Blog - by Linda Elder with Richard Paul Archives

{"ops":[{"insert":"Be consistent in your application of intellectual standards, whether you are considering others’ thinking or your own. Hold yourself to the same standards of evidence and rationality as you hold others – especially those with whom you disagree. Acknowledge inconsistencies and other shortcomings in your own reasoning and behaviors.\n \nAct towards others in the ways that you want them to act towards you. Respect others in the same ways that you want to be respected; do not expect others to act better than you are willing to act. Consider the wellbeing of others in the same way you want your own wellbeing considered.\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Intellectual integrity "},{"insert":"consists in holding yourself to the same standards you expect others to honor. It entails the avoidance of double standards. Questions that foster intellectual integrity (and help ward off its opposite, intellectual hypocrisy) include:\n \nDo I behave in accordance with what I say I believe, or do I tend to say one thing and do another?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"To what extent do I expect the same of myself as I expect of others?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"To what extent are there contradictions or inconsistencies in my life?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"To what extent do I strive to recognize and eliminate self-deception in my life?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Internalize the Idea: Intellectual Integrity"},{"insert":"\n \nWrite about a dimension of your life that you suspect holds some inconsistencies or contradictions, where you probably are not holding yourself to the same standards to which you hold others. Think of a situation where your behavior contradicts what you say you believe. This might be in your relationship with a colleague or spouse, for example. Explain what inconsistencies may be present in your thinking and behavior; for instance, you may criticize (outwardly or in the privacy of your mind) your coworker for doing something that you yourself sometimes do, while also creating justifications for your engagement in such behavior that you do not extend to your colleague’s.\n \n--------------------------\nThis blog is adapted from pages 166, 167, and 172 in Linda Elder’s "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Critical Thinking Therapy: For Happiness & Self-Actualization"},{"insert":" (2025), available through the Foundation for Critical Thinking Press at "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://www.fctpress.org/"},"insert":"FCTPress.org"},{"insert":".\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"[Missed Part 16? "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/blogPost.php?param=268"},"insert":"Read It Here"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"]"},{"insert":"\n \n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Summary and Conclusion [1 of 2]"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\nA strong case can be made for a philosophically-based approach to thinking and teaching for thinking. Such an approach differs fundamentally from most cognitive psychology-based approaches. Philosophy-based approaches reflect the historic emphases of philosophy as a field, as a mode of thinking, and as a framework for thinking. The field is historically committed to specific intellectual and moral ideals, and presupposes people's capacity to live reflective lives and achieve an understanding of and command over the most basic ideas that rule their lives. To achieve this command, people must critically examine the ideas on which they act and replace those ideas when, in their own best judgment, they can no longer rationally assent to them. Such an ideal of freedom of thought and action requires that individuals have a range of intellectual standards by which they can assess thought. These standards, implicit in the critical-analytic terms that exist in every natural language, must be applied in a certain spirit – a spirit of intellectual humility, empathy, and fairmindedness. To develop insight into proper intellectual judgment, one must engage in and become comfortable with dialogical and dialectical thinking. Such thinking is naturally stimulated when one asks basic questions, inquires into root ideas, and invites and honestly considers a variety of responses. It is further stimulated when one self-reflects. The reflective mind naturally moves back and forth between a variety of considerations and sources. The reflective mind eventually learns how to inwardly generate alternative points of view and lines of reasoning, even when others are not present to express them.\n \nA teacher who teaches philosophically brings these ideals and practices into the classroom whatever the subject matter, for all subject matter is grounded in ideas which must be understood and related to ideas pre-existing in the students' minds. The philosophically-oriented teacher wants all content to be critically and analytically processed by all students in such a way that they can integrate it into their own thinking, rejecting, accepting, or qualifying it in keeping with their honest assessment. All content provides grist for the philosophical mill, an opportunity for students to think further, to build upon their previous thought. The philosophically oriented teacher is careful not to require the students to take in more than they can intellectually digest. The philosophically oriented teacher is keenly sensitive to the ease with which minds become passive and submissive. The philosophically oriented teacher is more concerned with the global state of students' minds (are they developing their own thinking, points of view, intellectual standards and traits, etc.) than with the state of the students' minds within a narrowly defined subject competence. Hence it is much more important to such a teacher that students learn how to think historically (how to look at their own lives and experience and the lives and experiences of others from a historical vantage point) than that they learn how to recite information from a history text. History books are read as aids to historical thought, not as ends-in-themselves.\n \nThe philosophically oriented teacher continually looks for deeply rooted understanding and encourages the impulse to look more deeply into things. Hence, the philosophically oriented teacher is much more impressed with how little we as humans know than with how much information we have collected. They are much more apt to encourage students to believe that they, as a result of their own thinking, may design better answers to life's problems than have yet been devised, than they are to encourage students to submissively accept established answers.\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"insert":"Our best chance to create a just and reasonable world comes by way of our strongest possible reasoning. We need to resolve disagreements by looking at the facts available, and by following them out to the most defensible conclusions that we can reach. To do this, we must use universal intellectual standards. For example, we should use information that is accurate and relevant to the problem or question at hand; look for the complexities in deep issues, then discuss them with sufficient breadth and precision; avoid superficial answers to complicated problems, which almost never work well; ponder important questions and problems from different points of view; examine the implications of our conclusions for fairness; and distrust blind faith and empty appeals to emotion.\n \n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Confidence in reason "},{"insert":"is based on the belief that one’s own higher interests and those of other sentient creatures (human and otherwise) are best served by giving the freest play to quality reasoning. It means using standards of reasonability as the fundamental criteria by which to judge whether to accept or reject any belief or position. Questions that foster confidence in reason include:\n\nAm I willing to change my position when the evidence leads to a more reasonable one?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Do I adhere to principles of sound reasoning when persuading others, or do I distort matters to support my position?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Do I deem it more important to “win” an argument, or do I instead see the issue from the most reasonable perspective?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Do I encourage others to come to their own conclusions, or do I try to force my views on them?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\n\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Internalize the Idea: Confidence in Reason"},{"insert":"\n \nThink of a recent situation in which you felt yourself being defensive and were unable to listen to an argument you disagreed with, even though the argument had merit. At the time, you apparently could not be moved by good reasons. (Realize that this happens to everyone, and perhaps often.) Briefly write what happened in the situation. Then, write the reasonable arguments against your position that you were unwilling to listen to. Why weren’t you able to credit the other person’s argument? Complete these statements:\n \nThe situation was as follows…"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"The argument I did not want to hear was as follows…"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"I did not want to hear this argument because…"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"In future similar situations, to be more open to good reasoning as a guiding force in my life, I intend to…"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \n--------------------------\nThis blog is adapted from pages 169-170 and 173 in Linda Elder’s "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Critical Thinking Therapy: For Happiness & Self-Actualization"},{"insert":" (2025), available through the Foundation for Critical Thinking Press at "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://www.fctpress.org/"},"insert":"FCTPress.org"},{"insert":".\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"[Missed Part 15? "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/blogPost.php?param=266"},"insert":"Read It Here"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"]"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\nWe provide a “before” and “after” (the lesson plan before remodelling and after remodelling); a critique of the unremodelled lesson plan to clarify how the remodel was achieved; a list of specific objectives; and the particular strategies used in the remodel. Here is one such example:\n \n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"size":"large","bold":true},"insert":"Two Ways to Win"},{"attributes":{"align":"center"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"align":"center"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"(Language Arts - 2nd Grade)\n \n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Objectives of the Remodelled Lesson"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\nThe student will:\nuse analytic terms such as assume, infer, and imply to analyze and assess story characters' reasoning"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"make inferences from story details"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"clarify “good sport” by contrasting it with its opposite, “bad sport,” and exploring its implications"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Original Lesson Plan"},{"insert":"\n \n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Abstract"},{"insert":"\nStudents read a story about a brother and sister named Cleo and Toby. Cleo and Toby are new in town and worried about making new friends. They ice skate at the park every day after school, believing that winning an upcoming race can help them make new friends (and that they won't make friends if they don't win). Neither of them wins; Cleo, because she falls, Toby, because he forfeits his chance to win by stopping to help a boy who falls. Some children come over after the race to compliment Toby on his good sportsmanship and Cleo on her skating.\n \nMost of the questions about the story probe the factual components. Some require students to infer. Questions ask what “good sport” means and if Cleo's belief about meeting people is correct.\n \nfrom "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Mustard Seed Magic,"},{"attributes":{"align":"right"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Theodore L. Harris et al."},{"attributes":{"align":"right"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Economy Company. © 1972. pp. 42~46"},{"attributes":{"align":"right"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Critique"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\nThe original lesson has several good questions which require students to make inferences, for example, \"Have Toby and Cleo lived on the block all their lives?\" The text also asks students if they know who won the race. Since they do not, this question encourages students to suspend judgment. Although “good sportsmanship” is a good concept for students to discuss and clarify, the text fails to have students practice techniques for clarifying it in sufficient depth. Instead, students merely list the characteristics of a good sport (a central idea in the story) with no discussion of what it means to be a bad sport or sufficient assessment of specific examples. The use of opposite cases to clarify concepts helps students develop fuller and more accurate concepts. With such practice a student can begin to recognize borderline cases as well where someone was a good sport in some respects, bad in others, or not clearly either. This puts students in a position to develop criteria for judging behavior.\n \n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Strategies used to remodel"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"S-10 "},{"insert":"clarifying the meanings of words or phrases\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"S-28 "},{"insert":"supplying evidence for a conclusion\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"S-23 "},{"insert":"using critical vocabulary\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"S-25 "},{"insert":"examining assumptions\n \n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Remodelled Lesson Plan"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\nWhere the original lesson asks, \"What does 'a good sport' mean?\" we suggest an extension. "},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"S-10 "},{"insert":"The teacher should make two lists on the board of the students' responses to the question \"How do good sports and bad sports behave?\" Students could go back over the story and apply the ideas on the list to the characters in the story, giving reasons to support any claims they make regarding the characters' sportsmanship. "},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"S-28 "},{"insert":"In some cases there might not be enough information to determine whether a particular character is a good or bad sport. Or they might find a character who is borderline, having some characteristics of both good and bad sports. Again, students should cite evidence from the story to support their claims.\n \nThe students could also change details of the story to make further points about the nature of good and bad sportsmanship. (If the girl had pushed Cleo down to win the race, that would have been very bad sportsmanship.) To further probe the concept of good sportsmanship, ask questions like the following: How did Toby impress the other children? Why did they think he did a good thing? If you had seen the race, what would you have thought of Toby? Why do we value the kind of behavior we call “good sportsmanship”? Why don't we like bad sportsmanship? Why are people ever bad sports? "},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"S-10"},{"insert":"\n \nThere are a number of places in the lesson where the teacher could introduce or give students further practice using critical thinking vocabulary. Here are a few examples: \"What can you "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"infer "},{"insert":"from the story title and picture? What parts of the story "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"imply "},{"insert":"that Toby and Cleo will have some competition in the race? What do Toby and Cleo "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"assume "},{"insert":"about meeting new people and making new friends? Is this a good or a bad "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"assumption? "},{"insert":"Why? Why do you think they made this assumption? Have you ever made similar assumptions? Why? "},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"S-25"},{"insert":" What can you infer that Cleo felt at the end of the story? How can you tell?\" "},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"S-23"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\nOnly after close examination of specific classroom materials and teaching strategies, can teachers begin to understand how to translate philosophically-based approaches into classroom practice. This requires long-term staff development with ample provision for peer collaboration and demonstration teaching. Only then can one reasonably assess the value and power of a philosophical approach.\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"insert":"Strive to understand the reasoning of others, what desires most likely drive this reasoning, and what emotions most likely accompany it. During disagreements, try to see things from the other person’s point of view – it is common for people to declare disagreement without actually understanding the thinking that they are positioning themselves against. When considering things from other people’s viewpoints, you will often find accuracies and inaccuracies on the part of every involved party (yourself included), as well as instances of better and worse reasoning. Being able and willing to reconstruct, as accurately as possible, how others think and feel is very important, both for functional interpersonal relationships and for your own development and wellbeing.\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Intellectual empathy "},{"insert":"is awareness of the need to actively entertain views that differ from your own, especially those you strongly disagree with. It is to accurately reconstruct the viewpoints and reasoning of your opponents and to reason from premises, assumptions, and ideas other than your own. Questions that foster intellectual empathy include:\n\nTo what extent do I accurately represent viewpoints I disagree with?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Can I summarize the views of my opponents to their satisfaction? Can I see insights in the views of others and prejudices in my own?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Do I sympathize with the feelings of others in light of their thinking differently than me?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Internalize the Idea: Intellectual Empathy"},{"insert":"\n \nTry to reconstruct the last argument you had with someone (a supervisor, colleague, friend, romantic partner, etc.) Reconstruct the argument from your perspective and that of the other person. Complete the statements below. As you do, watch that you do not distort the other’s viewpoint; try to enter it in good faith, even if it means you must admit you were wrong. (Remember that healthy thinkers want to see the truth in the situation.) After you have completed this activity, show it to the person you argued with to see if you have accurately represented that person’s view.\n\nMy perspective was as follows (state and elaborate your view): "},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"The other person’s view was as follows (state and elaborate the other person’s view):"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \n--------------------------\nThis blog is adapted from pages 168 and 172 in Linda Elder’s "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Critical Thinking Therapy: For Happiness & Self-Actualization"},{"insert":" (2025), available through Foundation for Critical Thinking Press at "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://www.fctpress.org/"},"insert":"FCTPress.org"},{"insert":".\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"[Missed Part 14? "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/blogPost.php?param=264"},"insert":"Read It Here"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"]"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\nTeachers need to move progressively from a didactic to a critical model of teaching. In this process, many old assumptions will have to be abandoned and new ones taken to heart as the basis for teaching and learning. This shift can be spelled out systematically as follows.\n\n"},{"attributes":{"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/viewDocument.php?doc=../content/library_for_everyone/119/Chapter35-TheContributionofPhilosophytoThinking.pdf&page=25"},"insert":"Evolution of Assumptions from Didactic to Critical Theory, Page 1"},{"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/viewDocument.php?doc=../content/library_for_everyone/119/Chapter35-TheContributionofPhilosophytoThinking.pdf&page=26"},"insert":"Evolution of Assumptions from Didactic to Critical Theory, Page 2"},{"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/viewDocument.php?doc=../content/library_for_everyone/119/Chapter35-TheContributionofPhilosophytoThinking.pdf&page=27"},"insert":"Evolution of Assumptions from Didactic to Critical Theory, Page 3"},{"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/viewDocument.php?doc=../content/library_for_everyone/119/Chapter35-TheContributionofPhilosophytoThinking.pdf&page=28"},"insert":"Evolution of Assumptions from Didactic to Critical Theory, Page 4"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Bringing a Philosophical Approach into the Classroom"},{"insert":"\n \nUnfortunately, a general case for the contribution of philosophy to thinking and to teaching for thinking, such as this one, must of necessity lack a good deal of the concrete detail regarding how one would, as a practical matter, translate the generalities discussed here into action in the classroom or in everyday thinking. There are two basic needs. The first is an ample supply of concrete models that bridge the gap between theory and practice. These models should come in a variety of forms: video tapes, curriculum materials, handbooks, etc. Second, most teachers need opportunities to work on their own philosophical thinking skills and insights. These two needs are best met in conjunction with each other. It is important for the reader to review particular philosophy-based strategies in detail.\n \nThe most extensive program available is "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Philosophy for Children"},{"insert":", developed by Matthew Lipman in association with the "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children"},{"insert":". It is based on the notion that philosophy ought to be brought into schools as a separate subject, and philosophical reflection and ideas used directly as an occasion for teaching thinking skills. The program introduces philosophy in the form of children's novels. Extensive teachers' handbooks are provided and a thorough inservice required to ensure that teachers develop the necessary skills and insights to encourage classroom discussion of root ideas in such a way that students achieve philosophical insights and reasoning skills. In a year-long experiment conducted by the "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Educational Testing Service"},{"insert":", significant improvements were recorded in reading, mathematics, and reasoning. "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Philosophy for Children"},{"insert":" achieves transfer of reasoning skills into the standard curriculum but is not designed to directly infuse philosophical reflection into it.\n \nIn contrast, the Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique at Sonoma State University in California is developing a philosophy-based approach focused on directly infusing philosophical thinking across the curriculum. Handbooks of lesson plans K-12 have been remodelled by the Center staff to demonstrate that, with redesign, philosophically-based critical thinking skills and processes can be integrated into the lessons presently in use, if teachers learn to remodel the lessons they presently use with critical thinking in mind.\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Develop Intellectual Courage "},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\nWhen you have used your best reasoning to determine what is sensible and ethical, be willing to advocate for it, especially when it is unpopular among your peers or within your society. Of course, supporting what is right and rational can be dangerous, so consider carefully when it makes sense to speak up and when you should keep your thoughts to yourself. When you do speak up, show respect for others, but never be afraid to disagree in the privacy of your own mind. \n \nIntellectual courage also applies to examining one’s own reasoning. Don’t be afraid to question your beliefs to figure out what makes the best sense. Develop the courage to look inside your mind and figure out how it is truly functioning. Even if you have held a belief for a long time, be willing to question it, to use the tools of critical thinking to recheck it. \n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Intellectual courage "},{"insert":"is the disposition to question beliefs you or your peers feel strongly about. It includes questioning the beliefs of your culture and the groups to which you belong, and a willingness to express your views even when they are unpopular (assuming it is safe to do so).\n \nQuestions that foster intellectual courage include:\n \nHow do the beliefs I have uncritically accepted keep me from seeing things as they are?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"To what extent have I analyzed and assessed the beliefs I hold? With what level of thoroughness and skill did I do this? "},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"To what extent have I questioned my beliefs, many of which I learned in childhood? Have I since learned new tools of reasoning that I should now use to reexamine those beliefs?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"To what extent have I demonstrated a willingness to give up my beliefs when sufficient evidence is presented against them?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"To what extent am I willing to stand up against the majority, even though people might ridicule me?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \n\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Internalize the Idea: Intellectual Courage"},{"insert":"\n \n1. Recall a circumstance in which you defended a view that was unpopular in a group to which you belonged, such as your family or department at work. Describe the circumstances and especially how the group responded. "},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"2. Recall a circumstance when you disagreed with those around you but chose not to speak out, even though dire consequences were highly unlikely. "},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"What serious consequences, such as being fully expelled from the group, did you fear unreasonably and why? "},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" "},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"What unserious consequences, such as transitory mockery, did you fear and why? Would these minor outcomes have been worse than hiding your reasoning from others, especially if you or someone else was affected as a result?"},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \n--------------------------\nThis blog is adapted from pages 169 and 172 in Linda Elder’s "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Critical Thinking Therapy: For Happiness & Self-Actualization"},{"insert":" (2025), available through Foundation for Critical Thinking Press at "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://www.fctpress.org/"},"insert":"FCTPress.org"},{"insert":".\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"[Missed Part 13? "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/blogPost.php?param=262"},"insert":"Read It Here"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"]"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Philosophical and Critical Thinking"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\nThose familiar with some of my other writings will recognize that what I am here calling "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"philosophical "},{"insert":"thinking is very close to what I have generally called "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"strong sense critical thinking. "},{"insert":"The connection is not arbitrary. The ideal of strong sense critical thinking is implicit in the Socratic philosophical ideal of living a reflective life (and thus achieving command over one's mind and behavior). Instead of absorbing their philosophy from others, people can, with suitable encouragement and instruction, develop a critical and reflective attitude toward ideas and behavior. Their outlook and interpretations of themselves and others can be subjected to serious examination. Through this process, our beliefs become more our own than the product of our unconscious absorption of others' beliefs. Basic ideas such as “history,” “science,” “drama,” “mind,” “imagination,” and “knowledge” become organized by the criss-crossing paths of one's reflection. They cease to be compartmentalized subjects. The philosophical questions one raises about history cut across those raised about the human mind, science, knowledge, and imagination. Only deep philosophical questioning and honest criticism can protect us from the pronounced human tendency to think in a self-serving way. It is common to question only within a fundamentally unquestioned point of view. We naturally use our intellectual skills to defend and buttress those concepts, aims, and assumptions already deeply rooted in our thought.\n \nThe roots of thinking determine the nature, direction, and quality of that thinking. If teaching for thinking does not help students understand the roots of their thinking, it will fail to give them real command over their minds. They will simply make the transition from uncritical thought to weak sense critical thought. They will make the transition from being unskilled in thinking to being narrowly, closedmindedly skilled.\n \nDavid Perkins (1986) has highlighted this problem from a somewhat different point of view."},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"In studying the relationship between people's scores on standard IQ tests and their openmindedness, as measured by their ability to construct arguments against their points of view on a public issue. Perkins found that,\n \nintelligence scores correlated substantially with the degree to which subjects developed arguments thoroughly on their own sides of the case. However, there was no correlation between intelligence and elaborateness of arguments on the other side of the case. In other words, the more intelligent participants invested their greater intellectual endowment in bolstering their own positions all the more, not in exploring even-handedly the complexities of the issue."},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \nHerein lies the danger of an approach to thinking that relies fundamentally, as cognitive psychology often does, on the goal of technical competence, without making central the deeper philosophical or normative dimensions of thinking. Student skill in thinking may increase, but whatever narrowness of mind or lack of insight, whatever intellectual closedmindedness, intellectual arrogance, or intellectual cowardice the students suffer, will be supported by that skill. It is crucial therefore that this deeper consideration of the problem of thinking be highlighted and addressed in a significant and global manner. Whether one labels it “philosophical” thinking or “strong sense critical thinking” or “thinking that embodies empathy and openmindedness” is insignificant.\n \nA similar point can be made about the thinking of teachers. If we merely provide teachers with exercises for their students that do no more than promote technical competence in thinking, if inservice is not long-term and designed to develop the critical thinking of teachers, they will probably be ineffective in fostering the thinking of their students.\n \n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Reference:"},{"insert":"\nPerkins, David. \"Reasoning as it Is and Could Be: An Empirical Perspective.\" Paper given at "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"American Educational Research Association "},{"insert":"Conference, San Francisco. April,"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"1986.\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Develop Intellectual Humility"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\nRecognize that there is much you don’t know. In fact, as compared with the sum of all human knowledge ever learned, you can come to know but extremely little in your lifetime. \n \nDo not say something is true when you don’t know for certain that it is. Many things you think are true may not in fact be true. Many things people claim are true are not true, and many things you read or see on the internet are not true. Always ask, “How do I know that? How do you know that?” Upon answering or receiving an answer, ask, “Is this answer accurate? How can I check? If it is accurate, does it "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"actually"},{"insert":" prove the claim, or does it only prove something related?” \n \nIntellectual humility entails knowledge of your own ignorance and therefore sensitivity to what you know and what you do not know. It means being aware of your biases, prejudices, self-deceptive tendencies, and the limitations of your viewpoint. Questions that foster intellectual humility include:\n \nWhat do I really know (about myself, about the situation, about another person, about my nation, about what is happening in the world)? "},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nTo what extent do my prejudices or biases influence my thinking?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nTo what extent have I been indoctrinated into beliefs that may be false? To what extent am I defending these beliefs to protect my ego?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nHow do the beliefs that I have uncritically accepted keep me from seeing things as they are?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nDoes my uncritical acceptance of ideas (based, for example, on wishful thinking) lead me to illogical behavior or cause me frustration?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Internalize the Idea: Intellectual Humility"},{"insert":"\n \nThink of a recent situation in which you stated something to be true which you were not sure of in fact. Analyze the situation using this format:\n \nThe situation was as follows…"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"In this situation, I said…"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"What I should have said, which would have been more accurate, is…"},{"attributes":{"list":"ordered"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \nHuman beings make or assume many dubious claims as truth, so repeat this exercise often, as you will likely find no shortage of examples from your own life.\n\n--------------------------\nThis blog post is adapted from pages 168 and 171 in Linda Elder’s "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"Critical Thinking Therapy: For Happiness & Self-Actualization"},{"insert":" (2025), available through Foundation for Critical Thinking Press at "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://www.fctpress.org/"},"insert":"FCTPress.org"},{"insert":".\n"}]}

{"ops":[{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"[Missed Part 12? "},{"attributes":{"bold":true,"link":"https://community.criticalthinking.org/blogPost.php?param=260"},"insert":"Read It Here"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"]"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"The Skills and Processes of Thinking"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":" "},{"insert":"\nPhilosophers do not tend to approach the micro-skills and macro-processes of thinking from the same perspective as cognitive psychologists. Intellectual skills and processes are approached not from the perspective of the needs of empirical research but from the perspective of achieving personal, rational control. The philosophical is, as I have suggested, a "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"person-centered"},{"insert":" approach to thinking. Thinking is always the thinking of some actual person, with some egocentric and sociocentric tendencies, with some particular traits of mind, engaged in the problems of a particular life. The need to understand one's own mind, thought, and action cannot be satisfied with information from empirical studies about aspects or dimensions of thought. The question foremost in the mind of the philosopher is not \"How should I conceive of the various skills and processes of the human mind to be able to conduct empirical research on them?\" but \"How should I understand the elements of thinking to be able to analyze, assess, and rationally control my own thinking and accurately understand and assess the thinking of others?\" Philosophers view thinking from the perspective of the needs of the thinker trying to achieve or move toward an intellectual and moral ideal of rationality and fairmindedness. The tools of intellectual analysis result from philosophy's 2,500 years of thinking and thinking about thinking.\n \nSince thinking for one's self is a fundamental presupposed value for philosophy, the micro-skills philosophers use are intellectual moves that a reasoning person continually makes, independent of the subject matter of thought. Hence, "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"whenever one is reasoning"},{"insert":", one is reasoning about some issue or problem (and hence needs skills for analyzing and clarifying issues and problems). Likewise, "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"whenever one is reasoning"},{"insert":", one is reasoning from some point of view or within some conceptual framework (and hence needs skills for analyzing and clarifying interpretations or interpretive frameworks.) Finally, "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"whenever one is reasoning"},{"insert":", one is, in virtue of one's inferences, coming to some conclusions from some beliefs or premises which, in turn, are based on some assumptions. (The reasoner hence needs skills for analyzing, clarifying, and evaluating beliefs, judgments, inferences, implications, and assumptions.) For virtually any reasoning, one needs a variety of interrelated processes and skills.\n \nHence, from the philosophical point of view, the fundamental question is not whether one is solving problems or making decisions or engaging in scientific inquiry or forming concepts or comprehending or composing or arguing, precisely because one usually does most or all of them in "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"every"},{"insert":" case. Problem solving, decision-making, concept formation, comprehending, composing, and arguing are in some sense common to all reasoning. What we as reasoners need to do, from the philosophical point of view, is not to decide which of these things we are doing, but rather to orchestrate any or all of the following macro-processes:\n \n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"1) Socratic Questioning: "},{"insert":"questioning ourselves or others so as to make explicit the salient features of our thinking:"},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"a) "},{"insert":"What precisely is at issue? Is this the fairest way to put the issue?"},{"attributes":{"indent":2},"insert":"\n\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"b) "},{"insert":"From what point of view are we reasoning? Are there alternative points of view from which the problem or issue might be approached?"},{"attributes":{"indent":2},"insert":"\n\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"c) "},{"insert":"What assumptions are we making? Are they justified? What alternative assumptions could we make instead?"},{"attributes":{"indent":2},"insert":"\n\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"d) "},{"insert":"What concepts are we using? Do we grasp them? Their appropriateness? Their implications?"},{"attributes":{"indent":2},"insert":"\n\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"e) "},{"insert":"What evidence have we found or do we need to find? How dependable is our source of information?"},{"attributes":{"indent":2},"insert":"\n\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"f) "},{"insert":"What inferences are we making? Are those inferences well supported?"},{"attributes":{"indent":2},"insert":"\n\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"g) "},{"insert":"What are the implications of our reasoning?"},{"attributes":{"indent":2},"insert":"\n\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"h) "},{"insert":"How does our reasoning stand up to competing or alternative reasoning?"},{"attributes":{"indent":2},"insert":"\n\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"i) "},{"insert":"Are there objections to our reasoning we should consider?"},{"attributes":{"indent":2},"insert":"\n\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"2) Conceptual Analysis: "},{"insert":"Any problematic concepts or uses of terms must be analyzed and their basic logic set out and assessed. Have we done so?"},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"3) Analysis of the Question-at-Issue: "},{"insert":"Whenever one is reasoning, one is attempting to settle some question at issue. But to settle a question, one must understand the kind of question it is. Different questions require different modes of settlement. Do we grasp the precise demands of the question-at-issue?"},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"4) Reconstructing Alternative Viewpoints in their Strongest Forms: "},{"insert":"Since whenever one is reasoning, one is reasoning from a point of view or within a conceptual framework, one must identify and reconstruct those views. Have we empathically reconstructed the relevant points of view?"},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"5) Reasoning Dialogically and Dialectically: "},{"insert":"Since there are almost always alternative lines of reasoning about a given issue or problem, and since a reasonable person sympathetically considers them, one must engage in dialectical reasoning. Have we reasoned from a variety of points of view (when relevant) and rationally identified and considered the strengths and weaknesses of these points of view as a result of this process?"},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \nImplicit in the macro-processes, as suggested earlier, are identifiable micro-skills. These constitute moves of the mind while thinking in a philosophical, and hence in a rational, critically-creative way. The moves are marked in the critical-analytic vocabulary of everyday language. Hence in Socratically questioning someone we are engaging in a "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"process "},{"insert":"of thought. Within that process we make a variety of moves. We can make those moves explicit by using analytic terms such as these:\n \nclaims, assumes, implies, infers, concludes, is supported by, is consistent with, is relevant to, is irrelevant to, has the following implications, is credible, plausible, clear, in need of analysis, without evidence, in need of verification, is empirical, is conceptual, is a judgment of value, is settled, is at issue, is problematic, is analogous, is biased, is loaded, is well confirmed, is theoretical, hypothetical, a matter of opinion, a matter of fact, a point of view, a frame of reference, a conceptual framework, etc."},{"attributes":{"indent":1},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \nTo put the point another way, to gain command of our thinking we must be able to take it apart and put it back together in light of its "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"logic, "},{"insert":"the patterns of reasoning that support it, oppose it, and shed light on its rational acceptability. We don't need a formal or technical language to do this, but we do need a command of the critical-analytic terms available in ordinary English. Their careful use helps discipline, organize, and render self-conscious our ordinary inferences and the concepts, values, and assumptions that underlie them.\n"}]}