|
|
This page concerns an article I recently read in Skeptical Inquirer
magazine.
It's an article about the nature of critical thinking by Dr. Howard
Gabennesch (Indiana University) in volume 30, number 2 from March/April
of 2006. I used the title of Dr. Gabennesch's article for the title of
this page in the critical thinking section of my website.
Knowing that I'm into critical thinking, a friend of mine, Tom, handed
me his copy of the magazine and asked me what I think of this article.
What follows was originally supposed to be my response to him via
e-mail, but since it grew to be almost big enough to be an article in
and of it self, I decided to just post it here and send him a link.
So, thanks, Tom. I very much enjoyed reading this article and I'm glad
you asked me about it.
In order for you to know what I'm talking about,
1.
Here's a link to the article on CSICOP's website; publishers of
Skeptical Inquirer magazine
2.
Here's a link to something about the article on Dr. Gabennesch's web
site at Indiana University.
3. and
Here's a link to a copy of the article in PDF format.
Here's what I think about it...
[Where I have quoted from the article, I use light
blue. My comments are all in this color green as usual]
from pages 36-37 the opening comments of the
article
In this section, Dr. Gabennesch says,
"I suggest that one of our major responsibilities
as skeptics is to maintain a continuous
exploration of fundamental questions involving critical thinking,
including:
(1) What are the essential components of critical thinking?
(2) Are those who claim to be promoting critical thinking doing justice
to the
concept or corrupting it?
(3) What is the value of critical thinking, and how do the benefits
justify the undeniable
costs of studying, teaching, and practicing it?"
First of all, since this article is all about the nature of critical
thinking, I figure it might be wise to pause long enough to put forth,
once again, the standing invitation to everyone reading this web site;
that is, regarding number two in his list above, please read, reread,
examine and investigate the thinking which I exhibit in the pages on
this web site.
Then tell me what you think. As someone who claims to
want to promote critical thinking, am I doing justice to the concept or
corrupting it?
As always, I will genuinely consider any and all legitimate input you
have to offer and will do my best to respond with patience, respect and
humility if I choose to do so.
Supposing I encounter something in your comments which seems to me to
offer a more helpful or more accurate interpretation of (or more
importantly, a more helpful or more accurate way of interpreting)
reality, I hope like hell that I will see the wisdom in it and repent of
my former ways. :)
If I do not, then by all means, please be patient with me as I continue
in the darkness of my own stubborn pride and self-righteousness.
from pages 37-38 Is This Critical Thinking?
Though it may be considered by some as a tangent, I see the point (and
agree with it) in his digression into this particular subject matter and I
very much appreciate it being used as an example for the main question
at hand; What is critical thinking good for?.
Not only is the subject matter or his ideas about it an example of the
use of critical think, but also the fact that he's inviting us to think
critically about something which most often gets passed right over when
it comes time to decide what to think critically about (as if the things
about which we should think critically about can be picked and chosen,
willy-nilly).
Unfortunately, as much as I think of critical thinking as an omnipresent
(my intent is to always be thinking critically) and omnidirectional (my
intent is to always think critically about whatever I encounter)
activity, most people do not.
I am enlivened and encouraged by Dr. Gabennesch's approach to inviting
people to think critically. Even as he presents this particular subject
matter, though he's already done the critical thinking on it, he invites
others into it to consider it along with him. Thank you sir. I hope to follow in your footsteps.
Dr. Gabennesch says,
"the idea that sex differences in reproductive
biology could underlie sex differences at the psychological and
sociological levels is ideologically off-limits to most sociologists. Of
course, textbooks are entitled to emphasize a certain theoretical point
of view.
But are we still practicing and teaching critical thinking if we
actually direct students away from likely pieces of the truth?"
[emphasis mine]
I totally agree, 100% with this section. I usually want to add some sort
of "...but" along with such statements, but I have none for this
section.
This is the kind of thinking that excites me.
I had gradually been realizing these things on my own over the course of
a number of years; beginning while still on my way out of the darkness
of an uncritical mind.
However, with such mindless concepts as 'the Blank Slate' being so
deeply ingrained in our society, I could hardly see any chance that I'd
ever find anyone else with whom I could actually engage in meaningful,
scientifically informed, intellectual conversations.
It was books like Nancy Etcoff's "Survival of the Pretiest: the Science
of Beauty"
and Simon Baron-Cohen's "The Essential Difference: the Truth about the
Male and Female Brain"
which finally gave me hope about our species' progress in learning about
such things.
Again, I know it might look like a bit of a digression from the greater
question at hand, but again, as a wise man once said, "...are
we still practicing and teaching critical thinking if we actually direct
students away from likely pieces of the truth?" [emphasis
mine]
from page 38 Toward a Sharper Definition
Dr. Gabennesch says,
"No one should pontificate a definition of
critical thinking, nor should we expect to achieve unanimity.
But I offer the following for consideration..."
That's the attitude I think we need a lot more of everywhere.
from pages 38-39 The Skills Dimension
Dr. Gabennesch says,
"It is primarily the skills dimension that most
people appear to have in mind when speaking
of critical thinking"
...and...
"A more fully developed conception of critical
thinking that includes the worldview and values
dimensions is both more difficult to teach and more dangerous to
display than a narrow conception that focuses on logical reasoning."
I agree, not only with this point, but also with the path he offers out
of this narrow-minded, inadequate caricature of critical thinking into
the broader, more encompassing assortment of elements that is actually
necessary for thinking critically...
from page 39 The Worldview Dimension
Dr. Gabennesch says,
"In short, since it is so easy to misperceive
reality, a critical thinker is disinclined to take things at face value,
suspicious of certainties, not easily swayed by conventional (or
unconventional) wisdom, and distrustful of the facades and ideologies
that serve as the ubiquitous cosmetics of social life.
In other words, critical thinkers are necessarily skeptics.
Skepticism can be summarized as concisely as this (Skeptic 2005):
[emphasis mine]
(1) Skeptics do not believe easily. They have outgrown
childlike credulity (Dawkins 1995) to a greater extent than most adults
ever do.
(2) When skeptics take a position, they do so
provisionally. They understand that their knowledge on any
subject is fallible, incomplete, and subject to change.
(3) Skeptics defer to no sacred cows. They regard
orthodoxies as the mortal enemy of critical thought—all orthodoxies,
including those that lie close to home."
...and...
"Developing a skeptic’s worldview means that one’s
foundational assumptions will be
disturbed, not to mention those of others. Toes will be stepped on,
tempers could flare, mortified
members of the audience may stagger from the room."
I say, "Yep and yep".
from pages 39-40 The Values Dimension
Dr. Gabennesch says,
"~being unwilling to subordinate one’s thinking to
orthodoxies that demand to be swallowed whole—at the risk of being
charged with heresy
~being capable of saying “I don’t know”—at the risk of appearing
unintelligent
~being willing to change one’s mind—at the risk of appearing capricious
~being open to the arguments of adversaries—at the risk of appearing
disloyal
~having an acute awareness of the limits and fallibility of one’s
knowledge—at the risk of seeming to suffer from that dreaded malady, low
self-esteem.
In short, this aspect of critical thinking can be the most difficult of
all. Subjecting ideas to
intellectual due process can require more integrity, humility, tolerance
of uncertainty, and raw
courage than most of us find easy to summon. No wonder we will join a
wild-eyed, slobbering
lynch mob from time to time."
I say, "Yep".
from pages 40-41 Benefits and Promoting Critical
Thinking
Dr. Gabennesch says, "...critical thinking is one
of the most important resources a
society could develop. This is because bad things do not emanate only
from bad people. Bad
things can also occur because of the mistaken thinking of decent people.
Even when a bad
idea originates with a psychopath, the real danger occurs when it is
accepted by the gullible and
condoned by the sincere who have little more than a child’s
understanding of what intellectual
due process entails."
...and...
"Like many other forms of uncritical thinking,
shibboleths derive their power from the fact that
humans are designed to be social animals more than truth-seeking ones.
For all the societal
benefits of critical thinking, at the individual level uncritical
thinking offers social and
psychological rewards of its own."
...and...
"As many have noted, we teach science as a
collection of facts and theories about a certain category of phenomena,
rather than as a set of principles for understanding the world."
...and...
"Critical thought is the principles of scientific
thought projected to the far reaches of everyday life, with all the
attendant demands and complications.
This expansive generalization of the scientific method is hardly
spontaneous or self-evident for
most people."
...and...
"By themselves, science classrooms are little
competition for the powerful obstacles to highly developed critical
thinking that reside in human social life and in the wiring of the human
brain."
...and finally...
"We should avoid concentrating our skepticism too
narrowly on the realms of
superstition, pseudoscience, and the supernatural—for the ultimate
challenge to a critical
thinker is posed not by weird things but by insidiously mundane ones. If
we hope to realize the
promise of critical thought, it is important that skeptics affirm a
multidimensional definition of
critical thinking—reasoning skills, skeptical worldview, values of a
principled juror—that exempts
no aspect of social life."
I say, "Yep, yep, yep, yep, yep and yep".
To my friend, Tom, thanks a bunch for pointing out this article and
asking me to read it, my friend.
In the darkness of extremes in which I find my self in this society,
this world, this article has sparked yet another glimmer of hope in my
life.
I have never said this about any article I've ever read, but I am in
complete agreement with not only the attitude, but also the content of
the entire thing.
Up to this point, I may have not said it in so many words, but I fully
concur with the idea that there are in fact (at least) these three
aspects of critical thinking which Dr. Gabennesch has presented.
While it is not the inaugural article (I've had this section of my
website going for over three years now), I placed my review of this
article by Dr. Gabenesch at the beginning of my critical thinking
section.
I did this not to have it take precedence over what comes after it, but
to offer some insight into where I'm coming from in the pages that
follow as well as a standard of sorts against which visitors here (as
well as I) can weigh the contents of this section (and all other
sections for that matter) of my website.
Also, due to the urgency of the need to have more people thinking
critically and the need to have them understand what critical thinking
actually is, I figured, if this is the only page anyone ever reads,
leaves the site and never comes back, it was worth it.
As my e-mail address it self (and this section of my web site) declares
, it is my intent to fully support and attempt, as effectively as I know
how, to invite others to consider
critical
thinking at every fork in the road.
|
|
