The Hallmarks of Critical Thought

Let's say a 'critical thinker' is presented with a statement like 'X causes Y'. What does the critical thinker do with the statement? The first step is triage. Is the statement on an issue warranting consideration or is it just puffery or trolling. If worth considering, the next step of triage is 'does the statement seem plausible?' If the statement is wildly implausible, it may not warrant further consideration.

If further consideration is deemed warranted, critical analysis starts. Who is making the statement? Is the statement from a credible source? This is not to suggest that a statement may be true or false simply because of the source. A questionable source may indicate a need for further caution. Conversely, non-critical thinkers may quickly conclude that a statement is true because they trust or like the source. For example, if they have a New York Times subscription and the source is the New York Time, they accept the statement as true. Or, if they follow 'Person A' on social media, and Person A makes the statement, then the statement is true.

What evidence or data is cited in support of the statement? If the statement calls for evidence or data, and no evidence or data is cited, the statement remains nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion not worthy of further consideration.

If evidence or data is cited, then some analysis of that evidence or data is required. Is the statement of 'causation' really a statement of 'correlation only'. Correlation is not proof of causation. Correlation may raise an issue of causation, but further study is required to take correlation to the next stage - causation. Correlation is a statistical indicator of a relationship between variables. The variables change together. For example, ice cream sales and violent crime rates have been shown to be closely correlated. Does eating ice cream lead to violent crime? Or, after committing a violent crime, does the offender go for ice cream? In this example, there is a third variable that explains the correlation - hot temperatures. This example is perhaps a silly example but it does illustrate the dangers of mere correlation.

Data is typically subject to statistical analysis. Statistics is a complex area which I am not purporting to deal with in any detail here. But there are a couple of points worth making. Critical thinkers will not be taken in by anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is a type of statistical analysis where inferences are made based on a very small sample size. An example is as follows: my spouse is a man; my spouse does not do his fair share of housework; therefore all men do not do their fair share of housework.

Another area of statistical concern is the use of graphs. Graphs can be very misleading and must be studied carefully.

A critical thinker would do well to be or became acquainted with the proper use of statistics. As Mark Twain (or possibly Benjamin Disraeli) said: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." An easy read on the subject is "How to Lie with Statistics" by Darrell Ruff.

Where a critical thinker does not have time to 'study' a statement, the critical thinker is likely not to form an opinion regarding the veracity of the statement. The critical thinker may just file the statement away for further consideration down the road. If asked for an opinion on the statement, a critical thinker is likely to respond that they are not familiar enough with the issue to opine.

Non-critical thinkers are more likely to accept the veracity of a statement based on how they feel about the statement and the statement's maker. They may not be interested in the logical framework or empirical basis for the statement. They may not be interested in the context of the statement. If questioned about their belief in the statement, they may become defensive and respond with contempt, anger, personal attacks, and the like. Some non-critical thinkers reject the whole concept of critical thought including logic and empiricism. They may be subscribers of 'new-modernism'.

Often non-critical thinkers have established a framework of beliefs and values which they do not question. When faced with a statement that agrees with their framework, it is accepted otherwise it is rejected. Critical thinkers may also have a framework of beliefs and values. However, the these beliefs and values, even where strongly held, are working hypotheses. Each hypothesis is subject to constant testing - logical testing and testing against observations. A hypothesis that fails logical or observational testing must either be modified or discarded. A critical thinker welcomes debate about their hypotheses as debate is one means of testing.

Let's take another example of a statement: 'Masculinity is toxic'. A critical thinker will require definitions. What is meant by 'masculinity'? What is meant by 'toxic'. Without definitions, the statement is meaningless at best and at worst, nonsense. With definitions, the statement may or may not have some elements of correctness. i.e. some masculine traits may be undesirable from some perspectives.

The forgoing is a rough sketch of the hallmarks of critical thinking. Critical thinking applies where knowledge and understanding is the goal. Some areas of human endeavour are not, and should not be, subject to critical thinking. Where the line should be drawn has been a matter of philosophic controversy for millennia.