// varmasti löytyy typoja tarpeeksi kun tuijotin koko ajan tuohon paperiin.


CRITICAL THINKING
taken from Practical Logis - An Antidote for Uncritical Thinking (Soccio & Barry)


Critical thinking is the conscious and deliberate scrutiny of cases and arguments to determine whether or not
 they meet the criteria of reasonableness, relevancy and sufficiency. Although the application of these criteria
 sometimes invites multiple interpretations, they are, in theory, objective and public in nature. The activity
 of critical thinking in large part aims to expose this objective and public aspect of argument. These criteria,
 in turn, shape the activity of critical thinking. Thus, when Socrates responds to Protagoras he is implicitly
 subjecting his antagonist’s claim to one litmus test of cogent argument: reasonableness. In fact, Protagoras’
 claim fails this test. It’s self-contradictory.

Curiously, one of the first tasks facing a critical thinker is learning how to think critically about thinking 
critically. That means that we must learn to be selective about how carefully we scrutinize claims. To cite a 
simple example, it is more important to thoroughly evaluate claims about where to invest our savings than it 
is to evaluate competing claims about which brand of ice cream tastes better or which is the greatest team in 
the NBA. A reasonable person, as we noted elsewhere, demands sufficient reasons where reasons are appropriate. 
But a reasonable person does not treat every claim with equal seriousness since clearly not every claim 
involves important issues.

Another thing to remember about critical thinking is that it is not the same as “hairsplitting” and “nitpicking”.
 A person who challenges practically every assertion with “Prove it!” or “How do you know?” is not going to be
 very effective in ascertaining the truth. Besides annoying others, and perhaps causing them to become defensive
 and resistant to reasoning, these excessive individuals lack a clear sense of priorities. In other words, they
 lack a hierarchy of values and principles to aid them in their search for truth. It may also be that some of
these persons are not really interested in the truth so much as in showing off or demonstrating others’ errors.

In any case, because the search for truth requires public testing of claims, ocnsistently alienating others
 limits our social circle. Yet we want it to include individuals of many beliefs and backgrounds, for this assures
 us that our ideas - and theirs - will get a fair hearing. Strong arguments will survive the ongoing test of a 
marketplace of ideas. Weak ones will not. If we limit our intellectual interaction to those just like us, we
 diminish our opportunities to hear alternative views presented by those who hold them. We fail to consider all
 the relevant evidence.

Critical thinkers have a healthy dose of skepticism. That is, critical thinkers do not take claims at face value.
 For example, before accepting the claims in a book on nutrition or marriage, a critical thinker will want to 
know something about the author’s qualifications. If a neighbor says vitamin E builds muscle mass, a critical 
thinker will ask, courteously of course, “Where did you learn that?”

There is a sense in which critical thinking involves what we might call intellectual maturity. That is, critical 
thinking takes effort. It requires discipline. It requires a willingness to risk offending others by asking 
questions. It may require doing research. It may involve risking long-standing relationships when evidence leads 
us to new religious or political views.

It is no exaggaration to say that critical thinking takes courage. Uncritical thinking is often characterized by
 reflex trust or distrust, and takes things at face value. Critical thinking requires a conscious decision to 
suspend judgement, to question comfortable beliefs and to entertani the possibility of adopting new ones if 
that is where the evidence leads. This can be threatening.

Is critical thinking worth it? Obviously we think so. The alternative is indifference to the truth. There is no 
other way to put it. It is one thing to be unaware and quite another to deliberately decide not to think carefully.
 By learning some of the basic principles of logic and critical thinking, you will acquire tools that you may use 
or may not use. We are betting that you will use them and even find the process exciting. In fact, our experience 
is that many students report becoming almost addicted to critical thinking during the course of a semester or quarter.
 Besides, critical thinking is like many other things: Describing it makes it sound much more complicated than it is.

If pressed to give a list of characteristics fo “critical thinking”, we’d certainly include the following:

1. application of the criteria of reasonableness, relevancy, and sufficiency to all important claims;
2. distinguishing what is important from what is not according to regularly reevaluated principles;
3. careful attention to the meanings of terms;
4. balanced use of relevant expertise;
5. unwillingness to accept any claim that is inconsistent with our own carefully analyzed experience;
6. careful assesment of motives (our own and others);
7. respect for conflicting views when they are reasonably defended;
8. refusal to take legitimate criticism of arguments personally;
9. asking interrelated and relevant questions;
10. a willingness to be moved by reason;
11. being open to the possibility of error;
12. willingness to suspend judgement until sufficient evidence is found;
13. objectivity.