Critical Thinking

(Adapted & borrowed from J. Heinze-Fry, Chapter 3, In G.T. Miller, Living in the Environment 10th Edition, Wadsworth Press, 1998)

 

 

Critical thinking moves learners from their current state of mental knowledge to:

 

  1. More meaningful learning instead of rote learning;
  2. Higher levels of learning (comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis) beyond basic facts;

 

Critical thinkers should then be able to:

 

  1. Apply newly acquired as well as recently unused, but related, concepts and principles to real-world experience and situations;
  2. Make thoughtful judgments about knowledge and value claims; and
  3. Enhance qualitative and quantitative problem-solving skills.

 

Critical thinkers are distinguished from non-critical thinkers by their efforts to:

 

  1. Clarify and probe their understanding of new concepts;
  2. Connect new knowledge and learning experiences to prior knowledge and mental paradigms (images or conceptions about the system under study);
  3. Develop creative thinking skills by learning how to exercise both visualization/creativity (right brain) and analysis/logic (left brain) capabilities;
  4. Research and take positions on issues that are related to their area of study or interest;
  5. Enthusiastically engage in problem-solving processes to improve the environment around them.

 

Some helpful rules for strengthening your critical thinking skills include:

 

  1. Gather all the information for which time and resources allow.
  2. Define and understand the key terms and concepts that describe the issue of interest.
  3. Question how the information (graph, image, text, data table) was obtained, manipulated, or presented.
    1. Were the studies well-designed and executed?
    2. Did others verify the results?
  4. Question the conclusions and summary derived from any data or experience.
    1. Are there alternate interpretations?
    2. Is the conclusion an association or a cause-and-effect?
  5. Try to determine the assumptions and biases of the investigators and then question them.
    1. Were monetary or political advantages present for the investigators to find a specific outcome?
  6. Expect and tolerate uncertainty, recognizing that science is a dynamic process that is continually refining explanations of observed phenomena.
    1. Are the claims representing frontier science or consensus science?
  7. Think holistically about the results or conclusions from the study or report.
    1. How do the results fit into the current ecosystem, economy, or political system?
    2. What additional experiments or data are needed to relate the results to the whole system?
  8. Take a position to either reject or conditionally accept the claims of the study.
    1. If evidence does not support a claim, reject it.
    2. If evidence supports the claim, accept it with the condition that you may reject it given new information that disproves it.