Chapter Four

Basic Concepts of Critical Thinking

4.1. Meaning of Critical Thinking

Critical means involving or exercising skilled judgment or observation. In this sense, critical thinking means
thinking clearly and intelligently.More precisely, critical thinking is the general term given to a wide range of
cognitive skills and intellectual dispositions needed to effectively identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments and
truth claims. Moreover, it helps to discover and overcome personal preconceptions and biases; to formulate and
present convincing reasons in support of conclusions; and to make reasonable, intelligent decisions about what
to believe and what to do.

However, it does not automatically follow that being intelligent means being able think critically or reason
about information in a useful, effective and efficient manner. Being smart and intelligent is not sufficient.
Critical thinking is a process or journey that helps us to arrive at the most useful, helpful, and most likely
destinations when evaluating claims for scientific truth. Critical thinking, thus, is thinking clearly, thinking
fairly, thinking rationally, thinking objectively, and thinking independently. It is a process that hopefully leads
to an impartial investigation of the data and facts that remains not swayed by irrelevant emotions. Therefore, the
aim of critical thinking is to arrive at well-reasoned, considered, and justifiable conclusions.

4.2. Standards of Critical Thinking

Standards of critical thinking refer conditions or a level that critical thinking should meet to be considered as
normal and acceptable. Among the most important of these intellectual standards are clarity, precision,
accuracy, relevance, consistency, logical correctness, completeness, and fairness.These standards will be
discussed as follows.

1) Clarity
Clarity refers to clear understanding of concepts and clearly expressing them in a language that is free of
obscurity and vagueness. When we construct argument, we should take into consideration or pay close attention
to clarity. Before we can effectively evaluate a person’s argument or claim, we need to understand clearly what
the person is saying. Unfortunately, that can be difficult because people often fail to express themselves clearly.
But clarity is a gateway standard. If a statement is unclear, we cannot determine whether it is accurate or
relevant. In fact, we cannot tell anything about it because we do not yet know what it is saying.

2) Precision
Precision is a matter of being exact, accurate and careful. Most ideas are vague and obscures though we think
we have precise understanding of them. When we try to meticulous these ideas, we will find that they are

1
imprecise. To get precise understanding, we should pay close attention to details. Everyone recognizes the
importance of precision in specialized fields such as medicine, mathematics, architecture, and engineering.

3) Accuracy
Accuracy is about correct information. Critical thinking should care a lot about genuine information. If the ideas
and thoughts one processes are not real, then once decision based on wrong and false information will likely to
result in distorting realities. Accuracy is about having and getting true information. There is a well-known
saying about computers: “Garbage in, garbage out.”Simply put, this means that if you put bad information into a
computer, bad information is exactly what you will get out of it. Much the same is true of human thinking. No
matter how brilliant you may be, you are almost guaranteed to make bad decisions if your decisions are based
on false information.Critical thinkers do not merely value the truth; they also have a passion for accurate, timely
information.

4) Relevance
The question of relevance is a question of connections. When there is a discussion or debate, it should focus on
relevant ideas and information. That is, only those points that bear on the issue should be raised. A favorite
debaters’ trick is to try to distract an audience’s attention by raising an irrelevant issue. Critical thinkers do not
collect any information; they focus and carefully choose only the information that has logical relation with the
ideas at hands. Issues raised should have logical connection with the question at hand.

5) Consistency
Consistency is about the quality of always behaving in the same way or of having the same opinions or
standards. It is easy to see why consistency is essential to critical thinking. Logic tells us that if a person holds
inconsistent beliefs, at least one of those beliefs must be false. Critical thinkers prize truth and so are constantly
on the lookout for inconsistencies, both in their own thinking and in the arguments and assertions of
others.There are two kinds of inconsistency that should be avoided. One is logical inconsistency, which
involves saying or believing inconsistent things (i.e., things that cannot both or all be true) about a particular
matter. The other is practical inconsistency, which involves saying one thing and doing another. Sometimes
people are fully aware that their words conflict with their deeds; in short people sometime are hypocrites. From
a critical thinking point of view, such personality is not especially interesting.

6) Logical Correctness
To think logically is to reason correctly; that is, to draw well-founded conclusions from the beliefs held. To
think critically, we need accurate and well supported beliefs. But, just as important, we need to be able to reason
from those beliefs to conclusions that logically follow from them. Unfortunately, illogical thinking is all too
common in human affairs. When we think, we bring a variety of thoughts together into some order. When the
combinations of thoughts are mutually supporting and make sense in combination, the thinking is logical. When

2
the combination is not mutually supporting, is contradictory in some sense, or does not make sense the
combination, is not logical.

7) Completeness
In most contexts, we rightly prefer deep and complete thinking to shallow and superficial thinking. Of course,
there are times when it is impossible or inappropriate to discuss an issue in depth; no one would expect, for
example, a thorough and wide-ranging discussion of the ethics of the right to self- determination in a short
newspaper editorial. However, thinking is better when it is deep rather than shallow, thorough rather than
superficial.

8) Fairness
Critical thinking demands that our thinking be fair - that is, open minded, impartial, and free of distorting biases
and preconceptions. That can be very difficult to achieve. Even the most superficial acquaintance with history
and the social sciences tells us that people are often strongly disposed to resist unfamiliar ideas, to prejudge
issues, to stereotype outsiders, and to identify truth with their own self-interest or the interests of their nation or
group.

It is probably unrealistic to suppose that our thinking could ever be completely free of biases and
preconceptions; to some extent, we all perceive reality in ways that are powerfully shaped by our individual life
experiences and cultural backgrounds. But as difficult as it may be to achieve, basic fair-mindedness is clearly
an essential attribute of a critical thinker.

4.3. Codes of Intellectual Conduct for Effective Discussion

We have learned in chapter two that a good argument is constituted by two or more explicit and/or implicit
claims, one or more of which supports or provides evidence for the truth or merit of another claim, the
conclusion. But the question is that how can we measure the goodness or badness of an argument?And how that
is some thinking is critical, and some are not. The basic codes of intellectual conductare especially the common
principles of a good argument as well as that of a critical thinking.

4.3.1. Principles of Good Argument

One who wishes to construct the strongest possible arguments for his or her views, and resolving conflicts
concerning issues that matter, should make the following principles a part of his or her intellectual style:

1) The Structural Principle

The structural principle of a good argument requires that one who argues for or against a position should use an
argument that meets the fundamental structural requirements of a well-formed argument. Such an argument
does not use reasons that contradict each other, that contradict the conclusion, or that explicitly or implicitly
assume the truth of the conclusion.

3
The first criterion used in determining whether an argument is a good one is the requirement that it be
structurally sound. In other words, it should be formed in such a way that the conclusion either follows
necessarily from its premises, in the case of deductive arguments, or follows probably from its premises, in the
case of inductive arguments.

A good argument should also provide us with reasons to believe that the conclusion deserves our acceptance.
Since most discussions about controversial issues are initiated because the argument’s conclusion has not yet
been accepted by all participants, the arguer will use premises that are more likely to be accepted than the
conclusion. If those premises are accepted and they lead to the conclusion, it is more likely that the conclusion
will also be accepted.

2) The Relevance Principle

This is requires that one who presents an argument for or against a position should set forth only reasons whose
truth provides some evidence for the truth of the conclusion.The premises of a good argument must be relevant
to the truth or merit of the conclusion. There is no reason to waste time assessing the truth or acceptability of a
premise if it is not even relevant to the truth of the conclusion. A premise is relevant if its acceptance provides
some reason to believe, counts in favor of, or has some bearing on the truth or merit of the conclusion. A
premise is irrelevant if its acceptance has no bearing on, provides no evidence for, or has no connection to the
truth or merit of the conclusion.

3) The Acceptability Principle

This principle requires that one who presents an argument for or against a position should provide reasons that
are likely to be accepted by a mature, rational person and that meet standard criteria of acceptability. The
reasons set forth in support of a conclusion must be acceptable. A reason is acceptable if it is the kind of claim
that a rational person would accept in the face of all the relevant evidence available. Some people believe that
the acceptability principle should be replaced by the truth principle to connote the idea that premises should be
true to be acceptable.

4) The Sufficiency Principle

This requires that one who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide relevant and
acceptable reasons of the right kind, that together are sufficient in number and weight to justify the acceptance
of the conclusion. The feature of the sufficiency principle that is most difficult to apply is the assignment of
weight to each piece of supporting evidence. Indeed, disagreement over this issue probably causes most of the
problems in informal discussions. What one participant regards as the most important piece of evidence, another
may regard as trivial by comparison with other possible evidence. It is not likely that we will come to closure in
a dispute until we come to some kind of agreement about the relative weight to give to the kinds of relevant and
acceptable evidence used in support of a conclusion.

4
 5) The Rebuttal Principle
This principle requires that one who presents an argument for or against a position should include in the
argument an effective rebuttal to all anticipated serious criticisms of the argument that may be brought against it
or against the position it supports.Since an argument is usually presented against the background that there is
another side to the issue, a good argument must meet that other side directly. An argument cannot be a good one
if it does not anticipate and effectively refute or blunt the force of the most serious criticisms against it and the
position that it supports.A complete argument might even refute the arguments mustered in behalf of alternate
positions on the issue in question. One must ask and answer several questions in applying the rebuttal principle
to an argument.

4.3.2. Principles of Critical Thinking

The principles of a critical thinking as parts of the codes of intellectual conduct are discussed as follows.

1) The Fallibility Principle

This principle requires that each participant in a discussion of a disputed issue should be willing to accept the
fact that he or she is fallible, which means that one must acknowledge that one’s own initial view may not be
the most defensible position on the question.To employ the fallibility principle in a discussion is consciously to
accept the fact that you are fallible, that is, that your present view may be wrong or not the most defensible view
on the matter in dispute. If you refuse to accept your own fallibility, you are, in effect, saying that you are not
willing to change your mind, even if you hear a better argument. This is pretty strong evidence that you do not
intend to play fairly, and there is no real point in continuing the discussion. An admission of fallibility,
however, is a positive sign that you are genuinely interested in the kind of honest inquiry that may lead to a fair
resolution of the issue.

2) The Truth Seeking Principle

This principle requires that each participant should be committed to the task of earnestly searching for the truth
or at least the most defensible position on the issue at stake. Therefore, one should be willing to examine
alternative positions seriously, look for insights in the positions of others, and allow other participants to present
arguments for or raise objections to any position held on an issue.

The search for truth is lifelong endeavor, which principally takes the form of discussion, wherein we
systematically entertain the ideas and arguments of fellow seekers after truth, while at the same time
thoughtfully considering criticisms of our own views. If we really are interested in finding the truth, it is
imperative not only that we assume that we may not now have the truth, but that we listen to the arguments for
alternative positions and encourage criticism of our own arguments.

5
 3) The Clarity Principle
It requires that the formulations of all positions, defenses, and attacks should be free of any kind of linguistic
confusion and clearly separated from other positions and issues. Any successful discussion of an issue must be
carried on in language that all the parties involved can understand. Even if what we have to say is perfectly
clear to ourselves, others may not be able to understand us. A position or a criticism of it that is expressed in
confusing, vague, ambiguous, or contradictory language will not reach those toward whom it is directed, and it
will contribute little to resolving the issue at hand.

4) The Burden of Proof Principle

Just as a person is generally held accountable for his or her own actions, one who makes a positive or negative
claim about something has what is called the burden of proof. In many cases, of course, one does not have to
supply such proof, for we are not always challenged to defend our claims. But if the claimant is asked “Why?”
or “How do you know that is true?” he or she is logically obligated to produce reasons on behalf of the claim.
An exception to this rule is a situation in which the claim in question is well established or uncontroversial. In
such a case, the burden of proof might rest on the one who wishes to challenge that claim. One has the
responsibility to provide evidence for one’s conclusion and for any questionable premise, if asked to do so.

5) The Principle of Charity

It requires that if a participant’s argument is reformulated by an opponent, it should be carefully expressed in
its strongest possible version that is consistent with what is believed to be the original intention of the arguer. If
there is any question about that intention or about any implicit part of the argument, the arguer should be given
the benefit of any doubt in the reformulation and/or, when possible, given the opportunity to amend it.

Good discussion in general and argumentation in particular impose an ethical requirement on their participants.
But there is also a practical reason for being fair with one another’s arguments. If we deliberately create and
then attack a weak version of the original argument, we will probably fail to achieve the very goals that
discussion is designed to serve. If we are really interested in the truth or the best answer to a problem, then we
will want to evaluate the best version of any argument set forth in support of one of the options. Hence, if we
don’t deal with the best version now, we will eventually have to do so, once an uncharitable version has been
corrected by the arguer or others. We would do well, then, to be fair about it in the first place by letting our
opponents amend any portion of our reconstruction of their arguments.

6) The Suspension of Judgment Principle

This principle requires that if no position is defended by a good argument, or if two or more positions seem to
be defended with equal strength, one should, in most cases, suspend judgment about the issue. If practical
considerations seem to require a more immediate decision, one should weigh the relative benefits or harm
connected with the consequences of suspending judgment and decides the issue on those grounds.If suitable
evidence is so lacking that one has no good basis for making a decision either way, it may be quite appropriate

6
to suspend judgment on the matter and wait until there is more of a basis for decision. This alternative should
not, however, be seen as a clever way to avoid the psychological fright of making a difficult decision or of
moving into unfamiliar territory.

7) The Resolution Principle

This principle requires that an issue should be considered resolved if the argument for one of the alternative
positions is a structurally sound, one that uses relevant and acceptable reasons that together provide sufficient
grounds to justify the conclusion and that also include an effective rebuttal to all serious criticisms of the
argument and/or the position it supports. Unless one can demonstrate that the argument has not met these
conditions more successfully than any argument presented for alternative positions, one is obligated to accept its
conclusion and consider the issue to be settled. If the argument is subsequently found by any participant to be
flawed in a way that raises new doubts about the merit of the position it supports, one is obligated to reopen the
issue for further consideration and resolution.

4.4. Characteristics of Critical Thinking

4.4.1. Basic Traits of Critical Thinkers

A critical thinker simply is a person who exhibit some feature of critical thinking. There are some dispositions
and attitudes, skills and abilities, habits and values that every critical person should manifest. The following are
the basic traits of a critical thinker.

Critical thinkers:

 Are honest with themselves, acknowledging what they don't know, recognizing their limitations, and
being watchful of their own errors.
 Regard problems and controversial issues as exciting challenges.
 Strive for understanding, keep curiosity alive, remain patient with complexity, and are ready to invest
time to overcome confusion.
 Base judgments on evidence rather than personal preferences, deferring judgment whenever evidence
is insufficient. They revise judgments when new evidence reveals error.
 Are interested in other people's ideas and so are willing to read and listen attentively, even when they
tend to disagree with the other person.
 Recognize that extreme views (whether conservative or liberal) are seldom correct, so they avoid
them, practice fair-mindedness, and seek a balance view.
 Practice restraint, controlling their feelings rather than being controlled by them, and thinking before
acting.

7
 4.4.2. Basic Traits of Uncritical Thinkers

Every critical person manifests some dispositions and attitudes, skills and abilities, habits and values. What
about the uncritical thinker? some of the traits of uncritical thinkers are the following.

Uncritical thinkers:

 Pretend they know more than they do, ignore their limitations, and assume their views are error-free.
 Regard problems and controversial issues as nuisances or threats to their ego.
 Are inpatient with complexity and thus would rather remain confused than make the effort to understand.
 Base judgments on first impressions and gut reactions. They are unconcerned about the amount or
quality of evidence and cling to their views steadfastly.
 Are preoccupied with themselves and their own opinions, and so are unwilling to pay attention to others'
views. At the first sign of disagreement, they tend to think, "How can I refute this?"
 Ignore the need for balance and give preference to views that support their established views.
 Tend to follow their feelings and act impulsively..

4.5. Barriers to Critical Thinking

There are a number of factors that impede a critical thinking. Some of the most common barriers to critical
thinking are: Lack of relevant background information, poor reading skills, bias, prejudice, superstition,
egocentrism (self-centered thinking), socio-centrism (group-centered thinking), peer pressure, conformism,
provincialism (narrow, unsophisticated thinking), narrow-mindedness, closed-mindedness, distrust in reason,
relativistic thinking, stereotyping, unwarranted assumptions, scapegoating (blaming the innocent),
rationalization (inventing excuses to avoid facing our real motives).

The five of these impediments that play an especially powerful role in hindering critical thinking: are:
egocentrism, socio-centrism, unwarranted assumptions, relativistic thinking, and wishful thinking.

1) Egocentrism
Egocentrism is the tendency to see reality as centered on oneself. Egocentrics are selfish, self-absorbed people
who view their interests, ideas, and values as superior to everyone else’s. All of us are affected to some degree
by egocentric biases. Egocentrism can manifest itself in a variety of ways. Two common forms this are self-
interested thinking and the superiority bias.

Self-interested thinking is the tendency to accept and defend beliefs that harmonize with one’s self-interest.
Almost no one is immune to self-interested thinking. There are a number of facts, which supported this idea.
For example, most doctors support legislation making it more difficult for them to be sued for malpractice
because they do not want to punish for mistakes committed in the workplace.

8
Ultimately, it demands that we revere truth - even superiority bias (also known as illusory superiority or the
better-than average effect) is the tendency to overrate oneself - to see oneself as better in some respect than one
actually is. If you are like most people, you probably think of yourself as being an unusually self-aware person
who is largely immune from any such self-deception. If so, then you too are probably suffering from superiority
bias - when it hurts.

2) Socio-centrism
The second powerful barrier that paralyzes the critical thinking ability of most people including intellectuals is
socio-centrism. It is group-centered thinking. Just as egocentrism can hinder rational thinking by focusing
excessively on the self, so socio-centrism can hinder rational thinking by focusing excessively on the group.
Socio-centrism can distort critical thinking in many ways. Two of the most important are group bias and
conformism.

Group bias is the tendency to see one’s own group (nation, tribe, sect, peer group, and the like) as being
inherently better than others. Social scientists tell us that such thinking is extremely common throughout human
history and across cultures. Most people absorb group bias unconsciously, usually from early childhood. It is
common, for example, for people to grow up thinking that their society’s beliefs, institutions, and values are
better than those of other societies. Conformism refers to our tendency to follow the crowd - that is, to conform
(often unthinkingly) to authority or to group standards of conduct and belief. The desire to belong, to be part of
the in-group, can be among the most powerful of human motivations. This desire can seriously cripple our
powers of critical reasoning and decision-making.

3) Unwarranted Assumptions and Stereotypes

An assumption is something we take for granted - something we believe to be true without any proof or
conclusive evidence. Almost everything we think and do is based on assumptions. Unwarranted assumptions,
however, are unreasonable. An unwarranted assumption is something taken for granted without good reason.
Such assumptions often prevent our seeing things clearly.

One of the most common types of unwarranted assumptions is a stereotype. The word stereotype comes from
the printing press era, when plates, or stereotypes, were used to produce identical copies of one page. Similarly,
when we stereotype, as the word is now used, we assume that individual people have all been stamped from one
plate, so all politicians are alike, members of ethnic groups, professors, women, teachers, and so forth.
Typically, stereotypes are arrived at through a process known as hasty generalization, in which one draws a
conclusion about a large class of things(in this case, people) from a small sample.

4) Relativistic Thinking
One of the strongest challenges to critical thinking is relativistic thinking. Relativism is the view that truth is a
matter of opinion. There are two popular forms of relativism: subjectivism and cultural relativism. Subjectivism
is the view that truth is a matter of individual opinion. According to subjectivism, whatever an individual
9
believes is true, is true for that person, and there is no such thing as “objective” or “absolute” truth, i.e., truth
that exists independent of what anyone believes. For example, suppose Abdella believes that abortion is wrong
and Obang believes that abortion is not always wrong. According to subjectivism, abortion is always wrong for
Abdella and not always wrong for Obang. The other common form of relativism is cultural relativism. This is
the view that truth is a matter of social or cultural opinion. In other words, cultural relativism is the view that
what is true for person A is what person A’s culture or society believes is true. Drinking wine, for example, is
widely considered to be wrong in Iran but is not generally considered to be wrong in France. According to
cultural relativism, therefore, drinking wine is immoral in Iran butis morally permissible in France.

5) Wishful Thinking
Wishful thinking refers to a state of believing something not because you had good evidence for it but simply
because you wished it were true. Have you ever been guilty of wishful thinking? If so, you are not alone.
Throughout human history, reason has done battle with wishful thinking and has usually come out the loser.
People fear the unknown and invent comforting myths to render the universe less hostile and more predictable.
They fear death and listen credulously to stories of healing crystals, quack cures, and communication with the
dead. They fantasize about possessing extraordinary personal powers and accept uncritically accounts of
psychic prediction and levitation,

4.6. Benefits of Critical Thinking

Being a critical person in general and critical thinking in particular has many benefits.Some benefits of critical
thinking are:

1) Critical Thinking: Skills and Dispositions

Critical thinking teaches you how to raise and identify fundamental questions and problems in the community.
It will teach you to reformulate these problems clearly and precisely. It will teach you how to gather and assess
relevant information, develop reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criterion and
standards. It teaches you how to be open minded to alternative system of thought, recognize and assess your
own assumptions, implications and practical consequences, how to communicate effectively with others in
figuring out solutions to complex problems.

2) Critical Thinking in the Classroom

In university, the focus is on higher-order thinking: the active, intelligent evaluation of ideas and information.
For this reason critical thinking plays a vital role in universities. In a critical thinking chapter, students learn a
variety of skills that can greatly improve their classroom performance. These skills include:

 Understanding the arguments and beliefs of others

 Critically evaluating those arguments and beliefs
 Developing and defending one’s own well-supported arguments and beliefs

10
 3) Critical Thinking in Life

Critical thinking is valuable in many contexts outside the classroom. Let us look briefly at three ways in which
this is the case. First, critical thinking can help us avoid making foolish personal decisions. Second, critical
thinking plays a vital role in promoting democratic processes. Third, critical thinking is worth studying for its
own sake, simply for the personal enrichment it can bring to our lives. One of the most basic truths of the
human condition is that most people, most of the time, believe what they are told.

11