does not imply spinelessness or
submissiveness. It implies the lack of
intellectual pretentiousness,
boastfulness, or conceit, combined with
insight into the logical foundations, or
lack of such foundations, of one's
beliefs.
 
 Intellectual Courage: Having a
consciousness of the need to face and
fairly address ideas, beliefs or
viewpoints toward which we have
strong negative emotions and to which
we have not given a serious hearing.
This courage is connected with the
recognition that ideas considered
dangerous or absurd are sometimes
rationally justified (in whole or in part)
and that conclusions and beliefs
inculcated in us are sometimes false or
misleading. To determine for ourselves
which is which, we must not passively
and uncritically "accept" what we have
"learned." Intellectual courage comes
into play here, because inevitably we
will come to see some truth in some
ideas considered dangerous and
absurd, and distortion or falsity in some
ideas strongly held in our social group.
We need courage to be true to our own
thinking in such circumstances. The
penalties for non-conformity can be
severe.
 
 Intellectual Empathy: Having a
consciousness of the need to
imaginatively put oneself in the place of
 others in order to genuinely understand
them, which requires the
consciousness of our egocentric
tendency to identify truth with our
immediate perceptions of long-standing
thought or belief. This trait correlates
with the ability to reconstruct accurately
the viewpoints and reasoning of others
and to reason from premises,
assumptions, and ideas other than our
own. This trait also correlates with the
willingness to remember occasions
when we were wrong in the past
despite an intense conviction that we
were right, and with the ability to
imagine our being similarly deceived in
a case-at-hand.

 Intellectual Autonomy: Having rational

control of one's beliefs, values, and
inferences, The ideal of critical thinking is
to learn to think for oneself, to gain
command over one's thought processes. It
entails a commitment to analyzing and
evaluating beliefs on the basis of reason
and evidence, to question when it is rational
to question, to believe when it is rational to
believe, and to conform when it is rational
to conform.
  
 Intellectual Integrity: Recognition of
the need to be true to one's own
thinking; to be consistent in the
intellectual standards one applies; to
hold one's self to the same rigorous
standards of evidence and proof to
which one holds one's antagonists; to
practice what one advocates for others;
and to honestly admit discrepancies
and inconsistencies in one's own
thought and action.
 
 Intellectual Perseverance: Having a
consciousness of the need to use
intellectual insights and truths in spite
of difficulties, obstacles, and
frustrations; firm adherence to rational
principles despite the irrational
opposition of others; a sense of the
need to struggle with confusion and
unsettled questions over an extended
period of time to achieve deeper
understanding or insight.
 
 Confidence In Reason: Confidence
that, in the long run, one's own higher
interests and those of humankind at
 large will be best served by giving the
freest play to reason, by encouraging
people to come to their own
conclusions by developing their own
rational faculties; faith that, with proper
encouragement and cultivation, people
can learn to think for themselves, to
form rational viewpoints, draw
reasonable conclusions, think
coherently and logically, persuade each
other by reason and become
reasonable persons, despite the deep-
seated obstacles in the native character
of the human mind and in society as we
know it.
 
 Fairmindedness: Having a
consciousness of the need to treat all
viewpoints alike, without reference to
one's own feelings or vested interests,
or the feelings or vested interests of
one's friends, community or nation;
implies adherence to intellectual
standards without reference to one's
own advantage or the advantage of
one's group.
Valuable Intellectual Virtues (September 2014).
Foundation For Critical Thinking, Online at
website:www.criticalthinking.org)
Universal Intellectual Standards
 
 
by Linda Elder and Richard Paul  
 
Universal intellectual standards are  
standards which must be applied to  
thinking whenever one is interested in  
checking the quality of reasoning  
about a problem, issue, or situation. To  
think critically entails having command
of these standards. To help students
learn them, teachers should pose
questions which probe student
thinking; questions which hold
students accountable for their
thinking; questions which, through
consistent use by the teacher in the
classroom, become internalized by
students as questions they need to ask
themselves. 

The ultimate goal, then, is for these

questions to become infused in the
thinking of students, forming part of
their inner voice, which then guides
them to better and better reasoning.
While there are many universal
standards, the following are some of
the most essential:

CLARITY: Could you elaborate further on that

point? Could you express that point in another way?
Could you give me an illustration? Could you give me
an example? Clarity is the gateway
standard. If a statement is unclear, we
cannot determine whether it is
accurate or relevant. In fact, we cannot
tell anything about it because we don't
yet know what it is saying. For
example, the question, "What can be
done about the education system in
America?" is unclear. In order to
address the question adequately, we
would need to have a clearer
understanding of what the person
asking the question is considering the
"problem" to be. A clearer question
might be "What can educators do to
ensure that students learn the skills
and abilities which help them function
successfully on the job and in their
daily decision-making?" 
   
ACCURACY: Is that really true? How could we
check that? How could we find out if that is true?   A
statement can be clear but not
accurate, as in "Most dogs are over
300 pounds in weight."

PRECISION: Could you give more details? Could

you be more specific?
A statement can be both clear and
accurate, but not precise, as in "Jack
is overweight." (We don’t know how
overweight Jack is, one pound or 500
pounds.)

RELEVANCE: How is that connected to the

question? How does that bear on the issue?
A statement can be clear, accurate, and
precise, but not relevant to the
question at issue. For example,
students often think that the amount of
effort they put into a course should be
used in raising their grade in a course.
Often, however, the "effort" does not
measure the quality of student
learning; and when this is so, effort is
irrelevant to their appropriate grade.

DEPTH: How does your answer address the

complexities in the question? How are you taking into
account the problems in the question? Is that dealing
with the most significant factors? A statement
can be clear, accurate, precise, and
relevant, but superficial (that is, lack
depth). For example, the statement,
"Just say No!" which is often used to
discourage children and teens from
using drugs, is clear, accurate, precise,
and relevant. Nevertheless, it lacks
depth because it treats an extremely
complex issue, the pervasive problem
of drug use among young people,
superficially. It fails to deal with the
complexities of the issue.

BREADTH: Do we need to consider another point

of view? Is there another way to look at this question?
What would this look like from a conservative
standpoint? What would this look like from the point of
view of . . .?   A line of reasoning may be
clear accurate, precise, relevant, and
deep, but lack breadth (as in an
argument from either the conservative
or liberal standpoint which gets deeply
into an issue, but only recognizes the
insights of one side of the question.)

LOGIC: Does this really make sense? Does that

follow from what you said? How does that follow? But
before you implied this, and now you are saying that;
how can both be true?  When we think, we
bring a variety of thoughts together
into some order. When the
combination of thoughts are mutually
supporting and make sense in
combination, the thinking is "logical."
When the combination is not mutually
supporting, is contradictory in some
sense or does not "make sense," the
combination is not logical.

FAIRNESS:  Do I have a vested interest in this

issue?  Am I sympathetically representing the
viewpoints of others?  Human think is often
biased in the direction of the thinker - in
what are the perceived interests of the
thinker.  Humans do not naturally consider
the rights and needs of others on the same
plane with their own rights and needs.  We
therefore must actively work to make sure
we are applying the intellectual standard of
fairness to our thinking.  Since we naturally
see ourselves as fair even when we are
unfair, this can be very difficult.  A
commitment to fairmindedness is a starting
place.

For a deeper understanding of

intellectual standards and their
relationship with critical thinking, see
theThinker's Guide to Intellectual
Standards.

The Role of Questions in Teaching,

Thinking and Learning
One of the reasons that instructors  
tend to overemphasize "coverage"  
over "engaged thinking" is that  
they assume that answers can be  
taught separate from questions.  
Indeed, so buried are questions in  
established instruction that the fact  
that all assertions — all statements  
that this or that is so — are implicit  
answers to questions is virtually
never recognized. For example,
the statement that water boils at
100 degrees centigrade is an
answer to the question "At what
temperature centigrade does water
boil?"
Hence every declarative statement
in the textbook is an answer to a
question. Hence, every textbook
could be rewritten in the
interrogative mode by translating
every statement into a question.
To my knowledge this has never
been done. That it has not is
testimony to the privileged status
of answers over questions in
instruction and the
misunderstanding of teachers
about the significance of questions
in the learning process. Instruction
at all levels now keeps most
questions buried in a torrent of
obscured "answers."
Thinking is Driven by Questions

Thinking is not driven by answers

but by questions. Had no
questions been asked by those
who laid the foundation for a
field — for example, Physics or
Biology — the field would never
have been developed in the first
place. Furthermore, every field
stays alive only to the extent that
fresh questions are generated and
taken seriously as the driving force
in a process of thinking. To think
through or rethink anything, one
must ask questions that stimulate
our thought.
Questions define tasks, express
problems and delineate issues.
Answers on the other hand, often
signal a full stop in thought. Only
when an answer generates a
further question does thought
continue its life as such.
This is why it is true that only
students who have questions are
really thinking and learning. It is
possible to give students an
examination on any subject by just
asking them to list all of the
questions that they have about a
subject, including all questions
generated by their first list of
questions.
That we do not test students by
asking them to list questions and
explain their significance is again
evidence of the privileged status
we give to answers isolated from
questions. That is, we ask
questions only to get thought-
stopping answers, not to generate
further questions.
Feeding Students Endless Content
to Remember

Feeding students endless content

to remember (that is, declarative
sentences to remember) is akin to
repeatedly stepping on the brakes
in a vehicle that is, unfortunately,
already at rest. Instead, students
need questions to turn on their
intellectual engines and they need
to generate questions from our
questions to get their thinking to go
somewhere. Thinking is of no use
unless it goes somewhere, and
again, the questions we ask
determine where our thinking
goes.
Deep questions drive our thought
underneath the surface of things,
force us to deal with complexity.
Questions of purpose force us to
define our task. Questions of
information force us to look at our
sources of information as well as
at the quality of our information.
Questions of interpretation force
us to examine how we are
organizing or giving meaning to
information. Questions of
assumption force us to examine
what we are taking for granted.
Questions of implication force us
to follow out where our thinking is
going. Questions of point of view
force us to examine our point of
view and to consider other relevant
points of view.
Questions of relevance force us to
discriminate what does and what
does not bear on a question.
Questions of accuracy force us to
evaluate and test for truth and
correctness. Questions of
precision force us to give details
and be specific. Questions of
consistency force us to examine
our thinking for contradictions.
Questions of logic force us to
consider how we are putting the
whole of our thought together, to
make sure that it all adds up and
makes sense within a reasonable
system of some kind.
Dead Questions Reflect Dead Minds

Unfortunately, most students ask

virtually none of these thought-
stimulating types of questions.
They tend to stick to dead
questions like "Is this going to be
on the test?", questions that imply
the desire not to think. Most
teachers in turn are not
themselves generators of
questions and answers of their
own; that is, are not seriously
engaged in thinking through or
rethinking through their own
subjects. Rather, they are
purveyors of the questions and
answers of others-usually those of
a textbook.
We must continually remind
ourselves that thinking begins with
respect to some content only when
questions are generated by both
teachers and students. No
questions equals no
understanding. Superficial
questions equal superficial
understanding. Most students
typically have no questions. They
not only sit in silence, their minds
are silent as well. Hence, the
questions they do have tend to be
superficial and ill-informed. This
demonstrates that most of the time
they are not thinking through the
content they are presumed to be
learning. This demonstrates that
most of the time they are not
learning the content they are
presumed to be learning.
If we want thinking we must
stimulate it with questions that lead
students to further questions. We
must overcome what previous
schooling has done to the thinking
of students. We must resuscitate
minds that are largely dead when
we receive them. We must give
our students what might be called
"artificial cogitation" (the
intellectual equivalent of artificial
respiration). 
{In Critical Thinking Handbook: Basic Theory
and Instructional Structures}

 
( Paul, R. and Elder, L. (October 2010). Foundation For
Critical Thinking, online at website:www.criticalthinking.org)

Thinking With Concepts

Taking Our Students on a Journey to Personal
Freedom
Concepts are to us like the air we breathe. They are everywhere. They
are essential to our lives. But we rarely notice them. Yet only when we
have conceptualized a thing in some way, only then, can we think about
it. Nature does not give us, or anyone else, instructions in how things are
to be conceptualized. We must create that conceptualization, alone or
with others. Once conceptualized, a thing is integrated by us, into a
network of ideas (since no concept or idea ever stands alone). We
conceptualize things personally by means of our own ideas. We
conceptualize things socially by means of the ideas of others (social
groups). We explain one idea by means of other ideas. So if someone
asked us to say what a “friend” is, we might say, as the Webster’s New
World does, “a person whom one knows well and is fond of.” If that same
person asked us to say what it means to “know someone well,” we would
respond by introducing yet further ideas or concepts. 

Humans approach virtually everything in experience as something that

can be “given meaning” by the power of our minds to create a
conceptualization and to make inferences on the basis of it (hence to
create further conceptualizations). We do this so routinely and
automatically that we don’t typically recognize ourselves as engaged in
these processes. In our everyday life we don’t first experience the world
in “concept-less” form and then deliberately place what we experience
into categories in order to make sense of things. Every act in which we
engage is automatically given a social meaning by those around us.
To the uncritical mind, it is as if things are given to us with their “name”
inherent in them. All of us fall victim to this illusion to some degree. Thus
we see, not shapes and colors, but “trees,” “clouds,” “grass,” “roads,”
“people,” “children,” “sunsets,” and so on and on. Some of these
concepts we obtain from our native language. Some are the result of our
social conditioning into the mores, folkways, and taboos of particular
social groups and a particular society. We then apply these concepts
automatically, as if the names belonged to the things by nature, as if we
had not created these concepts in our own minds.
If we want to help students develop as critical thinkers, we must help
them come to terms with this human power of mind, the power to create
concepts through which we, and they, see and experience the world. For
it is precisely this capacity they must take charge of if they are to take
command of their thinking. To become a proficient critical thinker, they
must become the master of their own conceptualizations. They must
develop the ability to mentally "remove” this or that concept from the
things named by the concept and try out alternative ideas, alternative
“names.” As general semanticists often say: “The word is not the thing!
The word is not the thing!” If students are trapped in one set of concepts
(ideas, words) — as they often are — then they think of things in one
rigid way. Word and thing become one and the same in their minds.
They are then unable to act as truly free persons.

Command of Concepts 
Requires Command of Language Use
To gain command of concepts and ideas, it is important, first, to gain
command of the established uses of words (as codified in a good
dictionary). For example, if one is proficient in the use of the English
language, one recognizes a significant difference in the language
between needing and wanting, between having judgment and being
judgmental, between having information and gaining knowledge,
between being humble and being servile, between stubbornness and
having the courage of your convictions. Command of distinctions such
as these (and many others) in the language has a significant influence
upon the way we interpret our experience. Without this command, we
confuse these important discriminations and distort the important
realities they help us distinguish. What follows is an activity which you
can have students do to begin to test their understanding of basic
concepts.
Testing Your Understanding of Basic Concepts
Each word pair below illustrates an important distinction marked by our
language. For each set, working with a partner, discuss your
understanding of each pair emphasizing the essential and distinguishing
difference. Then write down your understanding of the essential
difference. After you have done so (for each set of words), look up the
words in the dictionary and discuss how close your “ideas” of the
essential difference of the word pair was to the actual distinctions stated
or implied by the dictionary entries. (By the way, we recommend the
Webster’s New World Dictionary)
1)  
clever/cunni
ng
2)  
power/contr
ol
3) 
love/romanc
e
4) 
believe/kno
w
5)  
socialize/ed
ucate
7)   selfish/s
elf-
motivated
8)  
friend/acqua
intance
9)  
anger/rage
10) jealousy
/envy
From practice in activities such as these, students can begin to become
educated speakers of their native language. In learning to speak our
native language, we can learn thousands of concepts which, when
properly used, enable us to make legitimate inferences about the objects
of our experience.
Command of Concepts Requires Insight into Social Conditioning
Unfortunately, overlaid on the logic of language is the logic of the social
meanings into which we have been conditioned by the society by which
we are raised and from which we take our identity (Italian-American
Catholic father, for example). Taking command of these “social”
meanings is as large a problem as that of taking command of the logic of
educated usage (in our native language). We have a dual problem, then.
Our lack of insight into the basic meanings in our native language is
compounded by our lack of insight into the social indoctrination we have
undergone. Social indoctrination, of course, is a process by which the
ideology (or belief system) of a particular group of people is taught to
fledgling members of the group in order that they might think as the
dominant members of that group do. Education, properly conceived,
empowers a person to see-through social indoctrination, freeing them
from the shackles of social ideology. They learn to think beyond their
culture by learning how to suspend some of the assumptions of thinking
within it.

The Journey to Personal Freedom

To move toward personal freedom we must develop the ability to
distinguish the concepts and ideas implicit in our social conditioning from
the concepts and ideas implicit in the natural language we speak. We
must understand the divergent basis for both. For example, people from
many different countries and cultures may speak the same natural
language. The peoples of Canada, Ireland, Scotland, England, Australia,
Canada, and the United States all speak English. By and large they
implicitly share (to the extent to which they are proficient in the
language) a similar set of basic concepts (that are codified in the 23
volumes of the Oxford English Dictionary). Nevertheless, though sharing
this linguistic heritage, these various peoples do not share the same
social conditioning. What is more, a person from China or Tibet could
learn to speak the English language fluently without in any sense taking
in our social indoctrination.
Unfortunately, very few students have sufficient insight into the
differences between a natural language and the various cultures that
might all use it. They fail to see, therefore, that natural languages —
French, German, English, Swahili, or Hindi — are repositories of
concepts that, by and large, are not “ideological.” They are not to be
equated with the concepts implicit in the social indoctrination fostered by
particular social or cultural groups. Indeed, we can use concepts from
our native language to critique social indoctrination, just as this article is
doing. Command of language makes social critique possible.
In the United States, for example, most people are raised to believe that
the U.S. form of economic system (capitalism) is superior to all others.
When we are speaking in ideological ways, we call it “free enterprise.”
We also often assume (ideologically) that no country can be truly
democratic unless it uses an economic system similar to ours.
Furthermore, we assume that the major alternative economic systems
are either “wrong” or “enslaving” or “evil” (the “evil empire”). We are
encouraged to think of the world in this simplistic way by movies, the
news, schooling, political speeches, and a thousand other social rituals.
Raised in the United States, we internalize different concepts, beliefs,
and assumptions about ourselves and the world than we would had we
been raised in China or Iran (for example). Nevertheless, no
lexicographer would confuse these ideological meanings with the
foundational meanings of the words in a bona fide dictionary of the
English language. The word "communism" would never be given the
gloss of an economic system that enslaves the people. The word
"capitalism" would never be given the gloss of an economic system
essential to a democratic society.
However, because we are socially conditioned into a self-serving
conception of our country, many of our social contradictions or
inconsistencies are hidden and go largely unquestioned. Leaving social
self-deception undisturbed is incompatible with developing the critical
thinking of students. Command of concepts cannot be separated, then,
from recognition of when they are, and when they are not, ideologically
biased.
The Challenge We Face
If we are committed to helping students think well with concepts, we
must teach them how to strip off surface language and consider
alternative ways to talk and think about things. This includes teaching
them how to closely examine the concepts they have personally formed
as well as those into which they have been socially indoctrinated. It
means helping students understand that, being fundamentally
egocentric, humans tend to be trapped in “private” meanings. Thinking
sociocentrically we are trapped in the world-view of our peer group and
that of the broader society.
Both set of binders make it hard to rationally decide upon alternative
ways to conceptualize situations, persons, and events. Being so
trapped, most students are unable to identify or evaluate either
meanings in a dictionary or the social rituals, pomp, and glitter of social
authority and prestige. Students live their lives, then, on the surface of
meaning. They do not know how to plumb the depths.
When we are teaching well, students go beneath the surface. They learn
how to identify and evaluate concepts based in natural languages, on
the one hand, and those implicit in social rituals and taboos, on the
other. They become articulate about what concepts are and how they
shape our experience. They can, then, identify key concepts implicit in a
communication. They begin to practice taking charge of their ideas and
therefore of the life-decisions that those ideas shape and control. Crazy
and superficial ideas exist in our society because crazy and superficial
thinking has created them. They exist for mass consumption in movies,
on television, in the highly marketed “news,” and in the double speak of
the ideological world of “law and order.” They do damage everyday to
the lives of people.
The challenge to teaching with this end in view is a significant one. It is
one we must pursue with a keen sense of the long-term nature of the
project and of its importance in the lives of students. We may begin in
modest ways for example, with the proper use of the dictionary or how to
identify the mores and taboos of one’s peer group — but begin we must,
for the quality of the thinking of the students of today determines the
quality of the world they shall create tomorrow.

Adapted from the book, Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of

Your Learning and Your Life, by Richard Paul and Linda Elder.

The Role of Questions in Teaching, Thinking

and Learning

One of the reasons that instructors tend to  

overemphasize "coverage" over "engaged  
thinking" is that they assume that answers  
can be taught separate from questions.  
Indeed, so buried are questions in  
established instruction that the fact that all  
assertions — all statements that this or  
that is so — are implicit answers to  
questions is virtually never recognized.  
For example, the statement that water
boils at 100 degrees centigrade is an
answer to the question "At what
temperature centigrade does water boil?"
Hence every declarative statement in the
textbook is an answer to a question.
Hence, every textbook could be rewritten
in the interrogative mode by translating
every statement into a question. To my
knowledge this has never been done.
That it has not is testimony to the
privileged status of answers over
questions in instruction and the
misunderstanding of teachers about the
significance of questions in the learning
process. Instruction at all levels now
keeps most questions buried in a torrent
of obscured "answers."
Thinking is Driven by Questions

Thinking is not driven by answers but by

questions. Had no questions been asked
by those who laid the foundation for a
field — for example, Physics or Biology —
the field would never have been
developed in the first place. Furthermore,
every field stays alive only to the extent
that fresh questions are generated and
taken seriously as the driving force in a
process of thinking. To think through or
rethink anything, one must ask questions
that stimulate our thought.
Questions define tasks, express problems
and delineate issues. Answers on the
other hand, often signal a full stop in
thought. Only when an answer generates
a further question does thought continue
its life as such.
This is why it is true that only students
who have questions are really thinking
and learning. It is possible to give
students an examination on any subject
by just asking them to list all of the
questions that they have about a subject,
including all questions generated by their
first list of questions.
That we do not test students by asking
them to list questions and explain their
significance is again evidence of the
privileged status we give to answers
isolated from questions. That is, we ask
questions only to get thought-stopping
answers, not to generate further
questions.
Feeding Students Endless Content to
Remember

Feeding students endless content to

remember (that is, declarative sentences
to remember) is akin to repeatedly
stepping on the brakes in a vehicle that is,
unfortunately, already at rest. Instead,
students need questions to turn on their
intellectual engines and they need to
generate questions from our questions to
get their thinking to go somewhere.
Thinking is of no use unless it goes
somewhere, and again, the questions we
ask determine where our thinking goes.
Deep questions drive our thought
underneath the surface of things, force us
to deal with complexity. Questions of
purpose force us to define our task.
Questions of information force us to look
at our sources of information as well as at
the quality of our information.
Questions of interpretation force us to
examine how we are organizing or giving
meaning to information. Questions of
assumption force us to examine what we
are taking for granted. Questions of
implication force us to follow out where
our thinking is going. Questions of point of
view force us to examine our point of view
and to consider other relevant points of
view.
Questions of relevance force us to
discriminate what does and what does not
bear on a question. Questions of
accuracy force us to evaluate and test for
truth and correctness. Questions of
precision force us to give details and be
specific. Questions of consistency force
us to examine our thinking for
contradictions. Questions of logic force us
to consider how we are putting the whole
of our thought together, to make sure that
it all adds up and makes sense within a
reasonable system of some kind.
Dead Questions Reflect Dead Minds

Unfortunately, most students ask virtually

none of these thought-stimulating types of
questions. They tend to stick to dead
questions like "Is this going to be on the
test?", questions that imply the desire not
to think. Most teachers in turn are not
themselves generators of questions and
answers of their own; that is, are not
seriously engaged in thinking through or
rethinking through their own subjects.
Rather, they are purveyors of the
questions and answers of others-usually
those of a textbook.
We must continually remind ourselves
that thinking begins with respect to some
content only when questions are
generated by both teachers and students.
No questions equals no understanding.
Superficial questions equal superficial
understanding. Most students typically
have no questions. They not only sit in
silence, their minds are silent as well.
Hence, the questions they do have tend
to be superficial and ill-informed. This
demonstrates that most of the time they
are not thinking through the content they
are presumed to be learning. This
demonstrates that most of the time they
are not learning the content they are
presumed to be learning.
If we want thinking we must stimulate it
with questions that lead students to
further questions. We must overcome
what previous schooling has done to the
thinking of students. We must resuscitate
minds that are largely dead when we
receive them. We must give our students
what might be called "artificial cogitation"
(the intellectual equivalent of artificial
respiration). 
{In Critical Thinking Handbook: Basic Theory and
Instructional Structures}

The Analysis & Assessment of Thinking

by Richard Paul and Linda Elder  

 
There are two essential dimensions of thinking  
that students need to master in order to develop  
as fairminded critical thinkers. They need to be  
able to identify the "parts" of thinking, and they  
need to be able to assess use of these parts of  
thinking, as follows:  
 All reasoning has a purpose  
 All reasoning is an attempt to figure
something out, to settle some question, to solve
some problem
 All reasoning is based on assumptions
 All reasoning is done from some point of view
 All reasoning is based on data, information,
and evidence
 All reasoning is expressed through, and
shaped by, concepts and ideas
 All reasoning contains inferences by which we
draw conclusions and give meaning to data
 All reasoning leads somewhere, has
implications and consequences
The question can then be raised, "What
appropriate intellectual standards do students
need to assess the 'parts' of their thinking?" There
are many standards appropriate to the
assessment of thinking as it might occur in this or
that context, but some standards are virtually
universal (that is, applicable to all thinking): clarity,
precision, accuracy, relevance, depth, breadth,
and logic.
How well a student is reasoning depends on how
well he/she applies these universal standards to
the elements (or parts) of thinking.
What follows are some guidelines helpful to
students as they work toward developing their
reasoning abilities:
1. All reasoning has a PURPOSE:
o Take time to state your purpose clearly
o Distinguish your purpose from related
purposes
o Check periodically to be sure you are still
on target
o Choose significant and realistic purposes 
 
2. All reasoning is an attempt to FIGURE
SOMETHING OUT, TO SETTLE SOME
QUESTION, TO SOLVE SOME PROBLEM:
o Take time to clearly and precisely state
the question at issue
o Express the question in several ways to
clarify its meaning and scope
o Break the question into sub questions
o Identify if the question has one right
answer, is a matter of opinion, or requires
reasoning from more than one point of view 
3. All reasoning is based on ASSUMPTIONS:
o Clearly identify your assumptions and
determine whether they are justifiable
o Consider how your assumptions are
 shaping your point of view 
4. All reasoning is done from some POINT OF
VIEW:
o Identify your point of view
o Seek other points of view and identify
their strengths as well as weaknesses
o Strive to be fair-minded in evaluating all
points of view 
5. All reasoning is based on DATA,
INFORMATION and EVIDENCE:
o Restrict your claims to those supported by
the data you have
o Search for information that opposes your
position as well as information that supports it
o Make sure that all information used is
clear, accurate, and relevant to the question
at issue
o Make sure you have gathered sufficient
information 
6. All reasoning is expressed through, and
shaped by, CONCEPTS and IDEAS:
o Identify key concepts and explain them
clearly
o Consider alternative concepts or
alternative definitions to concepts
o Make sure you are using concepts with
care and precision 
7. All reasoning
contains INFERENCES or INTERPRETATION
S by which we draw CONCLUSIONS and give
meaning to data:
o Infer only what the evidence implies
o Check inferences for their consistency
with each other
o Identify assumptions which lead you to
your inferences 
8. All reasoning leads somewhere or
has IMPLICATIONS and CONSEQUENCES:
o Trace the implications and consequences
that follow from your reasoning
o Search for negative as well as positive
implications
o Consider all possible consequences
Paul, R., and Elder, L. February, 2008. Foundation For Critical
Thinking, Online at website:www.criticalthinking.org

Glossary of Critical Thinking Terms

An Educator's Guide to Critical Thinking
Terms and Concepts
A- F- J- M- P- T-
CDE I RS
B H L O Q Z

Glossary: A-B
accurate: Free from errors, mistakes, or distortion. Correct connotes
little more than absence of error; accurate implies a positive exercise of
one to obtain conformity with fact or truth; exact stresses perfect
conformity to fact, truth, or some standard; precise suggests minute
accuracy of detail. Accuracy is an important goal in critical thinking,
though it is almost always a matter of degree. It is also important to
recognize that making mistakes is an essential part of learning and that it
is far better that students make their own mistakes, than that they parrot
the thinking of the text or teacher. It should also be recognized that
some distortion usually results whenever we think within a point of view
or frame of reference. Students should think with this awareness in mind,
with some sense of the limitations of their own, the text's, the teacher's,
the subject's perspective. See perfections of thought.
ambiguous: A sentence having two or more possible meanings.
Sensitivity to ambiguity and vagueness in writing and speech is essential
to good thinking. A continual effort to be clear and precise in language
usage is fundamental to education. Ambiguity is a problem more of
sentences than of individual words. Furthermore, not every sentence
that can be construed in more than one way is problematic and
deserving of analysis. Many sentences are clearly intended one way;
any other construal is obviously absurd and not meant. For example,
"Make me a sandwich." is never seriously intended to request
metamorphic change. It is a poor example for teaching genuine insight
into critical thinking. For an example of a problematic ambiguity, consider
the statement, "Welfare is corrupt." Among the possible meanings of this
sentence are the following: Those who administer welfare programs take
bribes to administer welfare policy unfairly; Welfare policies are written in
such a way that much of the money goes to people who don't deserve it
rather than to those who do; A government that gives money to people
who haven't earned it corrupts both the giver and the recipient. If two
people are arguing about whether or not welfare is corrupt, but interpret
the claim differently, they can make little or no progress; they aren't
arguing about the same point. Evidence and considerations relevant to
one interpretation may be irrelevant to others.
analyze: To break up a whole into its parts, to examine in detail so as to
determine the nature of, to look more deeply into an issue or situation.
All learning presupposes some analysis of what we are learning, if only
by categorizing or labeling things in one way rather than another.
Students should continually be asked to analyze their ideas, claims,
experiences, interpretations, judgments, and theories and those they
hear and read. See elements of thought.
argue: There are two meanings of this word that need to be
distinguished: 1) to argue in the sense of to fight or to emotionally
disagree; and 2) to give reasons for or against a proposal or proposition.
In emphasizing critical thinking, we continually try to get our students to
move from the first sense of the word to the second; that is, we try to get
them to see the importance of giving reasons to support their views
without getting their egos involved in what they are saying. This is a
fundamental problem in human life. To argue in the critical thinking
sense is to use logic and reason, and to bring forth facts to support or
refute a point. It is done in a spirit of cooperation and good will.
argument: A reason or reasons offered for or against something, the
offering of such reasons. This term refers to a discussion in which there
is disagreement and suggests the use of logic and the bringing forth of
facts to support or refute a point. See argue.
to assume: To take for granted or to presuppose. Critical thinkers can
and do make their assumptions explicit, assess them, and correct them.
Assumptions can vary from the mundane to the problematic: I heard a
scratch at the door. I got up to let the cat in. I assumed that only the cat
makes that noise, and that he makes it only when he wants to be let in.
Someone speaks gruffly to me. I feel guilty and hurt. I assume he is
angry at me, that he is only angry at me when I do something bad, and
that if he's angry at me, he dislikes me. Notice that people often equate
making assumptions with making false assumptions. When people say,
"Don't assume", this is what they mean. In fact, we cannot avoid making
assumptions and some are justifiable. (For instance, we have assumed
that people who buy this book can read English.) Rather than saying
"Never assume", we say, "Be aware of and careful about the
assumptions you make, and be ready to examine and critique them."
See assumption, elements of thought.
assumption: A statement accepted or supposed as true without proof or
demonstration; an unstated premise or belief. All human thought and
experience is based on assumptions. Our thought must begin with
something we take 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. For example,
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. People we disagree with, of course,
we recognize as having a point of view. 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
absolutistically. There is a connection, therefore, between thinking so as
to be aware of our assumptions and being intellectually humble.
authority:
1) The power or supposed right to give commands, enforce obedience,
take action, or make final decisions.
2) A person with much knowledge and expertise in a field, hence
reliable. Critical thinkers recognize that ultimate authority rests with
reason and evidence, since it is only on the assumption that purported
experts have the backing of reason and evidence that they rightfully gain
authority. Much instruction discourages critical thinking by encouraging
students to believe that whatever the text or teacher says is true. As a
result, students do not learn how to assess authority. See knowledge.
bias: A mental leaning or inclination. We must clearly distinguish two
different senses of the word ’’bias’’. One is neutral, the other negative. In
the neutral sense we are referring simply to the fact that, because of
one's point of view, one notices some things rather than others,
emphasizes some points rather than others, and thinks in one direction
rather than others. This is not in itself a criticism because thinking within
a point of view is unavoidable. In the negative sense, we are implying
blindness or irrational resistance to weaknesses within one's own point
of view or to the strength or insight within a point of view one opposes.
Fairminded critical thinkers try to be aware of their bias (in sense one)
and try hard to avoid bias (in sense two). Many people confuse these
two senses. Many confuse bias with emotion or with evaluation,
perceiving any expression of emotion or any use of evaluative words to
be biased (sense two). Evaluative words that can be justified by reason
and evidence are not biased in the negative sense. See criteria,
evaluation, judgment, opinion.
Back to top

Glossary: C
An Educator's Guide to Critical Thinking Terms and Concepts
clarify: To make easier to understand, to free from confusion or
ambiguity, to remove obscurities. Clarity is a fundamental perfection of
thought and clarification a fundamental aim in critical thinking. Students
often do not see why it is important to write and speak clearly, why it is
important to say what you mean and mean what you say. The key to
clarification is concrete, specific examples. See accurate, ambiguous,
logic of language, vague.
concept: An idea or thought, especially a generalized idea of a thing or
of a class of things. 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. See logic of
language.
conclude/conclusion: To decide by reasoning, to infer, to deduce; the
last step in a reasoning process; a judgment, decision, or belief formed
after investigation or reasoning. All beliefs, decisions, or actions are
based on human thought, but rarely as the result of conscious reasoning
or deliberation. All that we believe is, one way or another, based on
conclusions that we have come to during our lifetime. Yet, we rarely
monitor our thought processes, we don't critically assess the conclusions
we come to, to determine whether we have sufficient grounds or reasons
for accepting them. People seldom recognize when they have come to a
conclusion. They confuse their conclusions with evidence, and so cannot
assess the reasoning that took them from evidence to conclusion.
Recognizing that human life is inferential, that we continually come to
conclusions about ourselves and the things and persons around us, is
essential to thinking critically and reflectively.
consistency: To think, act, or speak in agreement with what has already
been thought, done, or expressed; to have intellectual or moral integrity.
Human life and thought is filled with inconsistency, hypocrisy, and
contradiction. We often say one thing and do another, judge ourselves
and our friends by one standard and our antagonists by another, lean
over backwards to justify what we want or negate what does not serve
our interests. Similarly, we often confuse desires with needs, treating our
desires as equivalent to needs, putting what we want above the basic
needs of others. Logical and moral consistency are fundamental values
of fairminded critical thinking. Social conditioning and native egocentrism
often obscure social contradictions, inconsistency, and hypocrisy. See
personal contradiction, social contradiction, intellectual integrity, human
nature.
contradict/contradiction: To assert the opposite of; to be contrary to,
go against; a statement in opposition to another; a condition in which
things tend to be contrary to each other; inconsistency; discrepancy; a
person or thing containing or composed of contradictory elements. See
personal contradiction, social contradiction.
criterion (criteria, pl): A standard, rule, or test by which something can
be judged or measured. Human life, thought, and action are based on
human values. The standards by which we determine whether those
values are achieved in any situation represent criteria. Critical thinking
depends upon making explicit the standards or criteria for rational or
justifiable thinking and behavior. See evaluation.
critical listening: A mode of monitoring how we are listening so as to
maximize our accurate understanding of what another person is saying.
By understanding the logic of human communication — that everything
spoken expresses point of view, uses some ideas and not others, has
implications, etc. — critical thinkers can listen so as to enter
sympathetically and analytically into the perspective of others. See
critical speaking, critical reading, critical writing, elements of thought,
intellectual empathy.
critical person: One who has mastered a range of intellectual skills and
abilities. If that person generally uses those skills to advance his or her
own selfish interests, that person is a critical thinker only in a weak or
qualified sense. If that person generally uses those skills fairmindedly,
entering empathically into the points of view of others, he or she is a
critical thinker in the strong or fullest sense. See critical thinking.
critical reading: Critical reading is an active, intellectually engaged
process in which the reader participates in an inner dialogue with the
writer. Most people read uncritically and so miss some part of what is
expressed while distorting other parts. A critical reader realizes the way
in which reading, by its very nature, means entering into a point of view
other than our own, the point of view of the writer. A critical reader
actively looks for assumptions, key concepts and ideas, reasons and
justifications, supporting examples, parallel experiences, implications
and consequences, and any other structural features of the written text,
to interpret and assess it accurately and fairly. See elements of thought.
critical society: A society which rewards adherence to the values of
critical thinking and hence does not use indoctrination and inculcation as
basic modes of learning (rewards reflective questioning, intellectual
independence, and reasoned dissent). Socrates is not the only thinker to
imagine a society in which independent critical thought became
embodied in the concrete day-to-day lives of individuals; William Graham
Sumner, North America's distinguished anthropologist, explicitly
formulated the ideal:
The critical habit of thought, if usual in a society, will pervade all its
mores, because it is a way of taking up the problems of life. Men
educated in it cannot be stampeded by stump orators and are never
deceived by dithyrambic oratory. They are slow to believe. They can
hold things as possible or probable in all degrees, without certainty and
without pain. They can wait for evidence and weigh evidence,
uninfluenced by the emphasis or confidence with which assertions are
made on one side or the other. They can resist appeals to their dearest
prejudices and all kinds of cajolery. Education in the critical faculty is the
only education of which it can be truly said that it makes good citizens.
(Folkways, 1906)
Until critical habits of thought pervade our society, however, there will be
a tendency for schools as social institutions to transmit the prevailing
world view more or less uncritically, to transmit it as reality, not as a
picture of reality. Education for critical thinking, then, requires that the
school or classroom become a microcosm of a critical society. See
didactic instruction, dialogical instruction, intellectual virtues, knowledge.
critical thinking:
1) Disciplined, self-directed thinking which exemplifies the perfections of
thinking appropriate to a particular mode or domain of thinking.
2) Thinking that displays mastery of intellectual skills and abilities.
3) The art of thinking about your thinking while you are thinking in order
to make your thinking better: more clear, more accurate, or more
defensible. Critical thinking can be distinguished into two forms: "selfish"
or "sophistic", on the one hand, and "fairminded", on the other. In
thinking critically we use our command of the elements of thinking to
adjust our thinking successfully to the logical demands of a type or mode
of thinking. See critical person, critical society, critical reading, critical
listening, critical writing, perfections of thought, elements of thought,
domains of thought, intellectual virtues.
critical writing: To express ourselves in language requires that we
arrange our ideas in some relationships to each other. When accuracy
and truth are at issue, then we must understand what our thesis is, how
we can support it, how we can elaborate it to make it intelligible to
others, what objections can be raised to it from other points of view, what
the limitations are to our point of view, and so forth. Disciplined writing
requires disciplined thinking; disciplined thinking is achieved through
disciplined writing. See critical listening, critical reading, logic of
language.
critique: An objective judging, analysis, or evaluation of something. The
purpose of critique is the same as the purpose of critical thinking: to
appreciate strengths as well as weaknesses, virtues as well as failings.
Critical thinkers critique in order to redesign, remodel, and make better.
cultural association: Undisciplined thinking often reflects associations,
personal and cultural, absorbed or uncritically formed. If a person who
was cruel to me as a child had a particular tone of voice, I may find
myself disliking a person who has the same tone of voice. Media
advertising juxtaposes and joins logically unrelated things to influence
our buying habits. Raised in a particular country or within a particular
group within it, we form any number of mental links which, if they remain
unexamined, unduly influence our thinking. See concept, critical society.
cultural assumption: Unassessed (often implicit) belief adopted by
virtue of upbringing in a society. Raised in a society, we unconsciously
take on its point of view, values, beliefs, and practices. At the root of
each of these are many kinds of assumptions. Not knowing that we
perceive, conceive, think, and experience within assumptions we have
taken in, we take ourselves to be perceiving "things as they are," not
"things as they appear from a cultural vantage point". Becoming aware
of our cultural assumptions so that we might critically examine them is a
crucial dimension of critical thinking. It is, however, a dimension almost
totally absent from schooling. Lip service to this ideal is common
enough; a realistic emphasis is virtually unheard of. See ethnocentricity,
prejudice, social contradiction.
Back to top

Glossary: D
An Educator's Guide to Critical Thinking Terms and Concepts
data: Facts, figures, or information from which conclusions can be
inferred, or upon which interpretations or theories can be based. As
critical thinkers we must make certain to distinguish hard data from the
inferences or conclusions we draw from them.
dialectical thinking: Dialogical thinking (thinking within more than one
perspective) conducted to test the strengths and weaknesses of
opposing points of view. (Court trials and debates are, in a sense,
dialectical.) When thinking dialectically, reasoners pit two or more
opposing points of view in competition with each other, developing each
by providing support, raising objections, countering those objections,
raising further objections, and so on. Dialectical thinking or discussion
can be conducted so as to "win" by defeating the positions one
disagrees with — using critical insight to support one's own view and
pointing out flaws in other views (associated with critical thinking in the
restricted or weak sense), or fairmindedly, by conceding points that don't
stand up to critique, trying to integrate or incorporate strong points found
in other views, and using critical insight to develop a fuller and more
accurate view (associated with critical thinking in the fuller or strong
sense). See monological problems.
dialogical instruction: Instruction that fosters dialogical or dialectic
thinking. Thus, when considering a question, the class brings all relevant
subjects to bear and considers the perspectives of groups whose views
are not canvassed in their texts; for example, "What did King George
think of the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War, the
Continental Congress, Jefferson and Washington, etc.?" or, "How would
an economist analyze this situation? A historian? A psychologist? A
geographer?" See critical society, didactic instruction, higher order
learning, lower order learning, Socratic questioning, knowledge.
dialogical thinking: Thinking that involves a dialogue or extended
exchange between different points of view or frames of reference.
Students learn best in dialogical situations, in circumstances in which
they continually express their views to others and try to fit other's views
into their own. See Socratic questioning, monological thinking,
multilogical thinking, dialectical thinking.
didactic instruction: Teaching by telling. In didactic instruction, the
teacher directly tells the student what to believe and think about a
subject. The student's task is to remember what the teacher said and
reproduce it on demand. In its most common form, this mode of teaching
falsely assumes that one can directly give a person knowledge without
that person having to think his or her way to it. It falsely assumes that
knowledge can be separated from understanding and justification. It
confuses the ability to state a principle with understanding it, the ability to
supply a definition with knowing a new word, and the act of saying that
something is important with recognizing its importance. See critical
society, knowledge.
domains of thought: Thinking can be oriented or structured with
different issues or purposes in view. Thinking varies in accordance with
purpose and issue. Critical thinkers learn to discipline their thinking to
take into account the nature of the issue or domain. We see this most
clearly when we consider the difference between issues and thinking
within different academic disciplines or subject areas. Hence,
mathematical thinking is quite different from, say, historical thinking.
Mathematics and history, we can say then, represent different domains
of thought. See the logic of questions.
Back to top

Glossary: E
An Educator's Guide to Critical Thinking Terms and Concepts
egocentricity: A tendency to view everything in relationship to oneself;
to confuse immediate perception (how things seem) with reality. One's
desires, values, and beliefs (seeming to be self-evidently correct or
superior to those of others) are often uncritically used as the norm of all
judgment and experience. Egocentricity is one of the fundamental
impediments to critical thinking. As one learns to think critically in a
strong sense, one learns to become more rational, and less egocentric.
See human nature, strong sense critical thinker, ethnocentrism,
sociocentrism, personal contradiction.
elements of thought: All thought has a universal set of elements, each
of which can be monitored for possible problems: Are we clear about our
purpose or goal? about the problem or question at issue? about our
point of view or frame of reference? about our assumptions? about the
claims we are making? about the reasons or evidence upon which we
are basing our claims? about our inferences and line of reasoning?
about the implications and consequences that follow from our
reasoning? Critical thinkers develop skills of identifying and assessing
these elements in their thinking and in the thinking of others.
emotion: A feeling aroused to the point of awareness, often a strong
feeling or state of excitement. When our egocentric emotions or feelings
get involved, when we are excited by infantile anger, fear, jealousy, etc.,
our objectivity often decreases. Critical thinkers need to be able to
monitor their egocentric feelings and use their rational passions to
reason themselves into feelings appropriate to the situation as it really is,
rather than to how it seems to their infantile ego. Emotions and feelings
themselves are not irrational; however, it is common for people to feel
strongly when their ego is stimulated. One way to understand the goal of
strong sense critical thinking is as the attempt to develop rational
feelings and emotions at the expense of irrational, egocentric ones. See
rational passions, intellectual virtues.
empirical: Relying or based on experiment, observation, or experience
rather than on theory or meaning. It is important to continually distinguish
those considerations based on experiment, observation, or experience
from those based on the meaning of a word or concept or the
implications of a theory. One common form of uncritical or selfish critical
thinking involves distorting facts or experience in order to preserve a
preconceived meaning or theory. For example, a conservative may
distort the facts that support a liberal perspective to prevent empirical
evidence from counting against a theory of the world that he or she holds
rigidly. Indeed, within all perspectives and belief systems many will
distort the facts before they will admit to a weakness in their favorite
theory or belief. See data, fact, evidence.
empirical implication: That which follows from a situation or fact, not
due to the logic of language, but from experience or scientific law. The
redness of the coil on the stove empirically implies dangerous heat.
ethnocentricity: A tendency to view one's own race or culture as
central, based on the deep-seated belief that one's own group is
superior to all others. Ethnocentrism is a form of egocentrism extended
from the self to the group. Much uncritical or selfish critical thinking is
either egocentric or ethnocentric in nature. (Ethnocentrism and
sociocentrism are often used synonymously, though sociocentricity is
broader, relating to any group, including, for example, sociocentricity
regarding one's profession.) The "cure" for ethnocentrism or
sociocentrism is empathic thought within the perspective of opposing
groups and cultures. Such empathic thought is rarely cultivated in the
societies and schools of today. Instead, many people develop an empty
rhetoric of tolerance, saying that others have different beliefs and ways,
but without seriously considering those beliefs and ways, what they
mean to those others, and their reasons for maintaining them.
evaluation: To judge or determine the worth or quality of.  Evaluation
has a logic and should be carefully distinguished from mere subjective
preference. The elements of its logic may be put in the form of questions
which may be asked whenever an evaluation is to be carried out:
1) Are we clear about what precisely we are evaluating?
2) Are we clear about our purpose? Is our purpose legitimate?
3) Given our purpose, what are the relevant criteria or standards for
evaluation? 
4) Do we have sufficient information about that which we are evaluating?
Is that information relevant to the purpose?
5) Have we applied our criteria accurately and fairly to the facts as we
know them? Uncritical thinkers often treat evaluation as mere preference
or treat their evaluative judgments as direct observations not admitting of
error.
evidence: The data on which a judgment or conclusion might be based
or by which proof or probability might be established. Critical thinkers
distinguish the evidence or raw data upon which they base their
interpretations or conclusions from the inferences and assumptions that
connect data to conclusions. Uncritical thinkers treat their conclusions as
something given to them in experience, as something they directly
observe in the world. As a result, they find it difficult to see why anyone
might disagree with their conclusions. After all, the truth of their views is,
they believe, right there for everyone to see! Such people find it difficult
or even impossible to describe the evidence or experience without
coloring that description with their interpretation.
explicit: Clearly stated and leaving nothing implied; explicit is applied to
that which is so clearly stated or distinctly set forth that there should be
no doubt as to the meaning; exact and precise in this connection both
suggest that which is strictly defined, accurately stated, or made
unmistakably clear; definite implies precise limitations as to the nature,
character, meaning, etc. of something; specific implies the pointing up of
details or the particularizing of references. Critical thinking often requires
the ability to be explicit, exact, definite, and specific. Most students
cannot make what is implicit in their thinking explicit. This deficiency
hampers their ability to monitor and assess their thinking.
Back to top

Glossary: F-H
An Educator's Guide to Critical Thinking Terms and Concepts
fact: What actually happened, what is true; verifiable by empirical
means; distinguished from interpretation, inference, judgment, or
conclusion; the raw data. There are distinct senses of the word "factual":
"True" (as opposed to "claimed to be true"); and "empirical" (as opposed
to conceptual or evaluative). You may make many "factual claims" in one
sense, that is, claims which can be verified or disproven by observation
or empirical study, but I must evaluate those claims 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. Education which stresses retention and repetition of factual
claims stunts students' desire and ability to assess alleged facts, leaving
them open to manipulation. Activities in which students are asked to
"distinguish fact from opinion" often confuse these two senses. They
encourage students to accept as true statements which merely "look
like" facts. See intellectual humility, knowledge.
fair: Treating both or all sides alike without reference to one's own
feelings or interests; just implies adherence to a standard of rightness or
lawfulness without reference to one's own inclinations; impartial and
unbiased both imply freedom from prejudice for or against any side;
dispassionate implies the absence of passion or strong emotion, hence,
connotes cool, disinterested judgment; objective implies a viewing of
persons or things without reference to oneself, one's interests, etc.
faith:
1) Unquestioning belief in anything.
2) Confidence, trust, or reliance. A critical thinker does not accept faith in
the first sense, for every belief is reached on the basis of some thinking,
which may or may not be justified. Even in religion one believes in one
religion rather than another, and in doing so implies that there are good
reasons for accepting one rather than another. A Christian, for example,
believes that there are good reasons for not being an atheist, and
Christians often attempt to persuade non-Christians to change their
beliefs. In some sense, then, everyone has confidence in the capacity of
his or her own mind to judge rightly on the basis of good reasons, and
does not believe simply on the basis of blind faith.
fallacy/fallacious: An error in reasoning; flaw or defect in argument; an
argument which doesn't conform to rules of good reasoning (especially
one that appears to be sound). Containing or based on a fallacy;
deceptive in appearance or meaning; misleading; delusive.
higher order learning: Learning through exploring the foundations,
justification, implications, and value of a fact, principle, skill, or concept.
Learning so as to deeply understand. One can learn in keeping with the
rational capacities of the human mind or in keeping with its irrational
propensities, cultivating the capacity of the human mind to discipline and
direct its thought through commitment to intellectual standards, or one
can learn through mere association. Education for critical thought
produces higher order learning by helping students actively think their
way to conclusions; discuss their thinking with other students and the
teacher; entertain a variety of points of view; analyze concepts, theories,
and explanations in their own terms; actively question the meaning and
implications of what they learn; compare what they learn to what they
have experienced; take what they read and write seriously; solve non-
routine problems; examine assumptions; and gather and assess
evidence. Students should learn each subject by engaging in thought
within that subject. They should learn history by thinking historically,
mathematics by thinking mathematically, etc. See dialogical instruction,
lower order learning, critical society, knowledge, principle, domains of
thought.
human nature: The common qualities of all human beings. People have
both a primary and a secondary nature. Our primary nature is
spontaneous, egocentric, and strongly prone to irrational belief
formation. It is the basis for our instinctual thought. People need no
training to believe what they want to believe: what serves their
immediate interests, what preserves their sense of personal comfort and
righteousness, what minimizes their sense of inconsistency, and what
presupposes their own correctness. People need no special training to
believe what those around them believe: what their parents and friends
believe, what is taught to them by religious and school authorities, what
is repeated often by the media, and what is commonly believed in the
nation in which they are raised. People need no training to think that
those who disagree with them are wrong and probably prejudiced.
People need no training to assume that their own most fundamental
beliefs are self-evidently true or easily justified by evidence. People
naturally and spontaneously identify with their own beliefs. They
experience most disagreement as personal attack. The resulting
defensiveness interferes with their capacity to empathize with or enter
into other points of view.
On the other hand, people need extensive and systematic practice to
develop their secondary nature, their implicit capacity to function as
rational persons. They need extensive and systematic practice to
recognize the tendencies they have to form irrational beliefs. They need
extensive practice to develop a dislike of inconsistency, a love of clarity,
a passion to seek reasons and evidence and to be fair to points of view
other than their own. People need extensive practice to recognize that
they indeed have a point of view, that they live inferentially, that they do
not have a direct pipeline to reality, that it is perfectly possible to have an
overwhelming inner sense of the correctness of one’s views and still be
wrong. See intellectual virtues.
Back to top

Glossary: I
An Educator's Guide to Critical Thinking Terms and Concepts
idea: Anything existing in the mind as an object of knowledge or thought;
concept refers to a generalized idea of a class of objects, based on
knowledge of particular instances of the class; conception, often
equivalent to concept, specifically refers to something conceived in the
mind or imagined; thought refers to any idea, whether or not expressed,
that occurs to the mind in reasoning or contemplation; notion implies
vagueness or incomplete intention; impression also implies vagueness
of an idea provoked by some external stimulus. Critical thinkers are
aware of what ideas they are using in their thinking, where those ideas
came from, and how to assess them. See clarify, concept, logic, logic of
language.
imply/implication: A claim or truth which follows from other claims or
truths. One of the most important skills of critical thinking is the ability to
distinguish between what is actually implied by a statement or situation
from what may be carelessly inferred by people. 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.
To say of an act that it is murder, for example, is to imply that it is
intentional and unjustified. See clarify, precision, logic of language,
critical listening, critical reading, elements of thought.
infer/inference: An inference is a step of the mind, an intellectual act by
which one concludes that something is so in light of something else's
being so, or seeming to be so. If you come at me with a knife in your
hand, I would probably infer that you mean to do me harm. Inferences
can be strong or weak, justified or unjustified. Inferences are based upon
assumptions. See imply/implication.
insight: The ability to see and clearly and deeply understand the inner
nature of things. Instruction for critical thinking fosters insight rather than
mere performance; it cultivates the achievement of deeper knowledge
and understanding through insight. Thinking one’s way into and through
a subject leads to insights as one synthesizes what one is learning,
relating one subject to other subjects and all subjects to personal
experience. Rarely is insight formulated as a goal in present curricula
and texts. See dialogical instruction, higher order learning, lower order
learning, didactic instruction, intellectual humility.
intellectual autonomy: Having rational control of one's beliefs, values,
and inferences. The ideal of critical thinking is to learn to think for
oneself, to gain command over one’s thought processes. Intellectual
autonomy does not entail willfulness, stubbornness, or rebellion. It
entails a commitment to analyzing and evaluating beliefs on the basis of
reason and evidence, to question when it is rational to question, to
believe when it is rational to believe, and to conform when it is rational to
conform. See know, knowledge.
intellectual:  A confidence or faith in reason. Confidence that in the long
run one's own higher interests and those of humankind at large will best
be served by giving the freest play to reason by encouraging people to
come to their own conclusions through a process of developing their own
rational faculties; faith that (with proper encouragement and cultivation)
people can learn to think for themselves, form rational viewpoints, draw
reasonable conclusions, think coherently and logically, persuade each
other by reason, and become reasonable, despite the deep-seated
obstacles in the native character of the human mind and in society.
Confidence in reason is developed through experiences in which one
reasons one's way to insight, solves problems through reason, uses
reason to persuade, is persuaded by reason. Confidence in reason is
undermined when one is expected to perform tasks without
understanding why, to repeat statements without having verified or
justified them, to accept beliefs on the sole basis of authority or social
pressure.
intellectual courage: The willingness to face and fairly assess ideas,
beliefs, or viewpoints to which we have not given a serious hearing,
regardless of our strong negative reactions to them. This courage arises
from the recognition that ideas considered dangerous or absurd are
sometimes rationally justified (in whole or in part), and that conclusions
or beliefs espoused by those around us or inculcated in us are
sometimes false or misleading. To determine for ourselves which is
which, we must not passively and uncritically "accept" what we have
"learned." Intellectual courage comes into play here, because inevitably
we will come to see some truth in some ideas considered dangerous and
absurd and some distortion or falsity in some ideas strongly held in our
social group. It takes courage to be true to our own thinking in such
circumstances. Examining cherished beliefs is difficult, and the penalties
for non-conformity are often severe.
intellectual empathy: Understanding the need to imaginatively put
oneself in the place of others to genuinely understand them. We must
recognize our egocentric tendency to identify truth with our immediate
perceptions or longstanding beliefs. Intellectual empathy correlates with
the ability to accurately reconstruct the viewpoints and reasoning of
others and to reason from premises, assumptions, and ideas other than
our own. This trait also requires that we remember occasions when we
were wrong, despite an intense conviction that we were right, and
consider that we might be similarly deceived in a case at hand.
intellectual humility: Awareness of the limits of one's knowledge,
including sensitivity to circumstances in which one’s native egocentrism
is likely to function self-deceptively; sensitivity to bias and prejudice in,
and limitations of one's viewpoint. Intellectual humility is based on the
recognition that no one should claim more than he or she actually
knows. It does not imply spinelessness or submissiveness. It implies the
lack of intellectual pretentiousness, boastfulness, or conceit, combined
with insight into the strengths or weaknesses of the logical foundations
of one's beliefs.
intellectual integrity: Recognition of the need to be true to one’s own
thinking, to be consistent in the intellectual standards one applies, to
hold oneself to the same rigorous standards of evidence and proof to
which one holds one's antagonists, to practice what one advocates for
others, and to honestly admit discrepancies and inconsistencies in one's
own thought and action. This trait develops best in a supportive
atmosphere in which people feel secure and free enough to honestly
acknowledge their inconsistencies, and can develop and share realistic
ways of ameliorating them. It requires honest acknowledgment of the
difficulties of achieving greater consistency.
intellectual perseverance: Willingness and consciousness of the need
to pursue intellectual insights and truths despite difficulties, obstacles,
and frustrations; firm adherence to rational principles despite irrational
opposition of others; a sense of the need to struggle with confusion and
unsettled questions over an extended period of time in order to achieve
deeper understanding or insight. This trait is undermined when teachers
and others continually provide the answers, do students' thinking for
them or substitute easy tricks, algorithms, and short cuts for careful,
independent thought.
intellectual sense of justice: Willingness and consciousness of the
need to entertain all viewpoints sympathetically and to assess them with
the same intellectual standards, without reference to one’s own feelings
or vested interests, or the feelings or vested interests of one's friends,
community, or nation; implies adherence to intellectual standards without
reference to one’s own advantage or the advantage of one's group.
intellectual virtues: The traits of mind and character necessary for right
action and thinking; the traits of mind and character essential for
fairminded rationality; the traits that distinguish the narrowminded, self-
serving critical thinker from the openminded, truth-seeking critical
thinker. These intellectual traits are interdependent. Each is best
developed while developing the others as well. They cannot be imposed
from without; they must be cultivated by encouragement and example.
People can come to deeply understand and accept these principles by
analyzing their experiences of them: learning from an unfamiliar
perspective, discovering you don’t know as much as you thought, and so
on. They include: intellectual sense of justice, intellectual perseverance,
intellectual integrity, intellectual humility, intellectual empathy, intellectual
courage, (intellectual) confidence in reason, and intellectual autonomy.
interpret/interpretation: To give one's own conception of, to place in
the context of one's own experience, perspective, point of view, or
philosophy. Interpretations should be distinguished from the facts, the
evidence, the situation. (I may interpret someone's silence as an
expression of hostility toward me. Such an interpretation may or may not
be correct. I may have projected my patterns of motivation and behavior
onto that person, or I may have accurately noticed this pattern in the
other.) The best interpretations take the most evidence into account.
Critical thinkers recognize their interpretations, distinguish them from
evidence, consider alternative interpretations, and reconsider their
interpretations in the light of new evidence. All learning involves personal
interpretation, since whatever we learn we must integrate into our own
thinking and action. What we learn must be given a meaning by us, must
be meaningful to us, and hence involves interpretive acts on our part.
Didactic instruction, in attempting to directly implant knowledge in
students' minds, typically ignores the role of personal interpretation in
learning.
intuition: The direct knowing or learning of something without the
conscious use of reasoning. We sometimes seem to know or learn
things without recognizing how we came to that knowledge. When this
occurs, we experience an inner sense that what we believe is true. The
problem is that sometimes we are correct (and have genuinely
experienced an intuition) and sometimes we are incorrect (having fallen
victim to one of our prejudices). A critical thinker does not blindly accept
that what he or she thinks or believes but cannot account for is
necessarily true. A critical thinker realizes how easily we confuse
intuitions and prejudices. Critical thinkers may follow their inner sense
that something is so, but only with a healthy sense of intellectual
humility.
There is a second sense of "intuition" that is important for critical
thinking, and that is the meaning suggested in the following sentence:
"To develop your critical thinking abilities, it is important to develop your
critical thinking intuitions." This sense of the word is connected to the
fact that we can learn concepts at various levels of depth. If we learn
nothing more than an abstract definition for a word and do not learn how
to apply it effectively in a wide variety of situations, one might say that
we end up with no intuitive basis for applying it. We lack the insight into
how, when, and why it applies. Helping students to develop critical
thinking intuitions is helping them gain the practical insights necessary
for a ready and swift application of concepts to cases in a large array of
circumstances. We want critical thinking to be "intuitive" to our students,
ready and available for immediate translation into their everyday thought
and experience.
irrational/irrationality:
1) Lacking the power to reason.
2) Contrary to reason or logic.
3) Senseless, absurd. Uncritical thinkers have failed to develop the
ability or power to reason well. Their beliefs and practices, then, are
often contrary to reason and logic, and are sometimes senseless or
absurd. It is important to recognize, however, that in societies with
irrational beliefs and practices, it is not clear whether challenging those
beliefs and practices-and therefore possibly endangering oneself-is
rational or irrational. Furthermore, suppose one's vested interests are
best advanced by adopting beliefs and practices that are contrary to
reason. Is it then rational to follow reason and negate one's vested
interests or follow one's interests and ignore reason? These very real
dilemmas of everyday life represent on-going problems for critical
thinkers. Selfish critical thinkers, of course, face no dilemma here
because of their consistent commitment to advance their narrow vested
interests. Fairminded critical thinkers make these decisions self-
consciously and honestly assess the results.
irrational learning: All rational learning presupposes rational assent.
And, though we sometimes forget it, not all learning is automatically or
even commonly rational. Much that we learn in everyday life is quite
distinctively irrational. It is quite possible – and indeed the bulk of human
learning is unfortunately of this character — to come to believe any
number of things without knowing how or why. It is quite possible, in
other words, to believe for irrational reasons; because those around us
believe, because we are rewarded for believing, because we are afraid
to disbelieve, because our vested interest is served by belief, because
we are more comfortable with belief, or because we have ego identified
ourselves, our image, or our personal being with belief. In all of these
cases, our beliefs are without rational grounding, without good reason
and evidence, without the foundation a rational person demands. We
become rational, on the other hand, to the extent that our beliefs and
actions are grounded in good reasons and evidence; to the extent that
we recognize and critique our own irrationality; to the extent that we are
not moved by bad reasons and a multiplicity of irrational motives, fears,
and desires; to the extent that we have cultivated a passion for clarity,
accuracy, and fairmindedness. These global skills, passions, and
dispositions, integrated into behavior and thought, characterize the
rational, the educated, and the critical person. See higher and lower
order learning, knowledge, didactic instruction.
Back to top

Glossary: J-L
An Educator's Guide to Critical Thinking Terms and Concepts
judgment:
1) The act of judging or deciding.
2) Understanding and good sense. A person has good judgment when
they typically judge and decide on the basis of understanding and good
sense. Whenever we form a belief or opinion, make a decision, or act,
we do so on the basis of implicit or explicit judgments. All thought
presupposes making judgments concerning what is so and what is not
so, what is true and what is not. To cultivate people's ability to think
critically is to foster their judgment, to help them to develop the habit of
judging on the basis of reason, evidence, logic, and good sense. Good
judgment is developed, not by merely learning about principles of good
judgment, but by frequent practice judging and assessing judgments.
justify/justification: The act of showing a belief, opinion, action, or
policy to be in accord with reason and evidence, to be ethically
acceptable, or both. Education should foster reasonability in students.
This requires that both teachers and students develop the disposition to
ask for and give justifications for beliefs, opinions, actions, and policies.
Asking for a justification should not, then, be viewed as an insult or
attack, but rather as a normal act of a rational person. Didactic modes of
teaching that do not encourage students to question the justification for
what is asserted fail to develop a thoughtful environment conducive to
education.
know: To have a clear perception or understanding of, to be sure of, to
have a firm mental grasp of; information applies to data that are
gathered in any way, as by reading, observation, hearsay, etc. and does
not necessarily connote validity; knowledge applies to any body of facts
gathered by study, observation, etc. and to the ideas inferred from these
facts, and connotes an understanding of what is known. Critical thinkers
need to distinguish knowledge from opinion and belief. See knowledge.
knowledge: The act of having a clear and justifiable grasp of what is so
or of how to do something. Knowledge is based on understanding or
skill, which in turn are based on thought, study, and experience.
"Thoughtless knowledge" is a contradiction. "Blind knowledge" is a
contradiction. "Unjustifiable knowledge" is a contradiction. Knowledge
implies justifiable belief or skilled action. Hence, when students blindly
memorize and are tested for recall, they are not being tested for
knowledge. Knowledge is continually confused with recall in present-day
schooling.
This confusion is a deep-seated impediment to the integration of critical
thinking into schooling. Genuine knowledge is inseparable from thinking
minds. We often wrongly talk of knowledge as though it could be
divorced from thinking, as though it could be gathered up by one person
and given to another in the form of a collection of sentences to
remember. When we talk in this way, we forget that knowledge, by its
very nature, depends on thought.
Knowledge is produced by thought, analyzed by thought, comprehended
by thought, organized, evaluated, maintained, and transformed by
thought. Knowledge can be acquired only through thought. Knowledge
exists, properly speaking, only in minds that have comprehended and
justified it through thought. Knowledge is not to be confused with belief
nor with symbolic representation of belief. Humans easily and frequently
believe things that are false or believe things to be true without knowing
them to be so. A book contains knowledge only in a derivative sense,
only because minds can thoughtfully read it and through that process
gain knowledge.
logic: Correct reasoning or the study of correct reasoning and its
foundations. The relationships between propositions (supports,
assumes, implies, contradicts, counts against, is relevant to . . . ). The
system of principles, concepts, and assumptions that underlie any
discipline, activity, or practice. The set of rational considerations that
bear upon the truth or justification of any belief or set of beliefs. The set
of rational considerations that bear upon the settlement of any question
or set of questions.

The word "logic" covers a range of related concerns all bearing upon the
question of rational justification and explanation. All human thought and
behavior is to some extent based on logic rather than instinct. Humans
try to figure things out using ideas, meanings, and thought. Such
intellectual behavior inevitably involves "logic" or considerations of a
logical sort: some sense of what is relevant and irrelevant, of what
supports and what counts against a belief, of what we should and should
not assume, of what we should and should not claim, of what we do and
do not know, of what is and is not implied, of what does and does not
contradict, of what we should or should not do or believe.
Concepts have a logic in that we can investigate the conditions under
which they do and do not apply, of what is relevant or irrelevant to them,
of what they do or don't imply, etc. Questions have a logic in that we can
investigate the conditions under which they can be settled. Disciplines
have a logic in that they have purposes and a set of logical structures
that bear upon those purposes: assumptions, concepts, issues, data,
theories, claims, implications, consequences, etc.
The concept of logic is a seminal notion in critical thinking. Unfortunately,
it takes a considerable length of time before most people become
comfortable with its multiple uses. In part, this is due to people's failure
to monitor their own thinking in keeping with the standards of reason and
logic. This is not to deny, of course, that logic is involved in all human
thinking. It is rather to say that the logic we use is often implicit,
unexpressed, and sometimes contradictory. See knowledge, higher and
lower order learning, the logic of a discipline, the logic of language, the
logic of questions.
the logic of a discipline: The notion that every technical term has
logical relationships with other technical terms, that some terms are
logically more basic than others, and that every discipline relies on
concepts, assumptions, and theories, makes claims, gives reasons and
evidence, avoids contradictions and inconsistencies, has implications
and consequences, etc.
Though all students study disciplines, most are ignorant of the logic of
the disciplines they study. This severely limits their ability to grasp the
discipline as a whole, to think independently within it, to compare and
contrast it with other disciplines, and to apply it outside the context of
academic assignments. Typically now, students do not look for seminal
terms as they study an area. They do not strive to translate technical
terms into analogies and ordinary words they understand or distinguish
technical from ordinary uses of terms. They do not look for the basic
assumptions of the disciplines they study. Indeed, on the whole, they do
not know what assumptions are nor why it is important to examine them.
What they have in their heads exists like so many BB's in a bag.
Whether one thought supports or follows from another, whether one
thought elaborates another, exemplifies, presupposes, or contradicts
another, are matters students have not learned to think about. They
have not learned to use thought to understand thought, which is another
way of saying that they have not learned how to use thought to gain
knowledge. Instruction for critical thinking cultivates the students’ ability
to make explicit the logic of what they study. This emphasis gives depth
and breadth to study and learning. It lies at the heart of the differences
between lower order and higher order learning. See knowledge.
the logic of language: For a language to exist and be learnable by
persons from a variety of cultures, it is necessary that words have
definite uses and defined concepts that transcend particular cultures.
The English language, for example, is learned by many peoples of the
world unfamiliar with English or North American cultures. Critical thinkers
must learn to use their native language with precision, in keeping with
educated usage.
Unfortunately, many students do not understand the significant
relationship between precision in language usage and precision in
thought. Consider, for example, how most students relate to their native
language. If one questions them about the meanings of words, their
account is typically incoherent. They often say that people have their
own meanings for all the words they use, not noticing that, were this
true, we could not understand each other.
Students speak and write in vague sentences because they have no
rational criteria for choosing words. They simply write whatever words
pop into their heads. They do not realize that every language has a
highly refined logic one must learn in order to express oneself precisely.
They do not realize that even words similar in meaning typically have
different implications. Consider, for example, the words explain,
expound, explicate, elucidate, interpret, and construe.
Explain implies the process of making clear and intelligible something
not understood or known
Expound implies a systematic and thorough explanation, often by an
expert
Explicate implies a scholarly analysis developed in detail
Elucidate implies a shedding of light upon by clear and specific
illustration or explanation
Interpret implies the bringing out of meanings not immediately apparent
Construe implies a particular interpretation of something whose meaning
is ambiguous 

See clarify, concept.

the logic of questions: The range of rational considerations that bear
upon the settlement of a given question or group of questions. A critical
thinker is adept at analyzing questions to determine what, precisely, a
question asks and how to go about rationally settling it. A critical thinker
recognizes that different kinds of questions often call for different modes
of thinking, different kinds of considerations, and different procedures
and techniques. Uncritical thinkers often confuse distinct questions and
use considerations irrelevant to an issue while ignoring relevant ones.
lower order learning: Learning by rote memorization, association, and
drill. There are a variety of forms of lower order learning in the schools
which we can identify by understanding the relative lack of logic
informing them. Paradigmatically, lower order learning is learning by
sheer association or rote. Hence students come to think of history class,
for example, as a place where you hear names, dates, places, events,
and outcomes; where you try to remember them and state them on tests.
Math comes to be thought of as numbers, symbols, and formulas-
mysterious things you mechanically manipulate as the teacher told you
in order to get the right answer.
Literature is often thought of as uninteresting stories to remember along
with what the teacher said is important about them. Consequently,
students leave with a jumble of undigested fragments, scraps left over
after they have forgotten most of what they stored in their short-term
memories for tests. Virtually never do they grasp the logic of what they
learn. Rarely do they relate what they learn to their own experience or
critique each by means of the other. Rarely do they try to test what they
learn in everyday life. Rarely do they ask "Why is this so? How does this
relate to what I already know? How does this relate to what I am learning
in other classes?"
To put the point in a nutshell, very few students think of what they are
learning as worthy of being arranged logically in their minds or have the
slightest idea of how to do so. See didactic instruction, monological and
multilogical problems and thinking.
Back to top

Glossary: M-O
An Educator's Guide to Critical Thinking Terms and Concepts
monological (one-dimensional) problems: Problems that can be
solved by reasoning exclusively within one point of view or frame of
reference. For example, consider the following problems: 1) Ten full
crates of walnuts weigh 410 pounds, whereas an empty crate weighs 10
pounds. How much do the walnuts alone weigh?; and 2) In how many
days of the week does the third letter of the day's name immediately
follow the first letter of the day's name in the alphabet? These problems,
and the means by which they are solved, are called "monological." They
are settled within one frame of reference with a definite set of logical
moves. When the right set of moves is performed, the problem is settled.
The answer or solution proposed can be shown by standards implicit in
the frame of reference to be the "right" answer or solution.
Most important human problems are multilogical rather than
monological — nonatomic problems inextricably joined to other
problems — with some conceptual messiness to them and very often
with important values lurking in the background. When the problems
have an empirical dimension, that dimension tends to have a
controversial scope. In multilogical problems, it is often arguable how
some facts should be considered and interpreted, and how their
significance should be determined. When they have a conceptual
dimension, there tend to be arguably different ways to pin the concepts
down.
Though life presents us with predominantly multilogical problems,
schooling today over-emphasizes monological problems. Worse, and
more frequently, present instructional practices treat multilogical
problems as though they were monological. The posing of multilogical
problems, and their consideration from multiple points of view, play an
important role in the cultivation of critical thinking and higher order
learning.
monological (one-dimensional) thinking: Thinking that is conducted
exclusively within one point of view or frame of reference: figuring out
how much this $67.49 pair of shoes with a 25% discount will cost me;
learning what signing this contract obliges me to do; finding out when
Kennedy was elected President. A person can think monologically
whether or not the question is genuinely monological. (For example, if
one considers the question, "Who caused the Civil War?" only from a
Northerner's perspective, one is thinking monologically about a
multilogical question.)
The strong sense critical thinker avoids monological thinking when the
question is multi-logical. Moreover, higher order learning requires multi-
logical thought, even when the problem is monological (for example,
learning a concept in chemistry), since students must explore and
assess their original beliefs to develop insight into new ideas.
multilogical (multi-dimensional) problems: Problems that can be
analyzed and approached from more than one, often from conflicting,
points of view or frames of reference. For example, many ecological
problems have a variety of dimensions to them: historical, social,
economic, biological, chemical, moral, political, etc. A person
comfortable thinking about multilogical problems is comfortable thinking
within multiple perspectives, in engaging in dialogical and dialectical
thinking, in practicing intellectual empathy, in thinking across disciplines
and domains. See monological problems, the logic of questions, the
logic of disciplines, intellectual empathy, dialogical instruction.
multilogical thinking: Thinking that sympathetically enters, considers,
and reasons within multiple points of view. See multilogical problems,
dialectical thinking, dialogical instruction.
national bias: Prejudice in favor of one's country, its beliefs, traditions,
practices, image, and world view; a form of sociocentrism or
ethnocentrism. It is natural, if not inevitable, for people to be favorably
disposed toward the beliefs, traditions, practices, and world view within
which they were raised. Unfortunately, this favorable inclination
commonly becomes a form of prejudice: a more or less rigid, irrational
ego-identification which significantly distorts one's view of one's own
nation and the world at large. It is manifested in a tendency to mindlessly
take the side of one's own government, to uncritically accept
governmental accounts of the nature of disputes with other nations, to
uncritically exaggerate the virtues of one's own nation while playing
down the virtues of "enemy" nations.
National bias is reflected in the press and media coverage of every
nation of the world. Events are included or excluded according to what
appears significant within the dominant world view of the nation, and are
shaped into stories to validate that view. Though constructed to fit into a
particular view of the world, the stories in the news are presented as
neutral, objective accounts, and uncritically accepted as such because
people tend to uncritically assume that their own view of things is the
way things really are.
To become responsible critically thinking citizens and fairminded people,
students must practice identifying national bias in the news and in their
texts, and to broaden their perspective beyond that of uncritical
nationalism. See ethnocentrism, sociocentrism, bias, prejudice, world
view, intellectual empathy, critical society, dialogical instruction,
knowledge.
opinion: A belief; typically one open to dispute. Sheer unreasoned
opinion should be distinguished from reasoned judgment — beliefs
formed on the basis of careful reasoning. See evaluation, judgment,
justify, know, knowledge, reasoned judgment.
Back to top

Glossary: P-Q
An Educator's Guide to Critical Thinking Terms and Concepts
perfections of thought: Thinking, as an attempt to understand the
world as it is, has a natural excellence or fitness to it. This excellence is
manifest in its clarity, precision, specificity, accuracy, relevance,
consistency, logicalness, depth, completeness, significance, fairness,
and adequacy. These perfections are general canons for thought; they
represent legitimate concerns irrespective of the discipline or domain of
thought.
To develop one's mind and discipline one's thinking with respect to these
standards requires extensive practice and long-term cultivation. Of
course, achieving these standards is a relative matter and varies
somewhat among domains of thought. Being precise while doing
mathematics is not the same as being precise while writing a poem,
describing an experience, or explaining a historical event.
Furthermore, one perfection of thought may be periodically incompatible
with the others: adequacy to purpose. Time and resources sufficient to
thoroughly analyze a question or problem is all too often an unaffordable
luxury. Also, since the social world is often irrational and unjust, because
people are often manipulated to act against their interests, and because
skilled thought often serves vested interest, thought adequate to these
manipulative purposes may require skilled violation of the common
standards for good thinking. Skilled propaganda, skilled political debate,
skilled defense of a group's interests, skilled deception of one's enemy
may require the violation or selective application of any of the above
standards.
Perfecting one's thought as an instrument for success in a world based
on power and advantage differs from perfecting one's thought for the
apprehension and defense of fairminded truth. To develop one's critical
thinking skills merely to the level of adequacy for social success is to
develop those skills in a lower or weaker sense.
personal contradiction: An inconsistency in one's personal life,
wherein one says one thing and does another, or uses a double
standard, judging oneself and one's friends by an easier standard than
that used for people one doesn't like; typically a form of hypocrisy
accompanied by self-deception. Most personal contradictions remain
unconscious. People too often ignore the difficulty of becoming
intellectually and morally consistent, preferring instead to merely
admonish others. Personal contradictions are more likely to be
discovered, analyzed, and reduced in an atmosphere in which they can
be openly admitted and realistically considered without excessive
penalty. See egocentricity, intellectual integrity.
perspective (point of view): Human thought is relational and selective.
It is impossible to understand any person, event, or phenomenon from
every vantage point simultaneously. Our purposes often control how we
see things. Critical thinking requires that this fact be taken into account
when analyzing and assessing thinking. This is not to say that human
thought is incapable of truth and objectivity, but only that human truth,
objectivity, and insight is virtually always limited and partial, virtually
never total and absolute. The hard sciences are themselves a good
example of this point, since qualitative realities are systematically
ignored in favor of quantifiable realities.
precision: The quality of being accurate, definite, and exact. The
standards and modes of precision vary according to subject and context.
See the logic of language, elements of thought.
prejudice: A judgment, belief, opinion, point of view — favorable or
unfavorable — formed before the facts are known, resistant to evidence
and reason, or in disregard of facts which contradict it. Self-announced
prejudice is rare. Prejudice almost always exists in obscured,
rationalized, socially validated, functional forms. It enables people to
sleep peacefully at night even while flagrantly abusing the rights of
others. It enables people to get more of what they want, or to get it more
easily. It is often sanctioned with a superabundance of pomp and self-
righteousness.
Unless we recognize these powerful tendencies toward selfish thought in
our social institutions, even in what appear to be lofty actions and
moralistic rhetoric, we will not face squarely the problem of prejudice in
human thought and action. Uncritical and selfishly critical thought are
often prejudiced.
Most instruction in schools today, because students do not think their
way to what they accept as true, tends to give students prejudices rather
than knowledge. For example, partly as a result of schooling, people
often accept as authorities those who liberally sprinkle their statements
with numbers and intellectual-sounding language, however irrational or
unjust their positions. This prejudice toward psuedo-authority impedes
rational assessment. See insight, knowledge.
premise: A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which
a conclusion is drawn. A starting point of reasoning. For example, one
might say, in commenting on someone's reasoning, "You seem to be
reasoning from the premise that everyone is selfish in everything they
do. Do you hold this belief?"
principle: A fundamental truth, law, doctrine, value, or commitment,
upon which others are based. Rules, which are more specific, and often
superficial and arbitrary, are based on principles. Rules are more
algorithmic; they needn't be understood to be followed. Principles must
be understood to be appropriately applied or followed. Principles go to
the heart of the matter. Critical thinking is dependent on principles, not
rules and procedures. Critical thinking is principled, not procedural,
thinking. Principles cannot be truly grasped through didactic instruction;
they must be practiced and applied to be internalized. See higher order
learning, lower order learning, judgment.
problem: A question, matter, situation, or person that is perplexing or
difficult to figure out, handle, or resolve. Problems, like questions, can be
divided into many types. Each has a (particular) logic. See logic of
questions, monological problems, multilogical problems.
problem-solving: Whenever a problem cannot be solved formulaically
or robotically, critical thinking is required; first, to determine the nature
and dimensions of the problem, and then, in the light of the first, to
determine the considerations, points of view, concepts, theories, data,
and reasoning relevant to its solution. Extensive practice in independent
problem-solving is essential to developing critical thought. Problem-
solving is rarely best approached procedurally or as a series of rigidly
followed steps. For example, problem-solving schemas typically begin,
"State the problem." Rarely can problems be precisely and fairly stated
prior to analysis, gathering of evidence, and dialogical or dialectical
thought wherein several provisional descriptions of the problem are
proposed, assessed, and revised.
proof (prove): Evidence or reasoning so strong or certain as to
demonstrate the truth or acceptability of a conclusion beyond a
reasonable doubt. How strong evidence or reasoning have to be to
demonstrate what they purport to prove varies from context to context,
depending on the significance of the conclusion or the seriousness of
the implications following from it. See domain of thought.
Back to top
Glossary: R
An Educator's Guide to Critical Thinking Terms and Concepts
rational/rationality: That which conforms to principles of good
reasoning, is sensible, shows good judgment, is consistent, logical,
complete, and relevant. Rationality is a summary term like "virtue" or
"goodness." It is manifested in an unlimited number of ways and
depends on a host of principles. There is some ambiguity in it,
depending on whether one considers only the logicalness and
effectiveness by which one pursues one's ends, or whether it includes
the assessment of ends themselves. There is also ambiguity in whether
one considers selfish ends to be rational, even when they conflict with
what is just. Does a rational person have to be just or only skilled in
pursuing his or her interests? Is it rational to be rational in an irrational
world? See perfections of thought, irrational/irrationality, logic,
intellectual virtues, weak sense critical thinking, strong sense critical
thinking.

rational emotions/passions: R. S. Peters has explained the

significance of the affective side of reason and critical thought in his
defense of the necessity of "rational passions;"
There is, for instance, the hatred of contradictions and inconsistencies,
together with the love of clarity and hatred of confusion without which
words could not be held to relatively constant meanings and testable
rules and generalizations stated. A reasonable man cannot, without
some special explanation, slap his sides with delight or express
indifference if he is told that what he says is confused, incoherent, and
perhaps riddled with contradictions.

Reason is the antithesis of arbitrariness. In its operation it is supported

by the appropriate passions which are mainly negative in character —
the hatred of irrelevance, special pleading, and arbitrary fiat. The more
developed emotion of indignation is aroused when some excess of
arbitrariness is perpetuated in a situation where peoples' interests and
claims are at stake. The positive side of this is the passion for fairness
and impartial consideration of claims....
A man who is prepared to reason must feel strongly that he must follow
the arguments and decide things in terms of where they lead. He must
have a sense of the giveness, of the impersonality, of such
considerations. In so far as thoughts about persons enter his head they
should be tinged with the respect which is due to another who, like
himself, may have a point of view which is worth considering; who may
have a glimmering of the truth which has so far eluded himself. A person
who proceeds in this way, who is influenced by such passions, is what
we call a reasonable man.
rational self: Our character and nature to the extent that we seek to
base our beliefs and actions on good reasoning and evidence. Who we
are, what our true character is, or our predominant qualities are, is
always somewhat or even greatly different from who we think we are.
Human egocentrism and accompanying self-deception often stand in the
way of our gaining more insight into ourselves. We can develop a
rational self, become a person who gains significant insight into what our
true character is, only by reducing our egocentrism and self-deception.
Critical thinking is essential to this process.

rational society: See critical society.

reasoned judgment: Any belief or conclusion reached on the basis of
careful thought and reflection, distinguished from mere or unreasoned
opinion on the one hand, and from sheer fact on the other. Few people
have a clear sense of which of their beliefs are based on reasoned
judgment and which on mere opinion. Moral or ethical questions, for
example, are questions requiring reasoned judgment. One way of
conceiving of subject-matter education is as developing students' ability
to engage in reasoned judgment in accordance with the standards of
each subject.
reasoning: The mental processes of those who reason; especially the
drawing of conclusions or inferences from observations, facts, or
hypotheses; the evidence or arguments used in this procedure. A critical
thinker tries to develop the capacity to transform thought into reasoning
at will, or rather, the ability to make his or her inferences explicit, along
with the assumptions or premises upon which those inferences are
based. Reasoning is a form of explicit inferring, usually involving multiple
steps. When students write a persuasive paper, for example, we want
them to be clear about their reasoning.
reciprocity: The act of entering empathically into the point of view or line
of reasoning of others; learning to think as others do and by that means
sympathetically assessing that thinking. (Reciprocity requires creative
imagination as well as intellectual skill and a commitment to
fairmindedness.)
relevant: Bearing upon or relating to the matter at hand; relevant implies
close logical relationship with, and importance to, the matter under
consideration; germane implies such close natural connection as to be
highly appropriate or fit; pertinent implies an immediate and direct
bearing on the matter at hand (a pertinent suggestion); apposite applies
to that which is both relevant and happily suitable or appropriate;
applicable refers to that which can be brought to bear upon a particular
matter or problem. Students often have problems sticking to an issue
and distinguishing information that bears upon a problem from
information that does not. Merely reminding students to limit themselves
to relevant considerations fails to solve this problem. The usual way of
teaching students the term "relevant" is to mention only clear-cut cases
of relevance and irrelevance. Consequently, students do not learn that
not everything that seems relevant is, or that some things which do not
seem relevant are. Sensitivity to (ability to judge) relevance can only be
developed with continual practice-practice distinguishing relevant from
irrelevant data, evaluating or judging relevance, arguing for and against
the relevance of facts and considerations.
Back to top

Glossary: S
An Educator's Guide to Critical Thinking Terms and Concepts
self-deception: Deceiving one's self about one's true motivations,
character, identity, etc. One possible definition of the human species is
"The Self-Deceiving Animal". Self-deception is a fundamental problem in
human life and the cause of much human suffering. Overcoming self-
deception through self-critical thinking is a fundamental goal of strong
sense critical thinking. See egocentric, rational self, personal
contradiction, social contradiction, intellectual virtues.
social contradiction: An inconsistency between what a society
preaches and what it practices. In every society there is some degree of
inconsistency between its image of itself and its actual character. Social
contradiction typically correlates with human self-deception on the social
or cultural level. Critical thinking is essential for the recognition of
inconsistencies, and recognition is essential for reform and eventual
integrity.
sociocentricity: The assumption that one's own social group is
inherently and self-evidently superior to all others. When a group or
society sees itself as superior, and so considers its views as correct or
as the only reasonable or justifiable views, and all its actions as justified,
there is a tendency to presuppose this superiority in all of its thinking and
thus, to think closedmindedly. All dissent and doubt are considered
disloyal and rejected without consideration. Few people recognize the
sociocentric nature of much of their thought.
Socratic Questioning: A mode of questioning that deeply probes the
meaning, justification, or logical strength of a claim, position, or line of
reasoning. Socratic Questioning can be carried out in a variety of ways
and adapted to many levels of ability and understanding. See elements
of thought, dialogical instruction, knowledge.
specify/specific: To mention, describe, or define in detail; limiting or
limited; specifying or specified; precise; definite. Student thinking,
speech, and writing tend to be vague, abstract, and ambiguous rather
than specific, concrete, and clear. Learning how to state one's views
specifically is essential to learning how to think clearly, precisely, and
accurately. See perfections of thought.
strong sense critical thinker: One who is predominantly characterized
by the following traits: 1)an ability to question deeply one's own
framework of thought, 2) an ability to reconstruct sympathetically and
imaginatively the strongest versions of points of view and frameworks of
thought opposed to one's own, 3) an ability to reason dialectically
(multilogically) in such a way as to determine when one's own point of
view is at its weakest and when an opposing point of view is at its
strongest.
Strong sense critical thinkers are not routinely blinded by their own
points of view. They know they have points of view and therefore
recognize on what framework of assumptions and ideas their own
thinking is based. They realize the necessity of putting their own
assumptions and ideas to the test of the strongest objections that can be
leveled against them.
Teaching for critical thinking in the strong sense is teaching so that
students explicate, understand, and critique their own deepest
prejudices, biases, and misconceptions, thereby discovering and
contesting their own egocentric and sociocentric tendencies. Only if we
contest our inevitable egocentric and sociocentric habits of thought, can
we hope to think in a genuinely rational fashion. Only dialogical thinking
about basic issues that genuinely matter to the individual provides the
kind of practice and skill essential to strong sense critical thinking.
Students need to develop all critical thinking skills in dialogical settings to
achieve ethically rational development, that is, genuine fairmindedness.
If critical thinking is taught simply as atomic skills separate from the
empathic practice of entering into points of view that students are fearful
of or hostile toward, they will simply find additional means of rationalizing
prejudices and preconceptions, or convincing people that their point of
view is the correct one. They will be transformed from vulgar to
sophisticated (but not to strong sense) critical thinkers.
Back to top
Glossary: T-Z
An Educator's Guide to Critical Thinking Terms and Concepts
teach: The basic inclusive word for the imparting of knowledge or skills.
It usually connotes some individual attention to the learner. "Instruct"
implies systematized teaching, usually in some particular subject;.
"Educate" stresses the development of latent faculties and powers by
formal, systematic teaching, especially in institutions of higher learning.
"Train" implies the development of a particular faculty or skill or
instruction toward a particular occupation, as by methodical discipline,
exercise, etc. See knowledge.
theory: A systematic statement of principles involved in a subject; a
formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain
observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree. Often
without realizing it, we form theories that help us make sense of the
people, events, and problems in our lives. Critical thinkers put their
theories to the test of experience and give due consideration to the
theories of others. Critical thinkers do not take their theories to be facts.
think: The general word meaning to exercise the mental faculties so as
to form ideas, arrive at conclusions, etc.  "Reason" implies a logical
sequence of thought, starting with what is known or assumed and
advancing to a definite conclusion through the inferences drawn.
"Reflect" implies a turning of one's thoughts back on a subject and
connotes deep or quiet continued thought. "Speculate" implies a
reasoning on the basis of incomplete or uncertain evidence and
therefore stresses the conjectural character of the opinions formed.
"Deliberate" implies careful and thorough consideration of a matter in
order to arrive at a conclusion. Though everyone thinks, few people think
critically. We don't need instruction to think; we think spontaneously. We
need instruction to learn how to discipline and direct our thinking on the
basis of sound intellectual standards. See elements of thought,
perfections of thought.
truth: Conformity to knowledge, fact, actuality, or logic: a statement
proven to be or accepted as true, not false or erroneous. Most people
uncritically assume their views to be correct and true. Most people, in
other words, assume themselves to possess the truth. Critical thinking is
essential to avoid this, if for no other reason.
uncritical person: One who has not developed intellectual skills (naive,
conformist, easily manipulated, dogmatic, easily confused, unclear,
closedminded, narrowminded, careless in word choice, inconsistent,
unable to distinguish evidence from interpretation). Uncriticalness is a
fundamental problem in human life, for when we are uncritical we
nevertheless think of ourselves as critical. The first step in becoming a
critical thinker consists in recognizing that we are uncritical. Teaching for
insight into uncriticalness is an important part of teaching for criticalness.
vague: Not clearly, precisely, or definitely expressed or stated; not
sharp, certain, or precise in thought, feeling, or expression. Vagueness
of thought and expression is a major obstacle to the development of
critical thinking. We cannot begin to test our beliefs until we recognize
clearly what they are. We cannot disagree with what someone says until
we are clear about what they mean. Students need much practice in
transforming vague thoughts into clear ones. See ambiguous, clarify,
concept, logic, logic of questions, logic of language.
verbal implication: That which follows, according to the logic of the
language. If I say, for example, that someone used flattery on me, I imply
that the compliments were insincere and given only to make me feel
positively toward that person, to manipulate me against my reason or
interest for some end. See imply, infer, empirical implication, elements of
thought.
weak sense critical thinkers: Those who do not hold themselves, or
those with whom they ego-identify, to the same intellectual standards to
which they hold "opponents." Those who have not learned how to
reason empathically within points of view or frames of reference with
which they disagree. Those who tend to think monologically. Those who
do not genuinely accept, though they may verbally espouse, the values
of critical thinking. Those who use the intellectual skills of critical thinking
selectively and self-deceptively to foster and serve their vested interests
(at the expense of truth); able to identify flaws in the reasoning of others
and refute them; able to shore up their own beliefs with reasons.

world view: All human action takes place within a way of looking at and
interpreting the world. As schooling now stands, very little is done to help
students to grasp how they are viewing the world and how those views
determine the character of their experience, their interpretations, their
conclusions about events and persons, etc. In teaching for critical
thinking in a strong sense, we make the discovery of one's own world
view and the experience of other people's world views a fundamental
priority. See bias, interpret.

{Paul, R. (1995). Critical Thinking: How to Prepare

Students for a Rapidly Changing World.
Dillon Beach, CA.:
Foundation For Critical Thinking, Appendix B, pp.
Distinguishing Between Inert Information,
Activated Ignorance, Activated Knowledge

It is impossible to reason without using some set

of facts, data, or experiences as a constituent part
of one’s thinking. Finding trustworthy sources of
information and refining one’s own experience
critically are important goals of critical thinkers. We
must be vigilant about the sources of information
we use. We must be analytically critical of the use
we make of our own experience. Experience may
be the best teacher, but biased experience
supports bias, distorted experience supports
distortion, self-deluded experience supports self-
delusion. We, therefore, must not think of our
experience as sacred in any way but, instead, as
one important dimension of thought that must, like
all others, be critically analyzed and assessed.
The mind can take in information in three
distinctive ways: (1) by internalizing inert
information, (2) by forming activated ignorance,
and (3) by achieving activated knowledge.

Inert Information
By inert information, we mean taking into the mind
information that, though memorized, we do not
understand-despite the fact that we think we do.
For example, many people have taken in, during
their schooling, a lot of information about
democracy that leads them to believe they
understand the concept. Often, a good part of the
information they have internalized consists of
empty verbal rituals in their mind. For example,
many children learn in school that “democracy is
government of the people, by the people, for the
people.” This catchy phrase often sticks in their
mind. It leads them to think they understand what
it means, though most of them do not translate it
into any practical criteria for assessing the extent
to which democracy does or does not exist in any
given country. Most people, to be explicit, could
not intelligibly answer any of the following
questions:
1. What is the difference between a government
of the people and a government for the people?
2. What is the difference between a government
for the people and a government by the people?
3. What is the difference between a government
by the people and a government of the people?
4. What exactly is meant by “the people?”
To generalize, students often do not sufficiently
think about information they memorize in school
sufficient to transform it into something meaningful
in their mind. Much human information is, in the
mind of the humans who possess it, merely empty
words (inert or dead in the mind). Critical thinkers
try to clear the mind of inert information by
recognizing it as such and transforming it, through
analysis, into something meaningful.
Activated Ignorance
By activated ignorance, we mean taking into the
mind, and actively using, information that is false,
though we mistakenly think it to be true. The
philosopher Rene Descartes came to confidently
believe that animals have no actual feelings but
are simply robotic machines. Based on this
activated ignorance, he performed painful
experiments on animals and interpreted their cries
of pain as mere noises.
Some people believe, through activated ignorance,
that they understand things, events, people, and
situations that they do not. They act upon their
false ideas, illusions, and misconceptions, often
leading to needless waste, pain, and suffering.
Sometimes activated ignorance is the basis for
massive actions involving millions of people (think
of the consequences of the Nazi idea that
Germans were the master race and Jews an
inferior race). Sometimes it is an individual
misconception that is acted on only by one person
in a limited number of settings. Wherever activated
ignorance exists, it is dangerous.
It is essential, therefore, that we question our
beliefs, especially when acting upon them has
significant potential implications for the harm,
injury, or suffering of others. It is reasonable to
suppose that everyone has some beliefs that are,
in fact, a form of activated ignorance. Eliminating
as many such beliefs as we can is a responsibility
we all have. Consider automobile drivers who are
confident they can drive safely while they are
intoxicated. Consider the belief that smoking does
not have any significant negative health effects.
It is not always easy to identify what is and is not
activated ignorance. The concept of activated
ignorance is important regardless of whether we
can determine whether particular information we
come across is false or misleading. What we need
to keep in mind are clear-cut cases of activated
ignorance so we have a clear idea of it, and
personal vigilance with respect to the information
we come across that is potentially false. Most
people who have acted harmfully as a result of
their activated ignorance have probably not
realized that they were the agent of the suffering of
others. Ignorance treated as the truth is no trivial
matter.
Activated Knowledge
By activated knowledge, we mean taking into the mind, and actively
using, information that is not only true but that, when insightfully
understood, leads us by implication to more and more knowledge.
Consider the study of history, for example. Many students do no more
than memorize isolated statements in the history textbook so as to pass
exams. Some of these statements-the ones they don’t understand and
could not explain-become part of the students” battery of inert
information. Other statements-the ones they misunderstand and wrongly
explain-become part of the students” battery of activated ignorance.
Much of the information, of course, is simply forgotten shortly after the
exam.
What is importantly powerful, from a critical thinking perspective, is
understanding the logic of historical thinking as a way of understanding
the logic of history. When we understand history this way, our knowledge
is activated. It enables us to build on historical knowledge by thinking
through previous historical knowledge.
For example, we might begin by understanding the basic agenda of
historical thinking: to construct a story or account of the past that
enables us to better understand our present and make rational plans for
the future. Once we have this basic knowledge of the logic of history, we
are driven to recognize that we already engage in historical thinking in
our daily life. We begin to see the connection between thinking within the
subject and thinking in everyday life situations. For example, as a result
of this provisional characterization of the logic of historical thinking, it is
clear that all humans create our own story in the privacy of our mind. We
use this story to make sense of our present, in the light of our conception
of our past, and make plans for the future, given our understanding of
our present and past. Most of us do not think of ourselves as doing this,
however.
If we further reflect on our knowledge of the logic of history, and think
through some of its implications, we become aware that there is a logical
similarity, for example, between historical thinking and ordinary,
everyday “gossip.” In gossip, we create a story about events in
someone’s recent past and pass on our story to others. If we reflect
further on the logic of history, we also recognize that every issue of a
daily newspaper is produced by a kind of thinking analogous to historical
thinking. In both cases someone is constructing accounts of the past
presented as making sense of some set of events in time.
Further reflection on the logic of history should lead us to ask ourselves
questions such as, “In creating an account of some time period,
approximately what percentage of what actually took place finds its way
into any given historical account?” This should lead us to discover that
for any given historical period, even one as short as a day, countless
events take place, with the implication that no historical account contains
more than a tiny percentage of the total events within any given historical
period. This should lead us to discover that historians must regularly
make value judgments to decide what to include in, and what to exclude
from, their accounts.
Upon further reflection, it should become apparent to us that there are
different possible stories and accounts that highlight different patterns in
the events themselves-for example, accounts that highlight “high-level”
decision-makers (great-person accounts), in contrast to accounts that
highlight different social and economic classes (social and economic
histories). It then should be apparent to us that the specific questions
that any given historical thinker asks depend on the specific agenda or
goal of that thinker.
It also should be apparent that:
 the historical questions asked are what determine which data or
events are relevant;
 one and the same event can be illuminated by different
conceptualizations (for example, different political, social, and
economic theories about people and social change);
 different historians make different assumptions (each influencing
the way they put their questions and the data that seem most
important to them);
 when a given historian identifies with a given group of people and
writes his or her history, it often highlights the positive characteristics
of those people and the negative characteristics of those with whom
they are or were in conflict.
It is in virtue of “discoveries” and insights such as these — which we
must think through for ourselves to truly grasp them as knowledge —
that our view of history is transformed. They enable us to begin to “see
through” historical texts. They lead us to value historical thinking, as its
significance in everyday life becomes clear to us. They make more and
more transparent to us our history, our use of history, and the effect of
our use of history on the world and human welfare.
Activated knowledge, then, is knowledge born of dynamic seminal ideas
that, when applied systematically to common experience, enable us to
infer, by implication, further and further knowledge. Activated knowledge
is potential in every legitimate human discipline. We begin with basic
information about the most basic ideas and goals of a field. Grounded in
basic concepts and first principles, we are able to experience the power
of thought, knowledge, and experience working in unison. A habit of
studying to learn to seek the logic of things is one of the most powerful
ways to begin to discover activated knowledge. It is one of the most
important keys to making lifelong learning an essential ingredient in
one’s life.
This article was adapted from the book, Critical Thinking: Tools for
Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life by Richard Paul and
Linda Elder.

Critical Thinking: Identifying the Targets

Abstract
The goal of this chapter is to set out clearly what
critical thinking is in general and how it plays itself
out in a variety of domains: in reading, in writing, in
studying academic subjects, and on the job.
Richard Paul and Jane Willsen provide down-to-
earth examples that enable the reader to
appreciate both the most general characteristics of
critical thinking and their specific manifestations on
the concrete level. It is essential, of course, that
the reader becomes clear about the concept,
including its translation into cases, for otherwise
she is apt to mis-translate the concept or fail to
see its relevance in a wide variety of
circumstances.
The danger of misunderstanding and mis-
application is touched upon in this chapter at the
end, but is developed at great length in another
chapter, “Pseudo Critical Thinking in the
Educational Establishment” (p. 47).
 Is this a good idea or a bad idea?
 Is this belief defensible or indefensible?
 Is my position on this issue reasonable and
rational or not?
 Am I willing to deal with complexity or do I
retreat into simple stereotypes to avoid it?
 If I can’t tell if my idea or belief is reasonable
or defensible, how can I have confidence in my
thinking, or in myself?
 Is it appropriate and wise to assume that my
 ideas and beliefs are accurate, clear, and
reasonable, when I haven’t really tested them?
 Do I think deeply or only on the surface of
things?
 Do I ever enter sympathetically into points of
view that are very different from my own, or do I
just assume that I am right?
 Do I know how to question my own ideas and
to test them?
 Do I know what I am aiming for? Should I?
Effectively evaluating our own thinking and the
thinking of others is a habit few of us practice. We
evaluate which washing machine to buy after
reading Consumer Reports, we evaluate which
movie to go see after studying the reviews, we
evaluate new job opportunities after talking with
friends and colleagues, but rarely do we explicitly
evaluate the quality of our thinking (or the thinking
of our students).
But, you may ask, how can we know if our thinking
is sound? Are we relegated to “trial and error” to
discover the consequences of our thinking? Do the
consequences always accurately tell the tale? Isn’t
thinking all a matter of opinion anyway? Isn’t my
opinion as good as anyone else’s? If what I
believe is true for me, isn’t that all that matters? In
our education and upbringing, have we developed
the ability to evaluate, objectively and fairly, the
quality of our beliefs? What did we learn about
thinking during our schooling?
How did we come to believe what we do believe,
and why one belief and not another? How many of
our beliefs have we come to through rigorous,
independent thinking, and how many have been
down-loaded from the media, parents, our culture,
our spouses or friends? As we focus on it, do we
value the continuing improvement of our thinking
abilities? Do we value the continuing improvement
of our students’ thinking abilities? Important
research findings indicate that we need to look
closely at this issue. Mary Kennedy reports the
findings on the opposite page in the Phi Delta
Kappan, May, 1991, in an article entitled, “Policy
Issues in Teaching Education.”
How can we improve our thinking without effective
evaluation practices? Can we learn how to
evaluate our thinking and reasoning objectively?
Let’s look at one concrete example for clues into
the elements of effective evaluation in a familiar
field. In platform diving, there are criteria to be met
to receive a score of “10” and standards that
judges and competitors alike use to evaluate the
dive. These standards guide the divers in each
practice session, in each effort off the board.
Without these criteria and standards, how would
the diver and the judges know what was excellent
and what was marginal? Awareness of the criteria
and standards are alive in the divers’ and coaches’
minds. Do we have parallel criteria and standards
as we strive to improve our abilities, our
performances in thinking?
There is nothing more common than evaluation in
the everyday world but for sound evaluation to
take place, one must establish relevant standards,
gather appropriate evidence, and judge the
evidence in keeping with the standards.
There are appropriate standards for the
assessment of thinking and there are specific
ways to cultivate the learning of them. The
research into critical thinking establishes tools that
can help us evaluate our own thinking and the
thinking of others, if we see their potential benefit
and are willing to discipline our minds in ways that
may seem awkward at first. This chapter briefly
lays out those tools in general terms and acts as a
map, so to speak, of their dimensions. We present
examples of student thinking that demonstrate
critical and uncritical thinking as we define those
terms. In other chapters, we identify approaches to
teaching critical thinking that are flawed, and
explain why they undermine the success of those
who attempt to use them.
Important Research Findings

First Finding: National assessments in virtually

every subject indicate that, although our students
can perform basic skills pretty well, they are not
doing well on thinking and reasoning. American
students can compute, but they cannot reason . . .
They can write complete and correct sentences,
but they cannot prepare arguments . . .  Moreover,
in international comparisons, American students
are falling behind . . . particularly in those areas
that require higher-order thinking . . . Our students
are not doing well at thinking, reasoning,
analyzing, predicting, estimating, or problem
solving.
Second Finding: Textbooks in this country
typically pay scant attention to big ideas, offer no
analysis, and pose no challenging questions.
Instead, they provide a tremendous array of
information or ‘factlets,’ while they ask questions
requiring only that students be able to recite back
the same empty list.
Third Finding: Teachers teach most content only
for exposure, not for understanding.
Fourth Finding: Teachers tend to avoid thought-
provoking work and activities and stick to
predictable routines. Conclusion: “If we were to
describe our current K–12 education system on
the basis of these four findings, we would have to
say that it provides very little intellectually
stimulating work for students, and that it tends to
produce students who are not capable of
intellectual work.
Fifth Finding: Our fifth finding from research
compounds all the others and makes it harder to
change practice: teachers are highly likely to teach
in the way they themselves were taught. If your
elementary teacher presented mathematics to you
as a set of procedural rules with no substantive
rationale, then you are likely to think that this is
what mathematics is and that this is how
mathematics should be studied. And you are likely
to teach it in this way. If you studied writing as a
set of grammatical rules rather than as a way to
organize your thoughts and to communicate ideas
to others, then this is what you will think writing is,
and you will probably teach it so . . . By the time
we complete our undergraduate education, we
have observed teachers for up to 3,060 days.
Implication: “We are caught in a vicious circle of
mediocre practice modeled after mediocre
practice, of trivialized knowledge begetting more
trivialized knowledge. Unless we find a way out of
this circle, we will continue re-creating generations
of teachers who re-create generations of students
who are not prepared for the technological society
we are becoming.”
(Figure 1 condensed from “Policy Issues in
Teaching Education” by Mary Kennedy in the Phi
Delta Kappan, May, 91, pp 661–66.)
Critical Thinking: 
A Picture of the Genuine Article
Critical Thinking is a systematic way to form and
shape one’s thinking. It functions purposefully and
exactingly. It is thought that is disciplined,
comprehensive, based on intellectual standards,
and, as a result, well-reasoned.
Critical Thinking is distinguishable from other
thinking because the thinker is thinking with the
awareness of the systematic nature of high quality
thought, and is continuously checking up on
himself or herself, striving to improve the quality of
thinking. As with any system, critical thinking is not
just a random series of characteristics or
components. All of its components — its elements,
principles, standards and values — form an
integrated, working network that can be applied
effectively not only to academic learning, but to
learning in every dimension of living.
Critical thinking’s most fundamental concern is
excellence of thought. Critical thinking is based on
two assumptions: first, that the quality of our
thinking affects the quality of our lives, and
second, that everyone can learn how to continually
improve the quality of his or her thinking.
Critical thinking implies a fundamental, overriding
goal for education in school and in the workplace:
always to teach so as to help students improve
their own thinking. As students learn to take
command of their thinking and continually to
improve its quality, they learn to take command of
their lives, continually improving the quality of their
lives. 
Comprehensive Critical Thinking 
Has the Following Characteristics
 It is thinking which is responsive to and guided
 by Intellectual Standards, such as relevance,
accuracy, precision, clarity, depth, and breadth.
Without intellectual standards to guide it,
thinking cannot achieve excellence. [Note: most
so-called “thinking skill” educational programs
and approaches have no intellectual standards.] 
 It is thinking that deliberately supports the
development of Intellectual Traits in the thinker,
such as intellectual humility, intellectual integrity,
intellectual perseverance, intellectual empathy,
and intellectual self-discipline, among others.
[Note: most “thinking skill” programs ignore
fundamental intellectual traits.] 
 It is thinking in which the thinker can identify
the Elements of Thought that are present in all
thinking about any problem, such that the
thinker makes the logical connection between
the elements and the problem at hand. For
example, the critical thinker will routinely ask
himself or herself questions such as these about
the subject of the thinking task at hand:

 What is the purpose of my thinking?

 What precise question am I trying to
answer?
 Within what point of view am I
thinking?
 What information am I using?
 How am I interpreting that
 information?
 What concepts or ideas are central to
my thinking?
 What conclusions am I coming to?
 What am I taking for granted, what
assumptions am I making?
 If I accept the conclusions, what are
the implications?
 What would the consequences be, if I
put my thought into action?
For each element, the thinker must be able to
reflect on the standards that will shed light on the
effectiveness of her thinking. [Note: Most “thinking
skill” programs ignore most or all of the basic
elements of thought and the need to apply
standards to their evaluation.]
 It is thinking that is ROUTINELY SELF-
ASSESSING, SELF-EXAMINING, and SELF-
IMPROVING. The thinker takes steps to assess
the various dimensions of her thinking, using
appropriate intellectual standards. [Note: Most
“thinking skill” programs do not emphasize
student self-assessment.] But what is essential
to recognize is that if students are not assessing
their own thinking, they are not thinking critically.
 It is thinking in which THERE IS AN
INTEGRITY TO THE WHOLE SYSTEM. The
thinker is able, not only to critically examine her
thought as a whole, but also to take it apart, to
consider its various parts, as well. Furthermore,
 the thinker is committed to thinking within a
system of interrelated traits of mind; for
example, to be intellectually humble, to be
intellectually perseverant, to be intellectually
courageous, to be intellectually fair and just.
Ideally, the critical thinker is aware of the full
variety of ways in which thinking can become
distorted, misleading, prejudiced, superficial,
unfair, or otherwise defective. The thinker strives
for wholeness and integrity as fundamental
values. [Note: Most “thinking skills” programs
are not well integrated and lack a broad vision of
the range of thinking abilities, standards, and
traits that the successful critical thinking student
will develop. Many tend to instruct students with
a technique such as mapping of ideas in
diagrams or comparing two ideas, yet these ask
little of the student and can readily mislead
student and teacher to believe that such
techniques will be sufficient.]
 It is thinking that YIELDS A PREDICTABLE,
WELL-REASONED ANSWER because of the
comprehensive and demanding process that the
thinker pursues. If we know quite explicitly how
to check our thinking as we go, and we are
committed to doing so, and we get extensive
practice, then we can depend on the results of
our thinking being productive. Good thinking
produces good results. [Note: Because most
“thinking skills” programs lack intellectual
 standards and do not require a comprehensive
process of thinking, the quality of student
response is unpredictable, both for the students
and for the teacher.]
 It is thinking that is responsive to the social
and moral imperative to not only enthusiastically
argue from alternate and opposing points of
view, but also to SEEK AND IDENTIFY
WEAKNESSES AND LIMITATIONS IN ONE’S
OWN POSITION. When one becomes aware
that there are many legitimate points of view,
each of which — when deeply thought through
— yields some level of insight, then one
becomes keenly aware that one’s own thinking
— however rich and insightful it may be,
however carefully constructed —  will not
capture everything worth knowing and seeing.
[Because most “thinking skills” programs lack
intellectual standards, the students are unable
to identify weaknesses in their own reasoning
nor are they taught to see this as a value to be
pursued.]
What Does Comprehensive 
Critical Thinking Look Like?
The following section highlights examples of
legitimate, substantial, comprehensive critical
thinking in a variety of contexts. These examples
will provide the reader with concrete samples of
the criteria, the standards and characteristics
integral to genuine critical thinking.
Identifying the Target: 
Critical Thinking at School
Critical thinking has an appropriate role in virtually
every dimension of school learning, very little that
we learn that is of value can be learned by
automatic, unreflective processes. Textbooks,
subject matter, classroom discussion, even
relationships with classmates are things to be
“figured out” and “assessed.” Let’s look at two
students who are each “reading” a passage from a
story and see if we can identify the consequences
of critical and uncritical reading habits and abilities.
Are We Hitting the Target, 
Assessing Student Thinking in Reading?
Consider the following example of two students
engaging in reading the same story. This example
is taken from an important article by Stephen
Norris and Linda Phillips, “Explanations of Reading
Comprehension: Schema Theory and Critical
Thinking Theory,” in Teachers College Record,
Volume 89, Number 2, Winter 1987. We are privy
to conversations between each of the two
students, Colleen and Stephen and an
experimenter. We are thus invited to reconstruct,
from the students’ responses, our own appraisal of
the quality of their thinking. The utility of
intellectual standards such as clarity, relevance,
accuracy, consistency, and depth of thinking come
into sharp focus once one begins to assess
specific thinking for “quality.”
In what follows we will present episode-by-episode
Stephen and Colleen’s thinking aloud as they work
through the passage. The experimenter’s
questions are given in brackets. We have chosen
to make our example detailed, because we see
this as the best route for providing specificity to
otherwise vague generalizations about the
relationship between reading and thinking. To
simulate the task for you we present the passage
without a title and one episode at a time as was
done with the children.
Episode 1
The stillness of the morning air was broken. The men headed down
the bay.
Stephen
The men were heading down the bay, I’m not sure
why yet. It was a very peaceful morning. [Any
questions?] No, not really. [Where do you think
they’re going?] I think they might be going sailing,
water skiing, or something like that.
Colleen
The men are going shopping. [Why do you think
that?] They’re going to buy clothes at The Bay.
[What is The Bay?] It’s a shopping center. [Any
questions?] No. [Where do you think they’re
going?] They’re going shopping because it seems
like they broke something.
Commentary
Stephen recognizes that there is insufficient
information for explaining what the men are doing.
On questioning, he tentatively suggests a couple
of alternatives consistent with the information
given, but indicates there are other possibilities.
Colleen presents one explanation of the story, and
seems fairly definitive that the men are going to
buy clothes at The Bay, a chain of department
stores in Canada. On being queried she maintains
her idea that the men are going shopping but
offers an explanation inconsistent with her first one
that they are going to buy clothes. To do this she
assumes that something concrete was broken,
which could be replaced at The Bay.
Episode 2
The net was hard to pull. The heavy sea and strong tide
made it even difficult for the girdie. The meshed catch
encouraged us to try harder.
Stephen
It was not a very good day as there were waves
which made it difficult for the girdie. That must be
some kind of machine for doing something. The
net could be for pulling something out of the water
like an old wreck. No, wait! It said “meshed catch.”
I don’t know why but that makes me think of fish
and, sure, if you caught fish you’d really want to
get them. [Any questions?] No questions, just that
I think maybe the girdie is a machine for helping
the men pull in the fish or whatever it was. Maybe
a type of pulley.
Colleen
I guess The Bay must have a big water fountain.
[Why was the net hard to pull?] There's a lot of
force on the water. [Why was it important for them
to pull the net?] It was something they had to do.
[What do you mean?] They had to pull the net and
it was hard to do. [Any questions?] No. [Where do
you think they’re going?] Shopping.
Commentary
For both children the interpretations of Episode 2
built on those of Episode 1. Stephen continues to
question what the men were doing. He raises a
number of alternative interpretation dealing with
the context of the sea. He refines his
interpretations through testing hypothetical
interpretations against specific details, and
hypotheses of specific word meanings against his
emerging interpretation of the story. At the outset
he makes an inference that a girdie is a machine,
but leaves details about its nature and function
unspecified. He tentatively offers one specific use
for the net, but immediately questions this use
when he realizes that it will not account for the
meshed catch, and substitutes an alternative
function. He then confirms this interpretation with
the fact from the story that the men were
encouraged to try harder and his belief that if you
catch fish you would really want to bring them
aboard. Finally, he sees that he is in a position to
offer a more definitive but tentative interpretation
of the word girdie.
Colleen maintains her interpretation of going
shopping at The Bay. When questioned about her
interpretation, Colleen responds in vague or
tautological terms. She seems not to integrate
Episode 3
With four quintels aboard, we were now ready to leave. The skipper
saw mares’ tails in the north.
Stephen
I wonder what quintels are? I think maybe it’s a sea term, a word that
means perhaps the weight aboard. Yes maybe it’s how much fish they
had aboard. [So you think it was fish?] I think fish or maybe something
they had found in the water but I think fish more because of the word
“catch.” [Why were they worried about the mares’ tails?] I’m not sure.
Mares’ tails, let me see, mares are horses but horses are not going to be
in the water. The mares’ tails are in the north. Here farmers watch the
north for bad weather, so maybe the fishermen do the same thing. Yeah,
I think that’s it, it’s a cloud formation which could mean strong winds and
hail or something which I think could be dangerous if you were in a boat
and had a lot of weight aboard. [Any questions?] No.
Colleen
They were finished with their shopping and were ready to go home.
[What did they have aboard?] Quintels. [What are quintels?] I don’t
know. [Why were they worried about the mares’ tails?] There were a
group of horses on the street and they were afraid they would attack the
car. [Any questions?] No.
Commentary
Stephen is successful in his efforts to incorporate the new information
into an evolving interpretation. From the outset Stephen acknowledges
that he does not know the meaning of quintel and seeks a resolution of
this unknown. He derives a meaning consistent with his evolving
interpretations and with the textual evidence. In his attempt to
understand the expression mares’ tails he first acknowledges that he
does not know the meaning of the expression. Thence, he establishes
what he does know from the background knowledge (mares are horses,
horses are not going to be in the water, there is nothing around except
sky and water, farmers watch the north for bad weather) and textual
information (the men are on the bay, they have things aboard, the
mares’ tails are in the north) and inferences he has previously made (the
men are in a boat, they are fishing). He integrates this knowledge into a
comparison between the concerns of Alberta farmers with which he is
familiar, and what he takes to be analogous concerns of fishermen. On
seeing the pertinence of this analogy he draws the conclusion that the
mares’ tails must be a cloud formation foreboding inclement weather. He
claims support for his conclusion in the fact that it would explain the
skipper’s concern for the mares’ tails, indicating that he did not lose sight
of the overall task of understanding the story.
Colleen maintains her original interpretation but does not incorporate all
the new textual information into it. She works with the information on the
men’s leaving and the mares’ tails, but appears to ignore or remain
vague about other information. For example, she says the cargo was
comprised of quintels but indicates no effort to determine what these
things are. She cites the fact that the men were ready to leave and
suggests that they have finished their shopping, but does not attempt to
explain the use of such words as skipper, cargo, and aboard in the
context for shopping for clothes. She interprets mares’ tails as a group of
horses the possibly would attack the men, but gives no account of what
the horses might be doing on the street. Basically, she appears to grow
tolerant of ambiguity and incompleteness in her interpretation.
Interestingly, each student believes that he or she has read the passage.
The question becomes, what does it mean “to read” something?
Comprehensive, legitimate critical thinking enables us to explore the
meaning of the concept “to read” and to come to understand that there is
a spectrum of quality of readings, some superficial and mechanical,
some deep and thorough.Specifically, Colleen has scrambled to piece
together meanings that have little relationship to the writer’s ideas.
Colleen has “read” the passage but we can quickly see that the quality of
her thinking lacks characteristics that we equate with sound reasoning,
with critical thinking. She has been ineffective in thinking within the
system of meanings inherent in what was said in the passage she tried
to read. That her responses were inconsistent did not seem to disturb
her, almost as if she had no sense of how to figure out what she was
reading. The consequences for Colleen in this episode of thinking are
minimal.
However, consider how vulnerable she will be outside school, when
much more than grades or teacher approval is riding on her ability to
think effectively in other systems, such as health care, parenting,
upgrading job skills or becoming a proficient consumer.
On the other hand, Stephen has “read” the passage by means of critical
reasoning, effectively decoding not only the words but the writer’s
thoughts. He has taken the initiative to reconstruct in his mind as much
as he can of the logic of the images and concepts that the writer
conveyed through the system of language. Stephen also explored the
implications of his ideas and was clear about what he understood and
failed to understand. He demonstrated intellectual perseverance in
striving to make sense when struggling with difficult passages. He
expected to make sense of the passage, to grasp the author’s ideas,
and finally he did. These habits, traits and abilities are among those we
find in individuals for whom critical thinking is a comprehensive,
substantial system of thought embedded, ideally, in every aspect of their
lives. Although Colleen and Stephen have each “read” the passage, a
useful distinction can be drawn between “critical reading” and “uncritical
reading.”
Most reading is performed at the lower end of the spectrum in school
today. Very little instruction is given in the thinking skills that critical
readers use. Colleen will only be able to improve with professional
assistance, that is, with instruction that helps her assess her thinking
using intellectual standards and a sense of the elements of thought. She
needs help in learning how to think through the elements of a problem.
Of course, instruction alone is insufficient. She will also need to apply
her will and acquire self-discipline. She will need extensive practice and
expectations placed on her effort.
As we stretch ourselves to develop our bodies we naturally feel some
physical stress. So, too, do we feel intellectual stress as we stretch our
minds to develop our thinking. Students must learn intellectual
perseverance, intellectual responsibility, intellectual integrity to develop
true intellectual “fitness.” This is a lifetime process that merely begins in
school. Most students are not well informed about the consequences of
their uncritical thinking habits. It is likely that no one has presented these
ideas to them so that they realistically grasp the possibility of intellectual
development. Let’s now look at two student written responses and
examine the quality of the thinking displayed, keeping in mind the
implications for the students’ future effectiveness.
Are We Hitting the Target, 
Assessing Student Thinking in Writing?
The Assignment: The students in Ms. Tamari’s 8th grade class were
asked to write a paragraph in which they were to explain what the most
important characteristics of a “friend” are and why they are most
important. Here are the written responses of two students, Susan and
Carl.
Susan
A friend is someone who cares a lot about you, who likes to be with you,
and who helps you out when you get in trouble. The most important
characteristics of a friend are loyalty, helpfulness, and honesty. First, it’s
important for a friend to be loyal because you want to depend on your
friend. If someone is not loyal that person may turn against you,
especially if she meets someone he or she likes better than you.
Second, it’s important for a friend to be helpful, because often a person
needs help and if you have no friends it can be real hard to feel so
alone. And finally, it’s important for a friend to be honest because very
few people will tell you something about yourself that you don’t want to
hear. An honest friend will try to help you improve, even though she
knows it may hurt your feelings. It’s okay to hear some things from a
friend because you know that she isn’t trying to hurt you.
Observations
Susan is basically doing a good job critically analyzing which
characteristics are desirable in a friend. First of all, it is clear that she
understands the issue. First she clarifies the concept of a friend. Then
she asserts three characteristics of a good friend. Then she takes each
one in order and gives good reasons in support of each of them. Her
writing is clear, relevant to the issue, systematic, well-reasoned, and
reflects deep thinking for her age.
Now let’s look at the writing of Carl.
Carl
The most important thing is to have a lot of friends who like to do the
things you like to do. Then you can go places and have fun. I mostly like
other boys for my friends because they like sports like me. Girls
sometimes play sports too but not as good as boys. I like to play
baseball, football, and basketball. Sometimes I like to play Hockey.
There are no good places to play in my neighborhood and sometimes
my mother makes me come in too early. She sometimes makes me very
mad because she screws up my life. All she ever wants me to do is work
around the house. I don’t think she knows anything about having friends.
Maybe if she had played sports when she was little she’d let me play
more and not just think about work, work, and more work.
Observations
Almost all of Carl’s writing is irrelevant to the issue of what are the most
desirable characteristics of a friend. He seems simply to be writing
thoughts down as they occur to him in a stream of consciousness, in an
associational way. Carl begins by confusing the question “What are the
most important characteristics in a friend?” with “Is it important to know a
lot of people who share pleasures with you?” He then moves to the
question “Who do I like?” Then he moves to the question “What do I like
to do?” and then on to “What’s wrong with my neighborhood?” The final
question, “Why doesn’t my mother let me do what I want to do?”
indicates that he has ended up far off course, yet it is unlikely that he
realizes it. Until Carl learns to discipline his mind to stick to the question
at hand, he will have trouble doing any quality thinking.
Learning to write out our thinking is one of the best ways to improve it. It
goes without saying that excellence in writing requires excellence in
thinking.
Writing requires that one systematize one’s thinking, arranging thought
in a progression that makes the system of one’s thought accessible to
others. When the writer’s thinking lacks a clear purpose, lacks focus,
lacks documentation and logic, and standards by which to judge the
merit of the ideas, these flaws are revealed in the written work.
Writing, then, which is excellent is excellently thought through and is
produced by someone with definite standards for both thinking and
writing. (See the chapters: “Why Students and Teachers Don’t Reason
Well” and “Pseudo Critical Thinking in the Educational Establishment.”) It
is obvious as we read the responses of Carl and Susan that each has a
very different understanding of what is well-thought-out thinking and
writing, critical and uncritical thinking and writing. The consequences for
Carl’s uncritical thinking are minimal in 8th grade, but how will he be
affected when he demonstrates the same confusions on the job?
School instruction is focused on “subject matter.” We usually, but
wrongfully, think of school subjects as little more than masses of facts
and definitions to be memorized. We don’t often recognize that what is
really important about school subjects is that they—when properly
learned provide us raw materials upon which to practice thinking in a
more proficient and insightful manner. They introduce us to new
“systems” in which to think. As you read the next section, see if you can
think of school subjects in this more illuminating and penetrating way.

Are We Hitting the Target? 

Assessing Student Thinking in Academic Subjects.
Subject Matter, Especially in High School and College Courses
Though we often do not think of it this way, all subject matter — history,
literature, geography, biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics — is part
of a system of logically ordered parts. A historian studies a period and
creates a “story” that puts events into meaningful patterns. In literature
we study periods with their distinctive visions, their distinctive values,
their distinctive modes of expression. One period is “romantic,” one is
“classic,” one is “realist,” and so forth. Or we study the outlook of an
author, the way he or she sees the world: Dickens, Austen,
Hemingway, Faulkner. In geography we develop systems for dividing up
the surface of the earth into continents, countries, climates. We develop
organized, logical ways to look at the surface, especially the physical
surface, of the earth. In geology, we use a system to arrange time into
geological time periods, and correlate principal physical and biological
features with those periods. In biology, we develop systems for making
sense of multiple forms of living and pre-living things. In math, we
develop systems — arithmetic, geometry, algebra, calculus — for
dealing with the quantitative dimensions of the world.
Everywhere there are systems inherent in subject matter, networks of
logically ordered parts functioning in relation to each other for a definite
human purpose. Critical thinking, with its system-unlocking orientation, is
the perfect set of tools to take command of the systems inherent in
subject matter. It is perfect, that is, only if we understand what it is and
how to use it. Most students, unfortunately, have never been introduced
to critical thinking, so cannot systematically use it to guide and empower
their learning. Most students try to learn what is in fact systematized, by
randomly memorizing fragments of the system as if they had no relation
to each other. Compare the two following students talking about studying
history.
Anna: “I don’t really like history too much. There is too much to try to
remember. And it’s all about olden times, with a lot of dates and different
wars and people doing things we don’t do anymore. You learn about
presidents and kings and what they did and about when things
happened. History is all about the past. It’s boring and I never use it.
How could you? Things are really different now. “
Carra: “We do it differently in Mrs Brown’s class. Do you know that we’re
all part of history? For example, in my mind I remember all of my past as
a kind of story I tell myself. That’s how I remember things and that’s also
how I figure things out. Think about it. Whenever you talk about yourself,
you’re like a historian trying to help people figure things out about you.
Everyone is really interested in their own history and in the history of the
people they know. That’s what gossip is all about. Also the news. It’s like
the history of yesterday. In her class we talk about how the history writer
puts together the story he writes.
We also look at how the story might be told differently, I mean ‘cause
what we read is only a tiny part of what the writer knows, and what the
writer knows is only a tiny part of what actually happened. You have to
look at it from different points of view or else you don’t have a chance of
figuring out what most likely really happened. We are learning how to tell
the difference between “facts” and how different people filter and
interpret the facts depending on their own interests. We also try to notice
what is left out of the history stories we read. Mrs. Brown says we are
learning to think like history writers do and face the problems that they
face. I think its fun to try to figure out history . . . how to tell a story in the
most honest way, and how to see when people twist a story to make
themselves look good.”
Observations
Anna and Carra, in their reactions to history, model the distinction
between the way subjects have traditionally been taught ( as a lot of stuff
to remember for a test) and the way they should be taught (as a way to
figure things out). The traditional student never gets the real point of the
subject and hence does not transfer what she learns to the “real” world.
By teaching history in a critical manner students can readily transfer
what they learn to “life-centered” situations. They can improve their own
everyday historical thinking.
Critical thinking is valuable, of course, not only in school but in the world
beyond school as well. If we are teaching properly, our students not only
learn how to apply critical thinking effectively to their reading, writing,
and subject-matter learning, they also begin to apply it to their everyday
lives. The wonderful result is they not only reason historically about what
is in their history textbook, for example, they also begin to reason much
better about the “historical” issues in their daily life, as Carra is doing
above. They not only reason scientifically about what is in their science
textbook, they also begin to reason scientifically about the ‘scientific”
questions in their daily life. They not only hear about ethical principles
when talking about characters in stories in their literature class, they also
begin to use ethical reasoning when dealing with the ethical issues
embedded in their lives.
Indeed, if we do our job correctly, students begin to discover that all the
kinds of reasoning that they learn to do at school have application in the
“real” world. They not only start to talk about and value reasoning in
school, they also begin to discover how actually to do it, how to
realistically and effectively to apply intellectual standards to their own
thought in virtually every context of their lives. The result is that students,
for the first time in their lives, begin to evaluate their own thinking and do
so in a way that is increasingly disciplined and objective. Let’s look at
three examples of college students beginning to discover the value of
applying intellectual standards to their own work and thinking.
Mandy: “I am often inconsistent. The most difficult aspect of my
weakness is my attempt at achieving consistency between that of word
and deed. That is, I use a double standard. I often say one thing and do
another.”

Kristin: “This semester I have learned how to organize my thinking

through critical thinking. In organizing my thinking logically I have
learned to break down my thought processes down into specific parts.
By breaking my thought process down into specific parts I can see some
of my strengths and weaknesses. When I do not organize my thought
logically, my writing often becomes trivial, irrelevant and vague.”
Laurie: “It is important to recognize key concepts when one thinks. If I
need to figure out a problem and do not understand the key concepts, I
will not be able to come to a logical conclusion. I am more and more
aware of the need to pay attention to key concepts. One particular
example occurred this winter when I went snowboarding for the first
time.
The relevant concepts of snowboarding are: one needs to torque the
body, the back leg is your anchor, and the edges of the board are used
to slow down and in turn control the speed of the board. My friend
explained to me that it usually takes a whole day to learn to snowboard,
but because I paid close attention to the concepts and kept them
carefully in mind, I was able to learn quickly. Most students do not
realize that concepts are important in learning. In fact, I think that most
students don’t know what concepts are. I certainly didn’t.”
These examples demonstrate that some students are prepared to take
advantage of critical thinking instruction, though others are less ready.
The teacher’s challenge, however, is to meet the student’s needs and
respond effectively with appropriate instruction.
Identifying the Target: 
Critical Thinking in the Workplace
With accelerating change and the increasing complexity of problems
facing us at the dawn of the 21st Century, we are striving to compete
within the new global economic realities. John Sculley, CEO of Apple
Computer, Inc. reported to President-elect Clinton in December of 1992:
Most Americans see our largest corporations going through massive
restructurings, layoffs, and downsizing. People know something has
changed and they are scared because they don’t fully understand it and
they see people they know losing their jobs.

They also see their neighbors buying high-quality, lower-priced products

from abroad, and they ask why can’t we build these same products or
better ones here at home?
The answer is, we can. But only if we have a public education system
that will turn out a world-class product. We need an education system
that will educate all our students, not just the top 15–20 percent. 

A highly-skilled work force must begin with a world class public

education system. Eventually, the New Economy will touch every
industry in our nation. There will be no place to hide!
In the New Economy, low-skilled manual work will be paid less. The
United States cannot afford to have the high-skilled work being done
somewhere else in the world and end up with the low-wage work. 

This is not an issue about protectionism. It is an issue about an

educational system aligned with the New Economy and a broad
educational opportunity for everyone. Maximum flexibility.

In the old economy, America had a real advantage because we were

rich with natural resources and our large domestic market formed the
basis for economies of scale.
In the New Economy, strategic resources no longer just come out of the
ground (such as oil, coal, iron, and wheat). The strategic resources are
ideas and information that come out of our minds.

The result is, as a nation, we have gone from being resource-rich in the
Old Economy to resource-poor in the New Economy almost overnight!
Our public education system has not successfully made the shift from
teaching the memorization of facts to achieving the learning of critical
thinking skills. We are still trapped in a K–12 public education system
which is preparing our youth for jobs that no longer exist.
Critical thinking is valuable not only in school but in the world beyond
school as well. Increasingly, our ever-changing economy demands
abilities and traits characteristic of comprehensive critical thinking. They
enable us not only to survive but to thrive. They are essential to the new
management structures to which successful businesses will routinely
and increasingly turn. Consider the news item opposite, from a small
town in Wisconsin. It illustrates well a trend which is going to grow
enormously, and that is toward high productivity work-place
organizations that “depend on workers who can do more than read,
write, and do simple arithmetic, and who bring more to their jobs than
reliability and a good attitude. In such organizations, workers are asked
to use judgment and make decisions rather than to merely follow
directions. Management layers disappear as workers take over many of
the tasks that others used to do . . . ” [Laura D’Andrea Tyson,
Chairwoman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors].
Ladysmith, Wisconsin gives us an opportunity to see this trend
displayed.

Mill Interviews 83 for Jobs

Between June 10 and 17, City Forest Corporation completed
assessments of 83 candidates for jobs at the soon-to-be-opened paper
mill in Ladysmith. The mill, formerly operated by Pope & Talbot, has
been idle since last Aug 14.
Candidates for positions at the mill went through a half day “assessment
center” to determine their potential for the new work concept to be
implemented at the mill. The assessment center included several group
problem-solving sessions as well as an oral presentation, written
presentation and traditional interview
When the mill reopens, it will operate under a “self-directed team”
method. With that approach there are no first line supervisors. Instead,
workers are organized into teams that are responsible for much of the
decision making and problem solving previously handled by the
supervisor.
Each of the four production shifts will have a team leader. The
production teams will be supported by a maintenance team . . . and a
staff team made up of management and other staff support. The beauty
of this new system is that it place more of the control of the day-to-day
operation in the hands of the individuals who are doing the hands-on
work.
— Ladysmith News, Ladysmith, Wisconsin Thursday, June 24, 1993.
How important, then, is our role as teachers? Can we rely on parents to
understand and to provide these essential abilities and traits for their
children? Will the children master them on the streets or with their
friends? It seems unlikely. How important, then, is it that we, ourselves,
devote our professional energies to examining and assessing our own
thinking? Can we do a proficient job of helping our students if we are not
equally committed to improving our own abilities, traits and habits as
well?
Our professional responsibility extends to recognizing that we may very
well find that we need to assert our will, our initiative, our discipline and
curiosity to secure the best materials and resources available to meet
this obligation. How much care, then, should we use in selecting
materials that will take us where we want to go, to a deep and
comprehensive understanding and working knowledge of legitimate
critical thinking?
Off the Target: 
Pseudo-Critical Thinking Approaches and Materials
Critical thinking cannot be seen, touched, tasted or heard directly, and
thus it is readily subject to counterfeit, readily confused with thinking that
sounds like, but is not critical thinking, with thinking that will not lead
students to success in school and beyond. Critical thinking is readily
falsified in the commercial world by those who seek to capitalize on its
growing legitimacy. We increasingly need a regular Consumer Report
that enables the reader to effectively recognize the counterfeits of good
thinking, which are multiplying daily, to help us recognize the latest
gimmick du jour. The characteristics of comprehensive critical thinking
outlined in this chapter make available just a beginning set of criteria by
which professionals and parents can evaluate educational resources in
this field.
Educators, business and governmental leaders must begin to distinguish
the genuine from the counterfeit, the legitimate from the specious, the
incomplete from the comprehensive. Smooth, slick, and shallow thinking
are everywhere around us, filled with promises of simple, quick, instant
solutions, or misdirecting us into schemes that misspend our own or
public monies. Other chapters of this book will provide many examples,
principally from the field of education. The reader will doubtless be able
to add other examples from his or her own experience.
That we need sound critical thinking to protect ourselves and the public
good is intuitively obvious, once we are clear about what critical thinking
is and what it can do. Identifying the target precisely, however, is the first
step in facing the challenges ahead.
Distinguishing Between Inferences and
Assumptions
To be skilled in critical thinking is to be able to take one’s thinking apart
systematically, to analyze each part, assess it for quality and then
improve it. The first step in this process is understanding the parts of
thinking, or elements of reasoning.
These elements are: purpose, question, information, inference,
assumption, point of view, concepts, and implications. They are present
in the mind whenever we reason. To take command of our thinking, we
need to formulate both our purpose and the question at issue clearly. We
need to use information in our thinking that is both relevant to the
question we are dealing with, and accurate. We need to make logical
inferences based on sound assumptions. We need to understand our
own point of view and fully consider other relevant viewpoints. We need
to use concepts justifiably and follow out the implications of decisions we
are considering. (For an elaboration of the Elements of Reasoning, see a
Miniature Guide to the Foundations of Analytic Thinking.)
In this article we focus on two of the elements of reasoning: inferences
and assumptions. Learning to distinguish inferences from assumptions is
an important intellectual skill. Many confuse the two elements. Let us
begin with a review of the basic meanings:
1. Inference: An inference is a step of the mind, an intellectual act by
which one concludes that something is true in light of something
 else’s being true, or seeming to be true. If you come at me with a
knife in your hand, I probably would infer that you mean to do me
harm. Inferences can be accurate or inaccurate, logical or illogical,
justified or unjustified.

2. Assumption: An assumption is something we take for granted or

presuppose. Usually it is something we previously learned and do not
question. It is part of our system of beliefs. We assume our beliefs to
be true and use them to interpret the world about us. If we believe
that it is dangerous to walk late at night in big cities and we are
staying in Chicago, we will infer that it is dangerous to go for a walk
late at night. We take for granted our belief that it is dangerous to
walk late at night in big cities. If our belief is a sound one, our
assumption is sound. If our belief is not sound, our assumption is not
sound. Beliefs, and hence assumptions, can be unjustified or
justified, depending upon whether we do or do not have good
reasons for them. Consider this example: “I heard a scratch at the
door. I got up to let the cat in.” My inference was based on the
assumption (my prior belief) that only the cat makes that noise, and
that he makes it only when he wants to be let in.
We humans naturally and regularly use our beliefs as assumptions and
make inferences based on those assumptions. We must do so to make
sense of where we are, what we are about, and what is happening.
Assumptions and inferences permeate our lives precisely because we
cannot act without them. We make judgments, form interpretations, and
come to conclusions based on the beliefs we have formed.
If you put humans in any situation, they start to give it some meaning or
other. People automatically make inferences to gain a basis for
understanding and action. So quickly and automatically do we make
inferences that we do not, without training, notice them as inferences.
We see dark clouds and infer rain. We hear the door slam and infer that
someone has arrived. We see a frowning face and infer that the person
is upset. If our friend is late, we infer that she is being inconsiderate. We
meet a tall guy and infer that he is good at basketball, an Asian and infer
that she will be good at math. We read a book, and interpret what the
various sentences and paragraphs — indeed what the whole book — is
saying. We listen to what people say and make a series of inferences as
to what they mean.
As we write, we make inferences as to what readers will make of what
we are writing. We make inferences as to the clarity of what we are
saying, what requires further explanation, what has to be exemplified or
illustrated, and what does not. Many of our inferences are justified and
reasonable, but some are not.
As always, an important part of critical thinking is the art of bringing what
is subconscious in our thought to the level of conscious realization. This
includes the recognition that our experiences are shaped by the
inferences we make during those experiences. It enables us to separate
our experiences into two categories: the raw data of our experience in
contrast with our interpretations of those data, or the inferences we are
making about them. Eventually we need to realize that the inferences we
make are heavily influenced by our point of view and the assumptions
we have made about people and situations. This puts us in the position
of being able to broaden the scope of our outlook, to see situations from
more than one point of view, and hence to become more open-minded.
Often different people make different inferences because they bring to
situations different viewpoints. They see the data differently. To put it
another way, they make different assumptions about what they see. For
example, if two people see a man lying in a gutter, one might infer,
“There’s a drunken bum.” The other might infer, “There’s a man in need
of help.” These inferences are based on different assumptions about the
conditions under which people end up in gutters. Moreover, these
assumptions are connected to each person’s viewpoint about people.
The first person assumes, “Only drunks are to be found in gutters.” The
second person assumes, “People lying in the gutter are in need of help.”
The first person may have developed the point of view that people are
fundamentally responsible for what happens to them and ought to be
able to care for themselves. The second may have developed the point
of view that the problems people have are often caused by forces and
events beyond their control. The reasoning of these two people, in terms
of their inferences and assumptions, could be characterized in the
following way:

Person One Person Two

Situation: A man is lying in
Situation: A man is lying in the gutter.
the gutter.
Inference: That man’s a bum.Inference: That man is in need of help.
Assumption: Only bums lie Assumption: Anyone lying in the gutter is
in gutters. in need of help.

Critical thinkers notice the inferences they are making, the assumptions
upon which they are basing those inferences, and the point of view
about the world they are developing. To develop these skills, students
need practice in noticing their inferences and then figuring the
assumptions that lead to them.
As students become aware of the inferences they make and the
assumptions that underlie those inferences, they begin to gain command
over their thinking. Because all human thinking is inferential in nature,
command of thinking depends on command of the inferences embedded
in it and thus of the assumptions that underlie it. Consider the way in
which we plan and think our way through everyday events. We think of
ourselves as preparing for breakfast, eating our breakfast, getting ready
for class, arriving on time, leading class discussions, grading student
papers, making plans for lunch, paying bills, engaging in an intellectual
discussion, and so on. We can do none of these things without
interpreting our actions, giving them meanings, making inferences about
what is happening.
This is to say that we must choose among a variety of possible
meanings. For example, am I “relaxing” or “wasting time?” Am I being
“determined” or “stubborn?” Am I “joining” a conversation or “butting in?”
Is someone “laughing with me” or “laughing at me?” Am I “helping a
friend” or “being taken advantage of?” Every time we interpret our
actions, every time we give them a meaning, we are making one or more
inferences on the basis of one or more assumptions.
As humans, we continually make assumptions about ourselves, our jobs,
our mates, our students, our children, the world in general. We take
some things for granted simply because we can’t question everything.
Sometimes we take the wrong things for granted. For example, I run off
to the store (assuming that I have enough money with me) and arrive to
find that I have left my money at home. I assume that I have enough gas
in the car only to find that I have run out of gas. I assume that an item
marked down in price is a good buy only to find that it was marked up
before it was marked down. I assume that it will not, or that it will, rain. I
assume that my car will start when I turn the key and press the gas
pedal. I assume that I mean well in my dealings with others.
Humans make hundreds of assumptions without knowing it---without
thinking about it. Many assumptions are sound and justifiable. Many,
however, are not. The question then becomes: “How can students begin
to recognize the inferences they are making, the assumptions on which
they are basing those inferences, and the point of view, the perspective
on the world that they are forming?”
There are many ways to foster student awareness of inferences and
assumptions. For one thing, all disciplined subject-matter thinking
requires that students learn to make accurate assumptions about the
content they are studying and become practiced in making justifiable
inferences within that content. As examples: In doing math, students
make mathematical inferences based on their mathematical
assumptions. In doing science, they make scientific inferences based on
their scientific assumptions. In constructing historical accounts, they
make historical inferences based on their historical assumptions. In each
case, the assumptions students make depend on their understanding of
fundamental concepts and principles.
As a matter of daily practice, then, we can help students begin to notice
the inferences they are making within the content we teach. We can help
them identify inferences made by authors of a textbook, or of an article
we give them. Once they have identified these inferences, we can ask
them to figure out the assumptions that led to those inferences. When
we give them routine practice in identifying inferences and assumptions,
they begin to see that inferences will be illogical when the assumptions
that lead to them are not justifiable. They begin to see that whenever
they make an inference, there are other (perhaps more logical)
inferences they could have made. They begin to see high quality
inferences as coming from good reasoning.
We can also help students think about the inferences they make in daily
situations, and the assumptions that lead to those inferences. As they
become skilled in identifying their inferences and assumptions, they are
in a better position to question the extent to which any of their
assumptions is justified. They can begin to ask questions, for example,
like: Am I justified in assuming that everyone eats lunch at 12:00 noon?
Am I justified in assuming that it usually rains when there are black
clouds in the sky? Am I justified in assuming that bumps on the head are
only caused by blows?
The point is that we all make many assumptions as we go about our
daily life and we ought to be able to recognize and question them. As
students develop these critical intuitions, they increasingly notice their
inferences and those of others. They increasingly notice what they and
others are taking for granted. They increasingly notice how their point of
view shapes their experiences.
 
This article was adapted from the book, Critical Thinking: Tools for
Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life, by Richard Paul and
Linda Elder.

Critical Thinking Development: A Stage

Theory
With Implications for Instruction
Linda Elder with Richard Paul
Though most teachers aspire to make critical
thinking a primary objective of their instruction,
most also do not realize that, to develop as
thinkers, students must pass through stages of
development in critical thinking. That is, most
teachers are unaware of the levels of intellectual
development that people go through as they
improve as thinkers. We believe that significant
gains in the intellectual quality of student work will
not be achieved except to the degree that teachers
recognize that skilled critical thinking develops,
only when properly cultivated, and only through
predictable stages.

In this paper we shall set out a stage theory based

on the nearly twenty years of research of the
Center for Critical Thinking and explain some of
the theory’s implications for instruction. We shall
be brief, concise, and to the point in our
explanation with minimal theoretical elaboration.
Furthermore, we believe that the “practicality” of
the theory we explain here is best tested in the
classroom and in everyday life. The reader should
be expressly aware that we are approaching the
human mind exclusively from an intellectual
standpoint — not from a psychological standpoint.
Each stage of intellectual development will be
explained in terms of the following variables:
1. Defining Feature
2. Principal Challenge
3. Knowledge of Thinking
 4. Skill in Thinking
5. Relevant Intellectual Traits
6. Some Implications for Instruction
Due to space limitations, we have made no
attempt to be exhaustive with respect to any stage,
nor to answer the many questions that might be
raised concerning the development, reliability or
validity of the stages. The basic intention is to
provide a practical organizer for teachers
interested in using a conceptual map to guide
student thinking through developmental stages in
the process of becoming critical thinkers. Once the
stages are explained, and stage-specific
recommendations are given, we close with some
global implications for instruction.
We make the following assumptions: (1) that there
are predictable stages through which every person
who develops as a critical thinker passes, (2) that
passage from one stage to the next is dependent
upon a necessary level of commitment on the part
of an individual to develop as a critical thinker, is
not automatic, and is unlikely to take place
“subconsciously,” (3) that success in instruction is
deeply connected to the intellectual quality of
student learning, and (4) that regression is
possible in development.
Before moving to the stages themselves, a brief
overview of what we mean by critical thinking is in
order. Our working definition is as follows: We
define critical thinking as:
the ability and disposition to improve one’s thinking
by systematically subjecting it to intellectual self-
assessment.
It is important to recognize that on this view,
persons are critical thinkers, in the fullest sense of
the term, only if they display this ability and
disposition in all, or most, of the dimensions of
their lives (e.g. as a parent, citizen, consumer,
lover, friend, learner, and professional). We
exclude from our concept of the critical thinker
those who think critically in only one dimension of
their lives. We do so because the quality of one’s
life is dependent upon high quality reasoning in all
domains of one’s life, not simply in one dimension.
The stages we will lay out are as follows:
Stage One: The Unreflective Thinker
Stage Two: The Challenged Thinker
Stage Three: The Beginning Thinker
Stage Four: The Practicing Thinker
Stage Five: The Advanced Thinker
Stage Six: The Accomplished Thinker
Stage One: The Unreflective Thinker
Defining Feature: Unreflective thinkers are largely
unaware of the determining role that thinking is
playing in their lives and of the many ways that
problems in thinking are causing problems in their
lives. Unreflective thinkers lack the ability to
explicitly assess their thinking and improve it
thereby.
Knowledge of Thinking: Unreflective thinkers lack
the knowledge that high quality thinking requires
regular practice in taking thinking apart, accurately
assessing it, and actively improving it. In fact,
unreflective thinkers are largely unaware of
thinking as such, hence fail to recognize thinking
as involving concepts, assumptions, inferences,
implications, points of view, etc. Unreflective
thinkers are largely unaware of the appropriate
standards for the assessment of thinking: clarity,
accuracy, precision, relevance, logicalness, etc.
Skill in Thinking: Unreflective thinkers may have
developed a variety of skills in thinking without
being aware of them. However, these skills are
inconsistently applied because of the lack of self-
monitoring of thought. Prejudices and
misconceptions often undermine the quality of
thought of the unreflective thinker.
Some Implications for Instruction: We must
recognize that in the present mode of instruction it
is perfectly possible for students to graduate from
high school, or even college, and still be largely
unreflective thinkers. Though all students think,
most students are largely unaware of how their
thinking is structured or how to assess or improve
it. Thus when they experience problems in
thinking, they lack the skills to identify and “fix”
these problems. Most teachers do not seem to be
aware of how unaware most students are of their
thinking. Little is being done at present to help
students "discover" their thinking. This emphasis
needs shifting.
Stage Two: The Challenged Thinker
Defining Features: Thinkers move to the
“challenged” stage when they become initially
aware of the determining role that thinking is
playing in their lives, and of the fact that problems
in their thinking are causing them serious and
significant problems.
Principal Challenge: To become initially aware of
the determining role of thinking in one’s life and of
basic problems that come from poor thinking.
Knowledge of Thinking: Challenged thinkers,
unlike unreflective thinkers are becoming aware of
thinking as such. They are becoming aware, at
some level, that high quality thinking requires
deliberate reflective thinking about thinking (in
order to improve thinking). They recognize that
their thinking is often flawed, although they are not
able to identify many of these flaws. Challenged
thinkers may develop an initial awareness of
thinking as involving concepts, assumptions,
inferences, implications, points of view, etc., and
as involving standards for the assessment of
thinking: clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance,
logicalness, etc., though they have only an initial
grasp of these standards and what it would take to
internalize them. Challenged thinkers also develop
some understanding of the role of self-deception in
thinking, though their understanding is limited. At
this stage the thinker develops some reflective
awareness of how thinking operates for good or ill.
Skill in Thinking: Most challenged thinkers have
very limited skills in thinking. However like
unreflective thinkers, they may have developed a
variety of skills in thinking without being aware of
them, and these skills may (ironically) serve as
barriers to development. At this stage thinkers with
some implicit critical thinking abilities may more
easily deceive themselves into believing that their
thinking is better than it actually is, making it more
difficult to recognize the problems inherent in poor
thinking. To accept the challenge at this level
requires that thinkers gain insight into the fact that
whatever intellectual skills they have are
inconsistently applied across the domains of their
lives.
Relevant Intellectual Trait: The fundamental
intellectual trait at this stage is intellectual humility,
in order to see that problems are inherent in one’s
thinking.
Some Implications for Instruction: We must
recognize the importance of challenging our
students — in a supportive way — to recognize
both that they are thinkers and that their thinking
often goes awry. We must lead class discussions
about thinking. We must explicitly model thinking
(e.g., thinking aloud through a problem). We must
design classroom activities that explicitly require
students to think about their thinking. We must
have students examine both poor and sound
thinking, talking about the differences. We must
introduce students to the parts of thinking and the
intellectual standards necessary to assess
thinking. We must introduce the idea of intellectual
humility to students; that is, the idea of becoming
aware of our own ignorance. Perhaps children can
best understand the importance of this idea
through their concept of the "know-it-all," which
comes closest to their recognition of the need to
be intellectually humble.
Stage Three: The Beginning Thinker
Defining Feature: Those who move to the
beginning thinker stage are actively taking up the
challenge to begin to take explicit command of
their thinking across multiple domains of their
lives. Thinkers at this stage recognize that they
have basic problems in their thinking and make
initial attempts to better understand how they can
take charge of and improve it. Based on this initial
understanding, beginning thinkers begin to modify
some of their thinking, but have limited insight into
deeper levels of the trouble inherent in their
thinking. Most importantly, they lack a systematic
plan for improving their thinking, hence their efforts
are hit and miss.
Principal Challenge: To begin to see the
importance of developing as a thinker. To begin to
seek ways to develop as a thinker and to make an
intellectual commitment to that end.
Knowledge of Thinking: Beginning thinkers,
unlike challenged thinkers are becoming aware not
only of thinking as such, but also of the role in
thinking of concepts, assumptions, inferences,
implications, points of view, etc. Beginning thinkers
are also at some beginning stage of recognizing
not only that there are standards for the
assessment of thinking: clarity, accuracy,
precision, relevance, logicalness, etc., but also
that one needs to internalize them and thus begin
using them deliberately in thinking. They have a
beginning understanding of the role of egocentric
thinking in human life.
Skill in Thinking: Beginning thinkers are able to
appreciate a critique of their powers of thought.
Beginning thinkers have enough skill in thinking to
begin to monitor their own thoughts, though as
“beginners” they are sporadic in that monitoring.
They are beginning to recognize egocentric
thinking in themselves and others.
Relevant Intellectual Traits: The key intellectual
trait required at this stage is some degree of
intellectual humility in beginning to recognize the
problems inherent in thinking. In addition, thinkers
must have some degree of intellectual confidence
in reason, a trait which provides the impetus to
take up the challenge and begin the process of
active development as critical thinkers, despite
limited understanding of what it means to do high
quality reasoning. In addition, beginning thinkers
have enough intellectual perseverance to struggle
with serious problems in thinking while yet lacking
a clear solution to those problems (in other words,
at this stage thinkers are recognizing more and
more problems in their thinking but have not yet
discovered how to systematize their efforts to
solve them).
Some Implications for Instruction: Once we
have persuaded most of our students that much of
their thinking — left to itself — is flawed and that
they, like all of us, are capable of improving as
thinkers, we must teach in such a way as to help
them to see that we all need to regularly practice
good thinking to become good thinkers. Here we
can use sporting analogies and analogies from
other skill areas. Most students already know that
you can get good in a sport only if you regularly
practice. We must not only look for opportunities to
encourage them to think well, we must help them
to begin to understand what it is to develop good
HABITS of thinking. What do we need to do
regularly in order to read well? What must we do
regularly and habitually if we are to listen well?
What must we do regularly and habitually if we are
to write well. What must we do regularly and
habitually if we are to learn well? We must
recognize that students are not only creatures of
habit, but like the rest of us, they are largely
unaware of the habits they are developing. They
are largely unaware of what it is to develop good
habits (in general), let alone good habits of
thinking. If our students are truly “beginning”
thinkers, they will be receptive to the importance of
developing sound habits of thought. We must
emphasize the importance of beginning to take
charge of the parts of thinking and applying
intellectual standards to thinking. We must teach
students to begin to recognize their native
egocentrism when it is operating in their thinking.
Stage Four: The Practicing Thinker
Defining Feature: Thinkers at this stage have a
sense of the habits they need to develop to take
charge of their thinking. They not only recognize
that problems exist in their thinking, but they also
recognize the need to attack these problems
globally and systematically. Based on their sense
of the need to practice regularly, they are actively
analyzing their thinking in a number of domains.
However, since practicing thinkers are only
beginning to approach the improvement of their
thinking in a systematic way, they still have limited
insight into deeper levels of thought, and thus into
deeper levels of the problems embedded in
thinking.
Principal Challenge: To begin to develop
awareness of the need for systematic practice in
thinking.
Knowledge of Thinking: Practicing thinkers,
unlike beginning thinkers are becoming
knowledgeable of what it would take to
systematically monitor the role in their thinking of
concepts, assumptions, inferences, implications,
points of view, etc. Practicing thinkers are also
becoming knowledgeable of what it would take to
regularly assess their thinking for clarity, accuracy,
precision, relevance, logicalness, etc. Practicing
thinkers recognize the need for systematicity of
critical thinking and deep internalization into
habits. They clearly recognize the natural
tendency of the human mind to engage in
egocentric thinking and self-deception.
Skill in Thinking: Practicing thinkers have enough
skill in thinking to critique their own plan for
systematic practice, and to construct a realistic
critique of their powers of thought. Furthermore,
practicing thinkers have enough skill to begin to
regularly monitor their own thoughts. Thus they
can effectively articulate the strengths and
weaknesses in their thinking. Practicing thinkers
can often recognize their own egocentric thinking
as well as egocentric thinking on the part of others.
Furthermore practicing thinkers actively monitor
their thinking to eliminate egocentric thinking,
although they are often unsuccessful.
Relevant Intellectual Traits: The key intellectual
trait required to move to this stage is intellectual
perseverance. This characteristic provides the
impetus for developing a realistic plan for
systematic practice (with a view to taking greater
command of one’s thinking). Furthermore, thinkers
at this stage have the intellectual humility required
to realize that thinking in all the domains of their
lives must be subject to scrutiny, as they begin to
approach the improvement of their thinking in a
systematic way.
Some Implications for Instruction: What are the
basic features of thinking that students must
command to effectively become practicing
thinkers? What do they need to do to take charge
of their thinking intellectually, with respect to any
content? We must teach in such a way that
students come to understand the power in
knowing that whenever humans reason, they have
no choice but to use certain predictable structures
of thought: that thinking is inevitably driven by the
questions, that we seek answers to questions for
some purpose, that to answer questions, we need
information, that to use information we must
interpret it (i.e., by making inferences), and that
our inferences, in turn, are based on assumptions,
and have implications, all of which involves ideas
or concepts within some point of view. We must
teach in such a way as to require students to
regularly deal explicitly with these structures (more
on these structure presently).

Students should now be developing the habit —

whenever they are trying to figure something out
— of focusing on: purpose, question, information,
inferences, assumptions, concepts, point of view,
and implications. The result of this emphasis in
instruction is that students begin to see
connections between all the subject matter they
are learning. In studying history, they learn to
focus on historical purposes and questions. When
studying math, they clarify and analyze
mathematical goals and problems. When studying
literature, they reflect upon literary purposes and
questions. They notice themselves making
historical, mathematical, and literary assumptions.
They notice themselves tracing historical,
mathematical, and literary implications.
Recognizing the "moves" one makes in thinking
well is an essential part of becoming a practicing
thinker.

Students should be encouraged to routinely catch

themselves thinking both egocentrically and
sociocentrically. They should understand, for
example, that most of the problems they
experience in learning result from a natural desire
to avoid confusion and frustration, and that their
inability to understand another person’s point of
view is often caused by their tendency to see the
world exclusively within their own egocentric point
of view.
Stage Five: The Advanced Thinker
Defining Feature: Thinkers at this stage have now
established good habits of thought which are
“paying off.” Based on these habits, advanced
thinkers not only actively analyze their thinking in
all the significant domains of their lives, but also
have significant insight into problems at deeper
levels of thought. While advanced thinkers are
able to think well across the important dimensions
of their lives, they are not yet able to think at a
consistently high level across all of these
dimensions. Advanced thinkers have good general
command over their egocentric nature. They
continually strive to be fair-minded. Of course, they
sometimes lapse into egocentrism and reason in a
one-sided way.
Principal Challenge: To begin to develop depth of
understanding not only of the need for systematic
practice in thinking, but also insight into deep
levels of problems in thought: consistent
recognition, for example, of egocentric and
sociocentric thought in one’s thinking, ability to
identify areas of significant ignorance and
prejudice, and ability to actually develop new
fundamental habits of thought based on deep
values to which one has committed oneself.
Knowledge of Thinking: Advanced thinkers are
actively and successfully engaged in
systematically monitoring the role in their thinking
of concepts, assumptions, inferences, implications,
points of view, etc., and hence have excellent
knowledge of that enterprise. Advanced thinkers
are also knowledgeable of what it takes to
regularly assess their thinking for clarity, accuracy,
precision, relevance, logicalness, etc. Advanced
thinkers value the deep and systematic
internalization of critical thinking into their daily
habits. Advanced thinkers have keen insight into
the role of egocentrism and sociocentrism in
thinking, as well as the relationship between
thoughts, feelings and desires.

They have a deep understanding of the powerful

role that thinking plays in the quality of their lives.
They understand that egocentric thinking will
always play a role in their thinking, but that they
can control the power that egocentrism has over
their thinking and their lives.
Skill in Thinking: Advanced thinkers regularly
critique their own plan for systematic practice, and
improve it thereby. Practicing thinkers regularly
monitor their own thoughts. They insightfully
articulate the strengths and weaknesses in their
thinking. They possess outstanding knowledge of
the qualities of their thinking. Advanced thinkers
are consistently able to identify when their thinking
is driven by their native egocentrism; and they
effectively use a number of strategies to reduce
the power of their egocentric thoughts.
Relevant Intellectual Traits: The key intellectual
trait required at this stage is a high degree of
intellectual humility in recognizing egocentric and
sociocentric thought in one’s life as well as areas
of significant ignorance and prejudice. In addition
the thinker at this level needs: a) the intellectual
insight and perseverance to actually develop new
fundamental habits of thought based on deep
values to which one has committed oneself, b) the
intellectual integrity to recognize areas of
inconsistency and contradiction in one’s life, c) the
intellectual empathy necessary to put oneself in
the place of others in order to genuinely
understand them, d) the intellectual courage to
face and fairly address ideas, beliefs, or
viewpoints toward which one has strong negative
emotions, e) the fair-mindedness necessary to
approach all viewpoints without prejudice, without
reference to one’s own feelings or vested
interests. In the advanced thinker these traits are
emerging, but may not be manifested at the
highest level or in the deepest dimensions of
thought.
Some Implications for Instruction: For the
foreseeable future most of our students will not
become advanced thinkers — if at all — until
college or beyond. Nevertheless, it is important
that they learn what it would be to become an
advanced thinker. It is important that they see it as
an important goal. We can help students move in
this direction by fostering their awareness of
egocentrism and sociocentrism in their thinking, by
leading discussions on intellectual perseverance,
intellectual integrity, intellectual empathy,
intellectual courage, and fair-mindedness. If we
can graduate students who are practicing thinkers,
we will have achieved a major break-through in
schooling. However intelligent our graduates may
be, most of them are largely unreflective as
thinkers, and are unaware of the disciplined habits
of thought they need to develop to grow
intellectually as a thinker.
Stage Six: The Accomplished Thinker
Defining Feature: Accomplished thinkers not only
have systematically taken charge of their thinking,
but are also continually monitoring, revising, and
re-thinking strategies for continual improvement of
their thinking. They have deeply internalized the
basic skills of thought, so that critical thinking is,
for them, both conscious and highly intuitive. As
Piaget would put it, they regularly raise their
thinking to the level of conscious realization.
Through extensive experience and practice in
engaging in self-
assessment,accomplished thinkers are not only
actively analyzing their thinking in all the significant
domains of their lives, but are also continually
developing new insights into problems at deeper
levels of thought. Accomplished thinkers are
deeply committed to fair-minded thinking, and
have a high level of, but not perfect, control over
their egocentric nature.
Principal Challenge: To make the highest levels
of critical thinking intuitive in every domain of one’s
life. To internalize highly effective critical thinking
in an interdisciplinary and practical way.
Knowledge of Thinking: Accomplished thinkers
are not only actively and successfully engaged in
systematically monitoring the role in their thinking
of concepts, assumptions, inferences, implications,
points of view, etc., but are also regularly
improving that practice. Accomplished thinkers
have not only a high degree of knowledge of
thinking, but a high degree of practical insight as
well. Accomplished thinkers intuitively assess their
thinking for clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance,
logicalness, etc.Accomplished thinkers have deep
insights into the systematic internalization of
critical thinking into their
habits. Accomplishedthinkers deeply understand
the role that egocentric and sociocentric thinking
plays in the lives of human beings, as well as the
complex relationship between thoughts, emotions,
drives and behavior.
Skill in Thinking: Accomplished thinkers
regularly, effectively, and insightfully critique their
own use of thinking in their lives, and improve it
thereby. Accomplished thinkers consistently
monitor their own thoughts. They effectively and
insightfully articulate the strengths and
weaknesses inherent in their thinking. Their
knowledge of the qualities of their thinking is
outstanding. Although, as humans they know they
will always be fallible (because they must always
battle their egocentrism, to some extent), they
consistently perform effectively in every domain of
their lives. People of good sense seek out master
thinkers, for they recognize and value the ability of
master thinkers to think through complex issues
with judgment and insight.
Relevant Intellectual Traits: Naturally inherent in
master thinkers are all the essential intellectual
characteristics, deeply
integrated. Accomplished thinkers have a high
degree of intellectual humility, intellectual integrity,
intellectual perseverance, intellectual courage,
intellectual empathy, intellectual autonomy,
intellectual responsibility and fair-mindedness.
Egocentric and sociocentric thought is quite
uncommon in the accomplished thinker, especially
with respect to matters of importance. There is a
General Implications for Instruction
We believe that the thinking of students will remain "invisible" to them
unless they are supportively challenged to discover the problems in their
thinking. This is not possible unless they receive careful introduction into
the intellectual workings of the human mind.. Thus it is vital that an
intellectual vocabulary for talking about the mind be established for
teachers; and that teachers lead discussions in class designed to teach
students, from the point of view of intellectual quality, how their minds
work, including how they can improve as thinkers.

Of course, teachers need to take students through stages of intellectual

development. For example, in elementary school an essential objective
would be that students become "beginning" thinkers, that is, that they will
be taught so that they discover that they are thinkers and that their
thinking, like a house, can be well or poorly constructed. This "discovery"
stage--the coming to awareness that all of us are thinkers--needs to be
given the highest priority. Middle school and High School, on this model,
would aim at helping all students become, at least, "practicing" thinkers.
Of course, students discover thinking only by discovering that thinking
has "parts." Like learning what "Legos" are, we learn as we come to
discover that there are various parts to thinking and those parts can be
put together in various ways. Unlike Legos, of course, thinking well
requires that we learn to check how the parts of thinking are working
together to make sure they are working properly: For example, have we
checked the accuracy of information? Have we clarified the question?

We are not advocating here that teachers withdraw from academic

content. Rather we are suggesting that critical thinking provides a way of
deeply embracing content intellectually. Within this view students come
to take intellectual command of how they think, act, and react while they
are learning...history, biology, geography, literature, etc., how they think,
act, and react as a reader, writer, speaker, and listener, how they think,
act, and react as a student, brother, friend, child, shopper, consumer of
the media, etc.

For example if we teach all courses with emphasis on the parts, or

intellectual elements of thinking, we can help students discover content
as a mode of thinking at the same time they are discovering their minds
as thinkers. In fact, to effectively learn any subject in an intellectually
meaningful way presupposes a certain level of command over one’s
thinking, which in turn presupposes understanding of the mind’s
processes.
Discovering Thinking
Discovering the Parts of Thinking
What are the basic features of thinking that students need to know to
effectively take charge of their thinking intellectually, with respect to any
content? First, they must come to realize that whenever humans reason,
they have no choice but to use certain elements, without which their
thinking would be intellectually unintelligible. Consider.

Thinking is inevitably driven by the questions we seek to answer, and

those questions we seek to answer for some purpose. To answer
questions, we need information which is in fact meaningful to us only if
we interpret it (i.e., by making inferences). Our inferences, in turn, are
based on assumptions and require that we use ideas or concepts to
organize the information in some way from some point of view. Last but
not least, our thinking not only begins somewhere intellectually (in
certain assumptions), it also goes somewhere---that is, has implications
and consequences.

Thus whenever we reason through any problem, issue, or content we

are well advised to take command of these intellectual structures:
purpose, question, information, inferences, assumptions, concepts, point
of view, and implications. By explicitly teaching students how to take
command of the elements of reasoning we not only help them take
command of their thinking in a general way; we also provide a vehicle
which effectively enables them to critically think through the content of
their classes, seeing connections between all of what they are learning.

Of course, we are not implying that elementary school teachers would

introduce all of these ideas simultaneously. Not at all. This vocabulary
for talking about thinking needs to be learned slowly and progressively.
And the process is the perfectly natural one of helping students to think
better in context. For example, children come to school with their own
goals and purposes and we as teachers have ours. For school to work,
children have to enter into goals and purposes that they don’t come to
school with.

Young children do not come to school with the goal of learning numbers
and letters, arithmetic, spelling, and reading. But they, like us,
accomplish more when they know what they are trying to accomplish.
The general goal of "figuring things out" is the essential goal
intellectually. To become a good learner we have to learn how to figure
things out: first numbers and letters and simple stories, and then
eventually history, and novels and mathematical formulas. Whatever the
"content" to be learned is, they need to learn to approach it in the spirit of
"I can figure this out," "I can use my mind and thinking to understand
this."

One way to begin to teach content as a mode of thinking is to recognize

the fact that all content areas presuppose not only a particular purposes,
but those purposes are connected to organized ways of figuring things
out. If students understand the purpose of history, the purpose of
literature, the purpose of government, etc., they can begin to learn that
there are different things which we as learner try to figure out.
Furthermore, they learn that when we want to figure something out, we
have to ask particular questions about it. Hence, all subjects presuppose
certain fundamental questions which guide thinking within a content
area.

From the earliest stages of parenting and teaching, we can emphasize

with our children what we are wanting them to figure out. We can focus
instruction on key fundamental questions and make those questions
explicit. When information is required, we can elicit student help in
assembling that information. When it is appropriate to take the step of
interpreting information, we can help students make their inferences
explicit. When students make questionable inferences, we can call that
to their attention and ask them what other inferences might be made. If
they are making a questionable assumption, we can help them
recognize that. We can emphasize the importance of their thinking
through implications and consequences. We can introduce diverse point
of view and make explicit we are doing that. We can help them to role
play different ways of looking at things (using different characters in
stories, etc.). There are many, many ways--almost endlessly different
ways--to encourage students to discover and take command of their
thinking. The central point is this, there are distinct advantages to
helping students to discover thinking and begin to take charge of it. Let
look at this in a broad and general way.
The Advantages of Critical Thinking
When teachers become advocates of quality thinking and learning, in
keeping with this stage theory, they teach in such a way that students
are regularly required to:
1) state and explain goals and purposes,
2) clarify the questions they need to answer and the problems they need
to solve,
3) gather and organize information and data,
4) explicitly assess the meaning and significance of information you give
them,
5) demonstrate that they understand concepts,
6) identify assumptions,
7) consider implications and consequences,
8) examine things from more than one point of view,
9) state what they say clearly,
10) test and check for accuracy,
11) stick to questions, issues, or problems; and not wander in their
thinking,
12) express themselves precisely and exactly,
13) deal with complexities in problems and issues,
14) consider the point of view of others,
15) express their thinking logically,
16) distinguish significant matters from insignificant ones,
And as a result of such instruction, the students (in general):
1) learn content at a deeper and more permanent level
2) are better able to explain and apply what they learn,
3) are better able to connect what they are learning in one class with
what they are learning in other classes,
4) ask more and better questions in class,
5) understand the textbook better,
6) follow directions better,
7) understand more of what you present in class,
8) write better,
9) apply more of what they are learning to their everyday life,
10) become more motivated learners in general,
11) become progressively easier to teach.
Closing
There are many ways to teach content so that students progress as
thinkers. However if we are to do so, we must explicitly focus on the
mind intellectually and grasp the stages that students must progress
through. We and our students must recognize that we all develop
incrementally as thinkers, and that the progress of any one of us is
directly dependent on our level of intellectual knowledge and
commitment. Put another way, if I am to develop my critical thinking
ability I must both "discover" my thinking and must intellectually take
charge of it. To do this I must make a deep commitment to this end.

Why is this so important? Precisely because the human mind, left to its
own, pursues that which is immediately easy, that which is comfortable,
and that which serves its selfish interests. At the same time, it naturally
resists that which is difficult to understand, that which involves
complexity, that which requires entering the thinking and predicaments
of others.
For these reasons, it is crucial that we as teachers and educators
discover our own "thinking," the thinking we do in the classroom and
outside the classroom, the thinking that gets us into trouble and the
thinking that enables us to grow. As educators we must treat thinking--
quality thinking--as our highest priority. It is the fundamental determinant
of the quality of our lives. It is the fundamental determinant of the quality
of the lives of our students. We are at some stage in our development as
thinkers. Our students are at some stage in the development of theirs.
When we learn together as developing thinkers, when we all of us seek
to raise our thinking to the next level, and then to the next after that,
everyone benefits, and schooling then becomes what it was meant to
be, a place to discover the power of lifelong learning. This should be a
central goal for all our students--irrespective of their favored mode of
intelligence or learning style. It is in all of our interest to accept the
challenge: to begin, to practice, to advance as thinkers.
{Elder, L. with Paul R. (2010). At website www.criticalthinking.org}
Becoming a Critic Of Your Thinking