Teaching "Critical Thinking" in Education?

[Ned]

"These 'rules' of thinking should be on the top of curriculum from the kindergarten on.

I call it the rules of "Critical Thinking".

It is all about asking the right questions and insisting on answers.

1. how do you define it?
2. is your definition based on reliable observation and logic?
3. how do you know?
4. what have you observed?
5. how reliable are your sources?
6. are there contradictions between these concepts?
7. between a concept and your observations?
8. what is the cause-and-effect chain?
9. what happened before that?
10. what happened after?
11. is that the simplest explanation (Ockham's Razor)?
12. What probability do you assign to it?
13. What other reasonable explanation can you imagine?
14. Is there a limit to human understanding?
15. Are we mentally equipped to observe and understand ALL of reality?
16. How small are we compared to infinite space and infinite time?
17. How many times have we been lied to before by authorities in politics and in religion?

If you are in the habit of asking these questions, then you are less likely to hold simplistic, extreme views."

===================================================================

My questions are the following:

- To what extent have these rules been taught to you in your own education?
- Do you think it would be a good idea to teach these rules and their application in a separate class?
- Can you describe how such a class would be conducted?
- What chance do you think is there that it will ever happen?
- What effect would it have on society in the short and in the long run?
- Would you add to/change/delete any of these rules?

[thedoc]

My questions are the following:

- To what extent have these rules been taught to you in your own education?

- Would you add to/change/delete any of these rules?

Most of these were not taught to me in my experience, but I have learned most of them myself and have asked most of them.

Some of the questions (14, 15, 16,) might be a bit deep for younger kids and could be saved for later years, there might be a few that I would add, I'll have to think about it. Question 17 might raise a few objections from those in authority.

[Impenitent]

from kindergarten on?

1. keep your hands to yourself.
2. inside voices only

"Is there a limit to human understanding?"

spell "cow"

critical thinking indeed.

-Imp

[thedoc]

from kindergarten on?

1. keep your hands to yourself.
2. inside voices only

"Is there a limit to human understanding?"

spell "cow"

critical thinking indeed.

-Imp

Questions 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, if properly phrased might be teachable in Kindergarten.

[Immanuel Can]

The Law of Non-Contradiction is the basic starting point, I would suggest.

[thedoc]

The Law of Non-Contradiction is the basic starting point, I would suggest.

Could you specify the exact wording of that law, when it was passed into effect, who voted on it, and how is it enforced?

[aiddon]

From Kindergarten on? That's a bit heavy, no?

Let little children live a few precious years in a world free from those things that only adults think are important.

[Immanuel Can]

Could you specify the exact wording of that law, when it was passed into effect, who voted on it, and how is it enforced?

The Law was proposed by Aristotle. It was passed into effect at the beginning of time -- or at least at the beginning of intelligence. It was voted unanimously by the universe itself, and is enforce by the frequent death of those who fail to grasp it; or at least their descent into absurdity.

But seriously, it's a basic rule of rational thought. It basically runs to the effect that two genuinely equal and opposite propositions cannot rationally both be true at the same time and in the same way. The two statements can both be false, or one can be false and the other true, but it is impossible for them both to be true.

For example, if I say, "I am a dog" and "I am a cat," then either I'm a dog, or I'm a cat, or I'm not a dog or a cat; but one thing's certain: I am not *both* a dog and a cat. (this is, of course, assuming "dogness" and "catness" to be mutually exclusive, genuinely opposed claims).

To teach Aristotle's Law precisely takes some careful unpacking of that claim; but to teach it in a general way, a way useful to very young students, all one has to do is teach that not everything can be true at once. It can serve as a hedge against unthinking relativism in young minds.

[duszek]

Unless you are both a dog and a cat due to genetic engeneering ...

The sense of contradiction is innate.

I heard that Zen students usually get a contradiction from their master and they have to meditate as long as they find out how to understand it so that the contradiction disappears. Then they go to the master and get a new one.

Words can make a contradiction fuzzy and unrecognizable. Syllogisms can help to find the way out of the darkness.
Conmen use fuzziness for their aims.

[Felasco]

People hold "simplistic, extreme views" primarily for emotional reasons, which is why 3,000 years after Aristotle such views still exist aplenty. Evidence that emotional motivations are usually not undone with logic classes.

[duszek]

If you find out the right premises the syllogism works.

It might help to show to people the secret premises of their conclusions.

Sometimes you stick to a conclusion but do not like the premises.
So you replace the real premises with some fake ones, hoping that people will not notice.

[tbieter]

Could you specify the exact wording of that law, when it was passed into effect, who voted on it, and how is it enforced?

The Law was proposed by Aristotle. It was passed into effect at the beginning of time -- or at least at the beginning of intelligence. It was voted unanimously by the universe itself, and is enforce by the frequent death of those who fail to grasp it; or at least their descent into absurdity.

But seriously, it's a basic rule of rational thought. It basically runs to the effect that two genuinely equal and opposite propositions cannot rationally both be true at the same time and in the same way. The two statements can both be false, or one can be false and the other true, but it is impossible for them both to be true.

For example, if I say, "I am a dog" and "I am a cat," then either I'm a dog, or I'm a cat, or I'm not a dog or a cat; but one thing's certain: I am not *both* a dog and a cat. (this is, of course, assuming "dogness" and "catness" to be mutually exclusive, genuinely opposed claims).

To teach Aristotle's Law precisely takes some careful unpacking of that claim; but to teach it in a general way, a way useful to very young students, all one has to do is teach that not everything can be true at once. It can serve as a hedge against unthinking relativism in young minds.

A brilliant linguistic response.

But the law can also be stated ontologically as a thing cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same respect.

[Janekk]

These are totally awesome! My teacher of speaking skills has introduce us to the notion of critical thinking lately and I was really impressed and a little frustrated that I haven't thought of any of it until now. In my opinion all of these questions are great and really should appear more often but unfortunately I don't think that we'll see any of these in the near future. Too bad.

[Immanuel Can]

I really like the idea of starting with the Law of Non-Contradiction and Aristotle's other basic precepts of logic.

But in any useful program of critical thinking, I'd add the following:

1. The self-defeating nature of epistemic relativism.
2. The bandwagon fallacy: particularly the common misconception that "People have many answers to question X" implies "There is no answer to X," or "No one knows X" or "Any answer to X is as good, legitimate and truthful as any other."
3. The historical origins and rational legitimation of human rights.
4. The character and limitations of pluralistic tolerance: that you can allow someone to think "Y" if they want to ("Y" being an untruthful/unethical/antisocial proposition) but their right to think or talk about it does not entail its equivalence to truth or any necessity of agreeing with it yourself.
5. The what "Inductive" knowledge is, why science needs it, and why it's unreasonable to expect absolute knowledge in areas that are not self-contained, such as pure mathematics.
6. That an opinion is no better than the reason furnished to support it; that nothing is dignified simply by being someone's opinion.
7. The Is-Ought Problem.
8. That "Nobody knows the whole answer to X" does not imply, "We know nothing worth knowing about X." Partial knowledge, especially rational, testable, and improvable knowledge, is valuable even if only partially satisfying at the moment. We can't quit the search for knowledge just because we don't know something fully and right now.

And then one impossible thing (before dinner): they'll need a legitimation of morality/ethics of some kind. You need to supply one, but not to fabricate anything.

Good luck, Jim.

Such things are taught in some places -- I know that for a fact. But where I know they are taught, they are not consistently taught or taught well. And in the name of pluralism and tolerance, many other educators routinely undermine such principles, to such an extent that students are throughly indoctrinated before the Philosophy teachers can even get to them. Deprogramming them from these errors takes a whole course, at the very least, but would ideally be consistently taught throughout the whole program.

And the effect on society? If students begin to get assurance about some basic political values -- here I'm thinking of things like human rights, legitimate tolerance, and basic morality (necessary to undergird any respect for laws) -- they will make far better citizens. But I think they'll also make much better scientists (understanding things like induction and paradigms) and far better free persons (being better equipped to evaluate opinions offered in any form).

The chances it will happen? My guess would be near zero.

[thedoc]

The Law of Non-Contradiction is the basic starting point, I would suggest.

Unfortunately willful ignorance trumps this law too many times.