WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO THINK CRITICALLY ?
{Writers note} So, this was originally for an English class but I honestly got interested in the topic as I really didn’t have a firm grasp on the topic. I ran down some rabbit holes but for good reason. I hope whoever reads this can find something useful. If anything I hope people look into Thomas Bayes and Kurt Godel’s work. shits awesome. Also, I will Link a great blog on how to use Bayesian in Critical thinking. Enjoy !
——
What does it mean to think critically? Why is critical thinking important?
How do we know if we are thinking critically? These are just a few of the numerous questions that arise when talking about critical thinking. Do you ever feel confused when people request you to “think critically”, what exactly are they asking you to do? How do you know you are doing it or not? I, myself, often feel this way, critical thinking has taken on so many different definitions, theories, and concepts that it has become a fairly puzzling concept to grasp. In this essay, we will attempt to demystify and provide coherent tools for critical thinking.
Around 2,500 years ago, a Greek philosopher named Socrates began establishing deep questioning and reflective questioning that hadn’t been explored prior; differentiating logical beliefs and native ego-centrism. Socrates pronounced logical consistency and teaching strategy for clarity of thought. Socrates’ method consisted of hypothesis elimination, in that, better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those that lead to contradictions. Socrates attempted to find general, commonly held truths that shape beliefs and scrutinizes them to determine their consistency with other beliefs. Plato and Aristotle later followed in Socrates’ skeptical philosophical rhetoric.
Continuing, the evolution of critical thought more than a few reputable contributors arise between the 16th-20th century such as Francis Bacon, Thomas Bayes, Decartes, Kurt Gödel, Matthew Lipman. For the purpose of this paper, I will not go in depth on all the aforementioned scholars, however, as each of these scholars has been catalysts for the evolution of critical thinking. I think it wise to briefly explain their contributions in an effort to understand the topic further.
In the 16th century, Francis Bacon laid the foundation for modern science with his emphasis on the information-gathering processes. Being an attentive reader that gathers credible information. Bacon’s agenda for critical thinking is much of the way we think of critical thinking today.
Onward, we have Descartes who developed a thought structure named systematic doubt whereby thought is based on well-critiqued foundational assumptions. If we were to break down Descartes famous and iconic quote “ I think, therefore I am”, the foundational assumption in that statement is “I think”, this is the assumption he makes to legitimize the existence of man, “therefore I am”.
Next, we have Matthew Lipman, throughout his career as an educator he was compelled to improve his student’s underdeveloped thinking skills through reason and logic. In Lipman's book The Foundation for critical thinking, in a chapter entitled “Regarding a definition of critical thinking” Lipman explains the complexity of critical thinking and how perplexing the various definition can be, however, his definition proves to be one of the most coherent:
“skillful responsible thinking that is conducive to judgment because it relies on criteria and self-correcting, and is sensitive to context”
You will notice I have skipped two names Thomas Bayes and the formidable Kurt Gudel; they are our statistician and logicians. They will provide us with theorems, logic, and reasoning tools so we can make critical thinking more tangible, and less of an illusory concept.
Thomas Bayes (1702-1761) English statistician, philosopher, and Presbyterian minister that developed the Bayes theorem and is responsible for the phenomenon called “Bayesian”. Bayesian statistics is pretty complicated, however, you don’t need to be a mathematician or statistician’s to understand and use some of the concepts.
Let's look at Bayes Theorem :
P(A|B) = P(A) P(B|A)P(B)
A, B = events
P(A|B) = probability of A given B is true
P(B|A) = probability of B given A is true
P(A), P(B) = the independent probabilities of A and B
Now, breathe, lets translate what that gibberish means:
“To form accurate beliefs, you always start from the information you already have. You update beliefs. You don’t discard everything you know.”- Thomas Bayes
However, where bayes truly shines is where we compare two hypotheses. Instead of uncovering the absolute probabilities, which is hard, this focuses on how much more likely one hypothesis is, compared to another. This enables reasoning with hypotheses that is, with propositions whose truth or falsity is unknown. We are dealing with the likelihood of something being more true over another. For Bayes, it requires one contradiction for the hypothesis to be proven wrong. It doesn't matter how much data you have, if you can find a contradiction you are able to refute the hypothesis:
“No amount of observations of white swans can allow the inference that all swans are white, but the observation of a single black swan is sufficient to refute that conclusion.” - Thomas Bayes
However, after a certain level of confidence, you live your life believing something is true. Once you start believing is when you must pay close attention to evidence that doesn’t fit.
Finally, Kurt Friedrich Gödel (b. 1906, d. 1978) Of German- Austrian descent, considered one of the most significant logicians since Aristotle. He was one of the principal founders of the modern, metamathematical era in mathematical logic. Gödel is known for defending platonism which is the belief in abstract objects but more importantly, Gödel contributed a great deal with the numerous logical theorems he developed. For example the Proof Completeness theorem :
Every valid logical expression is provable. Equivalently, every logical expression is either satisfiable or refutable.
Gödel also proved that there is an inherent limit in every formal system capable of being modeled in basic arithmetic. This is called his Incompleteness theorem.
However, I don’t want to go into his theorems too much for the sake that they will be impenetrable and a repellent for a great majority of my readers but what I think is more important than anything is that Kurt was a logician, he understood the logic, which is one of the most important aspects of critical thinking. Logic helps us study correct reasoning, especially regarding making inferences.
For example:
Propositions: If all mammals feed their babies milk from the mother (A). If all cats feed their babies mother’s milk (B). All cats are mammals(C). The Ʌ means “and,” and the ⇒ symbol means “implies.”
Conclusion: A Ʌ B ⇒ C
This is an example of basic symbolic logic, it gives us a building block to build rational conclusions.
Conclusively, critical thinking is about being attentive, reductive, logical, and being sensitive to context. I think it is inherently difficult for individuals to be rational towards themselves based on the fact that our system (our brain) is so complex but we can have structures that can help us identify what kind of reasoning we are having. Further, critical thinking doesn't mean you question absolutely everything, we are not Descartes, but you can have assumptions ( which you are aware of) that you deem true until otherwise refuted and you can build axioms on top of it.