Critical thinking has been important to me for a long time, enough so that I made a website devoted to it at [www.truthpizza.org](http://www.truthpizza .org). Schools and colleges often say they promote it, though in my day (50 years ago) and from what I’ve seen since I’ve never gotten the impression it has been pursued in any systematic way. If others know of any programs that seem good I hope they’ll post some information about them.
An effective program needs certain characteristics. First we need a good definition of what we want to accomplish. In my view the main point of critical thinking is (for ourselves) to avoid believing things that aren’t true. Sometimes I get the feeling it is so we can tell others why they are wrong or to show how smart we are.
Students need to see the value in it. If they believe things that aren’t true they may may buy vote for bad candidates, buy poor products, marry somebody they shouldn’t, or make bad investments. We should all want to be educated in critical thinking for our own sakes.
Critical thinking requires humility. We all know other people can be idiots. We have to recognize that we can be idiots ourselves and want to avoid it.
We need effective ways to avoid mistakes. I suspect learning mathematical logic or lists of fallacies doesn’t work very well. We need to be taught to recognize situations where we’re likely to make mistakes. Does it seem too good to be true? Is it spectacular but never mentioned in the main stream media? Are we being manipulated by fear? Does the source of the information stand to gain power or money if we believe them?
Not all mistakes are cause by other people’s bullshit. We can fool ourselves by wishful thinking or overestimating the frequency of well-publicized events (terrorist attacks, airplane crashes).
I took a critical thinking class as part of California curriculum. IIRC most people took the easy but boring one listed under philosophy or sociology. The one I took was psychology and was big on debunking. We covered logical fallacies and all that; a couple of the assignments involved pointing out these in news articles. The professor had a skeptic-type website.
OTOH, I have heard from other teachers the “rule of thumb means wife beating” and “ring around the rosie is about the plague” BS myths.
I said “curricula” just to keep the comment simple, but, in fact, states typically don’t have curricula per se–just standards. I didn’t make the distinction because it wasn’t really germane, and on this board people usually have a hard time understanding the difference.
Districts (not states) usually implement curricula, so it’s not a simple thing to know all the curricula of a large state.
If you ask the question, Should schools teach ________?, you’re implying that somehow every school district could somehow be forced to include something in its curricula, which has never been the case. In a state like California, the CDE can only say, for example, “Within each content standard, the degree of rigor that students are expected to achieve aligns to Benjamin Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy, including knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, or evaluative levels of critical thinking.” It’s up to every district whether they want to have content standards that directly focus on recognizing “bullshit” for its own sake.
But really, such a thing would be the teacher’s job anyway. Bloom’s taxonomy implies recognizing falsehood. It’s up to the teacher to contextualize it as “bullshit.”
I’m not sure that copy/pasting wikipedia is necessarily a sign of a lack of critical thinking. Heaven knows there’s a lot of that on this board which is hardly known for its acceptance of the first thing it sees on the net as true or for its inability to detect bullshit. Admittedly Wikipedia should be used with care but that could be said too of other more traditional sources.
Thanks for the titles. Ordered them both from Alibris.com.
Another relevant book is “Bullshit” by Harry G. Frankfurt. Frankfurt defines bullshit as information presented without regard for the truth. He contrasts the term with ‘lying’, which requires knowledge of the truth but intent to deceive, and truth that can be independently confirmed.
So, an example of bullshit is Limbaugh. Rush admits that his material is only intended to attract an audience for advertisers. The result is a normal distribution of veracity from absolute truth to absolute falsehood with a central node of mixed quality.
I believe critical thinking is vital from K thru 12, but advertisers, politicians and religious leaders will never tolerate it.
Oh yeah, you can get all three from Alibris for about $10.
Another problem with teaching Critical Thinking or other subjects one thinks would be far more helpful to help students transition into adulthood (such as my pet peeve, true Financial Education) is that one would need teachers capable of teaching these subjects and school boards willing to accept these subjects, especially if they go against ingrained beliefs. Can a teacher who believes in Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, Moon Landing hoax, etc. be a Critical Thinking educator? If critical thinking is (indirectly) telling students not to trust Breitbart, Infovore, and Alex Jones, do you think Mitch McConnell’s states’ school boards are going to approve that?
That’s the problem. Critical thinking by the populace is counter to the self interests of those in power. Science and technology are OK as long as they are applied to the means of production and not to the solution of social problems.
[QUOTE=Crane]
Critical thinking by the populace is counter to the self interests of those in power.
[/quote]
Strange then that people who constantly warn us of myriad conspiracies by the uber-wealthy and powerful that They don’t want us to know about, are so lacking in critical thinking skills.
I’d ask what the hell this means but sadly think I already know.
Thanks for reminding me about the Frankfurt piece–I read it as an essay years ago (it came out in the mid-1980s) but didn’t realized it had been published in book form.
As for the other two–be sure you have some free time before you start either one; they’re both “can’t put it down” books!
This is absolutely true. The only way to get around this fact is to remind those in power that they themselves benefit when the populace is educated and able to think critically. (Advances in medicine, to take one example, were basically nonexistent during the feudal era in Europe; systems in which a handful have education and resources while the masses remain yoked to the plow tend to be stagnant, when it comes to advances in medicine and other life-improving technologies.)
Yes, I think they should. Indeed, is it not the case that pupils used to be taught all this, in the guise of Rhetoric? I’m thinking that age 10 might be a bit young. Perhaps 14 or so when children are starting to rebel anyway? Something to channel that rebellion educationally?
People tend to believe what they read if they want to believe it … I recently saw a “news article” stating that SCOTUS was moving ahead with a case that would nullify the 2016 Presidential election … thus throwing The Donald out of office … as much as I want to believe this, some small part of me said “wait a minute, that doesn’t sound quite right” … so I did a about five minutes of digging and it turns out the story was almost completely fake … the losers of the case had simply applied to SCOTUS for an appeal … someone still has to actually read the application to see if it warrants any further consideration …
For the record … I learned critical thinking from my parents … and I taught such to my children … I don’t think we give the public schools enough money to take over the parenting roll …
If you read enough entries on Snopes, you’ll start to recognize things like the pen story as exactly the sort of thing that makes a good urban legend – i.e., one likely to catch on – and thus you’d have more reason to be skeptical of it. In particular, the story reinforces a commonly held belief (government agencies are incredibly wasteful), praises “common sense” over “book smarts”, and has a funny punchline.
Basically, it’s a feel-good story for the reader, that leaves them thinking something like: “A pencil – I could have thought of that! Those NASA eggheads aren’t as great as they think they are.” If it’s easy to imagine why someone would tell such a story even if it wasn’t true, and easy to imagine why others would want to believe it without any evidence, and easy to imagine why they’d be likely to share it even if they didn’t know for sure it was true – then it’s probably worth looking at it with a bit more skepticism.