CHAPTER FOUR

BASIC CONCEPTS OF CRITICAL THINKING

4.1. Meaning of Critical Thinking

Critical means involving or exercising skilled judgment or observation. In this sense, critical
thinking means thinking clearly and intelligently. More precisely, critical thinking is the general
term given to a wide range of cognitive skills and intellectual dispositions needed to effectively
identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments and truth claims. Moreover, it helps to discover and
overcome personal preconceptions and biases; to formulate and present convincing reasons in
support of conclusions; and to make reasonable, intelligent decisions about what to believe and
what to do.

However, it does not automatically follow that being intelligent means being able think critically
or reason about information in a useful, effective and efficient manner. Being smart and
intelligent is not sufficient. Critical thinking is a process or journey that helps us to arrive at the
most useful, helpful, and most likely destinations when evaluating claims for scientific truth.
Critical thinking, thus, is thinking clearly, thinking fairly, thinking rationally, thinking
objectively, and thinking independently. It is a process that hopefully leads to an impartial
investigation of the data and facts that remains not swayed by irrelevant emotions. Therefore, the
aim of critical thinking is to arrive at well-reasoned, considered, and justifiable conclusions.

Michael Scriven has defined critical thinking as skilled and active interpretation and evaluation
of observations and communications, information and argumentation. He argued that critical
thinking is an academic competency akin to reading and writing and is of similarly fundamental
importance. It is worth unpacking Scriven’s definition a little. He defines critical thinking as a
‘skilled’ activity for reasons. He points out that thinking does not count as critical merely
because it is intended to be, any more than thinking counts as scientific simply because it aims to
be. To be critical, thinking has to meet certain standards, (clarity, relevance, reasonableness and
so on), and one may be more or less skilled at this. He defined critical thinking as an ‘active’
process, partly because it involves questioning and partly because of the role played by meta-
cognition. He includes ‘interpretation’ of texts, speech, film, graphics, actions and even body

1
language, because ‘like explanation, interpretation typically involves constructing and selecting
the best of several alternatives, and it is a crucial preliminary to drawing conclusions about
complex claims’. He includes ‘evaluation’ because ‘this is the process of determining the merit,
quality, worth, or value of something’ and much critical thinking is concerned with evaluating
the truth, probability or reliability of claims.

Critical thinking is sometimes referred to as ‘criticocreative’ thinking. This word is the

combination of two words: critical and creative. The first is that the term ‘critical thinking’ is
sometimes thought to sound rather negative, as though one’s only interest is in adversely
criticizing other people’s arguments and ideas. This would be a serious mistake since (and this is
the second reason) to be good at evaluating arguments and ideas, one often has to be very
imaginative and creative about other possibilities, alternative considerations, different options
and so on. To be a good judge of issues, it is not enough to see faults in what other people say.
You need to base your judgment on the best arguments you can devise in the time available; and
this often requires you to think of relevant considerations other than those presented, look at
issues from different points of view, imagine alternative scenarios and perhaps find other
relevant information – in short, you will need to be quite creative. For these reasons, some
writers have wanted to speak of ‘criticocreative’ thinking to emphasize the positive, imaginative
aspects of critical thinking. Unfortunately, the result is a rather cumbersome expression so we
shall use the term ‘critical thinking’, which is now so widely used, whilst understanding it in this
positive, imaginative sense. In short, critical thinking is a kind of evaluative thinking – which
involves both criticism and creative thinking – and which is particularly concerned with the
quality of reasoning or argument that is presented in support of a belief, or a course of action.

4.2. Standards of Critical Thinking

Standard of critical thinking refers a conditions or a level that critical thinking should meet to be
considered as normal and acceptable. Clarity, precision, accuracy, relevance, consistency,
logical correctness, completeness, and fairness are some of the most important intellectual
standards of critical thinking. Let us discuss these standards in detail.

2
 1) Clarity

Clarity refers to clear understanding of concepts and clearly expressing them in a language that is
free of obscurity and vagueness. When we construct argument, we should take into consideration
or pay close attention to clarity. Before we can effectively evaluate a person’s argument or claim,
we need to understand clearly what the person is saying. Unfortunately, that can be difficult
because people often fail to express themselves clearly.

Sometimes lack of clarity is due to laziness, carelessness, or a lack of skill. At other times, it
results from a misguided effort to appear clever, learned, or profound. As William Strunk Jr. and
E. B. White, in their classic, ‘The Elements of Style’, remark that “Muddiness is not merely a
disturber of prose, it is also a destroyer of life, of hope: death on the highway caused by a badly
worded road sign, heartbreak among lovers caused by a misplaced phrase in a well-intentioned
letter. . . .Only by paying careful attention to language can we avoid such needless
miscommunications and disappointments.

Critical thinkers, however, not only strive for clarity of language but also seek maximum clarity
of thought. To achieve our personal goals in life, we need a clear conception of our goals and
priorities, a realistic grasp of our abilities, and a clear understanding of the problems and
opportunities we face. Such self-understanding can be achieved only if we value and pursue
clarity of thought.

2) Precision

Precision is a matter of being exact, accurate and careful. Most ideas are vague and obscures
though we think we have precise understanding of them. When we try to meticulous these ideas,
we will find that they are imprecise. To get precise understanding, we should pay close attention
to details. Everyone recognizes the importance of precision in specialized fields such as
medicine, mathematics, architecture, and engineering.

Critical thinkers also understand the importance of precise thinking in different contexts. They
understand that to cut through the confusions and uncertainties that surround many everyday
problems and issues, it is often necessary to insist on precise answers to precise questions: What
exactly is the problem we are facing? What exactly are the alternatives? What exactly are the

3
advantages and disadvantages of each alternative? Only when we habitually seek such precision
are we truly become critical thinkers.

3) Accuracy

Accuracy is about correct information. Critical thinking should care a lot about genuine
information. If the ideas and thoughts one processes are not real, then once decision based on
wrong and false information will likely to result in distorting realities. John Rawls, in his book
entitled as ‘A Theory of Justice’ argued that truth is the first virtue of systems of thought. A

theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue. Whether an
idea is attractive or sophisticated should be abandoned if it is based on false information.

Accuracy is about having and getting true information. There is a well-known saying about
computers: “Garbage in, garbage out.” Simply put, this means that if you put bad information
into a computer, bad information is exactly what you will get out of it. Much the same is true of
human thinking. No matter how brilliant you may be, you are almost guaranteed to make bad

decisions if your decisions are based on false information. Critical thinkers do not merely value
the truth; they also have a passion for accurate, timely information. As consumers, citizens,
workers, and parents, they strive to make decisions and this decision should be based on true
information.

4) Relevance

The question of relevance is a question of connections. When there is a discussion or debate, it

should focus on relevant ideas and information. That is, only those points that bear on the issue
should be raised. A favorite debaters’ trick is to try to distract an audience’s attention by raising
an irrelevant issue. Critical thinkers do not collect any information; they focus and carefully
choose only the information that has logical relation with the ideas at hands. Issues raised should
have logical connection with the question at hand. Two ideas are relevant when they have logical
connection. A critical thinker should be relevant in his ideas and thoughts.

4
 5) Consistency

Consistency is about the quality of always behaving in the same way or of having the same
opinions or standards. It is easy to see why consistency is essential to critical thinking. Logic
tells us that if a person holds inconsistent beliefs, at least one of those beliefs must be false.
Critical thinkers prize truth and so are constantly on the lookout for inconsistencies, both in their
own thinking and in the arguments and assertions of others.

There are two kinds of inconsistency that should be avoided. One is logical inconsistency, which
involves saying or believing inconsistent things (i.e., things that cannot both or all be true) about
a particular matter. The other is practical inconsistency, which involves saying one thing and
doing another. Sometimes people are fully aware that their words conflict with their deeds; in
short people sometime are hypocrites. From a critical thinking point of view, such personality is
not especially interesting. As a rule, they involve failures of character to a greater degree than
they do failures of critical reasoning.

More interesting from a critical thinking standpoint are cases in which people are not fully aware
that their words conflict with their deeds. Such cases highlight an important lesson of critical
thinking: human beings often display a remarkable capacity for self-deception.
Critical thinking helps us become aware of such unconscious practical inconsistencies, allowing
us to deal with them on a conscious and rational basis. It is also common, of course, for people to
hold unknowingly inconsistent beliefs about a particular subject. In fact, as Socrates pointed out
long ago, such unconscious logical inconsistency is far more common than most people suspect.
For example, many today claim that morality is relative, while holding a variety of views that
imply that it is not relative. Critical thinking helps us to recognize such logical inconsistencies
or, still better, avoid them altogether. A critical thinker should be consistent logically and
practically.

6) Logical Correctness

To think logically is to reason correctly; that is, to draw well-founded conclusions from the
beliefs held. To think critically, we need accurate and well supported beliefs. But, just as
important, we need to be able to reason from those beliefs to conclusions that logically follow
from them. Unfortunately, illogical thinking is all too common in human affairs. When we think,

5
we bring a variety of thoughts together into some order. When the combinations 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.

7) Completeness

In most contexts, we rightly prefer deep and complete thinking to shallow and superficial
thinking. Of course, there are times when it is impossible or inappropriate to discuss an issue in
depth; no one would expect, for example, a thorough and wide-ranging discussion of the ethics
of the right to self- determination in a short newspaper editorial. However, thinking is better
when it is deep rather than shallow, thorough rather than superficial.

8) Fairness

Critical thinking demands that our thinking be fair - that is, open minded, impartial, and free of
distorting biases and preconceptions. That can be very difficult to achieve. Even the most
superficial acquaintance with history and the social sciences tells us that people are often
strongly disposed to resist unfamiliar ideas, to prejudge issues, to stereotype outsiders, and to
identify truth with their own self-interest or the interests of their nation or group.

It is probably unrealistic to suppose that our thinking could ever be completely free of biases and
preconceptions; to some extent, we all perceive reality in ways that are powerfully shaped by our
individual life experiences and cultural backgrounds. But as difficult as it may be to achieve,
basic fair-mindedness is clearly an essential attribute of a critical thinker.

We naturally think from our own perspective, from a point of view, which tends to privilege our
position. Fairness implies the treating of all relevant viewpoints alike without reference to one’s
own feelings or interests

4.3. Codes of Intellectual Conduct for Effective Discussion

4.3.1. Principles of Good Argument

A discussion may involve two or more participants or it may simply be an internal discussion
with oneself. In either case, one who wishes to construct the strongest possible arguments for his

6
or her views, and to do one’s part in resolving conflicts concerning issues that matter, should
make each of the following principles a part of his or her intellectual style:

1) The Structural Principle

The structural principle of a good argument requires that one who argues for or against a position
should use an argument that meets the fundamental structural requirements of a well-formed
argument. Such an argument does not use reasons that contradict each other, that contradict the
conclusion, or that explicitly or implicitly assume the truth of the conclusion. Neither does it
draw any invalid deductive inferences.

The first criterion used in determining whether an argument is a good one is the requirement that
it be structurally sound. An argument must look and works like an argument. In other words, it
should be formed in such a way that the conclusion either follows necessarily from its premises,
in the case of deductive arguments, or follows probably from its premises, in the case of
inductive arguments.

A good argument should also provide us with reasons to believe that the conclusion deserves our
acceptance. Since most discussions about controversial issues are initiated because the
argument’s conclusion has not yet been accepted by all participants, the arguer will use premises
that are more likely to be accepted than the conclusion. If those premises are accepted and they
lead to the conclusion, it is more likely that the conclusion will also be accepted.

Another structural feature of an argument that could render it fatally flawed would be one whose
premises are incompatible with one another. An argument that has such premises is one from
which any conclusion, no matter how outrageous, can be drawn. The fact that an argument with
incompatible premises may yield an absurd result demonstrates that it cannot even function as an
argument— let alone a good one. It certainly cannot help us decide what to do or believe. The
same is true of an argument with a conclusion that contradicts one of the premises. A conclusion
that contradicts another claim in the same argument violates the law of non-contradiction.

2) The Relevance Principle

This principle of requires that one who presents an argument for or against a position should set
forth only reasons whose truth provides some evidence for the truth of the conclusion.
7
The premises of a good argument must be relevant to the truth or merit of the conclusion. There
is no reason to waste time assessing the truth or acceptability of a premise if it is not even
relevant to the truth of the conclusion. A premise is relevant if its acceptance provides some
reason to believe, counts in favor of, or has some bearing on the truth or merit of the conclusion.
A premise is irrelevant if its acceptance has no bearing on, provides no evidence for, or has no
connection to the truth or merit of the conclusion.

One may want to ask two questions in an effort to determine whether a particular premise or
reason is relevant. First, would the premise’s being true in any way make one more likely to
believe that the conclusion is true? If the answer is yes, the premise is probably relevant. If the
answer is no, the premise is probably not relevant. Second, even if the premise is true, should it
be a consideration in the determination of whether or not the conclusion of the argument is true?
For example, does the fact that an idea that is widely accepted by most people can be considered
as a sign that the idea itself is good? If the answer is no, then a premise that asserts that claim is
irrelevant. If the answer is yes, which is unlikely in this case, then the premise should be
regarded as relevant.

3) The Acceptability Principle

This principle requires that one who presents an argument for or against a position should
provide reasons that are likely to be accepted by a mature, rational person and that meet standard
criteria of acceptability. The reasons set forth in support of a conclusion must be acceptable. A
reason is acceptable if it is the kind of claim that a rational person would accept in the face of all
the relevant evidence available. Some people believe that the acceptability principle should be
replaced by the truth principle to connote the idea that premises should be true to be acceptable.
However, the term “acceptable” is preferable to the more traditional term “true” for several
reasons.

First, the notion of acceptability stems from the very nature of argumentative interchange. In
most argumentative situations, the key to achieving agreement on the conclusion is achieving
acceptance of the premises. The arguer typically starts with premises that the sceptic is likely to
accept or that a rational person ought to accept. Upon acceptance of the premises, assuming that

8
other criteria of a good argument are satisfied, the opponent is logically led to the acceptance of
the conclusion.

Second, since it is notoriously difficult to establish the absolute truth of any statement, it would
be an impractical requirement of a good argument that its premises must be true in any absolute
sense. Indeed, if such a condition were enforced, there would be very few good arguments. The
most that we can legitimately expect is what a reasonable person would accept as true.

Third, an analysis of our language suggests that in many ordinary contexts, what we typically
mean by the word “true” would be more appropriately expressed by the phrase “accepted as
true.” Consider, for example, the contradictory testimony from courtroom witnesses, each of
whom is allegedly telling the truth. A better way to describe what is happening there is that each
witness is presumably telling what he or she honestly accepts as true.

Fourth, even if a premise were true in the absolute sense, it may be unacceptable to a particular
audience because that audience may not be in a position to determine its truth. For example, the
evidence for a premise may be inaccessible to them in that it is too technical for them to
understand. The truth of the premise would therefore not add anything to the practical force of
the argument. An argument can be a good one only if the premises are accepted or recognized as
true.

4) The Sufficiency Principle

The sufficiency principle requires that one who presents an argument for or against a position
should attempt to provide relevant and acceptable reasons of the right kind, that together are
sufficient in number and weight to justify the acceptance of the conclusion.

The feature of the sufficiency principle that is most difficult to apply is the assignment of weight
to each piece of supporting evidence. Indeed, disagreement over this issue probably causes most
of the problems in informal discussions. What one participant regards as the most important
piece of evidence, another may regard as trivial by comparison with other possible evidence. It is
not likely that we will come to closure in a dispute until we come to some kind of agreement
about the relative weight to give to the kinds of relevant and acceptable evidence used in support
of a conclusion.

9
One should ask several questions when applying the sufficiency test to a particular argument.
First, are the reasons that are given, even if they are relevant and acceptable, enough to drive one
to the arguer’s proposed conclusion? Second, is the evidence presented flawed by some kind of
faulty causal analysis? Finally, is some key or crucial evidence simply missing from the
argument that must be included as one of the premises in order for one to accept the argument’s
conclusion? Answer to these questions will tell us if the premises are sufficient.

5) The Rebuttal Principle

This principle requires that one who presents an argument for or against a position should
include in the argument an effective rebuttal to all anticipated serious criticisms of the argument
that may be brought against it or against the position it supports.

Since an argument is usually presented against the background that there is another side to the
issue, a good argument must meet that other side directly. An argument cannot be a good one if it
does not anticipate and effectively refute or blunt the force of the most serious criticisms against
it and the position that it supports.

A complete argument might even refute the arguments mustered in behalf of alternate positions
on the issue in question. One must ask and answer several questions in applying the rebuttal
principle to an argument. First, what are the strongest arguments against the position being
defended? Second, does the argument address the counterarguments effectively? Third, what
potentially serious weaknesses in the argument for the position might be recognized by an
opponent? Fourth, does the argument itself recognize and address those possible weaknesses?
Finally, does the argument show why arguments for alternative positions on the issue are flawed
or unsuccessful?

Arguments can fail to meet the rebuttal principle in several ways and those wishing to avoid the
responsibility of rebuttal commonly use several diversionary tactics. For example, arguments
that misrepresent the criticism bring up trivial objections or a side issue, or resort to humor or
ridicule is using devices that clearly fail to make effective responses. The same can be said of
those arguments that ignore or deny the counterevidence against the position defended. Finally,
some arguers try to avoid responding to a criticism by attacking the critic instead of the criticism.

10
All of these approaches are clear violations of our obligation to respond honestly to the
arguments of our opponents.

4.3.2. Principles of Critical Thinking

Having discussed the major principles of a good argument, let us now see the principles of a
critical thinking as parts of the codes of intellectual conduct.

1) The Fallibility Principle

This principle requires that each participant in a discussion of a disputed issue should be willing
to accept the fact that he or she is fallible, which means that one must acknowledge that one’s
own initial view may not be the most defensible position on the question.

To employ the fallibility principle in a discussion is consciously to accept the fact that you are
fallible, that is, that your present view may be wrong or not the most defensible view on the
matter in dispute. If you refuse to accept your own fallibility, you are, in effect, saying that you
are not willing to change your mind, even if you hear a better argument. This is pretty strong
evidence that you do not intend to play fairly, and there is no real point in continuing the
discussion. An admission of fallibility, however, is a positive sign that you are genuinely
interested in the kind of honest inquiry that may lead to a fair resolution of the issue. Given the
great number of issues that divide us and the large number of different positions on each of those
issues, it is more likely that a person would turn out to be wrong on more issues than right.

2) The Truth Seeking Principle

The truth seeking principle requires that each participant should be committed to the task of
earnestly searching for the truth or at least the most defensible position on the issue at stake.
Therefore, one should be willing to examine alternative positions seriously, look for insights in
the positions of others, and allow other participants to present arguments for or raise objections
to any position held on an issue.

The search for truth is lifelong endeavor, which principally takes the form of discussion, wherein
we systematically entertain the ideas and arguments of fellow seekers after truth, while at the
same time thoughtfully considering criticisms of our own views. If we really are interested in

11
finding the truth, it is imperative not only that we assume that we may not now have the truth,
but that we listen to the arguments for alternative positions and encourage criticism of our own
arguments.

We probably all want to hold only those opinions that really are true, but the satisfaction of that
interest comes at a price - a willingness to look at all available options and the arguments in
support of them. Otherwise, we might miss the truth completely. The problem, of course, is that
most of us want the truth to be what we now hold to be the truth.

3) The Clarity Principle

The clarity principle requires that the formulations of all positions, defences, and attacks should
be free of any kind of linguistic confusion and clearly separated from other positions and issues.
Any successful discussion of an issue must be carried on in language that all the parties involved
can understand. Even if what we have to say is perfectly clear to ourselves, others may not be
able to understand us. A position or a criticism of it that is expressed in confusing, vague,
ambiguous, or contradictory language will not reach those toward whom it is directed, and it will
contribute little to resolving the issue at hand.

4) The Burden of Proof Principle

This principle requires that the burden of proof for any position usually rests on the participant
who sets forth the position. If, and when, an opponent asks, the proponent should provide an
argument for that position.

Just as a person is generally held accountable for his or her own actions, one who makes a
positive or negative claim about something has what is called the burden of proof. In many cases,
of course, one does not have to supply such proof, for we are not always challenged to defend
our claims. But if the claimant is asked “Why?” or “How do you know that is true?” he or she is
logically obligated to produce reasons on behalf of the claim. An exception to this rule is a
situation in which the claim in question is well established or uncontroversial. In such a case, the
burden of proof might rest on the one who wishes to challenge that claim. One has the
responsibility to provide evidence for one’s conclusion and for any questionable premise, if
asked to do so.

12
To ask others to accept your claim without any support, or to shift the burden of proof to them by
suggesting that your position is true unless they can prove otherwise, is to commit the fallacy of
“arguing from ignorance,” for you are, in this way, making a claim based on no evidence at all.

5) The Principle of Charity

This principle requires that if a participant’s argument is reformulated by an opponent, it should

be carefully expressed in its strongest possible version that is consistent with what is believed to
be the original intention of the arguer. If there is any question about that intention or about any
implicit part of the argument, the arguer should be given the benefit of any doubt in the
reformulation and/or, when possible, given the opportunity to amend it.

Good discussion in general and argumentation in particular impose an ethical requirement on

their participants. But there is also a practical reason for being fair with one another’s arguments.
If we deliberately create and then attack a weak version of the original argument, we will
probably fail to achieve the very goals that discussion is designed to serve. If we are really
interested in the truth or the best answer to a problem, then we will want to evaluate the best
version of any argument set forth in support of one of the options. Hence, if we don’t deal with
the best version now, we will eventually have to do so, once an uncharitable version has been
corrected by the arguer or others. We would do well, then, to be fair about it in the first place by
letting our opponents amend any portion of our reconstruction of their arguments.

6) The Suspension of Judgment Principle

The sixth principle of a critical thinking is the suspension of judgment principle. This principle
requires that if no position is defended by a good argument, or if two or more positions seem to
be defended with equal strength, one should, in most cases, suspend judgment about the issue. If
practical considerations seem to require a more immediate decision, one should weigh the
relative benefits or harm connected with the consequences of suspending judgment and decides
the issue on those grounds.

If suitable evidence is so lacking that one has no good basis for making a decision either way, it
may be quite appropriate to suspend judgment on the matter and wait until there is more of a

13
basis for decision. This alternative should not, however, be seen as a clever way to avoid the
psychological fright of making a difficult decision or of moving into unfamiliar territory.

7) The Resolution Principle

The last principle of a critical thinking is the resolution principle. This principle requires that an
issue should be considered resolved if the argument for one of the alternative positions is a
structurally sound, one that uses relevant and acceptable reasons that together provide sufficient
grounds to justify the conclusion and that also include an effective rebuttal to all serious
criticisms of the argument and/or the position it supports. Unless one can demonstrate that the
argument has not met these conditions more successfully than any argument presented for
alternative positions, one is obligated to accept its conclusion and consider the issue to be settled.
If the argument is subsequently found by any participant to be flawed in a way that raises new
doubts about the merit of the position it supports, one is obligated to reopen the issue for further
consideration and resolution.

So why does it not happen? Why are issues not resolved? There are probably a number of
reasons. It could be that one of the parties to the dispute has a blind spot; that is, he or she simply
cannot be objective about the particular issue at hand. Or maybe he or she has been rationally but
not psychologically convinced by the discussion. Another possible explanation is that one or
more of the parties in the dispute have been rationally careless or at least guilty of not thinking as
clearly as they should. It is even possible that one of the parties has a hidden agenda - an issue to
defend other than the stated one. Or maybe the parties involved are simply not being honest with
themselves, for they may want to win the argument more than they want to find a solution to the
problem. Finally, perhaps the parties are in what might be called deep disagreement. In other
words, they are divided on the issue because of fundamental underlying assumptions that have
yet to be explored.

No argument, however, being regarded as permanently successful. There is always the

possibility that new evidence will come to light that will raise new doubts about a position hold
on what were thought to be good grounds. Under these conditions, further examination is always
appropriate. Pride in holding a position defended by a good argument in the past should not
become an obstacle to reopening the issue in the present if conditions warrant it. The new doubts,

14
however, should not be the same old doubts in new clothing. Reopening the issue should come
only as a consequence of uncovering new or reinterpreted evidence not considered in the earlier
treatment of the issue.

4.4. Characteristics of Critical Thinking

Let us discuss some characteristics of Critical and Uncritical Thinkers.

4.4.1. Basic Traits of Critical Thinkers

A critical thinker simply is a person who exhibit some feature of critical thinking. There are
some dispositions and attitudes, skills and abilities, habits and values that every critical person
should manifest. In this section, we will see some of the key intellectual traits of critical thinkers.

Critical thinkers:

 Are honest with themselves, acknowledging what they don't know, recognizing their
limitations, and being watchful of their own errors.
 Regard problems and controversial issues as exciting challenges.
 Strive for understanding, keep curiosity alive, remain patient with complexity, and are
ready to invest time to overcome confusion.
 Base judgments on evidence rather than personal preferences, deferring judgment
whenever evidence is insufficient. They revise judgments when new evidence reveals
error.
 Are interested in other people's ideas and so are willing to read and listen attentively,
even when they tend to disagree with the other person.
 Recognize that extreme views (whether conservative or liberal) are seldom correct, so
they avoid them, practice fair-mindedness, and seek a balance view.
 Practice restraint, controlling their feelings rather than being controlled by them, and
thinking before acting.

4.4.2. Basic Traits of Uncritical Thinkers

In this section, we will see some traits of uncritical thinkers.

Uncritical thinkers:
15
  Pretend they know more than they do, ignore their limitations, and assume their views
are error-free.
 Regard problems and controversial issues as nuisances or threats to their ego.
 Are inpatient with complexity and thus would rather remain confused than make the
effort to understand.
 Base judgments on first impressions and gut reactions. They are unconcerned about the
amount or quality of evidence and cling to their views steadfastly.
 Are preoccupied with themselves and their own opinions, and so are unwilling to pay
attention to others' views. At the first sign of disagreement, they tend to think, "How
can I refute this?"
 Ignore the need for balance and give preference to views that support their established
views.
 Tend to follow their feelings and act impulsively.

Let us now compare and contrasts the key intellectual traits of critical thinkers with the relevant
traits of uncritical thinkers:

First, critical thinkers have a passionate drive for clarity, precision, accuracy, and other critical
thinking standards while uncritical thinkers often think in ways that are unclear, imprecise, and
inaccurate. In addition to this, critical thinkers are sensitive to ways in which critical thinking can
be skewed by egocentrism, sociocentrism, wishful thinking, and other impediments, while
uncritical thinkers often fall prey to egocentrism, sociocentrism, relativistic thinking,
unwarranted assumptions, and wishful thinking.

Second, critical thinkers are skilled at understanding, analyzing, and evaluating arguments and
viewpoints whereas uncritical thinkers often misunderstand or evaluate unfairly arguments and
viewpoints. Moreover, critical thinkers reason logically, draw appropriate conclusions from
evidence and data, while uncritical thinkers are illogical, and draw unsupported conclusions from
these sources.

Third, critical thinkers are intellectually honest with themselves, acknowledging what they do
not know and recognizing their limitations while uncritical thinkers pretend they know more than
they do and ignore their limitations. Furthermore, critical thinkers listen open-mindedly to

16
opposing points of view, welcome criticisms of beliefs and assumptions, whereas uncritical
thinkers are closed-minded, and resist criticisms of beliefs and assumptions.

Fourth, critical thinkers base their beliefs on facts and evidence rather than on personal
preferences or self-interests, while uncritical thinkers often base beliefs on mere personal
preferences or self-interests. Again, critical thinkers are aware of the biases and preconceptions
that shape the way they perceive the world, whereas uncritical thinkers lack awareness of their
own biases and preconceptions.

Fifth, critical thinkers think independently and are not afraid to disagree with group opinion
whereas uncritical thinkers tend to engage in “groupthink” uncritically following the beliefs and
values of the crowd. Moreover, critical thinkers have the intellectual courage to face and assess
fairly ideas that challenge even their most basic beliefs whereas uncritical thinkers fear and resist
ideas that challenge their basic beliefs.

Finally yet importantly, critical thinkers pursue truth, are curious about a wide range of issues
and have the intellectual perseverance to pursue insights or truths despite obstacles or difficulties
whereas uncritical thinkers are often relatively indifferent to truth and lack curiosity, tend not to
persevere when they encounter intellectual obstacles or difficulties.

4.5. Barriers to Critical Thinking

There are a number of factors that impede a critical thinking. Some of the most common barriers
to critical thinking are: Lack of relevant background information, poor reading skills, bias,
prejudice, superstition, egocentrism (self-centered thinking), sociocentrism (group-centered
thinking), peer pressure, conformism, provincialism (narrow, unsophisticated thinking), narrow-
mindedness, closed-mindedness, distrust in reason, relativistic thinking, stereotyping,
unwarranted assumptions, scapegoating (blaming the innocent), rationalization (inventing
excuses to avoid facing our real motives).

Let us examine in detail five of these impediments that play an especially powerful role in
hindering critical thinking: egocentrism, sociocentrism, unwarranted assumptions, relativistic
thinking, and wishful thinking.

17
 1) Egocentrism

One of the most powerful barriers to critical thinking is egocentrism. Even highly educated and
intelligent people are prey to egocentrism. Egocentrism is the tendency to see reality as centered
on oneself. Egocentrics are selfish, self-absorbed people who view their interests, ideas, and
values as superior to everyone else’s. All of us are affected to some degree by egocentric biases.
Egocentrism can manifest itself in a variety of ways. Two common forms this are self-interested
thinking and the superiority bias.

Self-interested thinking is the tendency to accept and defend beliefs that harmonize with one’s
self-interest. Almost no one is immune to self-interested thinking. There are a number of facts,
which supported this idea.

2) Sociocentrism

The second powerful barrier that paralyze the critical thinking ability of most people including
intellectuals is sociocentrism. It is group-centered thinking. Just as egocentrism can hinder
rational thinking by focusing excessively on the self, so sociocentrism can hinder rational
thinking by focusing excessively on the group. Sociocentrism can distort critical thinking in
many ways. Two of the most important are group bias and conformism.

Group bias is the tendency to see one’s own group (nation, tribe, sect, peer group, and the like)
as being inherently better than others. Social scientists tell us that such thinking is extremely
common throughout human history and across cultures. Just as we seem naturally inclined to
hold inflated views of ourselves, so we find it easy to hold inflated views of our family, our
community, or our nation. Conversely, we find it easy to look with suspicion or disfavor on those
we regard as “outsiders”

Most people absorb group bias unconsciously, usually from early childhood. It is common, for
example, for people to grow up thinking that their society’s beliefs, institutions, and values are
better than those of other societies. Although most people outgrow nationalistic biases to some
extent, few of us manage to outgrow them completely. Clearly, this kind of “mine-is-better”
thinking lies at the root of a great deal of human conflict, intolerance, and oppression.

18
Conformism refers to our tendency to follow the crowd - that is, to conform (often unthinkingly)
to authority or to group standards of conduct and belief. The desire to belong, to be part of the in-
group, can be among the most powerful of human motivations. This desire can seriously cripple
our powers of critical reasoning and decision-making.

Authority moves us. We are impressed, influenced, and intimidated by authority, so much so
that, under the right conditions, we abandon our own values, beliefs, and judgments, even doubt
our own immediate experience. As critical thinkers, we need to be aware of the seductive power
of peer pressure and reliance on authority and develop habits of independent thinking to combat
them.

3) Unwarranted Assumptions and Stereotypes

The third factor that impedes critical thinking is unwarranted assumptions and stereotype. An
assumption is something we take for granted - something we believe to be true without any proof
or conclusive evidence. Almost everything we think and do is based on assumptions. If the
weather report calls for rain, we take an umbrella because we assume that the meteorologist is
not lying, that the report is based on a scientific analysis of weather patterns, that the instruments
are accurate, and so forth. There may be no proof that any of this is true, but we realize that it is
wiser to take the umbrella than to insist that the weather bureau provide exhaustive evidence to
justify its prediction.

Although we often hear the injunction “Don’t assume,” it would be impossible to get through a
day without making assumptions; in fact, many of our daily actions are based on assumptions we
have drawn from the patterns in our experience. You go to class at the scheduled time because
you assume that class is being held at its normal hour and in its same place. You don’t call the
professor each day to ask if class is being held; you just assume that it is. Such assumptions are
warranted, which means that we have good reason to hold them. When you see a driver coming
toward you with the turn signal on, you have good reason to believe that the driver intends to
turn. You may be incorrect, and it might be safer to withhold action until you are certain, but
your assumption is not unreasonable.

Unwarranted assumptions, however, are unreasonable. An unwarranted assumption is something

taken for granted without good reason. Such assumptions often prevent our seeing things clearly.

19
One of the most common types of unwarranted assumptions is a stereotype. Stereotype means
when we form an opinion of someone that is based not on his or her individual qualities but,
rather, on his or her membership in a particular group, we are assuming that all or virtually all
members of that group are alike. Because people are not identical, no matter what race or other
similarities they share, stereotypical conceptions will often be false or misleading.

Typically, stereotypes are arrived at through a process known as hasty generalization, in which
one draws a conclusion about a large class of things(in this case, people) from a small sample. If
we meet one South African who talk a lot, we might jump to the conclusion that all South
Africans talk a lot. Or we might generalize from what we have heard from a few friends or
reading a single news story. Often the media advertisements, the news, movies, and so forth
encourage stereotyping by the way they portray groups of people.

4) Relativistic Thinking

One of the strongest challenges to critical thinking is relativistic thinking. Relativism is the view
that truth is a matter of opinion. There are two popular forms of relativism: subjectivism and
cultural relativism. Subjectivism is the view that truth is a matter of individual opinion.
According to subjectivism, whatever an individual believes is true, is true for that person, and
there is no such thing as “objective” or “absolute” truth, i.e., truth that exists independent of what
anyone believes. For example, suppose Abdella believes that abortion is wrong and Obang
believes that abortion is not always wrong. According to subjectivism, abortion is always wrong
for Abdella and not always wrong for Obang. Both beliefs are true – for them. And truth for one
individual or another is the only kind of truth there is.

The other common form of relativism is cultural relativism. This is the view that truth is a matter
of social or cultural opinion. In other words, cultural relativism is the view that what is true for
person A is what person A’s culture or society believes is true. Drinking wine, for example, is
widely considered to be wrong in Iran but is not generally considered to be wrong in France.
According to cultural relativism, therefore, drinking wine is immoral in Iran but is morally
permissible in France. Thus, for the cultural relativist, just as for the subjectivist, there is no
objective or absolute standard of truth. What is true is whatever most people in a society or
culture believe to be true.

20
By far the most common form of relativism is moral relativism. Like relativism generally, moral
relativism comes in two major forms: moral subjectivism and cultural moral relativism. Moral
subjectivism is the view that what is morally right and good for an individual, A, is whatever A
believes is morally right and good. Thus, if G/Meskel believes that premarital sex is always
wrong, and Eden believes that it is not always wrong; according to moral subjectivism,
premarital sex is always wrong for G/Meskel and is not always wrong for Eden.

The other major form of moral relativism is cultural moral relativism, the view that what is
morally right and good for an individual, A, is whatever A’s society or culture believes is
morally right and good. Thus, according to cultural moral relativism, if culture A believes that
polygamy is wrong, and culture B believes that polygamy is right, then polygamy is wrong for
culture A and right for culture B. Cultural moral relativism is a very popular view. There are two
major reasons people seem to find it so attractive. One has to do with the nature of moral
disagreement and the other concerns the value of tolerance.

Ethics, obviously, is very different from mathematics or science. In mathematics and science,
there are arguments and disagreements, but not nearly to the extent there are in ethics. In ethics
there is widespread disagreement, the disagreements often go very deep, and there seems to be
no rational way to resolve many of them. What this shows, some people conclude, is that there is
no objective truth in ethics; morality is just a matter of individual or societal opinion.

Another reason people find cultural moral relativism attractive is that it seems to support the
value of tolerance. Throughout history, terrible wars, persecutions, and acts of religious and
cultural imperialism have been perpetrated by people who firmly believed in the absolute
righteousness of their moral beliefs and practices. Cultural moral relativism seems to imply that
we must be tolerant of other cultures’ moral beliefs and values. If culture A believes that
polygamy is wrong, and culture B believes that it is right, then culture A must agree that
polygamy is right for culture B, no matter how offensive the practice may be to culture A.

Despite these apparent attractions, however, there are deep problems with cultural moral
relativism. First, does the fact that there is deep disagreement in ethics show that there is no
objective moral truth - that ethics is just a matter of opinion? Think about another area in which
there is deep, pervasive, and seemingly irresolvable disagreement: religion. People disagree

21
vehemently over whether God exists, whether there is an afterlife, and so forth; yet we do not
conclude from this that there is no objective truth about these matters. It may be difficult to know
whether God exists. But whether he exists is not simply a matter of opinion. Thus, deep
disagreement about an issue does not show that there is no objective truth about that issue.

Second, cultural moral relativism does not necessarily support the value of tolerance. Relativism
tells us that we should accept the customs and values of our society. Thus, if you live in an
intolerant society, relativism implies that you too should be intolerant. Does this mean that
cultural moral relativism has nothing at all to teach us? No. The fact that people disagree so
much about ethics does not show that moral truth is simply a matter of opinion, but it should
make us cautious and open-minded regarding our own ethical beliefs. If millions of obviously
decent, intelligent people disagree with you, how can you be sure that your values are the correct
ones?

In this way, relativism can teach us an important lesson about the value of intellectual humility.
But we do not need relativism - which is a false and confused theory - to teach us this lesson. We
can learn it just by opening our hearts and minds and thinking critically about the challenges of
living an ethical life.

5) Wishful Thinking

Wishful thinking refers to a state of believing something not because you had good evidence for
it but simply because you wished it were true. Have you ever been guilty of wishful thinking? If
so, you are not alone. Throughout human history, reason has done battle with wishful thinking
and has usually come out the loser. People fear the unknown and invent comforting myths to
render the universe less hostile and more predictable. They fear death and listen credulously to
stories of healing crystals, quack cures, and communication with the dead. They fantasize about
possessing extraordinary personal powers and accept uncritically accounts of psychic prediction
and levitation,

4.6. Benefits of Critical Thinking

Critical Thinking: Skills and Dispositions

22
Critical thinking teaches you how to raise and identify fundamental questions and problems in
the community. It will teach you to reformulate these problems clearly and precisely. It will
teach you how to gather and assess relevant information, develop reasoned conclusions and
solutions, testing them against relevant criterion and standards. It teaches you how to be open
minded to alternative system of thought, recognize and assess your own assumptions,
implications and practical consequences, how to communicate effectively with others in figuring
out solutions to complex problems.

Critical thinking is what university is all about. University is not only about teaching students
with facts. It’s about teaching students to think- think critically. This chapter will introduce you
the skills and dispositions you need to become an independent, self-directed thinker and learner.
But you’ll only get out of this course what you put into it. Becoming a critical thinker is hard
work. Becoming a master thinker means toning up your mental muscles and acquiring habits of
careful, disciplined thinking. This requires effort, and practice. Critical thinking is an adventure.
Becoming mentally fit is hard work. But in the end you’ll be a smarter, stronger, more confident
thinker. Let us consider, more specifically, what you can expect to gain from a course in critical
thinking.

Critical Thinking in the Classroom

In university, the focus is on higher-order thinking: the active, intelligent evaluation of ideas and
information. For this reason critical thinking plays a vital role in universities. In a critical
thinking chapter, students learn a variety of skills that can greatly improve their classroom
performance. These skills include:

 Understanding the arguments and beliefs of others

 Critically evaluating those arguments and beliefs
 Developing and defending one’s own well-supported arguments and beliefs

To succeed in university, you must, of course, be able to understand the material you are
studying. Moreover, Critical thinking can help you critically evaluate what you are learning in
class. Critical thinking teaches also a wide range of strategies and skills that can greatly improve
your ability to engage in such critical evaluation. Furthermore, Critical thinking is a transferable

23
thinking skill other subjects and contexts. For instance, if you learn how to structure argument,
judge the credibility of sources or make a reasonable decision by the methods of critical thinking
for instance, it will not be difficult to see how to do these things in many other contexts such as
in class rooms and personal life; this is the sense in which the skills we teach in this text are
transferable.

Critical Thinking in Life

Critical thinking is valuable in many contexts outside the classroom. Let us look briefly at three
ways in which this is the case.

First, critical thinking can help us avoid making foolish personal decisions. Second, critical
thinking plays a vital role in promoting democratic processes. In democracy, it is the people who
have the ultimate say over who governs and for what purposes. Citizens should vote, should
evaluate different public policies, and collectively determine their fate. It is vital, therefore, that
citizens’ decisions be as informed and as rational as possible. Many of today’s most serious
societal problems - environmental destruction, poverty, ethnic conflicts, decaying the morality of
societies, high level of corruption, violating basic human rights, displacement, to mention just a
few - have largely been caused by poor critical thinking.

Third, critical thinking is worth studying for its own sake, simply for the personal enrichment it can bring
to our lives. Critical thinking, honestly and courageously pursued can help free us from the unexamined
assumptions and biases of our upbringing and our society. It lets us step back from the prevailing customs
and ideologies of our culture and ask, “This is what I’ve been taught, but is it true? In short, critical
thinking allows us to lead self-directed, “examined” lives. Such personal liberation is, as the word itself
implies, the ultimate goal of education. Whatever other benefits it brings, education can have no greater
reward.

Self Check Exercise

1. Define critical thinking.

2. Discuss the major standards of critical thinking.
3. Explain the principles of good argument and critical thinking.
4. Compare and contrast critical and uncritical thinkers.
5. Explain the common barriers of critical thinking.

24
6. Discuss briefly the major benefits of critical thinking.

25