How to Develop Critical Thinking Skills
(Also see this on Logic and Critical Thinking)
Attitude is important: It's about increasing your knowledge, not about winning an argument.
Listen to or read what's being said charitably. Give the speaker the benefit of the doubt when it comes to trivial concerns (e.g. slightly inaccurate stats, inconsequential misuse of a word, etc.). Make sure you're hearing what's actually being said. Check that others hear the same thing and you're not reading into it something that's not there.
Then...
STEP 1: Do you agree with any part of the claim? Why do you agree?
List the claims that resonate with you. (This whole exercise can often be done in your head.)
Now, for each claim, list any compelling evidence given.
Scrutinize the evidence. Is the evidence reasonable?
Separate out agreement through compelling evidence from agreement through provoked feelings.
If there is no compelling evidence, but it's largely an emotionally-provoked agreement, then...
If it's a belief system rather than an empirically verifiable claim, then consider whether or not it's a GOOD belief. Beliefs aren't bad in their own right, and we all have them (e.g. 'We should strive to progress.' or 'We should be content with our situation.'). Now we have to ask these questions:
STEP 2: Do you disagree with any part of the claim? Why do you disagree?
List the claims, and scrutinize your own evidence in opposition.
Download a printable version of this here, and also see this PDF for more tips.
This colourful version works too, and also questions the credibility of the claimant, but it's a bit repetitive as they tried to fit in an even number of points under each type of questioning (a form over substance issue).
Attitude is important: It's about increasing your knowledge, not about winning an argument.
Listen to or read what's being said charitably. Give the speaker the benefit of the doubt when it comes to trivial concerns (e.g. slightly inaccurate stats, inconsequential misuse of a word, etc.). Make sure you're hearing what's actually being said. Check that others hear the same thing and you're not reading into it something that's not there.
Then...
STEP 1: Do you agree with any part of the claim? Why do you agree?
List the claims that resonate with you. (This whole exercise can often be done in your head.)
Now, for each claim, list any compelling evidence given.
Scrutinize the evidence. Is the evidence reasonable?
- Is there solid proof to support the ideas rather than just anecdotal evidence?
- Is the proof from a well-developed study (good sample size, good control of variables, etc.)?
- If they use another authority's word as their evidence, then look at the arguments of that other person to verify accuracy as well.
Separate out agreement through compelling evidence from agreement through provoked feelings.
- Connections can lead us to agree. e.g. If the speaker has an anecdote and you have a similar anecdote from your life, then you can end up agreeing even though the evidence is sparse.
- Good feelings make us want to agree. e.g. If the speaker suggests something that we wish were true, the mere suggestion can make us believe it's a fact.
- Don't let feelings about the speaker colour any real evidence being presented.
If there is no compelling evidence, but it's largely an emotionally-provoked agreement, then...
- It could be entirely false (BS).
- It could be true, but poorly argued. In this case, seek out evidence elsewhere.
- It could be unverifiable, yet still a useful belief.
If it's a belief system rather than an empirically verifiable claim, then consider whether or not it's a GOOD belief. Beliefs aren't bad in their own right, and we all have them (e.g. 'We should strive to progress.' or 'We should be content with our situation.'). Now we have to ask these questions:
- Is there strong reasoning behind the belief? Instead of right/wrong we have strong/weak.
- What are the implications of life if we all believe this? What kinds of problems might crop up if we stand firm with this perception of things? Is it better for most people to believe this over an opposing claim? What are the implications if nobody believes this?
STEP 2: Do you disagree with any part of the claim? Why do you disagree?
List the claims, and scrutinize your own evidence in opposition.
- Be careful not to criticize for the sake of criticizing. Focus on main arguments, nothing petty or trivial.
- Make sure any evidence you present follows the same standards you apply to other people's claims (i.e. not anecdotal...).
Download a printable version of this here, and also see this PDF for more tips.
This colourful version works too, and also questions the credibility of the claimant, but it's a bit repetitive as they tried to fit in an even number of points under each type of questioning (a form over substance issue).
And, if you're still with me, here's a video on the importance of teaching how to verify facts, and here are some philosophical quotations on arguing:
Bertrand Russell on arguing with someone who vehemently opposes you:
"I feel obliged to say that the emotional universes we inhabit are so distinct, and in deepest ways opposed, that nothing fruitful or sincere could ever emerge from association between us."
Blaise Pascal on changing a person's mind: "When we wish to correct with advantage, and to show another that he errs, we must notice from what side he views the matter, for on that side it is usually true, and admit that truth to him, but reveal to him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he sees that he was not mistaken, and that he only failed to see all sides."
Daniel Dennett on criticizing with kindness: "You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement). You should mention anything you have learned from your target. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism."
Susan Sontag on the primary ways to refute an argument: "Find the inconsistency. Find the counter-example. Find a wider context."
Julian Baggini's The Edge of Reason discusses five necessities for objective rational discourse: comprehensibility (can it be understood), assessability (can it be judged), defeasibility (is it open to revision), interest-neutrality (can it be accepted without manipulation), and compulsion (does the argument push one to accept the conclusion).
Check out this online course in Reasoning for the Digital Age!
