The college where I studied sometimes described its mission as, “We’re here to teach you how to think, not what to think.”
How did they do it? Well, there was a variety of techniques. One, a kind of course in American history, consisted of a set of controversial historical points of view. We’d spend a few weeks on each one.
We’d hear a series of lectures on the particular topic, different speakers, each with different ideas. We had a thin book of essays and articles, each with a different approach to resolving the same, usually controversial question.
We’d meet in small discussion groups to discuss, debate, and argue about the merits of the various points of view.
Finally, we had to write a position paper, making a case for our personal point of view and defending it against its opponents.
We weren’t graded for solving a problem; there was no absolute right or wrong to propose or defend. What seemed to count more was method—were we thinking critically and articulating our point of view logically, consistently, and persuasively?
Another course, identified as English, was bewildering. We were asked to write a short paper in response to some strange topic involving, say, walking through and viewing a cornfield.
Style of writing, grammar, vocabulary didn’t seem to matter, but point of view was important—in the sense, for example, that a cornfield could be described as neat, orderly rows of corn or, from another point of view, as a tangle of plants without pattern.
In terms of Physics, it was like the theory of relativity—that what one observes depends on the observer’s resources, position, state, and condition.
We were challenged in every which way. They were teaching us how to think!
Learning how to think involves learning how to analyze a situation, to develop a well-founded point of view based on sound factual information, and to arrive at a balanced judgement. This could be described also as learning how to think critically.
What is implied by “critically”? What does the word mean? As most words, it has a history and has changed and developed in usage over the centuries.
The root word,“ critic”, comes from the Latin criticus, from the Greek kritikos, originally meaning a person skilled in judging, able to discern, evaluate, separate.
A “critic” can be defined as:
1. a) a person who forms and expresses judgements of people or things according to certain standards or values. b) such a person whose profession is to write such judgements as for a newspaper or magazine.
2. a person who tends too readily to make captious, trivial, or harsh judgements, a faultfinder.
Critical thinking, in the first sense, means thinking that is characterized by careful analysis and sound judgement, not tending to find fault or be censorious.
Such critical thinking requires a degree of modesty, for the only certainty about our best analyses and judgements is that they are not absolutely certain.
We’re shaped by our formation, culture, history. We may have a clearer insight and better understanding than our forebears—and our successors may have a clearer insight and better understanding than we.
Clinging to the past may be for the fearful, but absolute total confidence in the present can be pretty dumb!
2 February 2020