How To: Critical thinking

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Universal intellectual standards are standards which must be applied to thinking whenever one is interested in checking the quality of reasoning about a problem, issue, or situation. To think critically entails having command of these standards.
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The ultimate goal, then, is for these questions to become infused in our thinking, forming part of our inner voice, which then guides us to better and better reasoning. While there are a number of universal standards, the following are the most significant:[/FONT][/FONT]

1. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
   [*][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]CLARITY: Could you elaborate further on that point? Could you express that point in another way? Could you give me an illustration? Could you give me an example? Clarity is the 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 don't yet know what it is saying. For example, the question, "What can be done about the education system in America?" is unclear. In order to address the question adequately, we would need to have a clearer understanding of what the person asking the question is considering the "problem" to be. A clearer question might be "What can educators do to ensure that students learn the skills and abilities which help them function successfully in society and in their daily decision-making?"
   [/FONT]
   
   [*][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]ACCURACY: Is that really true? How could we check that? How could we find out if that is true?
   A statement can be clear but not accurate, as in "Most dogs are over 300 pounds in weight."
   
   [/FONT]
   [*][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]PRECISION: Could you give more details? Could you be more specific?
   A statement can be both clear and accurate, but not precise, as in "Jack is overweight." (We don’’t know how overweight Jack is, one pound or 500 pounds.)
   
   [/FONT]
   [*][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]RELEVANCE: How is that connected to the question? How does that bear on the issue? A statement can be clear, accurate, and precise, but not relevant to the question at issue. For example, students often think that the amount of effort they put into a course should be used in raising their grade in a course. Often, however, the "effort" does not measure the quality of student learning; and when this is so, effort is irrelevant to their appropriate grade.
   
   [/FONT]
   [*][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]DEPTH: How does your answer address the complexities in the question? How are you taking into account the problems in the question? Is that dealing with the most significant factors? A statement can be clear, accurate, precise, and relevant, but superficial (that is, lack depth). For example, the statement, "Just say No!" which is often used to discourage children and teens from using drugs, is clear, accurate, precise, and relevant. Nevertheless, it lacks depth because it treats an extremely complex issue, the pervasive problem of drug use among young people, superficially. It fails to deal with the complexities of the issue.
   
   [/FONT]
   [*][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]BREADTH: Do we need to consider another point of view? Is there another way to look at this question? What would this look like from a conservative standpoint? What would this look like from the point of view of . . .? A line of reasoning may be clear accurate, precise, relevant, and deep, but lack breadth (as in an argument from either the conservative or liberal standpoint which gets deeply into an issue, but only recognizes the insights of one side of the question.)
   
   [/FONT]
   [*][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]LOGIC: Does this really make sense? Does that follow from what you said? How does that follow? But before you implied this, and now you are saying that; how can both be true? When we think, we bring a variety of thoughts together into some order. When the combination of thoughts are mutually supporting and make sense in combination, the thinking is "logical." When the combination is not mutually supporting, is contradictory in some sense or does not "make sense," the combination is not logical.[/FONT]
   http://www.criticalthinking.org/articles/universal-intellectual-standards.cfm
   [/FONT]

The challenge then to myself and all of you is to measure your own questions by intellectual standards. Perhaps then we can more easily communicate on the forums and maybe even conclude/solve some of these big questions on our minds and in the threads.

 

What exactly is the point of this? What are you trying to get across?

 

Wow, nice way to rip that?

http://www.yukoncollege.yk.ca/~agraham/nost202/8elements.htm

 

(OMG RACE TO GOOGLE TO FIND THE SOURCE! I'LL BE A HERO IF I BUST A RIPPER!)

Yes.. its 'ripped'. If you read all of it you would understand the purpose of the c/p. Would you rather me just post a link?

Nice way to fuck up my thread. <_<
Not mad at you- just a personal pet peeve.

 

Lol, owned...


Is there a point of this in SFA? What exactly can we debate about on this?

Edit:

"Something for All
Intelligent Conversations. Debate / Argue your Views Intelligently with Other Members"

 

I shouldn't have to quote myself twice to answer the same question.

REASON FOR POSTING QUOTED BELOW AND INCLUDED IN ORIGINAL POST/caps

So we can debate BETTER.

(Not a pointed statement) Using a thesaurus to state your opinion doesn't make it intelligent conversation.

 

Most of yall need to lay off and take some advice here. Personaly, I think this would be good in the "Rules of SFA" sticky.

 

Nice!

felpful on strategies anywhere, school, jobs LIFE. people need it

 

Oh so you're making a point, rather than creating a discussion.

I'm not complaining, just clarifying

 

Good luck on your conquest to heighten the intelect of the sythe community..but honestly, most people here are little kids that play runescape.

Get serious! do you think little kids may be able to solve why we are on earth, let alone the difference between bread and butter.

There are some smart people here and i'm sorry to offend you. But i'm just trying to put your situation into perspective.

 

I think the replies so far go a long way towards explaining why you stayed away for such a lengthy amount of time.

I find myself to be mostly lacking in two of those areas: relevance and ogic.

Often, I find myself thinking exactly as your example states in that students should also be graded based on effort but of course this gives grades a whole new meaning as they are no longer a measure of concept grasping abilities and knowledge and understanding. I do catch myself shortly after by realizing how useless this form of grading would actually be but for that short period of time I let myself think too much about breadth (other students' point of view) and too little about relevance.

I currently have a Discrete Mathematics course which entails a lot of logical concepts and material. Despite doing reasonably well in the course, I'm less apt with these logic concepts than I am with say concrete data or details. I am finding it more and more useful for solving all kinds of problem though and I definitely think that although it can be quite cumbersome for some, it should still be taught in a lot more programs than it currently is and maybe even taught more than it is (if at all) in high schools.