The intellectual roots of critical thinking can be traced back to ~350BC.
The first one to embrace critical thinking practices was the famous Greek philosopher Socrates.
He was obsessed with the notion that many people were basing their ideologies on an
empty rhetoric rather than sane and rational thinking.
Confused meanings, contradictory beliefs, biases, and self-delusion formed the foundation
of their argumentation and Socrates was constantly questioning such practices.
He also had an aversion towards authority because he believed that a person in power
doesn’t necessarily possess sound knowledge and insight;
he might just be a good manipulator and performer.
Socrates’ method of revealing unreasonable argumentation is called “Socratic Questioning”
and epitomizes the idea of clarity and logical consistency.
His approach was later on adopted by Plato, Aristotle and the Greek skeptics, all of whom
shared the belief that things might be different than they appear and that the critical mind
should read between the lines to establish a reasonable truth.
The ancient Greek philosophers were the forefathers of the critical thinking movement and influenced
the work of other renowned thinkers like Francis Bacon, Niccolo Machiavelli, Isaac
Newton, Adam Smith, and Immanuel Kant.
What is logic?
Well, logic comes from the Greek word logos, which means reason.
So, logic and reason are strongly related. Actually, a brief definition of logic would
be something along the lines of “the study of the principles of correct reasoning.”
Logic is the force that can give an argument the impetus it requires in order to prevail.
Logic is free of emotion and it deals with information in its purest form.
Logic is truth and truth is logic.
Now, we can’t really understand logic as a whole if we don’t investigate the two
main reasoning methods used in order to reach a logical conclusion: deductive and inductive reasoning.
Deductive reasoning is used when I try to apply information I find in a specific set
to any member of that set. Example:
Bachelors are unmarried men. Bill is unmarried.
Therefore, Bill is a bachelor.
As you can see, deductive reasoning is very specific and doesn’t leave room for ambiguity.
That’s why deductive reasoning is associated with formal logic.
Formal logic focuses mainly on the validity of the conclusion produced. It is the most
appropriate form of logic because it follows rules and compels us to adopt a more fact-based
approach in our narrative.
Deductive reasoning in formal logic can be represented as follows:
Every A is a B. Some Cs are As. Therefore, some Cs are Bs.
As long as the premise we use to represent the variables A, B and C is true, the conclusion
some Cs are Bs will always follow. If the conclusion doesn’t follow, the argument
is invalid.
Inductive reasoning on the other hand uses explicit data in order to create a bigger
and more generalized judgment. Example:
Yesterday, you left home for work at 8am and arrived on time.
Today, you left home for work at 8am and arrived on time.
So, tomorrow, if you leave home for work at 8am you will arrive on time.
Inductive reasoning is associated with informal logic. That’s the most popular form of logic
because it is the one we use in our day-to-day lives. I also consider it the most critical
one to self-examine because, once you manage to understand the mistakes you do in that
subset, you will improve your critical thinking immensely.
As you can see, the main problem with informal logic is the generalization included. You
can’t form solid conclusions and assert opinions when your facts are predicated on
arbitrary information.
The reason you will encounter informal logic in your everyday interactions is because it
is kind of practical, meaning that it helps us make decisions faster, but also because
of logical fallacies. Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that stem from a plethora
of factors. Some examples include:
Ad hominem (latin for “to the person/man”): That is when someone attacks the person and
not the argument. It is the most common form of logical fallacy because it is the most
personal one.
Stereotyping: That’s also a common one and it is usually bolstered in difficult times
when emotion takes over reason in social discourse.
Faulty sampling: When we use the wrong set of data to form a conclusion,
like the example about time and work.
False dilemma: When we try to oversimplify and use binary logic in complex dilemmas.
Especially when someone tries to explain something as black or white and the truth is gray.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (latin for 'after this, therefore because of this'): Certain
forms of prejudice fall into this category especially when we don’t feel lucky or things
don’t go as planned (e.g. every time I wash my car it rains).
For me, arguing is a waste of creative energy and I try to avoid it.
The problem is that we live in a very unstable and polarized world and arguing, sometimes,
is inevitable. Sometimes you just need to argue because you need to fight for the right
cause.
Below is a personal equation I have developed over the years after analyzing debates and
interviews of various philosophers, thinkers, politicians and activists:
Argument winning = facts + frame + eloquence
Let’s analyze each element separately.
Facts are important because people will always treasure the truth over assumptions. If truth
is very difficult to define, focus on the most popular norm. For instance, we don’t
know how the universe was created, but the big bang theory is quite acceptable at this
point in time.
Usually, the most popular sources of facts are science publications, statistics, and
also material where you can find things the opposing party has stated in order to rebut
their views.
One could argue that some publications and statistics serve certain interests, but as
soon as they can’t prove that, one can always use this body of knowledge to one’s advantage.
The most interesting thing about frame and the reason why people usually favor it so
much is because it communicates resilience and character. During an argument, one of
the parties will attempt to use personal attacks in order to gain the upper hand. This will
inevitably lead to emotionality and emotionality is the enemy of critical thinking and proper
argumentation.
Especially during political debates, most of the candidates lose because they can’t
really handle personal attacks. In an attempt to balance the attack, they become emotional
and the other candidate suddenly looks more suitable for the role.
The best way to deal with a personal attack is either to counterattack fiercely or to
reframe the argument into something that you consider more favorable for you.
Candidate A: You are not suitable for the role because of lack of experience.
Candidate B: You did X in your personal life. You can’t be trusted by your own people.
How can we trust you to run our country?
Candidate A: You are not suitable for the role because of lack of experience.
Candidate B: I have enough experience and I want to see this country prosper and flourish
even more. We are in this together and I fight for the American people. The only thing you
fight for is personal power. We don’t need that. We are better than that. We want more
than that.
Politics aside, I wouldn’t suggest using these tactics with friends. Those are methods
used by famous people in order to increase their influence. Arguments in personal relationships
usually lead to friction and problems.
Empathy is the best way to deal with disagreements in the social sphere and also trying to promote
reason above everything.
Finally, bear in mind that arguments aren’t always a bad thing. We tend to condemn argumentation
because we relate it to immensely unpleasant situations. The truth is that debates can
be extremely civilized and if both parties have an open mind, they can gain a lot from
a heated discussion.
Eloquence is optional but sometimes it can really affect the way you are perceived by
your environment. Using big words usually disorients the other party and, if you are
having a debate in front of a crowd, you will definitely be perceived as more knowledgeable
and persuasive.
Eloquence is probably the most difficult of the three skills to cultivate. It requires
practice and constant exposure to unknown words and phrases in order for your brain
to become accustomed to them.
If you really want to cultivate this skill I would suggest following eloquent speakers
like Sam Harris or Alain de Botton, and reading hard books. While doing so, try and keep a
record of words you like in order to revisit them from time to time and eventually entrench
them in your vocabulary.
Critical thinking, apart from the main benefits it offers in one’s social and professional
life, it also serves as a useful tool when it comes to decision making.
Whenever you face a difficult decision and you need to approach a topic from many angles,
you need to employ critical thinking in order to ensure the most optimal result.
For that process, I have developed a 3-part method that promotes a holistic approach to
critical decision-making.
The decision you are facing will be subject to many factors, thus open to many interpretations.
Let’s assume that you want to vote for a specific candidate. How are you going to investigate
whether or not this candidate is really the best choice? Watch the news? Watch Youtube
videos? Read blog posts?
That’s what most people do, but when it comes to critical thinking that is not enough.
Investigating a topic from a holistic perspective requires that we go deeper.
Deeper usually means that you need to read relevant history, do a background check, investigate
policies suggested and also look into opposing views. Why might there be critics? Is the
criticism legitimate? Is the critic qualified?
Eventually, by gathering all that information you will be able to form a more sound understanding
of the concept in question.
Reading about specific topics is not really enough.
In order to understand the topic deeply you need to test it and reevaluate it based on
scrutiny and skepticism.
Learn to discuss the topic with other fellow thinkers online and offline in order to form
a solid and confident view.
Understand the implication of your choice and realize whether or not it is affected
by personal biases, emotions, and outside manipulative views.
That’s why I constantly stress out the importance of self-awareness. We live in a time where
people are constantly fighting for our attention and they will say anything to win it.
A self-aware critical thinker needs to battle his own flawed perception and deeply scrutinize
his or her personal issues in order to be capable of forming a reasoned and clear view
on a topic.
Critical thinking is rational thinking that involves critique.
What this means is that you need to be able to think rationally based on information collected
by your environment, but at the same time question your own judgment, meaning avoid
limiting beliefs and biases, in order to form the most ideal version of truth possible.
Truth is quite precious. Especially in a time where truth is being manipulated and concealed
for personal gain.
During such times critical thinking gives
a bit of control over truth and the ability to be constantly ready for the things to come.
Never stop cultivating it.
Hey guys,
This video is sponsored by Datacamp.
DataCamp is an online learning platform that makes it easy to build data analytical skills
at your own pace with interactive courses. I am really proud of this sponsorship because
Datacamp is a platform I have used in the past and really helped me improve my skills
in programming languages like SQL and Python. I have studied electrical engineering and
business, so learning to analyze and manipulating data was a huge part of my studies and work.
Anybody who is in this specific domain, will find Datacamp’s courses incredible. But
even if you are not part of the technology sector, experimenting and immersing yourself
in this kind of programming can help you think better.
Data analysis requires a structured way of thinking and it also helps you develop advanced
analytical skills.
As a thinker and a writer, I realized that
my involvement in programming and data analysis has helped me think creatively, properly evaluate
the way I write, and optimize the structure of my thinking processes.
Any person who considers him or herself a critical thinker can benefit immensely from
such practice. Datacamp is the best place to start.
So if you want to get started, use my link in the description and check out the first
chapter of any Datacamp course for free.
See you soon.
Adrian out.