http://www.criticalthinking.

org/pages/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 implications • often make unjustified 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 of view other than
• ask loaded questions our own
• ask irrelevant questions • confuse issues of different types
• confuse questions of different types • are unaware of our prejudices
• answer questions we are not competent to answer • think narrowly
• come to conclusions based on inaccurate or • think imprecisely
irrelevant information • think illogically
• ignore information that does not support our view • think one-sidedly
• make inferences not justified by our experience • think simplistically
• distort data and state it inaccurately • think hypocritically
• fail to notice the inferences we make • think superficially
• come to unreasonable conclusions • think ethnocentrically
• think egocentrically
• think irrationally
• do poor problem solving
• make poor decisions
• are poor communicators
• have little insight into our own 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 (hard to
understand) but eminently (to a high degree) 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 (extremism) 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:william.hare@msvu.ca
Bibliographical Note
Valuable Intellectual Traits

• Intellectual Humility: Having a consciousness of the limits of

one's knowledge & experiences, 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/cunning
2) power/control
3) love/romance
4) believe/know
5)
socialize/educate
7) selfish/self-
motivated
8)
friend/acquaintance
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 INTERPRETATIONS 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-B C D E F-H I J-L M-O P-Q RS T-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. 521-552.}

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 information relating to the terms net, catch, and sea, and it seemed
satisfied to remain uniformed about the nature of the girdie and the reason for pulling
the net. In the end, she concludes definitively that the men are going shopping.
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 the gutter. Situation: A man is lying in the gutter.
Inference: That man’s a bum. Inference: That man is in need of help.
Assumption: Only bums lie in gutters. Assumption: Anyone lying in the gutter is 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 high degree of integration of basic values, beliefs, desires,
emotions, and action.
Some implications for Instruction: For the foreseeable future the vast majority of
our students will never become accomplishedthinkers — any more than most high
school basketball players will develop the skills or abilities of a professional
basketball player or student writers the writing skills of a published novelist.
Nevertheless, it is important that they learn what it would be to become
an accomplished thinker. It is important that they see it as a real possibility, if
practicing skills of thinking becomes a characteristic of how they use their minds day
to day.
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
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 implications • often make unjustified 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 of view other than
• ask loaded questions our own
• ask irrelevant questions • confuse issues of different types
• confuse questions of different types • are unaware of our prejudices
• answer questions we are not competent to answer • think narrowly
• come to conclusions based on inaccurate or • think imprecisely
irrelevant information • think illogically
• ignore information that does not support our view • think one-sidedly
• make inferences not justified by our experience • think simplistically
• distort data and state it inaccurately • think hypocritically
• fail to notice the inferences we make • think superficially
• come to unreasonable conclusions • think ethnocentrically
• think egocentrically
• think irrationally
• do poor problem solving
• make poor decisions
• are poor communicators
• have little insight into our own 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.
Bertrand Russell on Critical Thinking
William Hare
Mount St. Vincent University
William.hare@msvu.ca
ABSTRACT: The ideal of critical thinking is a central one in Russell's philosophy, though
this is not yet generally recognized in the literature on critical thinking. For Russell, the ideal
is embedded in the fabric of philosophy, science, liberalism and rationality, and this paper
reconstructs Russell's account, which is scattered throughout numerous papers and books. It
appears that he has developed a rich conception, involving a complex set of skills,
dispositions and attitudes, which together delineate a virtue which has both intellectual and
moral aspects. It is a view which is rooted in Russell's epistemological conviction that
knowledge is difficult but not impossible to attain, and in his ethical conviction that freedom
and independence in inquiry are vital. Russell's account anticipates many of the insights to be
found in the recent critical thinking literature, and his views on critical thinking are of
enormous importance in understanding the nature of educational aims. Moreover, it is argued
that Russell manages to avoid many of the objections which have been raised against recent
accounts. With respect to impartiality, thinking for oneself, the importance of feelings and
relational skills, the connection with action, and the problem of generalizability, Russell
shows a deep understanding of problems and issues which have been at the forefront of
recent debate.
The ideal of critical thinking is a central one in Russell's philosophy, though this is not yet
generally recognized. Russell's name seldom appears in the immense literature on critical
thinking which has emerged in philosophy of education over the past twenty years. Few
commentators have noticed the importance of Russell's work in connection with any theory
of education which includes a critical component. Chomsky, for example, reminds us of
Russell's humanistic conception of education, which views the student as an independent
person whose development is threatened by indoctrination. Woodhouse, also appealing to
the concept of growth, points out Russell's concern to protect the child's freedom to exercise
individual judgment on intellectual and moral questions. Stander discusses Russell's claim
that schooling all too often encourages the herd mentality, with its fanaticism and bigotry,
failing to develop what Russell calls a "critical habit of mind". (1) The threat of
indoctrination, the importance of individual judgment, and the prevalence of fanatical
opinions all point up the need for what nowadays is called critical thinking; and Russell's
work is valuable to anyone who wants to understand what this kind of thinking entails and
why it matters in education.
More needs to be said, however, to establish the significance of Russell's conception of
critical thinking, which anticipates many of the insights in contemporary discussions and
avoids many of the pitfalls which recent writers identify. Some factors, perhaps, obscure a
ready appreciation of Russell's contribution. His comments on critical thinking are scattered
throughout numerous writings, never systematized into a comprehensive account; (2) nor did
Russell tend to use the now dominant terminology of "critical thinking". This phrase only
began to come into fashion in the 1940s and 1950s, and earlier philosophers spoke more
naturally of reflective thinking, straight thinking, clear thinking, or scientific thinking, often
of thinkingsimpliciter. There are useful distinctions to be drawn among these, but it is often
clear from the context that, despite terminological differences, the issue concerns what is
now called critical thinking. Russell uses a wide variety of terms including, occasionally,
references to a critical habit of mind, the critical attitude, critical judgment, solvent
criticism, critical scrutiny, critical examination, and critical undogmatic receptiveness. The
ideal of critical thinking is, for Russell, embedded in the fabric of philosophy, science,
rationality, liberalism and education, and his views emerge as he discusses these and other
themes. (3)
Russell's conception of critical thinking involves reference to a wide range of skills,
dispositions and attitudes which together characterize a virtue which has both intellectual
and moral aspects, and which serves to prevent the emergence of numerous vices, including
dogmatism and prejudice. Believing that one central purpose of education is to prepare
students to be able to form "a reasonable judgment on controversial questions in regard to
which they are likely to have to act", Russell maintains that in addition to having "access to
impartial supplies of knowledge," education needs to offer "training in judicial habits of
thought." (4)Beyond access to such knowledge, students need to develop certain skills if the
knowledge acquired is not to produce individuals who passively accept the teacher's wisdom
or the creed which is dominant in their own society. Sometimes, Russell simply uses the
notion of intelligence, by contrast with information alone, to indicate the whole set of
critical abilities he has in mind.
Such critical skills, grounded in knowledge, include: (i) the ability to form an opinion for
oneself, (5) which involves, for example, being able to recognize what is intended to mislead,
being capable of listening to eloquence without being carried away, and becoming adept at
asking and determining if there is any reason to think that our beliefs are true; (ii) the ability
to find an impartial solution, (6) which involves learning to recognize and control our own
biases, coming to view our own beliefs with the same detachment with which we view the
beliefs of others, judging issues on their merits, trying to ascertain the relevant facts, and the
power of weighing arguments; (iii) the ability to identify and question assumptions, (7) which
involves learning not to be credulous, applying what Russell calls constructive doubt in
order to test unexamined beliefs, and resisting the notion that some authority, a great
philosopher perhaps, has captured the whole truth. Russell reminds us that "our most
unquestioned convictions may be as mistaken as those of Galileo’’s opponents." (8) In short,
his account of critical skills covers a great deal of the ground set out in detailed, systematic
fashion in more recent discussions. (9)
There are numerous insights in Russell’s account which should have a familiar ring to those
acquainted with the recent critical thinking literature. First, Russell’s language, especially
his emphasis on judgment, suggests the point that critical skills cannot be reduced to a mere
formula to be routinely applied. Critical judgment means that one has to weigh evidence and
arguments, approximate truth must be estimated, with the result that skill demands wisdom.
Second, critical thinking requires being critical about our own attempts at criticism. Russell
observes, for example, that refutations are rarely final; they are usually a prelude to further
refinements. (10) He also notes, anticipating a recent objection that critical thinking texts
restrict criticism to "approved" topics, that punishment awaits those who wander into
unconventional fields of criticism. (11) For Russell, critical thinking must include critical
reflection on what passes for critical thinking. Third, critical thinking is not essentially a
negative enterprise, witness Russell’s emphasis on constructivedoubt, and his warning against
practices which lead to children becoming destructively critical. (12) Russell maintains that the
kind of criticism aimed at is not that which seeks to reject, but that which considers apparent
knowledge on its merits, retaining whatever survives critical scrutiny.
There is a pervasive emphasis in Russell’s writings, as in much recent commentary, on
the reasons and evidence which support, or undermine, a particular belief. Critical scrutiny of
these is needed to determine the degree of confidence we should place in our beliefs. He
emphasizes the need to teach the skill of marshalling evidence if a critical habit of mind is to
be fostered, and suggests that one of the most important, yet neglected, aspects of education
is learning how to reach true conclusions on insufficient data. (13) This emphasis on reasons,
however, does not lead Russell to presuppose the existence of an infallible faculty of
rationality. Complete rationality, he observes, is an unattainable ideal; rationality is a matter
of degree. (14) Far from having an uncritical belief in rationality, he was even prepared to
say, somewhat facetiously, that philosophy was an unusually ingenious attempt to think
fallaciously!
The mere possession of critical skills is insufficient to make one a critical thinker. Russell
calls attention to various dispositions which mean that the relevant skills are actually
exercised. Typically, he uses the notion ofhabit (sometimes the notion of practice) to suggest
the translation of skills into actual behaviour. Russell describes education as the formation,
by means of instruction, of certain mental habits [and a certain outlook on life and the
world]. (15) He mentions, in particular: (i) the habit of impartial inquiry, (16) which is necessary if
one-sided opinions are not to be taken at face value, and if people are to arrive at
conclusions which do not depend solely on the time and place of their education; (ii) the
habit of weighing evidence, (17) coupled with the practice of not giving full assent to
propositions which there is no reason to believe true; (iii) the habit of attempting to see things
truly, (18) which contrasts with the practice of merely collecting whatever reinforces existing
prejudice; and (iv) the habit of living from one’s own centre, (19) which Russell describes as a kind
of self-direction, a certain independence in the will. Such habits, of course, have to be
exercised intelligently. Russell recognizes clearly, indeed it is a large part of the problem
which critical thinking must address, that one becomes a victim of habit if the habitual
beliefs of one’s own age constitute a prison of prejudice. Hence the need for a critical habit
of mind.
Because they are not simply automatic responses in which one has been drilled, such
intellectual habits in effect reflect a person’s willingness, what Russell typically calls
one’s readiness, to act and respond in various ways. His examples include: (i) a readiness to
admit new evidence against previous beliefs, (20)which involves an open-minded acceptance
(avoiding credulity) of whatever a critical examination has revealed; (ii) a readiness to discard
hypotheses which have proved inadequate, (21) where the test is whether or not one is prepared in
fact to abandon beliefs which once seemed promising; and (iii) a readiness to adapt oneself to
the facts of the world, (22) which Russell distinguishes from merely going along with whatever
happens to be in the ascendant, which might be evil. To be ready to act, or react, in these
ways suggests both an awareness that the habits in question are appropriate and a principled
commitment to their exercise. They have in common the virtue Russell called truthfulness,
which entails the wish to find out, and trying to be right in matters of belief. (23)
In Russell's conception, beyond the skills and dispositions outlined above, a certain set
of attitudescharacterizes the outlook of a critical person. By the critical attitude, Russell
means a temper of mind central to which is a certain stance with respect to knowledge and
opinion which involves: (i) a realization of human fallibility, a sense of the uncertainty of many
things commonly regarded as indubitable, bringing with it humility; (24) (ii) an open-minded
outlook with respect to our beliefs, an "inward readiness" to give weight to the other side,
where every question is regarded as open and where it is recognized that what passes for
knowledge is sure to require correction; (25) (iii) a refusal to think that our own desires and wishes
provide a key to understanding the world, recognizing that what we should like has no bearing
whatever on what is;(26) (iv) being tentative, (27) without falling into a lazy scepticism (or
dogmatic doubt), but holding one’’s beliefs with the degree of conviction warranted by the
evidence. Russell defends an outlook midway between complete scepticism and complete
dogmatism in which one has a strong desire to know combined with great caution in
believing that one knows. Hence his notion of critical undogmatic receptiveness which
rejects certainty (the demand for which Russell calls an intellectual vice (28) ) and ensures that
open-mindedness does not become mindless.
Russell describes critical undogmatic receptiveness as the true attitude of science, and often
speaks of the scientific outlook, the scientific spirit, the scientific temper, a scientific habit
of mind and so on, but Russell does not believe that critical thinking is only, or invariably,
displayed in science. It is clear that Russell is suggesting a certain ideal to which science can
only aspire but which, in his view, science exemplifies to a greater extent than philosophy,
at least philosophy as practised in the early twentieth century. Russell uses a number of
other phrases to capture the ideal of critical thinking, including the philosophic spirit and a
philosophical habit of mind, the liberal outlook (or even the liberal creed), and the rational
temper. All of these ideas are closely intertwined. He remarks, for example, that the
scientific outlook is the intellectual counterpart of what is, in the practical sphere, the
outlook of liberalism. The critical outlook, for Russell, reflects an epistemological and
ethical perspective which emphasizes: (i) how beliefs are held i.e. not dogmatically, (ii) the
doubtfulness of all beliefs, (iii) the belief that knowledge is difficult but not impossible, (iv)
freedom of opinion, (v) truthfulness, and (vi) tolerance.
Russell's account of critical thinking is itself a critical one. It is not rendered naive by
postmodern doubts about enlightenment notions, doubts which Russell would regard as
dogmatic. With respect to both skills and dispositions, for example, Russell does stress
impartiality, but he is acutely aware of, and emphasizes, the problems which readily
frustrate the realization of this ideal. No one can view the world with complete impartiality,
Russell notes, but a continual approach is possible. He speaks of controlling our biases, but
at the same time is quick to observe that "one's bias may be too profound to be
conscious." (29) He concedes that even scientific articles (for example, about the effects of
alcohol) will generally betray the writer's bias. He notes that it is very easy to become
infected by prejudice and speaks of having to struggle against it. Russell admits that his
account of the critical attitude may seem nothing more than a trite truism, but keeping it in
mind, and adhering to it, especially as far as our own biases are concerned, is not at all easy.
As with his conviction about the attainability of knowledge, and unlike many contemporary
sceptics, Russell defends the ideal of impartiality and offers practical advice to anyone who
takes this elusive ideal seriously. We can try to hear all sides and discuss our views with
people who have different biases, making sure to face realopponents; we can stretch our
minds by trying to appreciate alternative pictures of the world presented in philosophy,
anthropology and history; we can learn to recognize our own biases by, for example, noting
when contrary opinions make us angry. And so on.
Russell attaches considerable importance to forming one's own opinions, and this might
seem to betray an unwarranted confidence in an individual's ability to avoid dependence on
expert knowledge, an issue which recent discussions concerning trust in knowledge have
brought to the fore. Russell's concern is that "with modern methods of education and
propaganda it has become possible to indoctrinate a whole population with a philosophy
which there is no rational ground to suppose true," (30) hence his emphasis on thinking for
oneself. He is not, however, blind to the value of expert knowledge. He maintains that
expert opinion, when unanimous, must be accepted by non-experts as more likely to be right
than the opposite opinion. One of his famous principles is that "when the experts are agreed,
the opposite opinion cannot be regarded as certain." It cannot be regarded as certain, but
it may prove to be correct since the experts, despite their agreement, may be mistaken. Hence
we need to maintain our critical guard and an open-minded outlook. Russell observes that an
economist should form an independent judgment on currency questions, but an ordinary
mortal had better follow authority. There remains some scope, however, for one's own
critical judgment even with respect to expert, or supposed expert, pronouncements. Learning
not to be taken in by eloquence is part of learning to recognize who speaks with real
authority. Russell also believes that non-specialists can learn to distinguish the genuine
expert from cocksure prophets and dishonest charlatans, and in the case of doubt a critical
person can and should suspend judgment.
It is sometimes objected against influential accounts of critical thinking that there is little or
no mention of the feelings and relational skills which go beyond opening the mind to
include opening one's heart to the world and to other people. This feminist critique does not,
I believe, apply to Russell; indeed he anticipates this very criticism of critical thinking:
"Schools . . . will turn out pupils whose minds are closed against reason and whose hearts
have been taught to be deaf to humane feeling." (31) Elsewhere, speaking of an education
designed to undermine dogmatism, Russell says plainly: "What is needed is not merely
intellectual. A widening of sympathy is at least as important." (32) Again, far from the
hostility and aggressiveness which is sometimes associated with critical thinking, and
thought to make it gender biased, Russell advises that "in studying a philosopher, the right
attitude is neither reverence nor contempt, but first a kind of hypothetical sympathy. . .
." (33) Russell here anticipates what is called "the believing game" (by contrast with "the
doubting game"), where one tries to discover, as Russell puts it, what it feels like to believe
in the ideas in question before one attempts to overturn them.
Furthermore, Russell is not open to the objection, also raised against recent accounts of
critical thinking, that the paradigm encourages one to lose touch with one’’s own personal
voice, detaching and objectifying that voice in a misguided quest for Truth and Certainty.
Russell himself disparages the tendency to use "truth" with a big T in the grand sense.
People persecute each other because they believe they know the "Truth". (34)Although
Russell thinks that there is a danger in passionate belief (in general he holds that the
passionateness of a belief is inversely proportional to the evidence in its favour!), he does
not advocate an attitude of complete detachment because he believes that detachment will
lead to inaction. (35) The kind of detachment he favours is from those emotions (hatred, envy,
anger and so on) which interfere with intellectual honesty and which prevent the emergence
of kindly feeling. (36) The person who has no feelings, he says, does nothing and achieves
nothing. Here again, Russell anticipates the recent objection that critical thinking may lead
to people becoming spectators rather than participants. The philosopher is not a merely
sceptical spectator of human activities. (37) We need, Russell says, to learn to live without
certainty, yet without being paralyzed by hesitation. He advocates living from one’’s own
centre, but warns against subjectivecertainty. Many have gone to war with the certainty that
they would survive, Russell observes, but death paid no heed to their certainty.
Finally, it is worth noting that Russell avoids the "philosopher's fallacy" of exaggerating the
role of philosophy and logic in the development of critical thinking to the neglect of subject
knowledge. Certainly Russell thinks that philosophy has much to contribute, especially to
learning the value of suspended judgment — no doubt because philosophy is so full of
controversy and uncertainty. Moreover, Russell is not nearly as dismissive of informal logic
as some recent critics; clear logical thinking has a definite part to play. (38) It is useful,
Russell thinks, to study informal fallacies and to have good names for them, such as the
"pigs-might-fly" fallacy. (39) In giving an example of this fallacy from physics, Russell
seems to agree with those who hold that such principles of reasoning are subject-neutral and
generalizable. Having said this, however, it is important to recall that Russell
does not equate critical thinking with logical proficiency. Logic and mathematics are the
alphabet of the book of nature, not the book itself. Russell also makes it clear in many places
that it is one thing to know, for example, the principle that belief should be proportioned to
the evidence, and quite another to know what the actual evidence is. Russell, as we have
seen, stresses access to impartial sources of knowledge; without such access, our critical
abilities cannot function. He is not, therefore, to be convicted of a simplistic view about the
generalizability of critical thinking. (40)
Back to top
Notes
(1) Noam Chomsky, "Toward a humanistic conception of education", in Walter Feinberg
and Henry Rosemont, Jr. (eds.), Work, Technology and Education Urbana: University of Illinois
Press, 1975: 204-20; Howard Woodhouse, "The concept of growth in Bertrand Russell's
educational thought", Journal of Educational Thought 17, 1, 1983: 12-22; Philip Stander,
"Bertrand Russell on the aims of education",Educational Forum 38, 4, 1974: 445-56.
(2) Relevant papers include: "The place of science in a liberal education" (1913), "Free
thought and official propaganda" (1922), "The value of free thought" (1944), "Education for
democracy" (1939), "The functions of a teacher (1940), "How to become a philosopher"
(1942), "Philosophy for laymen" (1946), and "Freedom and the philosopher" (1951).
Relevant books include: The Problems of Philosophy (1912), Principles of Social
Reconstruction (1916), On Education (1926), Sceptical Essays (1928), Education and the Social
Order(1932), Unpopular Essays (1950), and Why I Am Not A Christian (1957).
(3) Russell remarks that philosophy is merely the attempt to answer ultimate questions
critically. See Russell, The Problems of Philosophy London: Oxford University Press, 1973: 1.
And he observes that critical undogmatic receptiveness is the true attitude of science. See
"Free thought and official propaganda", inSceptical Essays London: Unwin, 1985: 117.
(4) Russell, "John Stuart Mill", in Portraits From Memory London: Allen and Unwin, 1956:
131.
(5) Russell, "Education for democracy", Addresses and Proceedings of the National Education
Association77, July 2-6, 1939: 530. See also "Philosophy for laymen", in Unpopular
Essays London: George Allen and Unwin, 1950: 47.
(6) Russell, "A plea for clear thinking", in Portraits From Memory op. cit.: 174. See also "Free
thought and official propaganda", in Sceptical Essays op. cit.: 116.
(7) Russell, Philosophy New York: W. W. Norton, 1927: 299. See also Principles of Social
ReconstructionLondon: Unwin, 1971: 108.
(8) Russell, "Philosophy", in John G. Slater (ed.), The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell Vol.
11, London: Routledge, 1997: 223. (Incomplete paper, probably written in 1945. Emphasis
in original.)
(9) See, for example, Robert H. Ennis, "A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and
abilities", in Joan Boykoff Baron and Robert J. Sternberg (eds.), Teaching Thinking Skills:
Theory and Practice New York: W. H. Freeman, 1987: 9-26.
(10) Russell, History of Western Philosophy London: George Allen and Unwin, 1961: 69.
Another clear example is Russell's remark that "the liberal philosopher will wish all beliefs
to be open to discussion, including the belief that all beliefs should be open to discussion."
See "Freedom and the philosopher", inCollected Papers Vol. 11, op. cit.: 418-21.
(11) Russell, "Freedom and the colleges", in Why I Am Not A Christian New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1965: 181.
(12) Russell, Principles of Social Reconstruction London: Unwin, 1971: 107-8.
(13) Russell, Education and the Social Order London: Unwin, 1977:141.
(14) Russell, "Can men be rational?" in Sceptical Essays op. cit.: 41.
(15) Russell, "The place of science in a liberal education" in Mysticism and
Logic Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1953: 41. I shall take up the idea of "a certain outlook"
subsequently.
(16) Russell, "The functions of a teacher" in Unpopular Essays op. cit.: 151.
(17) Russell, "Free thought and official propaganda" in Sceptical Essays op. cit.: 126.
(18) Russell, "Human character and social institutions" in Richard A. Rempel et al.
(eds.), The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell Vol. 14, London: Routledge, 1995: 419-25.
(19) Russell, "Human character and social institutions", ibid.: 421.
(20) Russell, "Freedom versus authority in education" in Sceptical Essays op. cit.: 149.
(21) Russell, "Free thought and official propaganda" in Sceptical Essays op. cit.: 116
(22) Russell, "Hopes: realized and disappointed" in Portraits From Memory op. cit.: 47.
(23) Russell, "The value of free thought" in Understanding History New York: Philosophical
Library, 1957: 73.
(24) Russell, "A philosophy for our time" in Portraits From Memory op. cit.: 167. For the
comment on humility, see Russell, Our Knowledge of the External World New York: Mentor,
1960: 186. Russell also notes the theory-laden character of observation. See his comment
in Philosophy op. cit.: 170.
(25) Russell, On Education London: Unwin, 1960: 43, 134. And Russell, "Free thought and
official propaganda" in Sceptical Essays op. cit.: 116.
(26) Russell, "The place of science in a liberal education", in Mysticism and Logic op. cit.: 46.
And "What I believe" in Why I Am Not A Christian op. cit.: 54.
(27) Russell, "Free thought and official propaganda" in Sceptical Essays op. cit.: 116.
(28) Russell, "Philosophy for laymen" in Unpopular Essays op. cit.: 42.
(29) Russell, "My own philosophy" in Collected Papers Vol. 11, op. cit.: 69.
(30) Russell, "Philosophy", in Collected Papers Vol. 11, op. cit.: 233. (An incomplete paper
circa 1945, perhaps building on the similarly titled paper cited in fn. 8 above.)
(31) Russell, "The duty of a philosopher in this age" in Collected Papers Vol. 11, op. cit.: 462.
(32) Russell, "The spirit of inquiry’’ in Collected Papers Vol. 11, op. cit.: 435. (Previously
unpublished answers to a questionnaire, written in 1953.)
(33) Russell, History of Western Philosophy op. cit.: 58. This point is acknowledged by Blythe
McVicker Clinchy, "On critical thinking and connected knowing", in Kerry S. Walters
(ed.), Re-Thinking Reason New York: SUNY, 1994: 33-42.
(34) Russell, Philosophy op. cit.: 254. And "Philosophy in the twentieth century’’ in Sceptical
Essays op. cit.: 49.
(35) Russell, "The spirit of inquiry" in Collected Papers Vol. 11, op. cit: 433.
(36) Russell, "Rewards of philosophy" in Collected Papers Vol.11, op. cit.: 276.
(37) Russell, "Le philosophe en temp de crise" in Collected Papers Vol. 11, op. cit.: 415.
(38) Russell, "A plea for clear thinking" in Portraits From Memory op. cit.: 175.
(39) Russell, review of Rupert Crawshay-Williams, The Comforts of Unreason in Collected
Papers Vol. 11, op. cit.: 323-7.
(40) See my "Content and criticism: the aims of schooling" Journal of Philosophy of
Education 29, 1, 1995: 47-60.
{This article is by William Hare. It appears in the Journal of Thought 36,1,2001:7-16, and was
first published in the Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy (The Paideia
Project On-line), 1999.}
Bertrand Russell on Critical Thinking