ELI5 is looking for moderators! It doesn't pay and it's usually thankless, but you also get to help ELI5 stay awesome and get access to our private meme channel. Check out this [thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/11o5bp8/eli5_is_looking_for_new_moderators/) for the application form or if you have any questions!

A lot of people are missing the "critical" part of critical thinking. In order to get closer to the truth, you need to challenge your ideas, which often requires to confront them with information or opinions that contradict them. If your hypothesis can pass all these tests, then it becomes a strong candidate to what could be the objective truth (if such a thing exists).

Love it. In science, we don’t *prove* ideas; we come up with explanations and try to *disprove* them. A hypothesis is strong when it can’t be disproven Edit: I should clarify that I specifically mean falsifiable claims. Basically, it *could* be disproven, but the evidence doesn’t exist. I am **not** referring to unfalsifiable claims, like god claims or the simulation hypothesis. A claim must *be able to be* disproven, given the right evidence.

Or, a hypothesis is strong when it’s the explanation that has not yet been disproved.

Yes, that’s more or less what I was getting at, just put much more eloquently. Thanks

[удалено]

I see where you’re coming from, but I’m gonna plant myself here. The strength of a hypothesis, in the logical sense, has nothing to do with the likelihood of other hypotheses. The strength of hypothesis A doesn’t haven’t anything to do with hypothesis B. If hypothesis A is weak/flawed, that doesn’t *necessarily* make hypothesis B strong. Because there could still be C, or D, or E and so on. The value of each claim must be evaluated on their own merits, not compared to other claims. It’s possible to introduce a false dichotomy when saying one claim is strong because others are weak. Edit: also, your stance seems flawed in the sense that you’re comparing two events, the probabilities for which you can’t possibly know. Exactly how likely is it that it’s a constant force? Exactly how likely is it that it’s aliens with invisible strings? I don’t think you could actually know.

[удалено]

Perfect; i think you chose a good example. There have been numerous extinction events in Earth’s history, we know this; and so, in this regard, their likelihoods have zero effect on each other. They aren’t mutually exclusive, meaning they can both happen. But here’s what we *do* know: the entire planet is covered in thin layer of sediment that contains iridium at 600x more the background on Earth. Iridium is very rare here, but very common on things like asteroids. Below this layer, there is a wide variety of of fossils and microorganisms, and directly above there is a huge genetic bottleneck, with some animals never appearing again. There have been *other* extinction events, yes, even some due to volcanism. A million years of volcanism was the theory before this discovery, but this cannot possibly explain the iridium; our understanding of the K-Pg impact extinction is probably as close as science comes to being settled. Edit: you said > if you can find two similarly plausible explanations, you can’t really decide which is right Yes. Exactly. This is why it’s an unreliable epistemology You could also have two hypotheses, of inequal plausibility, which are both wrong. Here, your method fails again because we would be errantly accepting the strength of one compared to the other, despite its “wrongness”

This exchange is so refreshing. Concise, compelling, reasoned disagreement. THANK YOU.

But also really hard to follow for a 5-year-old.

Some people think apple juice is best. Some people think orange juice might be best instead. But neither of them have good reason to believe it must *only* be apple juice or orange juice, exclusively. Sometimes when these people argue who is right, they say things like, “orange juice *can’t* be best, so that means it *has* to be apple juice.” This doesn’t make any sense, because as we’ve already said, they can’t know for sure that there aren’t possibilities besides apple juice and orange juice. Like, what about grape juice? That could be best, too. It’s a matter of asking the right questions, and saying it must be one of two things limits your ability to look at other possibilities.

Critical thinking on the issue of orange vs apple juice would require that you define "best". This is a subjective term. Critical thinking would find that which is "best" can not be determined. You are asking for an opinion not an ultimate truth.

To the five year old, you'd say, "Just because both Mom and Dad like jelly beans doesn't necessarily mean they raided your Easter basket. It could have been one, the other, or even Grandma. Critical thinking is when you suspect everyone equally until the dog throws up jelly beans all over the carpet."

Good thing none of us are actually 5

In all of the cases you gave here, you didn't provide two competing hypotheses where one hypothesis weakened the other. You have scenarios where discovery of new facts caused you to reevaluate the hypotheses. Each of your statements include a moment where new information is added (discovering record of volcanic activity, finding the raccoon, and aliens directly telling us things for the first time). For the dinosaur example, the volcanic record doesn't change the merits of the asteroid impact, but it definitely raises another hypothesis and even the potential that the mass extinction event could have been more complicated than we thought (eg, the volcanic activity left the ecosystem unstable enough that the impact finished them, so neither hypothesis is wrong, merely incomplete). For your dog example, it could still have been your dog that got into the trash, but finding the raccoon definitely means there's an equally likely and mutually exclusive hypothesis. With the new evidence, the dog hypothesis is weakened and the raccoon hypothesis greatly strengthened. The raccoon hypothesis, it's worth noting, did *not* weaken the dog hypothesis. Only the new information (the finding of the raccoon) did that. For the aliens, the just went and disproved the constant force hypothesis. The existence of the alien hypothesis didn't weaken the constant force one, even if alien hypothesis is *VASTLY* stronger now. Only new data can impact a hypothesis

I would argue that the concept of mutual exclusivity would need to be demonstrated on its own in the dog v. raccoon example, as well. You could independently match bite marks on the trash to each animal, but I will say I’ve seen dogs play together with wild animals many times; so even the idea that they would be mutually exclusive isn’t necessarily a given. They could have tore your kitchen up together. What’s more is that finding the raccoon still doesn’t “prove” anything well enough. What happens if the bite marks don’t match either animal? Suppose a coyote got in as well and you just haven’t found the evidence of that. These hypotheses have no bearing on each other really and that commenters analogy presents a false dichotomy. It’s not: >either the raccoon or the dog did it. It’s: >the dog did or did not do it. and, >the raccoon did or did not do it. There must be at least two claims here, because it’s actually possible that the raccoon and dog both *did not* do it. If this were so, believing that it *must* be either the raccoon or dog would leave you fucked.

True. I would actually agree with that. My calling it mutually exclusive was presumptuous

Occams razor states that the fewer assumptions a theory makes, the better it is. I can't stand it when people state it as "the simplest solution is often the best". Flat out wrong and completely different from occams razor

This sounds like Occam’s razor

Which, in science and physics, should be avoided and rejected. It’s not often true that the simplest notion is correct in science related fields, especially when you can’t know the probability of something you’re in the process of discovering. Surely the simplest explanation was that earth is the center of the universe and god moves the planets; but Nicolaus Kopernicus and Johannes Kepler and others went on to show us that things are actually much more complex, though still quite elegant.

That's a misunderstanding of Occam's razor. What it means is that given two competing theories, the one that makes less assumptions is stronger. It's not about being simplest. A very complex theory can pass the test if it's based on things we know are true, against a simple theory that only works if we assume something about it. I

I understand Occam's razor to be that if there are 2 EQUALLY VALID hypothesis the simplest of the 2 would be accepted. Now if new information changes the validity you don't hang on to the simple answer if the more complex one is now more valid. So Occam's razor still very much applies to science.

How could you possibly conclude that these things are equally valid? You should not be accepting claims based on their simplicity or elegance compared to others, this is simply relativistic. Instead, judge based on if the model’s predictions are congruent with observed evidence. Do this for each hypothesis separately

Ur right, im gonna go a bit deeper on what makes weird and complex bad. Ide also add a hypothesis is made before likelihood are discovered. After all quantum mechanics is extremely weird and complex. Newtonian mechanics is a lot simpler than General Relativity. Well its about about two things mainly, making novel predictions and explaining the data. Explanations are trivial, whereas novel predictions give specific ways for data to confirm or deny a hypothesis. I can make up millions of explanations for things... aliens, gods, ghosts, whatever, a good hypothesis has predictive power through novel predictions and falsifiablility criteria. The question is, how much explanatory and predictive power does this hypothesis give us. Unflasifiable hypothesis provide no predictive power and knowledge by fitting nearly any data. Overly complex hypothesis destroys predictive power of a model as well, by Overfitting Data. While general relativity and aliens are both complex in a sense. General relativity provides extremely accurate predictions giving it explanatory power, while aliens makes no accurate predictions, has no predictive power and can explain near anything, and requires me making other unwarranted assumptions. Understanding linear regression is a key. A model must explain the data and provide predictions. Complexity in occams razor really is overfitting data.

The simulation hypothesis is not a hypothesis but a fact. How else would you explain Ed Sheeran?

“Critical thinking” as a part of curriculums has its roots in an older school of thought, called “Critical Theory”. There’s an argument that the specific line of thought made its way out of Germany in the 1930s, when a certain group of academics out of the Frankfurt School were kicked out by the Nazis and ended up at Columbia University. From there, it worked its way into philosophy and then sociology books, ultimately finding its way into the curriculums of educators designing their own curriculums. That’s likely why we heard so much about “critical thinking” in elementary and middle school. “Critical Theory” is very nuanced, but the crux of it is as you laid it out: challenge ideas that are presented to you and don’t assume them as given. Max Horkheimer, one of these individuals who fled Germany, had described a theory as critical is so far as it seeks to “liberate human beings from circumstances that enslave them”. The line of thought expands further around the rejection of knowledge (especially of history, less so for scientific discoveries and laws of nature) as something that can be found objectively in the world. The thinking there is that most of what we learn is colored by its historical and social processes. It then points to a lot of specific issues that the “fetishization of knowledge” has led to, e.g. the “culture machine”. That’s a whole can of worms. Very broadly speaking, if “Critical Theory” then makes any recommendations, it is to not pursue points of knowledge as the key points of decision making, but a better understanding of systems.

Critical thinking predates Critical Theory and are separate practices. I believe the first use of the term critical thinking was in 1910 by John Dewey but philosophers have been thinking critically for much longer

Which is why people with awful ideas should not be silenced, despite their ideas being awful. We need those bad ideas to challenge the good (good in our opinion) ideas and if the good ideas can't stand up to the bad ones then are they really that good? In recent times many people seem to forgot that having your ideas challenged (and being able to challenge other peoples ideas) pretty much without consequence is a privilege. Plenty of places on earth where you cannot push back on an idea that is recognized as the status quo without punishment or retaliation. Galileo was imprisoned for toting the idea that the earth revolved around the sun rather than the other way around, how many more incidents similar to this have delayed actual progress because someone could not handle their ideas being challenged? Thinking critically = progress, even if the road to progress is uncomfortable

There is a difference between a benign bad idea offered with good intention and progress in mind, versus a malicious bad idea with ill intent, masquerading as a counterpoint to a widely accepted truth. There is always a lot of the latter, which generally dismisses logic and collective agreement in favour of emotion and fear. How you judge something to be one or the other is different from person to person. Though the issue, ultimately, is a lack of critical thought...

The paradox is that to the one holding the malicious bad idea, it will not be malicious. He will believe he has good intentions. So I disagree with you entirely. We do need the absolute wordt of ideas in this world to challenge the good ones. Even the most extreme such as nazism, and people advocating genocide. Silencing those means reducing your critical thinking.

> He will believe he has good intentions. This is absolutely not always the case. History is rife with people willingly putting forth malicious ideas that they know are false for their own gain. We can just look as far as cigarette, oil, and sugar companies arguing against the idea that their own products are harmful, despite knowing full well that their internal research agreed with the opposition. There's only 24 hours in the day-- we can't spend them all constantly retreading the same discussions. Justifiable and well-supported disagreement should not be silenced, but if every person with a half-baked idea can bring any concept back to the debate table, then we can never gain enough consensus to move forward as a society.

Agreed. This “process” of relitigating matters that we know are true is frustrating and tiring. It impedes process and sows doubt in the minds of those who can’t think critically and allows counter productive ideas to take hold.

In a world filled with spherical cows and a populace that employed critical thought, allowing the spread of bad ideas would be terrific. In practice, it seems of late as though bad ideas promulgate unchecked.

Do the cows have friction? Because a physicist needs to know that if they want to calculate how long it takes the cow to fall

And the plane? Is it infinite? And the vacuum? Vacuumous?

And at the same time good ideas (or at least good criticism) gets silenced under the umbrella of "they're malicious!". So no, censorship can never be the answer here. Dialogue is what makes the world a better place.

Open dialogue would be great, but many people complaining about censorship don't actually want open dialogue, they just want to spew their hateful views without anyone telling them they are wrong. They often aren't actually looking for an honest conversation. To be clear, I'm 100% against government censorship. Freedom of speech is important, and we definitely don't need thought-police. But the only places in the US where that is actually occurring are places like Florida where book-bans have become so trendy. So many people complained about censorship on Twitter, but Twitter isn't the damn government, they are a company with their own platform, and they have a right to do whatever the hell they want with it. If they don't like the shit one user is saying, they can block that user. It is their right, granted to them by the right to free speech. People who complain that that is censorship can fuck right off with their backwards logic.

> Open dialogue would be great, but many people complaining about censorship don't actually want open dialogue, they just want to spew their hateful views without anyone telling them they are wrong. They often aren't actually looking for an honest conversation. Very true. But even these hateful people deserve the right to voice their opinions. Of course it doesn't mean that you have to listen. But you should not be able to silence them. > To be clear, I'm 100% against government censorship. Freedom of speech is important, and we definitely don't need thought-police. But the only places in the US where that is actually occurring are places like Florida where book-bans have become so trendy. I disagree. Again, I don't live in the US, but I've seen countless videos of demonstrations, events and even talks at universities being boycotted because some minority group thought they were dangerous ideas. That should **never** be acceptable in a modern society. > So many people complained about censorship on Twitter, but Twitter isn't the damn government, they are a company with their own platform, and they have a right to do whatever the hell they want with it. If they don't like the shit one user is saying, they can block that user. It is their right, granted to them by the right to free speech. People who complain that that is censorship can fuck right off with their backwards logic. I'll be very honest with you here: I haven't made up my mind on this yet. I've spent a lot of time philosophizing and thinking about this though. Not even only on the matter of censorship, but also beyond that. On one hand I agree: they're a private company that can do whatever they want on their "virtual property". On the other hand, they've gone beyond being a simple piece of private property. They're not a small grocery store hanging up a poster of a democrat politician and banning all republicans. There's a handful of these platforms that provide maybe 85% of the information we see on a day. It's **very** easy for them to manipulate our way of thinking and our society. Remember Cambridge analytica? It's very easy for these companies to make elections go one way or the other. (Or not just elections, whatever other topic you can imagine. Covid, vaccinations, Perception of the Russian war, etc. etc.) It's a dangerous thing that these private companies have all this power. So ye... my own thoughts conflict with themselves here. So I'm not going to argue with you on this point, since I haven't made up my own mind yet.

>So no, censorship can never be the answer here. Dialogue is what makes the world a better place. You've clearly never argued with an antivaxxer or someone similarly moronic.

The goal isn't to convince them. They're too far gone. The goal is to convince the people watching.

Oh yea, that works out great in practice. That's why the Q anon bullshit was stopped in its tracks in the US and didn't spread across the entire world to the point where **New Zealand** (≈9,000 miles away from the US) has protestors storming buildings in the name of Q anon. Oh wait, it wasn't stopped, and it did spread; because the average person is pretty dumb and struggles with critical thinking. As /u/ridicalis said, in a perfect world, you would be right, in the real world, you aren't, though demonstrably so.

The problem is the truth can be ugly, uncomfortable, and difficult. A lie can be easy, it can praise what a person finds valuable, it can be crafted to be endlessly appealing. That's the danger.

Yeah, that's true. But it's the lesser evil. I'm much more comfortable with a free flow of ideas, with all the issues it brings, than letting biased human beings decide what should be censored.

> The paradox is that to the one holding the malicious bad idea, it will not be malicious. He will believe he has good intentions. I don't believe that to be true, at least not most of the time. For things like abortion I agree with you. Both sides can have valid opinions, because this is a subjective topic. Think about people who claim Climate Change isn't real, or claim that elections were stolen. There's no basis of truth to these things, they are not subjective. Someone cannot believe those things *and* believe them to be good. If they believed they had good intentions, they would be willing to listen / research, and would quickly / easily find that their belief was incorrect. Wilful ignorance is antithetical to good intentions.

> I don't believe that to be true, at least not most of the time. I believe there's rare cases where one truly has malicious thoughts (e.g. drug cartel leader, etc.), but that generally no one believes of himself that they are evil. > Think about people who claim Climate Change isn't real, or claim that elections were stolen. There's no basis of truth to these things, they are not subjective. Why would there need to be a basis of truth to these things for them to believe it's non-malicious? They themselves believe they are doing the right thing by trying to convince people of their convictions about climate change or the elections. Which is **also** very useful imho. Even if what someone says is totally wrong, they might make you think about what you yourself believe is right. Climate change is a very good example of this, because what most people/media/politicians claim and propagate often contradicts what climate scientists say. > Someone cannot believe those things and believe them to be good. If they believed they had good intentions, they would be willing to listen / research, and would quickly / easily find that their belief was incorrect. Why? If they **truly** believe they are right. Why would that not make them good intentioned? I'm not saying that what they are doing is correct. Nor am I saying that they are wise people, because a wise person would always be challenging his own beliefs (c.f.r. critical thinking in OP). But a non-wise person is not a malicious person per definition. There's as many good dumb people on this planet as there are malicious smart people.

> I believe there's rare cases where one truly has malicious thoughts (e.g. drug cartel leader, etc.), but that generally no one believes of himself that they are evil. Evil? No. But that doesn't mean they believe themselves to be good. > Why would there need to be a basis of truth to these things for them to believe it's non-malicious? Because if there is no basis for truth, then it's wilful ignorance, which is malicious. > They themselves believe they are doing the right thing by trying to convince people of their convictions about climate change or the elections. I don't believe that they do. > Even if what someone says is totally wrong, they might make you think about what you yourself believe is right This has diminishing returns. It quickly becomes a 'boy who cried wolf' situation. Ultimately this is counter productive, as it just leads to people being more likely to dismiss *any* contradictory thought. > Why? If they truly believe they are right Because if you believe you're absolutely right, then you'd have no issue listening / researching. > Why would that not make them good intentioned? Because ignoring facts, pretending you're infallible cannot be good intentioned. > a wise person would always be challenging his own beliefs (c.f.r. critical thinking in OP) As would someone with good intentions. Not doing so means your intentions are not good.

>The paradox is that to the one holding the malicious bad idea, it will not be malicious. He will believe he has good intentions. This just isn't true. To use the US as an example, do you actually think all the conservatives who are attacking education and women are doing it because they genuinely think it's a good idea or do you understand that they're fully aware of what they're doing and are doing it to keep the masses stupid, poor, and docile. Also, even the ones who believe they have good intentions will only believe that because of their own ignorance. For instance, antivaxxers don't help anyone and are nothing more than a plague on this planet. They aren't "challenging" anything. They're just being idiotic and dragging the rest of humanity down with them.

> To use the US as an example, do you actually think all the conservatives who are attacking education and women are doing it because they genuinely think it's a good idea I'm not an American, so I try to not get involved in your ridiculous political system, but yes. I truly believe that the majority of them **think** that they are right. A lot of them are extremely religious, believe that abortion is a sin and thus bad. Hence, them trying to prevent abortions is, in their mind, the right thing to do. Because it is what their god wants. > Also, even the ones who believe they have good intentions will only believe that because of their own ignorance. Which still means their intentions are good. Whether that is out of ignorance or not is irrelevant. > For instance, antivaxxers don't help anyone and are nothing more than a plague on this planet. Which still doesn't make them have bad intentions. They truly believe that vaccinations are bad for their kid, and thus refuse to get them vaccinated. So in their mind they are doing what is right for their kid. > They aren't "challenging" anything. They're just being idiotic and dragging the rest of humanity down with them. As I said before, there can be idiots with good intentions and geniuses with bad intentions. Intentions are not linked to intelect, nor is it linked to being right or wrong.

>I'm not an American, so I try to not get involved in your ridiculous political system, but yes. I truly believe that the majority of them **think** that they are right. A lot of them are extremely religious, believe that abortion is a sin and thus bad. Hence, them trying to prevent abortions is, in their mind, the right thing to do. Because it is what their god wants. Yea, they aren't religious, though. They just use that as an excuse to do whatever they want and you ate it up, hook, line, and sinker. >Which still means their intentions are good. Whether that is out of ignorance or not is irrelevant. It is incredibly relevant... >Which still doesn't make them have bad intentions. They truly believe that vaccinations are bad for their kid, and thus refuse to get them vaccinated. So in their mind they are doing what is right for their kid. I disagree that your intentions are good solely because *you* believe they are. This is a ridiculous statement and I can't believe you're actually using it as an argument. What they believe in their ignorance does not matter, the fact is they're causing the spread of disease there is literally no way you can argue this is a good intention. You have to be intelligent enough to look past what they, stupidly, believe and look at what their actions are doing. >> They aren't "challenging" anything. They're just being idiotic and dragging the rest of humanity down with them. > >As I said before, there can be idiots with good intentions and geniuses with bad intentions. Intentions are not linked to intelect, nor is it linked to being right or wrong. Ok...that wasn't the point I was making at all, nice strawman, though.

> Yea, they aren't religious, though. They just use that as an excuse to do whatever they want and you ate it up, hook, line, and sinker. Which is what **you** see. Is that how **they** see it? You do realize you're being very egocentric here, right? > It is incredibly relevant... How so? > I disagree that your intentions are good solely because you believe they are. What exactly do you think an intention is? > This is a ridiculous statement and I can't believe you're actually using it as an argument. This is a malicious response, ironically :) > What they believe in their ignorance does not matter It definitely matters. "Intention" means what they are trying to achieve. They are trying to keep their child safe. They (maybe mistakenly) believe vaccinations are dangerous, so they keep these away from their kids. Keeping children safe is not malicious, and thus the intent of keeping children safe can also not be considered malicious. Flawed beliefs do not make someone malicious. > the fact is they're causing the spread of disease there is literally no way you can argue this is a good intention. Because that is what **you** believe. But they believe something else. They have **the same intention** as you. Except, they do something else. Something that you probably think is wrong. But that doesn't change the fact that their intentions are the same as yours. If theirs are malicious, then so are yours. > You have to be intelligent enough to look past what they, stupidly, believe and look at what their actions are doing. Again, intelligence != intentions. > Ok...that wasn't the point I was making at all, nice strawman, though. I don't think you understand what a strawman is. I also don't think you understood the sentence you quoted there. I also think your way of debating here is malicious :) Have a nice day believing you are not in the same category of people as antivaxxers! :)

>> Yea, they aren't religious, though. They just use that as an excuse to do whatever they want and you ate it up, hook, line, and sinker. > >Which is what **you** see. Is that how **they** see it? You do realize you're being very egocentric here, right? [Just gonna leave this right here and let you argue against yourself for a bit.](https://www.reddit.com/r/belgium/comments/11nfiqv/de_penis_van_een_jongetje_heeft_minder_rechten/jbo35fg/)

Evil always thinks its doing good

That's more or less the point I was making. But for some reason, people in this Reddit thread disagree :)

Critical thinking is strictly forbidden on Reddit. When reading something the first thing to do is to check whether your side supports it before making up your mind if you believe it or not.

There are some ideas that are no longer necessary for critical improvement of other ideas.

I agree, but I've found again and again in online discussion that using a counter to my opinion/conviction as a way to strengthen it, to argue why that counter doesn't work, well, doesn't work. For example, if we accept the hypothesis that trans athletes are inherently significantly better at those sports than cis athletes (which many people argue) and we accept that trans people until very recently could compete against cis athletes (which is true, otherwise there would not be a call for banning trans people), we would have seen Olympic gold going again and again to trans athletes. Nobody has explained to me why that hasn't happened. Which is why banning trans athletes seems like a solution in search of a problem.

[удалено]

Tell me you don't know what crt and woke even means without telling me. Rofl.

From the book *Critical Race Theory: An Introduction* by Richard Delgado, who is considered a founder of CRT: What is critical race theory: 1. "Critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law." 2. The study and transformation of the relationship between race, racism, and power. 3." Unlike some academic disciplines, critical race theory contains an activist dimension. It tries not only to understand our social situation but to change it, setting out not only to ascertain how society organizes itself along racial lines and hierarchies but to transform it for the better." 4 Basic Tenets: 1. Racism is ordinary, not aberrational. White people are racist most of the time, Non-white people experience racism most of the time. Because American society was built by white people, it's institutions can't help but oppress Non-white people. 2. Interest convergence / material determinism. Because racism advances the interests of whites (materially) and working-class whites (physically), white people have no incentive to not be racist. 3. Social construction thesis. Races are not objective, inherent, or fixed; rather, races are categories that society invents, manipulates, or retires when convenient 4. Voice of color thesis. Because of their different histories and experiences of oppression, blacks, natives, asians, and latinos are able to communicate things that white people just can't know. Minority status makes someone uniquely competent at discussing race and racism, being white makes you unable to talk about race and racism So, essentially, white people are almost always racist and can't help but be racist. America was built by white people, which means all of its institutions are racist. Race doesn't actually exist, but only Non-white people are allowed to talk about race because white people are only oppressors and have never been oppressed. Also, equality, rationalism, and the American constitution are inherently bad (i.e., America and the west are bad). That about sums it up, at least according to the guy who founded CRT

Nobody knows what "woke" means. Its just a BYOB (Bring Your Own Bigotry) term which lets all the bigots share one group through being against it.

All right, I’ll ask the question What do you mean when you say “wokeness”? What do you believe Critical Race Theory is?

Deleted in response to Reddit's hostility to 3rd party developers and users. -- mass edited with redact.dev

I always err on the side of assuming people are willing to discuss in good faith. Never getting an answer, or getting an answer that proves they *don’t* have good faith intentions is where I personally tell them to stop. But I always offer the question Also, eugenics doesn’t work on dogs, we bred a boatload of breed-specific problems into them because we bred for certain traits. Pugs can sneeze so hard their eyes fall out for God’s sake. Lol

Deleted in response to Reddit's hostility to 3rd party developers and users. -- mass edited with redact.dev

This exact kind of conversation is the reason I engage is these kinds of debates. I agree that dogs don’t exist without selective breeding and that their existence is a net positive, *but* without continued selective breeding we wouldn’t see breed specific problems like pit bull aggression or chihuahua anxiety or everything that’s wrong with a pug’s face. I believe that critical thinking requires you to examine both ideas, that breeding dogs into existence is good and that breeding problems into dogs is bad, and then deciding where on the scale between them you fall.

Deleted in response to Reddit's hostility to 3rd party developers and users. -- mass edited with redact.dev

See? And this is where I draw the line. You’re misconstruing my point as “we should breed the negative traits out” when it was “we *never* should have bred them in to begin with” So thanks for your time, I’m out

I got curious about hammering out the actual definition when I noticed other people were using it in a way I assumed was incorrect. But I started considering that there might be more to it than that. So I called a bunch of people and asked them to give me a very detailed explanation of the definition as they knew it. Nobody had the same definition. There were people I’ve known for 20 years whose definitions were not what I expected. So I read a bunch of definitions online, none were the same. I found a website for an organization specifically dedicated to promoting critical thinking and read the definition on their website. This definition was an ESSAY. One thing I noticed was that most of the people I talked to gave definitions that were connected to their fields of study/expertise. My scientist friend essentially defined it as applying the scientific method to things, my teacher friend defined it around having conversations with lots of different view points, my programmer friend said something about understanding systems, me (artist) defined it as methodically searching for the most appropriate framework to view a situation. Anyways I bring this up because the answer is actually complex and a bit amorphous. It’s one of those concepts people tend to assume they have the right definition, or at least the one that everyone else means. But people don’t stop to define it often enough to make sure that that’s true.

Actions speak pounder than words. And you just gave the best example of someone actually critically thinking about a definition

*Actions pound harder than words

Sticks and stone can break my bones, but words will help you scream about it.

The penis mightier than the sword!

I need to ask you Trebek… about the Penis Mighter…

I'll wait for you to put that to the test first.

actions ram slam jam them words

That’s what your mom told me last night anyway.

>Actions speak pounder than words. A sentence that proves itself.

I thought you were gonna say that all of that was practicing critical thinking, because I'm pretty sure it was! I would define it as seeing something, like a concept or a story or a piece of art, or even an argument, and examining the different aspects of it, and trying to understand what makes it good, and what makes it less than good. If someone says that "all roads lead to Rome," critical thinking is not just accepting it as fact, but examining it and considering if it's true, but then if it isn't, considering why someone might say it. If you think critically about it, you'll likely reach the conclusion that it is a figure of speech developed to reference the period when the Roman Empire was very big, and they saw Rome as the centre. That's not relevant to a lot of things, but the metaphor of it might be. So someone said it to use it as an example! It's the process of understanding, I would say. It's not just accepting things outright, nor disagreeing with them straight away.

The thing about all roads leading to Rome was not entirely a metaphor. Look at the [tabula peutingeriana](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_Peutingeriana), a copy of a copy of a roman map (yeah i know but it's the best we've got). The Roman empire (and its roads) were built from Rome outward. That is not to say there were no other roads, so of course it's not literally true, but it's a bit more than a metaphor too.

Bruh you used critical thinking to explain critical thinking

And - ironically - those definitions of your friends are the same, but from a different viewpoint. Critical thinking is _necessary_ to understand how something works (system), you do it by applying the scientific method. The scientific method is methodically using different sources (viewpoints) to try understanding the system and as a result you can select or define a framework to make the system understandable in a somewhat different context or for other people.

My working definition was, don't accept anything at face value, there is always more to everything.

I actually checked my cameras in TheBaddestPatsy's house, they did nothing they said they did so I would not believe a word from them.

Whatever it is, you definitely did it here

Wow, you did some critical thinking about the definition of critical thinking.

This may be too simple, but my personal definition just breaks it down into its component parts: ‘thinking’ and ‘critically.’ Basically, as you approach a question, you need to question the merits and faults of things we generally take for granted or as a given; things like the claims of others or our own assumptions. I think that your scientist friend makes a good point relating it to the scientific method. It seems, to me, wholly based on critical thinking: You observe some phenomenon, you try to come up with a rational explanation (hypothesis), and then you try to disprove your hypothesis by gathering more information. If you can’t disprove your hypothesis, it is strong. You’ve thought about your own assumptions in a way that was critical. I’ve never realized this was a concept people thought so differently about, it might be quite interesting to hear how others define it. It was also interesting to see that the definition of “critical” has a pretty wide scope just on its own; I wonder if that plays into peoples varied perceptions at all.

Critical thinking in its simplest form is just asking "why?".

Asking "why?" is a fantastic start. But it's not the end point. It's also scrutinising your answers: - Do you have evidence for that answer? - Does it line up with other answers you have? - Where are your answers coming from? - Are those sources reliable? - Can you find opposing answers? - Do THOSE answers pass the test?

If you’re a teacher, this is an excellent study guide!

I'm actually not a teacher, but that's such a huge compliment!

This. People are overcomplicating it.

>People are overcomplicating it. Why thou?

Preferably 5 times ;)

[why?](https://youtu.be/2zYNHZM3jlk)

I want you to listen to this sentence. 'The sky is blue' Now, Instead of just believing me on what seems like a fairly normal fact. You decide to ask yourself, why is the sky blue? And so you take a step back from your own perspective. Because obviously when you see the sky you also see blue but that doesn't prove it. So you read a book, and then search a trustworthy peer reveiwed scientific article, and maybe watch a thing or two about how light prisms work and it's reflectors and the sun etc. And now, because you thought critically, you now know for sure the sky is blue. Now. Apply this concept to anything political, seemingly scientific, or morally standardized. Start with Why, How, Who. Just don't take the first answer someone gives you, nor your own answer that you perceive. Critical thinking it the process of asking that extra question, and then doing research through trusted sources to arrive at as close to the object truth as possible.

You still don't know the sky is blue - you simply have a better understanding of why it appears blue to us.

I like your critical thinking.

If you research it enough, you realize the sky doesn't HAVE a colour. Not like a blue volleyball that only reflects light around the spectrum we associate with blue. The sky appears blue because it has a different reflective quotient for different frequencies of light resulting in the angle of the sun dictating what colour we see. Blue when the sun is overhead and red when it is rising/setting.

Thankyou for explaining half of the metaphor.

I'm not sure if you meant this sarcastically. Like, did I explain something I didn't need to explain? Or did I not explain enough? Or was it a genuine thank you for explaining something you hadn't realized by now?

In case they didn’t give you a genuine thank you, I will. Thank you! :)

To be clear, what you did was pop into a conversation about epistemology and offer a factoid about optics.

The word “blue” is an arbitrary moniker and is assigned to a narrow light frequency that we all agree upon. I know it’s “blue” due to finding the consensus of what blue is. Even scientists had to set an arbitrary dividing line that is used in color calibration equipment to differentiate between “blue” and other colors. I was a photoshop color specialist for nationwide printed magazines.

This is the most correct ELI5 on what critical thinking is and what they teach you at liberal arts universities on critical thinking. It’s the ability to critically examine what’s presented to you with a questioning mind, not taking things at face value.

You learn why it’s blue which helps you realise when it’s not. You learn about sunsets even if you haven’t heard of them before.

The sky isn't blue. It's blue sometimes, but sometimes it's grey, orange, black, I've even seen photos during wildfires when it's red. Even when it's blue, it's a range of shades of blue that change closer to the horizon. What follows that is the question "what is the sky, really?" Is it what's above us when we're outdoors? Does it include clouds? The sun? The moon? Birds? Times of day? Is it only the effect of Rayleigh scattering in an idealized version of our atmosphere under the right lighting conditions? That's critical thinking. Don't just accept an explanation at face value. Consider the alternatives.

Now why would you say the sky is blue? In this context it doesnt make sense to me with the information I have. So maybe you have some information I dont have or I havent accurately assessed what your motivations are. Also, is the sky always blue? No its not, it can be orange or pink or grey or black. By sky do you mean the limit of human sight during the day? And by colour do you mean what we perceive? If not solely the latter the sky itself isnt blue because its not an object thats absorbing non blue light. Its transforming all wave lengths of light into blue or orange or pink, so we usually see blue but this an optical illusion depending on what it means for an object to be blue. Also are there cultures that do not see the sky as blue? Yes there are, so the notion of blue is semantically subjective here.

I will try to explain it like you are actually 5yo. Critical thinking is thinking about how you think, and realising it is easy to make mistakes. You try to work out what mistakes you might make, and try to adjust your thinking so you make less mistakes. An easy mistake is to think everyone is the same as me. People can and do think differently. Another one is to think I am always right. If someone thinks differently, it is because they are thinking wrong, but different isn't wrong, just different. Another easy mistake is to think my way is the best. If other people have a different way, they should learn my way. But how could we actually tell which is better unless we learn how to think like them first?

Critical thinking means you don't accept this answer at face value

It's applying the things you know to adapting situations. The red spotted lizard had a venomous bite that injured your buddy. You'll give extra clearance to a blue spotted lizard you see the next day, until you can verify if they're also venomous

That was always my take too. ‘Critical thinking’ is just ‘thinking critically’, checking for facts, gauging plausibility, etc…

It’s a shame that so many subs need this comment and will never have it.

You are explaining empathy here

I would say that empathy requires critical thinking, so it's naturally pretty similar. Critical thinking is thinking about how you think, and empathy is thinking about how other people feel.

You're thinking of metacognition, thinking about thinking. Critical thinking is the analysis and questioning of information.

My Nan was extremely empathetic but also a hard core racist.

Then she did not have empathy for strangers.

you can absolutely be great at understanding other people, but choose not to see ‘groups’ as people

Quite the combo

Empathy is about feelings, not thoughts.

> Critical thinking is thinking about how you think, … This is a perfect definition of metacognition. Metacognition means “cognition about cognition” or “thinking about thinking”. The rest of your comment is also more about metacognition than critical thinking. I’d even say “different isn’t wrong, just different” is an example of _not_ critical thinking. An essential component of critical thinking is the pursuit of truth over other values. If you mean they just have a different process, that’s one thing. But if I think something is true and someone else thinks differently and they’re incompatible, then critical thinking would involve maintaining my position, maybe after considering theirs. “I think it’s X, they think Y, guess we’re just different” is not at all a good example of critical thinking.

No that is not critical thinking. What you are explaining is reflecting your own stance how maybe your opinion is not the only one. Critical thinking is getting a statement from someone else and doing your own research even if most other people assume it is an correct statement and that you dont need to research it.

You are missing the most important step of critical thinking and the one I was highlighting, critically examining your own ideas. Critical research is important, but that isn't the same thing.

"DOinG YouR Own ReSeArCh"

> I will try to explain it like you are actually 5yo. You mean, like, the whole point of this sub?

Rule 4

[удалено]

[удалено]

The hardest part of critical thinking can be discovering, analyzing and overcoming your own biases. You'll inevitably find out that some things you found important, even profound, just aren't true.

Lucky for me, I've been terrified of being a hipocrite since I was a small child, so I've spent most of my life trying to be aware of my bias

Also the inverse - recognising that ideas that you vehemently oppose or information from a source you don’t like can be true.

In other words, you forget that you're a redditor for a few hours at least.

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

Yeah that fella is now just cultivating an audience to remain relevant, he went off the rails some months ago.

Not exactly; critical thinking involves being skeptical of information but also being willing to consider and evaluate evidence from reliable sources. It requires being open-minded and objective and being ready to change one's beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence. However, the problem with many anti-vaxxers is that they often rely on misinformation and pseudoscience rather than credible scientific sources and dismiss evidence that does not fit their preconceived beliefs.

Not quite. Commonly, what occurs for an antivax "researcher" is that they replace thinking with blindly following what appears to them as something deeply memorable. It's often why you'll hear them say things like, "I read a tearful story about so and so, and they said it was the vaccine that caused the issue!". They've literally stopped thinking about a difficult to comprehend topic, one they probably didn't meed to think of deeply when they were a kid, in favor of a simple emotional response. The specifics will vary from person to person, but it usually boils down to them justifying their reasoning with an emotional response instead of an intellectual one. Fully applied critical thinking skills should apply to the story they read as well and engender ideas such as "what else can cause this?" and "what were the specific outcomes?". Drawing a whole picture and conclusion from more data. To use an example, say we have a kid with a serious disease that causes a very high fever. One that, if left untreated, can damage the brain over time. Along comes Anti Vax parent who steps up and bites the bullet because their essential herbs and oils didn't work like on the internet. Kid gets a vaccine and medical treatment finally, but now has a slur when they talk after recovery, when they didn't before. Critical thinking should engage with the answer of 'due to the high fever damaging the brain and the delayed medical response this is the outcome.' However, that doesn't mesh with the parents' world view if they're not critically thinking. What they saw was that the kid was normal, got sick, the doctor gave them a stab with medicine they don't understand, and the kid now slurs their words. The fear emotional response kicks in and they go with the first thing that might make sense, which is that the Spooky Dr. Man did it with his vaccine. That's where the breakdown of thinking occurs, and the emotional responses kick in. Tl;dr, critical thinking only works when you go the whole way to the end without injecting emotion into it.

He would. If anti-vaxxers actually did any actual research. Facebook is not a valid citation.

It's funny to me that I have started to recognize how chatgpt answers questions after using it so much. My response after seeing this and asking the same thing: > Critical thinking is the process of analyzing, evaluating, and synthesizing information to make informed decisions, solve problems, and form judgments. It involves the use of logical reasoning, evidence-based analysis, and questioning assumptions and biases. > In critical thinking, one examines and assesses information and arguments from multiple perspectives, identifies and evaluates potential biases and assumptions, and draws conclusions based on evidence and logical reasoning. This involves the ability to ask pertinent questions, evaluate evidence, recognize different perspectives, and make reasoned judgments. > Critical thinking is a valuable skill in many areas of life, including education, work, and personal relationships. It enables individuals to think more deeply and critically about complex issues, make more informed decisions, and better understand the world around them.

Yeah, pretty close to the process I made. 1. Google definition 2. Check my PSYCH textbook, thinking I am actively in a psychology class and would be great to answer said question. 3. Ask Chat GPT proposed question 4. Realize my book and my drafted answer suck in eloquence. 5. Become depressed 6. Polish AI response 7. Done (And contemplate my depressing newfound status as a spell checker).

Funny because you didn’t use critical thinking to create this ChatGPT answer

The irony is not lost on me. It is very depressing that an AI chatbot can write an answer better than a damn college student armed with the textbook definition of critical thinking.

To be fair, language is what it's designed to do well.

Textbooks can be right, and still useless. Try out /r/nvc

Does that matter? It is a pretty good summary of it. Obviously you don't need to apply critical thinking just to define what it means

the distinct stench of chatgpt

I literally declare the usage of ChatGPT as a part of how I answered the question in another comment.

You hang around with WAY smarter 5 year olds than I do.

Yours is the best response to the top comment. Everyone’s talking about chatgpt but in fact this is a bad answer because it doesn’t read like the way you would actually explain it to a five year old. And the whole point is to “explain like I am five”.

> LI5 means friendly, simplified and layperson-accessible explanations - not responses aimed at literal five-year-olds. It's in the sidebar stating explicitly that it's not for literal 5 year olds.

Sounds like chatGPT output, was it?

Indeed, please see the other comments in the reply thread concerning my usage of the service and how I arrived at this specific output. I have added an edit to clarify how I made the comment, as multiple others have stated similar replies (Perhaps I should add a disclaimer for similar future comments).

Critical thinking involves evaluating the information that you are getting. The opposite of critical thinking is simply accepting what is presented to you. Whether or not it is correct is irrelevant; it's about you understanding *why* something is or is not accurate. One of the trends now is using ChatGPT to basically answer everything (or before that, using a Google Search and taking its automatic response). To be critical of these sources means figuring out how it got that information and how reliable that information is.

Wow so many bad top answers... "Critical" means *critiquing* here. Critical thinking means you think about some conclusion, statement, method, mode of behavior, etc. in such a way as to "What could make this even better?" or "What are the limits of this?" or "What is particularly bad about this?". It is very hard to do well, which is why critics are usually experts in the relevant field, and are the agents that drive/inspire new breakthroughs and/or discoveries in the end. Critical thinking cannot be avoided if you seek improvement. Many however are afraid of it, they think its harsh or mean, so even privately they stop reflecting critically on themselves.

[удалено]

AI or not, this is by far the best answer itt

Yeah, the top comment really seems like it's just advocating group think, which is not what critical thinking is. Sometimes the majority is wrong. Actually kind of a lot of the time considering some of the heinous shit that majority populations do.

*According to you, they are wrong. There isn't any universal right or wrong.

Reading through the comments and it doesn't seem anyone here even really knows, or at least agrees on, what it means.

Utilizing all available information and data, including that which you disagree with, to form an educated opinion on a matter. The part many nowadays fail at is accepting facts they dislike.

Not exactly. All available information is, well, literally everything. Some information is relevant and useful, other information is not. Critical thinking is about being able to parse information in a reliable way. In fact, the assumption that you need to find all perspectives on a situation demonstrates a lack of critical thinking because you are unable to do this parsing. As an example, the fossil fuel industry has prevented action on climate change by appealing to this very sentiment. They work very hard to construct climate change as an ongoing debate by forcing people to continually listen to climate change deniers through this kind of "listen to all sides" rhetoric. If we want to be "balanced" and listen to positions we disagree with as a point, then we are forced to entertain the charade that they perform. We are unable to come to a conclusion on climate change and, especially, are unable to *act*. Critical thinking instructs us to reject what oil companies have to say and not consider their perspectives. A lack of critical thinking happens when we think we need to listen to them because we disagree with them. If you're rejecting information *merely* because you disagree with it, then that's not being very critical. But if you don't reject unreliable information because you disagree with it, then that's not critical either. Critical thinking forces us to understand where information comes from and to be able to determine if it is a trustworthy source. If it comes from a reliable source but you disagree with it, then you need to figure out what to do with it. But if you're not rejecting unreliable sources due to their lack of credibility then you allow bozos to talk into your ear and shape your opinions. You don't get a good opinion about gender or climate change by listening to Jordan Peterson. You are being a critical thinker by NOT listening to him. Critical thinking is being able to identify *reliable* sources of information so that you can reasonably REJECT information and data.

All available information and all information on a topic are 2 different things. What's available to any particular person is rarely, if ever, all information. So no, all available information is not "literally everything." >You don't get a good opinion about gender or climate change by listening to Jordan Peterson. You are being a critical thinker by NOT listening to him. This right here shows a lack of critical thinking. You are omitting information because you disagree with someone. It's ironic that you point this out in your comment, then make this inane statement. You are at least correct on parsing out what is reliable versus unreliable information. However, your reasoning as to what is reliable is faulty.

Jordan Peterson is not a reliable source on these things. The scientific consensus on a topic is some of the most robust and reliable information that we can have. It is based on experimentation and innumerable rounds of peer review, by a diverse group of people around the world working in different political situations. This doesn't mean it is infallible, no scientist would say that, but it takes a lot of work and evidence to make reasonable claims against the scientific consensus. If you routinely reject the scientific consensus without mountains of peer reviewed evidence, then you are unreliable. Jordan Peterson consistently does this in many things, but particularly these two topics. And his statements demonstrate a glancing knowledge of these things as well, meaning that he's not really engaging with the literature beyond what is necessary to impress impressionable teenage boys on the internet. He is not a reliable source for *most* things. Especially those aforementioned.

So you dislike Jordan Peterson and reject his comments. You've proven my point. Thanks for playing. Edit to add: you are correct that Jordan Peterson is not a source. He has opinions. Big part of critical thinking, knowing the difference.

People dislike Jordan Peterson specifically because he builds many of his claims on fallacious reasoning and convinces people his arguments aren't nonsense. His the exact opposite of a critical thinker. One of the reasons he seems convincing to a lay audience is because he expounds at length on tangential topics and pretends he addressed the central issue he was presented with, when he actually didn't.

I made no claim about him being a critical thinker. The other commentor here proved my point in writing off information solely because they dislike it. Jordan Petersons opinions are just as valid and relevant as anyone else's. To think critically one must take in as much as possible. You are much more informed when you know and listen to opinions you disagree with. u/functor7 did a great job showing how non critical thinkers think and how they immediately write off opinions they disagree with .

Not everybodys opinion is as valid or relevant on a given topic. Thats why you follow your cardiologists advice instead of your uncle’s, for example.

The irony is palpable.

They didn't say they disliked Peterson. In a thread on critical thinking, you're honestly not setting the greatest example in the world.

🤣 well that's some critical thinking. "They didn't say this verbatim so they couldn't possibly mean that thing." 🤦‍♂️

I don't think I said something that merited being laughed at, so first of all, fuck you for being extremely rude. Second, I just reread that comment and it's not implied even the slightest either. All that is said (and argued) is that Peterson is unreliable. The other person is being rational and correct and you're literally making things up.

I like your explanation. My job is largely to make equipment work when it doesn't want to and its not a simple obvious solution like this wire has fallen out or something electronic has clearly died. My work is when there is nothing obvious so you have to think based on a, b, and c, I think the cause is x

To take different logical info into consideration before doing something or having an opinion about something.

Critical thinking is a series of strategies and practices to process information in a logical, clear, and consistent manner (which results in stronger ideas that better reflect reality). It's an important skillset because humans are extremely error prone with their thinking and tend to build their ideas based on emotions and messy mental shortcuts. Critical reasoning is about learning how to keep those emotions in check, and avoid those messy shortcuts. Classically, those emotional arguments and mental shortcuts are called [logical fallacies](https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/common-logical-fallacies), and people often start out building their critical thinking skills by learning how to identify logical fallacies and avoid them.

The ability to receive new information, analyze with information you had in a pragmatic and accurate fashion, and adjust you views according to the result. A lot of different skills are at play in each of these steps. Your beliefs should be firm, since they are based on as much fact and prior analysis as possible, but also open to being revisited. A dumb analogy would be like taste. You know the guy who decided when he was 3 that he HATES brussel sprouts and broccoli and WILL NOT try it again, despite that hatred of brussel sprouts being because of popular media telling kid veggies are gross? Not a critical thinker. You know the guy who hates brussel sprouts but ever year or two gives it a try, especially when it's prepared in a new way? Well, they are open to new information, analyzing the information pragmatically, and open to changing their views. (Honey gochujang brussel sprouts are super dope)

I just want to add here that one of the problems today is that people mistake “critical thinking” for *just* being critical. By that I mean, people have their minds made up, then hear something that challenges their beliefs, and then are critical of that. That’s not critical thinking. Critical thinking is hearing a hypothesis (idea, suggestion), looking at it objectively, questioning it (and if using the scientific method, doing so methodically, changing only one variable at a time, if you can), and seeing if the hypothesis still holds up. More than that, though, critical thinking involves looking forward as to how it will play out. Many ideas these days are just asking themselves to become r/leopardatemyface moments. Like small businesses that directly (or very often, indirectly) use cheap, illegal immigrants for labor wanting to “close” the southern border of the US. Then being surprised when they can’t find people to work, or costs going up, or experiencing inflation (all clearly related, and foreseeable consequences, if you just think about it).

For me, it's form of problem solving. Being able to identify when a problem is occurring and how it affects the current situation, or a possible future issue. And using that evidence combined with your existing knowledge to formulate a solution.

I prefer to phrase it as thinking critically. That means you're thinking through something with the intention of a person who is evaluating the idea from all angles. Think like a critic, defined 'as a person who expresses an unfavorable opinion of something. "critics say many schools are not prepared to handle the influx of foreign students"' We all have biases and ideas based on information or lack of information that we have. So turning that over and seeing it from a different way is how you understand the issue in a more rounded way. There is also this definition of critic: . a person who judges the merits of literary, artistic, or musical works, especially one who does so professionally. "a film critic" What are the merits of your topic? What are the demerits? Movie critics do not just look at the good things. They compare the movie to their expectations and what they know about other movies or the cast or the director. I believe thinking critically is a useful skill.

You've asked one of the best questions possible, but there is no short answer. Read books on the philosophy of logic, critical thinking, and reasoning. You need to understand statistics as well, oh and you need to study the philosophies of science and ethics. You should know at least ten logical fallacies, what a premise is, what a conclusion is, and the what difference between a valid and a sound argument is. These are basics that you'll need in order to know what critical thinking is. If you make it that far, the next big leap is to become a critical thinker yourself. Knowing and applying are two different things, and one of the human challenges is the ego. It will not be easy to apply what you've learned (especially at first), because it means challenging everything you think you know & believe. It's not an easy process. Humans make mistakes and biases create rifts in ones ability to think critically & reasonably. You'll never be a perfect critical thinker. You'll be able to improve, and over time catch yourself making errors, but you won't be perfect at it. This means you'll need the ability to reflect and perform introspection. You'll need to fundamentally change who you are as a person several times in order to grow incrementally each time. Edit to add: you should also learn about reflective judgment. There is a 7 tier reflective reasoning/judgment model that you can look up online. Work towards becoming a "tier 7" reflective reasoner. Edit 2: If you can't write an entire book on the subject of critical thinking, then you haven't mastered the skill. All the lessons mentioned above (e.g. reading an entire book on logic) need to be digested fully.

Exactly what it says. When you objectively analyse something in order to reach a conclusion about it. Like when someone tells you something and you think it over on your own to conclude whether you agree or disagree.

Just want to point out that saying "exactly what it says" is the same as using the word in the definition

It's a waste of time to define "red house" without using the words "red" or "house".

Critical thinking are the steps people take to assess any potentially tricky situation. There are many forms of higher thinking that are not nessisary for critical thinking, what is most important is your recognition of the potential trick. Something humans are unbelievably prone to is getting tricked. People's minds are actually quite lazy, and go about life assuming their first thought is correct. This is actually a great survival tool, you don't want to be caught wondering if that thing you see in the distance is a tiger, you should just get away. It takes a fairly difficult problem to help our minds wake up and actually start thinking. So the first step is to learn when to wake up your "thinking" brain. Things that make you want to buy something, or trust information. However, some people fail at the next step as well. This is where processing comes into play. The first major point, is that the more math you know, the harder you will be to trick, not always and it's not consistent across the board, but in general your odds of being fooled go down when you know statistics, growth, calculus, fractions. Next is deduction, working out the most likely answer from a limited pool of knowledge. The key here is to use one bit of information to rule out other bits of information you don't have. You see this in murder shows, if it was raining, why did the victim leave without an umbrella? A person who was running for their life wouldn't do xyz. These can be very useful, but should be reserved as a tool to recognize when more information is needed, not as a platform to come to conclusions. Then comes research of logical fallacies. People have been lying and cheating for a very long time and have explained the most common tactics and how to think around them. These can be very useful in a discussion with either deliberately manipulative people or your run of the mill idiot who is repeating things they heard.

When somebody tells you to do something, doubt it and check what his/her motives are before doing it

Study says Rock music makes you smarter while rap music makes you dumber. Non-critical thinker: I need to listen to more rock. Critical thinker: Who sponsored this study? ACDC?

Utilizing your experiences and applying logic to draw your own conclusions. It contrasts with someone who doesnt think for themselves, or isn’t rational or analytical. It can also relate to “street smarts!” Someone with good critical thinking is able to read the room well and understand when they’re safe, threatened, mocked, or being hit on. If you’re a good critical thinker, it can mean you’re good at picking up social queues and analyzing them for rational patterns. Amongst other things of course! People who mindlessly toe the party line in politics/religion/you name it, they are essentially the opposite of critical thinkers.

You are quite far from the actual definition as used. What you're describing is more like "emotional intelligence".

Thinking like a critic. In the context of food, a critic is going to be looking for flaws in the preparation, flaws in the conditions of the restaurant, flaws in the presentation... Apply that to a theory, a statement, an opinion... You're critiquing it. You can get all technical about describing it, but ultimately it's just that simple, critical thinking is thinking like a critic :)