I agree, but with the recognition that people have differing capabilities of critical thinking. As an example, I get extremely fed up with people that use computers with no understanding of even the basic principles underlying their use, to the extent that they cannot troubleshoot the smallest of unexpected behavior; but I guess the majority of people fall into that group, and that's why I spend so much time fixing computers for friends and family ;).
In Islam, there are well-defined requirements with regards to the amount of knowledge a lay-person is required to attain. On the matter of beliefs, theology, cosmology, etc. the criterion is something like, "the subject must be studied sufficiently to be able to remove the doubts that are a person is capable of understanding". So for example, an illiterate Muslim bedouin is only required to understand the analogy between footsteps in the sand that indicate on the presence of a person having walked and the wonderous creation indicating on the presence of a creator. On the other hand, a Muslim that has a Ph.D. in philosophy has the responsibility to study deeply the cosmological and other rational arguments that justify every level of belief.
The bedouin can't be faulted for not studying to the level of the Ph.D. and the Ph.D. can't be faulted for not accepting without question the reasoning that was sufficient for the bedouin.
I'm convinced that some folks cannot be taught critical thinking skills, some folks I think are just missing the relevant hardware to perform the needed computing, they might be able to get there in a round about way, but not on every topic. Ideological blinders, presuppositions, a bunch of things, get in the way.
I've met a number of religious people who were quite good at their technical jobs that required critical thinking skills. So long as the knowledge, skills and behaviors required of them don't clash with their identity beliefs, there's no problem in terms of performance.
Wow, that’s incredibly naive. It is absolutely not a requirement. Critical thinking and logical reasoning are relatively basic skills. Once you learn them, reading about other people doing it just doesn’t matter for improving them.
Einstein did not read about Kierkegaard to form theories on relativity.
You’re confusing studying philosophy with critical thinking. You can think critically with a few basic logic rules and zero knowledge on existentialism.
I'd suspect uneducated makes it worse, but that might not even be true (maybe uneducated people are more willing to change their mind? maybe they're less effective at rationalizing bullshit?).
Maybe it's less about education and more about intelligence broadly defined or less about both and more about practicing 'rationality' specifically, but that ties into critical thinking.
I could see it being either way, or likely some combination of all of it.
I think every discipline requires some suspension of critical thinking. When I’m writing software I might start with a “faith” I can solve a problem I may not fully understand. I will come to understand the things I don’t currently understand when the time comes to implement them. I trust google or stack overflow will have my back!
Theology and Philosophy are full of critical thinking. And I’m not sure you can find any success in religious practice without it.
To the contrary, I think the average joe is generally more reasonable and able to develop critical thinking skills than most people think. They just don't ever get the opportunity to learn it properly. There might be a subset of the population that is actually incapable of proper reason due to cognitive deficits, but that is definitly not the majority.
This sentiment is one of the reasons anti-intellectualism is thriving at this very moment.
Like I said before its a matter of degree. Are you not already assuming this? Why not? Is being more critical and questioning not a good thing? Is being more educated not a good thing?
Rebuttal: There's good evidence that "thinking critically" is not a skill that can be divorced from domain-specific expertise. In order words, the capability to be a critical thinker is in direct relationship with one's competency in _specific domains_ and cannot be generalised.
Maybe with this knowledge, we can teach and encourage people to think more critically as they choose to adopt more of these tools?
I know more academic/intellectual types who are less willing to, than I do the average joe who seeks answers from all directions and discerns accordingly.
Are they capable of critical thinking if you choose an area of discussion that they are knowledgeable about? Can they make clear, reasoned judgements within the limits of their knowledge? If they can't, then you have a point (which is really sad).
People know how to think critically in a particular context. What I find is that when they're in an unfamiliar context their level of critical thinking is lower. Also tiredness, stress and so on contribute to less critical thinking. Also most people have certain irrational trigger topics, things that are so emotive to them or so wrapped up in their sense of identity that they can't break them down critically. (All of this also applies to myself of course.)
Newton is, I guess, an example of someone very critical in one context and less critical in another (scientific historians rush to correct me).
Still, though, I don't think we can all do enough work on training young people to at least have the tools to think critically. Studying medieval history at 17 changed my entire way of thinking about credibility. I think I'd be a much less critical thinker if I had not had that experience.
IMO critical thinking seems to appear when multiple conflicting hypothesis of truth are thrust upon the individual.
The people I’ve met who are least capable of critical thinking seem to have accepted some form of universal or protouniversal truth, usually an ideology that sort of explains all things away they don’t want to think about. Religion, strong societal rules and position, and lack of unwanted interference in your life can do that.
Some degree of oppression doesn’t seem to harm either as it seems to me it forces people to confront the fundamental sense of fairness they might want to believe in has no grounds in society. So it’s a mix of things.
I see critical thinking as a voluntary process. You have to be willing to violate your worldview - not just entertaining the idea that you are wrong. Additionally, the tools for critical thinking can just as easily be used to reinforce one's own worldview. I see the issue as an mindset problem rather than a lack of education problem.
I've found that the biggest problem preventing people from developing critical thinking skills is cognitive dissonance.
Even when they're smart people, who can read and write, and can comprehend pretty complex models, they all seem to have some kind of cognitive dissonance that prevents them from seeing literally what's in front of them.
While I agree in general, critical thinking alone is inadequate if there isn't enough information or information pathways are constricted such that they deliver only biased viewpoints.
In Islam, there are well-defined requirements with regards to the amount of knowledge a lay-person is required to attain. On the matter of beliefs, theology, cosmology, etc. the criterion is something like, "the subject must be studied sufficiently to be able to remove the doubts that are a person is capable of understanding". So for example, an illiterate Muslim bedouin is only required to understand the analogy between footsteps in the sand that indicate on the presence of a person having walked and the wonderous creation indicating on the presence of a creator. On the other hand, a Muslim that has a Ph.D. in philosophy has the responsibility to study deeply the cosmological and other rational arguments that justify every level of belief.
The bedouin can't be faulted for not studying to the level of the Ph.D. and the Ph.D. can't be faulted for not accepting without question the reasoning that was sufficient for the bedouin.
reply