philosophy help us to engage in critical thinking

The Role of Philosophy in Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving

Philosophy guides critical thinking and problem-solving, encouraging rigorous analysis, logical reasoning, and the exploration of diverse perspectives to unravel complex issues and arrive at well-grounded conclusions.

In an era dominated by fleeting attention spans and an overabundance of information, cultivating critical thinking and problem-solving skills cannot be overstated. However, in our haste to seek immediate solutions, we often neglect the indispensable tool that has guided human thought for centuries: philosophy. Today, I endeavour to challenge conventional wisdom and explore philosophy's profound role in shaping our intellectual landscape, enhancing our ability to think critically, and offering invaluable insights into problem-solving. By delving into the annals of history, employing sharp wit, and embracing intellectual rigour, we can reestablish philosophy as an indispensable discipline for a discerning mind.

The Antiquity of Philosophical Inquiry:

We must first acknowledge its historical significance to appreciate philosophy's role in critical thinking and problem-solving. Philosophy, birthed in ancient Greece, was the bedrock upon which Western thought was built. The likes of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle infused the discipline with a relentless pursuit of truth, utilizing critical thinking to question the status quo and expose fallacies. Moreover, their philosophical methodologies were the foundation for other knowledge domains, including science, politics, and ethics.

The Socratic Method: Unveiling Truth Through Inquiry:

At the heart of philosophy lies the Socratic method—a powerful tool designed to challenge assumptions, question preconceived notions, and foster critical thinking. Socrates, the luminary who met an untimely demise for his audacity, demonstrated the profound impact of inquiry in unravelling truth. He dismantled conventional wisdom by engaging in rigorous dialogue, exposing its underlying contradictions and weaknesses. Through this dialectical process, critical thinking flourished, paving the way for greater intellectual depth and clarity.

Philosophy as the Progenitor of Scientific Inquiry:

Contrary to popular belief, the relationship between philosophy and science is not one of disjointed adversaries. Instead, philosophy provided the fertile ground from which the scientific method emerged. Renowned thinkers such as Francis Bacon and René Descartes, both philosophers and scientists, recognized the importance of critical thinking in pursuing empirical knowledge. Their skepticism and commitment to rational inquiry laid the groundwork for the systematic and evidence-based approach that underpins scientific discoveries today.

Ethical Dilemmas and Philosophical Solutions:

In the realm of ethics, philosophy remains an indispensable guide for navigating complex moral landscapes. As dilemmas arise and societal norms evolve, critical thinking fortified by philosophical insights allows us to evaluate competing moral theories and navigate the intricacies of moral decision-making. From utilitarianism to deontology, philosophy offers a pantheon of ethical frameworks that aid in solving moral problems and foster a more nuanced understanding of human behaviour.

Problem-Solving and the Philosophy of Logic:

Critical thinking, at its core, requires proficiency in logical reasoning. With its rigorous study of logic, philosophy equips individuals with the tools needed to dissect and analyze problems methodically. By employing deductive and inductive reasoning, philosophy trains the mind to identify fallacies, challenge assumptions, and construct persuasive arguments. As Bertrand Russell once proclaimed, "Logic and mathematics are nothing if not an exercise in clarity."

The Perils of a Philosophy-less Society:

In a world that exalts instant gratification and facile solutions, the marginalization of philosophy undermines our intellectual development. Without the discipline of critical thinking fostered by philosophy, we risk becoming passive recipients of information, susceptible to manipulation and unable to discern the truth from falsehood. The erosion of philosophy from our educational institutions and public discourse has dire consequences for the vitality of our democracy and the pursuit of a well-informed citizenry.

Conclusion:

Philosophy, often maligned as an esoteric pursuit detached from practicality, must reclaim its rightful place as a linchpin of critical thinking and problem-solving. We can harness philosophy's transformative potential by embracing its historical lineage, leveraging the power of the Socratic method, recognizing its contributions to scientific inquiry and ethical deliberation, and appreciating its emphasis on logical reasoning. Let us rekindle the spirit of intellectual rigour, for in doing so, we equip ourselves with the indispensable tools needed to navigate an ever-complex world, challenge dogmas, and unravel the enigma of truth. As philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein so aptly observed, "Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence using language."

Plato Re-Imagined

This course includes 32 lectures covering most of Plato's dialogues and allowing the student to return to something divine. Divinity should resonate with secular and religious leaders alike. I present a compatible approach in my lecture on Consilience. Also included with this course is a free book. If you pay for the course, you will get a physical copy of the book for free, mailed to your chosen address — anywhere on the planet!

You might also like

Breaking the Consumerist Mold: Rethinking Materialism in the Digital Age

The Evolution of Social Networks: From Friendships to Follower Counts

The Philosophy of Love: Eros, Philia, and Agape in Ancient and Modern Contexts

The Philosophy of Happiness: From Aristotle's Eudaimonia to Modern Positive Psychology

The Philosophy of Authenticity: Embracing Individuality in a Digital World

Sapien Think

The role of philosophy in critical thinking and problem solving.

Philosophy, the study of fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, and more, has long been regarded as a foundational discipline for critical thinking and problem solving. The practice of philosophy equips individuals with the tools needed to analyze complex ideas, engage in rigorous reasoning, challenge assumptions, and arrive at well-reasoned conclusions. In this article, we will explore the significant role that philosophy plays in enhancing critical thinking skills and problem-solving abilities.

Developing Analytical Skills

One of the central features of philosophy is its emphasis on analytical thinking. Philosophical inquiry involves breaking down complex concepts or arguments into their constituent parts, enabling individuals to critically examine each component and understand how they relate to the whole. This process trains individuals to analyze ideas, identify underlying assumptions, and evaluate the validity of arguments.

For instance, in formal logic, a branch of philosophy, individuals study deductive and inductive reasoning. They learn how to spot logical fallacies, identify valid and invalid arguments, and construct sound reasoning. These skills are essential for critical thinking as they enable individuals to assess the strength of an argument, identify flaws, and make well-supported judgments.

Developing Reasoning Skills

Philosophy also fosters the development of reasoning skills, which are crucial in critical thinking and problem solving. Through the study of philosophy, individuals learn how to engage in thoughtful, logical, and rational analysis of complex issues.

Philosophical inquiry encourages individuals to examine different perspectives and engage in rigorous debates. By considering diverse viewpoints, individuals are prompted to challenge their own assumptions and biases. This process of critical examination helps to refine reasoning skills and cultivate a more objective and well-rounded approach to problem solving.

Cultivating Open-mindedness and Intellectual Humility

Another important aspect of philosophy is its promotion of open-mindedness and intellectual humility. Philosophy teaches individuals to approach ideas with an open and unbiased mindset, willing to consider alternative viewpoints and entertain arguments that may challenge their preconceptions. This intellectual humility enables individuals to acknowledge the limitations of their own knowledge and be receptive to new ideas and perspectives.

By cultivating open-mindedness, individuals can foster a more inclusive and comprehensive understanding of complex problems. They become more adept at considering multiple perspectives, evaluating evidence from different disciplines, and navigating the nuances of complex issues. This multifaceted approach is invaluable in problem solving as it allows individuals to consider a wide range of possibilities and arrive at more holistic solutions.

Strengthening Ethical Reasoning

Ethics, a branch of philosophy, plays a significant role in critical thinking and problem solving. Ethics examines questions of morality, helping individuals to navigate ethical dilemmas, and make value-based judgments.

Studying ethics enhances critical thinking by encouraging individuals to consider the broader implications of their actions. They develop a framework for evaluating the ethical consequences of various choices, considering factors such as fairness, justice, and the well-being of others. This ethical reasoning enables individuals to make more informed and morally responsible decisions when confronted with complex problems.

Philosophy, with its focus on analytical thinking, reasoning skills, open-mindedness, intellectual humility, and ethical reasoning, is an invaluable discipline for enhancing critical thinking and problem-solving abilities. Through the rigorous study of philosophy, individuals develop the tools necessary to analyze complex ideas, challenge assumptions, and arrive at well-reasoned conclusions. By cultivating these skills, individuals become more effective critical thinkers and problem solvers capable of navigating complex issues with clarity, integrity, and holistic perspective.

• Fieser, J., & Dowden, B. (Eds.). (2020). The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Retrieved from https://www.iep.utm.edu/
• Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2006). Critical Thinking: The Nature of Critical and Creative Thought . Journal of Developmental Education, 30(2), 34-35. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ844095.pdf
• Russo, N. F., & Epistemology, F. in. (1989). Developing Philosophical Thinking Skills in Learning Experiences . Theory Into Practice, 28(2), 102-105. doi:10.1080/00405848909543340

As an Amazon Associate Sapien Think earns from qualifying purchases.

What is Stoicism

The order you should read neitzsche's books in, the hardest philosophy books to read.

Characteristics of Philosophy: A Deep Dive into Critical Thinking

Philosophy, derived from the Greek words “philo” (love) and “sophia” (wisdom), embodies the relentless pursuit of knowledge and understanding about the most fundamental aspects of existence. It’s an intellectual discipline that has intrigued and challenged some of history’s greatest minds. If you’ve ever pondered questions about the nature of reality, the meaning of life, or how we can know anything at all, you’ve already embarked on a philosophical journey.

What are the characteristics in philosophy?

1. wonder and curiosity: the fuel of philosophy.

At its heart, philosophy is ignited by a sense of wonder. This childlike curiosity encourages us to move beyond taking things for granted and question even the most basic assumptions. Philosophers marvel at the seemingly ordinary, recognizing the extraordinary depth hidden within everyday concepts and questions like:

2. Contemplation and Critical Analysis: The Philosopher’s Toolbox

Philosophers don’t just ask questions – they rigorously analyze them. Contemplation, the act of deep and focused thought, is one of their most vital tools. Through contemplation, philosophers dissect and scrutinize concepts, ideas, and arguments.

Critical analysis lies at the core of philosophical thinking. It involves several elements:

3. Rationality: The Guiding Principle

Unlike blind faith or reliance on mere intuition, philosophy prioritizes reason. This means:

4. Intellectual Independence: Thinking for Yourself

While philosophers learn from and engage with the ideas of others, philosophical thinking demands taking ownership of your own thoughts. True philosophical inquiry necessitates:

5. Holistic and Systematic Approach: Connecting the Dots

For instance, a philosopher contemplating morality wouldn’t just consider individual ethical dilemmas. They might also connect their ideas about morality to their views on human nature, free will, and the structure of society as a whole.

6. The Search for Clarity: Unpacking Ambiguity

The language we use every day is often filled with vague or ambiguous terms. Philosophers strive for clarity in their thinking and communication by:

7. Universal Questions: The Heart of Philosophical Inquiry

8. a dialogue through time: engaging with the great thinkers.

Studying the rich history of philosophical thought provides a wealth of perspectives and expands our intellectual horizons.

The Benefits of Philosophical Thinking

How to start your philosophical journey.

You don’t need a formal philosophy degree to embark on a philosophical adventure. Here’s how to get started:

Remember: Philosophy is not about finding definitive answers but rather, asking better questions.

Let me know if you’d like to explore any specific aspects of philosophy or delve into the work of particular philosophers in more detail. I’m here to support your journey!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Discover more from curiosity guide.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

13.7 Cosmos & Culture

How (and when) to think like a philosopher.

Tania Lombrozo

As an undergraduate, I majored in philosophy — a purportedly useless major, except that it teaches you how to think, write and speak.

The skills I was learning from working through papers and arguments extended well beyond the coursework itself, yielding habitual patterns of reasoning that made me a more discerning scientist, a more careful writer and a better thinker all around. Within and beyond philosophy, I was learning to spot poor arguments, uncover hidden assumptions, tease out subtle implications and recognize false dichotomies. (It was around this time that my then boyfriend, now husband, jokingly gifted me a modified light box with a button that I could press to light up the damning message: "Distinction blurred!")

Of course, good thinking isn't the sole province of philosophy. Training in any discipline or area of expertise teaches you habits of mind that — hopefully — lead to better performance in that domain. But philosophy is unusual in its explicit focus on the structure of arguments across a broad range of topics, from the meaning of words to the nature of knowledge, from ethics to animal minds. It makes sense, then, that training in philosophy might be unusual in its potential to yield general-purpose tools for better thinking.

So what do these tools for better thinking look like?

In a new article published in Aeon , philosopher Alan Hájek presents a "philosophy tool kit," sharing some common philosophical moves that apply both within and beyond academic philosophy. What Hájek offers isn't logic or probability theory (though that's useful, too), but rather common heuristics or "rules of thumb" that help philosophers quickly identify problematic claims or assumptions. These heuristics are intended to make difficult reasoning tasks easier for the philosophically untrained, though Hájek is clear that "there are no shortcuts to profundity" — the tools are a starter set, not a complete kit nor blueprints for the construction of worthwhile arguments.

Several of Hájek's tools involve questioning assumptions in the way a claim or question is posed. For instance, asking what the right thing to do is presupposes that there is a single right thing to do. In some cases, that presupposition is wrong: There could be no right thing to do, or there could be many right things to do. Encountering "the" should therefore set off a minor alarm, prompting you to consider whether the presupposition is warranted.

A second tool comes in handy when evaluating a claim that is supposed to apply to many cases. Here it's appropriate to look for counterexamples that might disconfirm or limit the scope of the claim, but where might such counterexamples be found? It's often effective to consider extreme or "edge" cases. For instance, in considering whether there are counterexamples to the claim that everything has a cause, one might consider what caused the first cause, or the set of all causes. As a more pedestrian example, evaluating the claim that "everyone likes a good book" might prompt you to consider extremes in age (do newborns like a good book?) or kinds of people (do supervillains like a good book?).

For additional tools, and a more complete exposition, readers are encouraged to read Hájek's article . But I want to end with a final reflection for readers of 13.7 . If these thinking tools are so useful, why do we need special training to acquire them? Why aren't they built into our cognitive machinery, or acquired through our years of experience evaluating claims and arguments in everyday life?

Hájek identifies one reason in his discussion of what he calls the "contrastive-stress heuristic": We fall prey to various cognitive biases that can lead us astray. One example is confirmation bias, the tendency to seek and favor evidence that supports, rather than challenges, the hypotheses we (prefer to) believe. A strategy like systematically considering alternative possibilities — common to both philosophical and scientific thinking — is useful, in part, because it helps overcome this bias.

But here's a second (and more speculative) hypothesis for why many habits of philosophical thinking might not come naturally. The hypothesis is that some tools for critical evaluation run counter to another valuable set of tools: our tools for effective social engagement. These tools help us make sense of what someone is saying by encouraging us to interpret underspecified claims in the most positive light; they help us coordinate conversation by establishing common ground.

When someone asks us for "the right thing to do," we're inclined to engage in the conversation they've invited us to engage in: one in which we assume there is a right thing to do, and we help them to find it. When someone says "everyone likes a good book," we understand them to be telling us something about the kinds of people relevant to our current conversational context, not something true of every single person.

If this is right, then some forms of critical evaluation and philosophical thinking are hard because they force us to suspend other habits of mind; habits that serve us well when our goal is to engage or persuade or befriend, but less well when our goal is to arrive at a precise characterization of what's true, or of what follows from what. The trick, then, is not only to acquire Hájek's philosophy tool kit, but to know when to use it.

Tania Lombrozo is a psychology professor at the University of California, Berkeley. She writes about psychology, cognitive science and philosophy, with occasional forays into parenting and veganism. You can keep up with more of what she is thinking on Twitter: @TaniaLombrozo

• critical evaluation

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Back to Entry
• Entry Contents
• Entry Bibliography
• Academic Tools
• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Supplement to Critical Thinking

This supplement elaborates on the history of the articulation, promotion and adoption of critical thinking as an educational goal.

John Dewey (1910: 74, 82) introduced the term ‘critical thinking’ as the name of an educational goal, which he identified with a scientific attitude of mind. More commonly, he called the goal ‘reflective thought’, ‘reflective thinking’, ‘reflection’, or just ‘thought’ or ‘thinking’. He describes his book as written for two purposes. The first was to help people to appreciate the kinship of children’s native curiosity, fertile imagination and love of experimental inquiry to the scientific attitude. The second was to help people to consider how recognizing this kinship in educational practice “would make for individual happiness and the reduction of social waste” (iii). He notes that the ideas in the book obtained concreteness in the Laboratory School in Chicago.

Dewey’s ideas were put into practice by some of the schools that participated in the Eight-Year Study in the 1930s sponsored by the Progressive Education Association in the United States. For this study, 300 colleges agreed to consider for admission graduates of 30 selected secondary schools or school systems from around the country who experimented with the content and methods of teaching, even if the graduates had not completed the then-prescribed secondary school curriculum. One purpose of the study was to discover through exploration and experimentation how secondary schools in the United States could serve youth more effectively (Aikin 1942). Each experimental school was free to change the curriculum as it saw fit, but the schools agreed that teaching methods and the life of the school should conform to the idea (previously advocated by Dewey) that people develop through doing things that are meaningful to them, and that the main purpose of the secondary school was to lead young people to understand, appreciate and live the democratic way of life characteristic of the United States (Aikin 1942: 17–18). In particular, school officials believed that young people in a democracy should develop the habit of reflective thinking and skill in solving problems (Aikin 1942: 81). Students’ work in the classroom thus consisted more often of a problem to be solved than a lesson to be learned. Especially in mathematics and science, the schools made a point of giving students experience in clear, logical thinking as they solved problems. The report of one experimental school, the University School of Ohio State University, articulated this goal of improving students’ thinking:

Critical or reflective thinking originates with the sensing of a problem. It is a quality of thought operating in an effort to solve the problem and to reach a tentative conclusion which is supported by all available data. It is really a process of problem solving requiring the use of creative insight, intellectual honesty, and sound judgment. It is the basis of the method of scientific inquiry. The success of democracy depends to a large extent on the disposition and ability of citizens to think critically and reflectively about the problems which must of necessity confront them, and to improve the quality of their thinking is one of the major goals of education. (Commission on the Relation of School and College of the Progressive Education Association 1943: 745–746)

The Eight-Year Study had an evaluation staff, which developed, in consultation with the schools, tests to measure aspects of student progress that fell outside the focus of the traditional curriculum. The evaluation staff classified many of the schools’ stated objectives under the generic heading “clear thinking” or “critical thinking” (Smith, Tyler, & Evaluation Staff 1942: 35–36). To develop tests of achievement of this broad goal, they distinguished five overlapping aspects of it: ability to interpret data, abilities associated with an understanding of the nature of proof, and the abilities to apply principles of science, of social studies and of logical reasoning. The Eight-Year Study also had a college staff, directed by a committee of college administrators, whose task was to determine how well the experimental schools had prepared their graduates for college. The college staff compared the performance of 1,475 college students from the experimental schools with an equal number of graduates from conventional schools, matched in pairs by sex, age, race, scholastic aptitude scores, home and community background, interests, and probable future. They concluded that, on 18 measures of student success, the graduates of the experimental schools did a somewhat better job than the comparison group. The graduates from the six most traditional of the experimental schools showed no large or consistent differences. The graduates from the six most experimental schools, on the other hand, had much greater differences in their favour. The graduates of the two most experimental schools, the college staff reported:

… surpassed their comparison groups by wide margins in academic achievement, intellectual curiosity, scientific approach to problems, and interest in contemporary affairs. The differences in their favor were even greater in general resourcefulness, in enjoyment of reading, [in] participation in the arts, in winning non-academic honors, and in all aspects of college life except possibly participation in sports and social activities. (Aikin 1942: 114)

One of these schools was a private school with students from privileged families and the other the experimental section of a public school with students from non-privileged families. The college staff reported that the graduates of the two schools were indistinguishable from each other in terms of college success.

In 1933 Dewey issued an extensively rewritten edition of his How We Think (Dewey 1910), with the sub-title “A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process”. Although the restatement retains the basic structure and content of the original book, Dewey made a number of changes. He rewrote and simplified his logical analysis of the process of reflection, made his ideas clearer and more definite, replaced the terms ‘induction’ and ‘deduction’ by the phrases ‘control of data and evidence’ and ‘control of reasoning and concepts’, added more illustrations, rearranged chapters, and revised the parts on teaching to reflect changes in schools since 1910. In particular, he objected to one-sided practices of some “experimental” and “progressive” schools that allowed children freedom but gave them no guidance, citing as objectionable practices novelty and variety for their own sake, experiences and activities with real materials but of no educational significance, treating random and disconnected activity as if it were an experiment, failure to summarize net accomplishment at the end of an inquiry, non-educative projects, and treatment of the teacher as a negligible factor rather than as “the intellectual leader of a social group” (Dewey 1933: 273). Without explaining his reasons, Dewey eliminated the previous edition’s uses of the words ‘critical’ and ‘uncritical’, thus settling firmly on ‘reflection’ or ‘reflective thinking’ as the preferred term for his subject-matter. In the revised edition, the word ‘critical’ occurs only once, where Dewey writes that “a person may not be sufficiently critical about the ideas that occur to him” (1933: 16, italics in original); being critical is thus a component of reflection, not the whole of it. In contrast, the Eight-Year Study by the Progressive Education Association treated ‘critical thinking’ and ‘reflective thinking’ as synonyms.

In the same period, Dewey collaborated on a history of the Laboratory School in Chicago with two former teachers from the school (Mayhew & Edwards 1936). The history describes the school’s curriculum and organization, activities aimed at developing skills, parents’ involvement, and the habits of mind that the children acquired. A concluding chapter evaluates the school’s achievements, counting as a success its staging of the curriculum to correspond to the natural development of the growing child. In two appendices, the authors describe the evolution of Dewey’s principles of education and Dewey himself describes the theory of the Chicago experiment (Dewey 1936).

Glaser (1941) reports in his doctoral dissertation the method and results of an experiment in the development of critical thinking conducted in the fall of 1938. He defines critical thinking as Dewey defined reflective thinking:

Critical thinking calls for a persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports it and the further conclusions to which it tends. (Glaser 1941: 6; cf. Dewey 1910: 6; Dewey 1933: 9)

In the experiment, eight lesson units directed at improving critical thinking abilities were taught to four grade 12 high school classes, with pre-test and post-test of the students using the Otis Quick-Scoring Mental Ability Test and the Watson-Glaser Tests of Critical Thinking (developed in collaboration with Glaser’s dissertation sponsor, Goodwin Watson). The average gain in scores on these tests was greater to a statistically significant degree among the students who received the lessons in critical thinking than among the students in a control group of four grade 12 high school classes taking the usual curriculum in English. Glaser concludes:

The aspect of critical thinking which appears most susceptible to general improvement is the attitude of being disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range of one’s experience. An attitude of wanting evidence for beliefs is more subject to general transfer. Development of skill in applying the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning, however, appears to be specifically related to, and in fact limited by, the acquisition of pertinent knowledge and facts concerning the problem or subject matter toward which the thinking is to be directed. (Glaser 1941: 175)

Retest scores and observable behaviour indicated that students in the intervention group retained their growth in ability to think critically for at least six months after the special instruction.

In 1948 a group of U.S. college examiners decided to develop taxonomies of educational objectives with a common vocabulary that they could use for communicating with each other about test items. The first of these taxonomies, for the cognitive domain, appeared in 1956 (Bloom et al. 1956), and included critical thinking objectives. It has become known as Bloom’s taxonomy. A second taxonomy, for the affective domain (Krathwohl, Bloom, & Masia 1964), and a third taxonomy, for the psychomotor domain (Simpson 1966–67), appeared later. Each of the taxonomies is hierarchical, with achievement of a higher educational objective alleged to require achievement of corresponding lower educational objectives.

Bloom’s taxonomy has six major categories. From lowest to highest, they are knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Within each category, there are sub-categories, also arranged hierarchically from the educationally prior to the educationally posterior. The lowest category, though called ‘knowledge’, is confined to objectives of remembering information and being able to recall or recognize it, without much transformation beyond organizing it (Bloom et al. 1956: 28–29). The five higher categories are collectively termed “intellectual abilities and skills” (Bloom et al. 1956: 204). The term is simply another name for critical thinking abilities and skills:

Although information or knowledge is recognized as an important outcome of education, very few teachers would be satisfied to regard this as the primary or the sole outcome of instruction. What is needed is some evidence that the students can do something with their knowledge, that is, that they can apply the information to new situations and problems. It is also expected that students will acquire generalized techniques for dealing with new problems and new materials. Thus, it is expected that when the student encounters a new problem or situation, he will select an appropriate technique for attacking it and will bring to bear the necessary information, both facts and principles. This has been labeled “critical thinking” by some, “reflective thinking” by Dewey and others, and “problem solving” by still others. In the taxonomy, we have used the term “intellectual abilities and skills”. (Bloom et al. 1956: 38)

Comprehension and application objectives, as their names imply, involve understanding and applying information. Critical thinking abilities and skills show up in the three highest categories of analysis, synthesis and evaluation. The condensed version of Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom et al. 1956: 201–207) gives the following examples of objectives at these levels:

• analysis objectives : ability to recognize unstated assumptions, ability to check the consistency of hypotheses with given information and assumptions, ability to recognize the general techniques used in advertising, propaganda and other persuasive materials
• synthesis objectives : organizing ideas and statements in writing, ability to propose ways of testing a hypothesis, ability to formulate and modify hypotheses
• evaluation objectives : ability to indicate logical fallacies, comparison of major theories about particular cultures

The analysis, synthesis and evaluation objectives in Bloom’s taxonomy collectively came to be called the “higher-order thinking skills” (Tankersley 2005: chap. 5). Although the analysis-synthesis-evaluation sequence mimics phases in Dewey’s (1933) logical analysis of the reflective thinking process, it has not generally been adopted as a model of a critical thinking process. While commending the inspirational value of its ratio of five categories of thinking objectives to one category of recall objectives, Ennis (1981b) points out that the categories lack criteria applicable across topics and domains. For example, analysis in chemistry is so different from analysis in literature that there is not much point in teaching analysis as a general type of thinking. Further, the postulated hierarchy seems questionable at the higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. For example, ability to indicate logical fallacies hardly seems more complex than the ability to organize statements and ideas in writing.

A revised version of Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson et al. 2001) distinguishes the intended cognitive process in an educational objective (such as being able to recall, to compare or to check) from the objective’s informational content (“knowledge”), which may be factual, conceptual, procedural, or metacognitive. The result is a so-called “Taxonomy Table” with four rows for the kinds of informational content and six columns for the six main types of cognitive process. The authors name the types of cognitive process by verbs, to indicate their status as mental activities. They change the name of the ‘comprehension’ category to ‘understand’ and of the ‘synthesis’ category to ’create’, and switch the order of synthesis and evaluation. The result is a list of six main types of cognitive process aimed at by teachers: remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create. The authors retain the idea of a hierarchy of increasing complexity, but acknowledge some overlap, for example between understanding and applying. And they retain the idea that critical thinking and problem solving cut across the more complex cognitive processes. The terms ‘critical thinking’ and ‘problem solving’, they write:

are widely used and tend to become touchstones of curriculum emphasis. Both generally include a variety of activities that might be classified in disparate cells of the Taxonomy Table. That is, in any given instance, objectives that involve problem solving and critical thinking most likely call for cognitive processes in several categories on the process dimension. For example, to think critically about an issue probably involves some Conceptual knowledge to Analyze the issue. Then, one can Evaluate different perspectives in terms of the criteria and, perhaps, Create a novel, yet defensible perspective on this issue. (Anderson et al. 2001: 269–270; italics in original)

In the revised taxonomy, only a few sub-categories, such as inferring, have enough commonality to be treated as a distinct critical thinking ability that could be taught and assessed as a general ability.

A landmark contribution to philosophical scholarship on the concept of critical thinking was a 1962 article in the Harvard Educational Review by Robert H. Ennis, with the title “A concept of critical thinking: A proposed basis for research in the teaching and evaluation of critical thinking ability” (Ennis 1962). Ennis took as his starting-point a conception of critical thinking put forward by B. Othanel Smith:

We shall consider thinking in terms of the operations involved in the examination of statements which we, or others, may believe. A speaker declares, for example, that “Freedom means that the decisions in America’s productive effort are made not in the minds of a bureaucracy but in the free market”. Now if we set about to find out what this statement means and to determine whether to accept or reject it, we would be engaged in thinking which, for lack of a better term, we shall call critical thinking. If one wishes to say that this is only a form of problem-solving in which the purpose is to decide whether or not what is said is dependable, we shall not object. But for our purposes we choose to call it critical thinking. (Smith 1953: 130)

Adding a normative component to this conception, Ennis defined critical thinking as “the correct assessing of statements” (Ennis 1962: 83). On the basis of this definition, he distinguished 12 “aspects” of critical thinking corresponding to types or aspects of statements, such as judging whether an observation statement is reliable and grasping the meaning of a statement. He noted that he did not include judging value statements. Cutting across the 12 aspects, he distinguished three dimensions of critical thinking: logical (judging relationships between meanings of words and statements), criterial (knowledge of the criteria for judging statements), and pragmatic (the impression of the background purpose). For each aspect, Ennis described the applicable dimensions, including criteria. He proposed the resulting construct as a basis for developing specifications for critical thinking tests and for research on instructional methods and levels.

In the 1970s and 1980s there was an upsurge of attention to the development of thinking skills. The annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Educational Reform has attracted since its start in 1980 tens of thousands of educators from all levels. In 1983 the College Entrance Examination Board proclaimed reasoning as one of six basic academic competencies needed by college students (College Board 1983). Departments of education in the United States and around the world began to include thinking objectives in their curriculum guidelines for school subjects. For example, Ontario’s social sciences and humanities curriculum guideline for secondary schools requires “the use of critical and creative thinking skills and/or processes” as a goal of instruction and assessment in each subject and course (Ontario Ministry of Education 2013: 30). The document describes critical thinking as follows:

Critical thinking is the process of thinking about ideas or situations in order to understand them fully, identify their implications, make a judgement, and/or guide decision making. Critical thinking includes skills such as questioning, predicting, analysing, synthesizing, examining opinions, identifying values and issues, detecting bias, and distinguishing between alternatives. Students who are taught these skills become critical thinkers who can move beyond superficial conclusions to a deeper understanding of the issues they are examining. They are able to engage in an inquiry process in which they explore complex and multifaceted issues, and questions for which there may be no clear-cut answers (Ontario Ministry of Education 2013: 46).

Sweden makes schools responsible for ensuring that each pupil who completes compulsory school “can make use of critical thinking and independently formulate standpoints based on knowledge and ethical considerations” (Skolverket 2018: 12). Subject syllabi incorporate this requirement, and items testing critical thinking skills appear on national tests that are a required step toward university admission. For example, the core content of biology, physics and chemistry in years 7-9 includes critical examination of sources of information and arguments encountered by pupils in different sources and social discussions related to these sciences, in both digital and other media. (Skolverket 2018: 170, 181, 192). Correspondingly, in year 9 the national tests require using knowledge of biology, physics or chemistry “to investigate information, communicate and come to a decision on issues concerning health, energy, technology, the environment, use of natural resources and ecological sustainability” (see the message from the School Board ). Other jurisdictions similarly embed critical thinking objectives in curriculum guidelines.

At the college level, a new wave of introductory logic textbooks, pioneered by Kahane (1971), applied the tools of logic to contemporary social and political issues. Popular contemporary textbooks of this sort include those by Bailin and Battersby (2016b), Boardman, Cavender and Kahane (2018), Browne and Keeley (2018), Groarke and Tindale (2012), and Moore and Parker (2020). In their wake, colleges and universities in North America transformed their introductory logic course into a general education service course with a title like ‘critical thinking’ or ‘reasoning’. In 1980, the trustees of California’s state university and colleges approved as a general education requirement a course in critical thinking, described as follows:

Instruction in critical thinking is to be designed to achieve an understanding of the relationship of language to logic, which should lead to the ability to analyze, criticize, and advocate ideas, to reason inductively and deductively, and to reach factual or judgmental conclusions based on sound inferences drawn from unambiguous statements of knowledge or belief. The minimal competence to be expected at the successful conclusion of instruction in critical thinking should be the ability to distinguish fact from judgment, belief from knowledge, and skills in elementary inductive and deductive processes, including an understanding of the formal and informal fallacies of language and thought. (Dumke 1980)

Since December 1983, the Association for Informal Logic and Critical Thinking has sponsored sessions at the three annual divisional meetings of the American Philosophical Association. In December 1987, the Committee on Pre-College Philosophy of the American Philosophical Association invited Peter Facione to make a systematic inquiry into the current state of critical thinking and critical thinking assessment. Facione assembled a group of 46 other academic philosophers and psychologists to participate in a multi-round Delphi process, whose product was entitled Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction (Facione 1990a). The statement listed abilities and dispositions that should be the goals of a lower-level undergraduate course in critical thinking. Researchers in nine European countries determined which of these skills and dispositions employers expect of university graduates (Dominguez 2018 a), compared those expectations to critical thinking educational practices in post-secondary educational institutions (Dominguez 2018b), developed a course on critical thinking education for university teachers (Dominguez 2018c) and proposed in response to identified gaps between expectations and practices an “educational protocol” that post-secondary educational institutions in Europe could use to develop critical thinking (Elen et al. 2019).

Copyright © 2022 by David Hitchcock < hitchckd @ mcmaster . ca >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 1. Introducing Critical Thinking and Philosophical Inquiry

This chapter….

• Introduces the concept of critical thinking and its importance.
• Discusses the basics of critical thinking and emphasizes its relevance.
• Explores the concept of a love for knowledge and why it is important.
• Addresses the questions of what philosophy is and its role as an educational foundation.
• Includes practice exercises included to help improve critical thinking skills.
• Ends with a review of the main points and recommended readings.

§1 Understanding Critical Thinking

1.1 What is “critical thinking”?

1.2 The Importance of Critical Thinking

1.3 Characteristics of Critical Thinkers

1.4 The Relationship between Critical Thinking and Philosophical Inquiry

§2 The Process of Critical Thinking

2.1 Recognizing Assumptions

2.2 Analyzing Arguments

2.3 Evaluating Evidence

2.4 Avoiding Fallacies

2.5 Formulating Well-Reasoned Judgments

§3 Why Critical Thinking Matters

3.1 Applications of Critical Thinking

3.2 Critics of Critical Thinking

3.3 Why It Matters: The Value of Philosophy [forthcoming]

§4 Critical Thinking Basics

4.1 Statements [Claims]

4.2 Non-statements

4.3 Arguments

4.4 Argument Identification

4.5 Arguments v. Explanations

15 PRACTICE EXERCISES

§5 Love of Knowledge

5.1 What is ‘Philosophy’?

5.2 No Single Definition

5.3 Are You a Philosopher?

5.4 Questions & Answers

5.5 Philosophy of Anything & Everything!

5 SHORT ANSWER QUESTIONS

• Argument = gives reasons for believing that something is the case
• Assertion = a statement that something is or is not the case / either true or false
• Axiology = the study of value, including both aesthetic value and moral value
• Bias = obstacle to thinking well by preferring someone / thing for irrelevant reasons
• Critical Thinking = the systematic evaluation or formulation of beliefs, or statements, by rational standards
• Epistemology = the study of knowledge / justified belief
• Explanation = tells us why or how something is the case
• Fallacy =  error in reasoning
• Issue = topic being discussed; whether something is [not] the case
• Inference = the logical link between premises and a conclusion
• Logic = the study of / codification of rules for correct reasoning
• Metaphysics = the study of reality
• Philosophy = “the love of wisdom”; study of general and fundamental problems in the form of questions
• Philosophical Questions = arise from the critical examination of one’s ordinary beliefs
• Philosophical Beliefs = fundamental beliefs that underlie many other ordinary beliefs
• Philosophical Thinking = thinking about the truth of a philosophical belief
• Premise(s) = supporting statement(s) in an argument
• Conclusion = statement being supported in an argument
• Value Judgment = evaluation of something that is neither true nor false.

How to Think For Yourself Copyright © 2023 by Rebeka Ferreira, Anthony Ferrucci is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

#1 Victorian uni for graduate employment 1

#1 in the world for sport science 2

#1 Victorian uni for course satisfaction 3

For career and life, this.  gives you practical advice to help you on your journey.

• Self-improvement

Curious about this. ? Find out more

Have something to share? Contact us

Why study philosophy? Learn critical thinking skills for life

Related articles.

This is what you should do if you’re experiencing burnout

How to prove you have the skills to advance your career

Livinia Nixon’s career confessions

What is truth? What is knowledge? Do people have free will? What makes our actions or personality traits good or bad ? Is there a God? These are just some of the brain-bending questions you might ask as a student of philosophy.

‘Questions like these might look straightforward, but when you start to explore them it’s clear they’re really complicated questions that require careful and thoughtful argument to try and get some answers,’ says Associate Professor Patrick Stokes, a senior lecturer in philosophy at Deakin.

Philosophy teaches critical thinking skills that will help you navigate life and work. And in the age of fake news and post-truth, the study of philosophy is especially important, says Assoc. Prof. Stokes.

‘Knowing who to believe and who to listen to, and being able to tell a good claim from a bad claim or a good argument from a bad argument, is more urgent now than it’s ever been.’

Here are some of the most compelling reasons to study philosophy and ask those big, bold questions.

Learn to think critically

Philosophy is an activity of thought more than a body of settled knowledge, so much so that even questions of, ‘what is philosophy?’ and, ‘what does philosophy mean?’ are themselves philosophical questions. ‘One of the fun things about philosophy is philosophers can’t even agree on what it is,’ Assoc. Prof. Stokes says.

So what is philosophy according to Assoc. Prof. Stokes? Here’s his take: ‘Philosophy is a discipline that rigorously investigates some of the deepest and most fundamental questions of human existence – questions about the nature of being, right and wrong, and good and bad. It’s concerned with a number of really basic problems that other disciplines might generate but can’t answer.’

Studying philosophy not only involves asking the big questions – it also teaches important critical thinking skills as you work to find the answers. Assoc. Prof. Stokes says seminar teaching is one of the most important modes of learning in philosophy because it’s an opportunity for students to debate, argue and workshop ideas .

‘A lot of students are initially a little surprised that when we study philosophy, we want to know what you think. We want you to articulate your own view as a philosopher and, crucially, we also expect you to be able to defend that view and to argue for your position.

‘You come into the classroom as a philosopher, pretty much from day one.’

'Philosophy is a discipline that rigorously investigates some of the deepest and most fundamental questions of human existence – questions about the nature of being, right and wrong, and good and bad.' Associate Professor Patrick Stokes, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Deakin University

Channel intellectual curiosity

There’s perhaps no better answer to the quandary of why study philosophy than ‘sheer intellectual curiosity’, says Assoc. Prof. Stokes. ‘It’s a really open, broad field for anyone who wants to stretch their legs intellectually and try out some new things.’

Philosophy degrees will introduce you to the many and varied philosophy schools of thought, like ethics and logic. What is ethics in philosophy? What is logic in philosophy? These are complicated and intriguing questions, says Assoc. Prof. Stokes.

‘Ethics is concerned with how we should live and what should govern the way in which we behave in relation to other people and to ourselves. It centres on questions of right and wrong, good and bad.’

Logic is the study of principles of reasoning. ‘It’s about trying to find the necessary, almost mathematical, structure of argument and reason, and trying to explain why certain statements have to be true and why certain statements can’t be true,’ Assoc. Prof. Stokes says.

Other fascinating branches of philosophy include phenomenology – the study of human experience – and stoicism, which examines strategies to ‘live a good life by making ourselves less vulnerable to suffering’, says Assoc. Prof. Stokes.

Kickstart your career

If you’re wondering why study philosophy in a practical, career-focused sense, there are a lot of less abstract benefits.

‘Regardless of which profession you go into or which career path you end up choosing, critical reasoning skills, the ability to identify and interrogate assumptions, being comfortable with challenging your own assumptions, spotting a bad argument, being able to construct a good argument – all of these things are really important life skills and really important employability skills,’ Assoc. Prof. Stokes says. ‘They will all carry you through whatever you choose to do in life.’

He says many philosophy students study the discipline as part of an arts degree , and there’s a significant cohort from other backgrounds like creative arts, nursing and teaching.

‘Students like the idea that philosophy will give them a greater ethical grounding and a deeper understanding of different cultures and fundamental assumptions about the way the world is, which will help them in their chosen field of work.’

Want to explore life’s big questions? Study philosophy as a major or minor in your degree.

Associate Professor of Philosophy, Faculty of Arts and Education, Deakin University

Read profile

Share this.

Explore more.

Quick links

• Make a Gift
• Directories

Why Study Philosophy?

What is philosophy, and why should i study it.

“Philosophy” comes from Greek words meaning “love of wisdom.”  Philosophy uses the tools of logic and reason to analyze the ways in which humans experience the world.  It teaches critical thinking, close reading, clear writing, and logical analysis; it uses these to understand the language we use to describe the world, and our place within it.  Different areas of philosophy are distinguished by the questions they ask.  Do our senses accurately describe reality?  What makes wrong actions wrong?  How should we live?  These are philosophical questions, and philosophy teaches the ways in which we might begin to answer them.

Students who learn philosophy get a great many benefits from doing so.  The tools taught by philosophy are of great use in further education, and in employment.  Despite the seemingly abstract nature of the questions philosophers ask, the tools philosophy teaches tend to be highly sought-after by employers.  Philosophy students learn how to write clearly, and to read closely, with a critical eye; they are taught to spot bad reasoning, and how to avoid it in their writing and in their work.  It is therefore not surprising that philosophy students have historically scored more highly on tests like the LSAT and GRE, on average, than almost any other discipline.  Many of our students combine studying philosophy with studying other disciplines.

The most important reason to study philosophy is that it is of enormous and enduring interest.  All of us have to answer, for ourselves, the questions asked by philosophers.  In this department, students can learn how to ask the questions well, and how we might begin to develop responses.  Philosophy is important, but it is also enormously enjoyable, and our faculty contains many award-winning teachers who make the process of learning about philosophy fun.  Our faculty are committed to a participatory style of teaching, in which students are provided with the tools and the opportunity to develop and express their own philosophical views.  

Critical Thinking “It was in philosophy where I learned rigorous critical thinking, a skill that is invaluable when creating art.” - Donald Daedalus, BA ‘05, Visual Artist “Philosophy taught me to think critically and was the perfect major for law school, giving me an excellent start to law school and my career.” - Rod Nelson, BA ‘75, Lawyer

Tools for Assessing Ethical Issues “The courses I took for my minor in philosophy ... have provided a valuable framework for my career work in the field of global health and have given me a strong foundation for developing a structured, logical argument in various contexts.” - Aubrey Batchelor, Minor ‘09, Global Health Worker “Bioethics is an everyday part of medicine, and my philosophy degree has helped me to work through real-world patient issues and dilemmas.” - Teresa Lee, BA ‘08 Medical Student “The ability to apply an ethical framework to questions that have developed in my career, in taking care of patients ... has been a gift and something that I highly value.” - Natalie Nunes, BA ‘91, Family Physician Analytic Reasoning “... philosophy provided me with the analytical tools necessary to understand a variety of unconventional problems characteristic of the security environment of the last decade.” - Chris Grubb, BA ‘98, US Marine “Philosophy provides intellectual resources, critical and creative thinking capacity that are indispensable for success in contemporary international security environment “ - Richard Paz, BA ‘87, US Military Officer

Understanding Others’ Perspectives “... philosophy grounds us in an intellectual tradition larger than our own personal opinions. ... *making+ it is easier to be respectful of and accommodating to individual differences in clients (and colleagues)...” - Diane Fructher Strother, BA ‘00, Clinical Psychologist “... comprehensive exposure to numerous alternative world/ethical views has helped me with my daily interaction with all different types of people of ethnic, cultural, and political orientation backgrounds.” - David Prestin, BA ‘07, Engineer

Evaluating Information “Analyzing information and using it to form logical conclusions is a huge part of philosophy and was thus vital to my success in this position.” - Kevin Duchmann, BA ‘07, Inventory Control Analyst

Writing Skills “My philosophy degree has been incredibly important in developing my analytical and writing skills.” - Teresa Lee, BA ‘08, Medical Student

•   Twitter
•   YouTube
•   Facebook
•   Newsletter
•   More ways to connect

Philosophy Behind Critical Thinking: A Concise Overview

The philosophy behind critical thinking delves into the deeper understanding of what it means to think critically and to develop the ability to reason, analyze, and evaluate information in a structured and systematic manner. Critical thinking has intricate connections with philosophy, mainly because it originated from ancient philosophical teachings. At its core, the concept of critical thinking is rooted in the Socratic method of questioning, which emphasizes the importance of inquiry and rational thinking as a means to achieve knowledge.

Key Takeaways

Understanding critical thinking, definition and process, logic, reason, rationality.

Logic, reason, and rationality are essential components of critical thinking. Logic refers to the systematic approach to reasoning and validating claims through principles and rules. Reasoning, on the other hand, is the process of drawing conclusions based on logic, evidence, and assumptions. Rationality encompasses the use of logic and reason to make well-informed decisions, judgments, and evaluations.

Strategies and Patterns

Justification and argumentation, clarity and reflection.

Clarity is essential for effective critical thinking. This entails expressing ideas and arguments in a clear, concise, and organized manner. Furthermore, critical thinkers must also engage in reflection — the process of examining their own thought processes, assumptions, and biases. Reflecting on one’s beliefs and values helps individuals refine their thinking and develop a more nuanced understanding of the world around them.

Psychological Approach to Critical Thinking

Cognition and Pattern Recognition

Bias and judgments.

Another aspect of the psychological approach to critical thinking is the examination of biases and judgments. Bias refers to the systematic errors or distortions in human reasoning that can arise from emotions, beliefs, or external factors. When individuals possess a strong bias, it can impede their ability to think critically and accurately evaluate information. By being aware of these biases and actively seeking to minimize their influence, one can improve their critical thinking skills and make more accurate judgments.

Problem-Solving and Decision-Making

Philosophical groundings, roots of critical thought.

The roots of critical thought can be traced back to ancient Greek philosophy, particularly the ideas developed by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. In their teachings, these philosophers emphasized the importance of questioning and examining beliefs, seeking evidence, and evaluating arguments logically. Through these pursuits, they laid a strong foundation for the development of critical thinking in modern times.

Major Philosophers and Approaches

Informal logic and its importance.

Informal logic plays a crucial role in critical thinking as it concerns the principles and methods used to analyze everyday arguments and reasoning beyond the scope of formal logic. It complements formal logic, which deals strictly with logical systems and symbols. Informal logic helps individuals assess the validity, soundness, and context of arguments encountered in daily life. By honing their skills in informal logic, individuals can become better critical thinkers and more adept at navigating complex situations and decision-making processes.

Critical Thinking in Cultural and Social Context

Race and gender perspectives, critical thinking in a democratic society.

In a democratic society, critical thinking plays a crucial role in informed decision-making, civic engagement, and open discussion. The healthy functioning of a democracy relies on the citizens’ capacity to discern reliable information, assess arguments, and make rational choices. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , critical thinking includes abilities and dispositions that lead individuals to think critically when appropriate. Developing these skills allows members of democratic societies to engage in productive debates, evaluate policies, and hold leaders accountable.

Culture, Society, and Critical Thinking

Role of critical thinking in education, aims of education.

The primary aim of education is to foster the development of individuals’ cognitive capabilities, empowering them to grow into confident, knowledgeable and discerning adults. Critical thinking plays a significant role in education as it helps students acquire and apply knowledge more effectively, by analyzing, evaluating, and synthesizing information from diverse sources in a systematic manner, leading to more accurate and informed decisions.

Skills Development

Classroom activities focused on critical thinking are essential to help students develop a systematic approach to problem-solving and sharpen their analytical skills. Practical tasks, like debates, group discussions, case studies, or role plays, can be employed to engage students in active learning, thus enhancing their critical thought processes.

Standardized Tests vs. Critical Thought

Importance of open-mindedness and skepticism, being skeptical vs. being cynical.

It is essential to understand the difference between being skeptical and being cynical. Skepticism in critical thinking involves questioning assertions and assumptions, seeking evidence, and evaluating arguments from a neutral, objective viewpoint. On the other hand, cynicism is a distrustful attitude, where one assumes negative intentions or outcomes.

Traits of an Open-Minded Thinker

Role of curiosity and empathy in critical thinking.

Empathy, on the other hand, permits critical thinkers to comprehend and appreciate different perspectives by placing themselves in others’ shoes. An empathetic approach contributes to open-mindedness and cultivates a sense of humility, recognizing that individuals may hold contrasting opinions based on personal experiences or beliefs. The combination of curiosity and empathy enhances critical thinking by promoting a more inclusive and nuanced understanding of complex issues and scenarios.

Critical thinking equips individuals with the tools necessary to think carefully with clarity, depth, precision, accuracy, and logic 3 . It has applications across various domains, such as science, where great scientists like Albert Einstein have benefited from critical thinking skills to discover groundbreaking concepts.

You may also like

Divergent thinking examples, critical thinking: stop overthinking and make faster decisions, how to vote wisely: essential strategies for informed decision-making in elections, what is logical thinking, download this free ebook.

• Skip to content
• Skip to search
• Staff portal (Inside the department)
• Student portal
• Key links for students

Other users

• Forgot password

Notifications

{{item.title}}, my essentials, ask for help, contact edconnect, directory a to z, how to guides, education for a changing world, teaching critical thinking through philosophy.

Why might an AI future require students to have stronger ethical reasoning and critical thinking skills? How can learning philosophy support the development of thinking skills? Is deep content knowledge needed to support this?

To find out, we talk to Sandra Lynch, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame Australia.

Sandra explains why philosophical thinking is important for an Artificial Intelligence (AI) world, and how schools might approach it.

She works to deepen students' active engagement with ethics and critical thinking skills through the Philosophy in Schools Association of NSW.

Credits: Recording and production by Jennifer Macey (Audiocraft), editing by Andy Maher, and voiceovers by Sally Kohlmayer. This episode was recorded in 2018. The views expressed in Edspressos are those of the interviewees and do not necessarily represent the views of the NSW Department of Education.

Episode transcript

Voice-over:.

Welcome to the Edspresso series from the New South Wales Department of Education. These short podcasts are part of the Education for a Changing World initiative. Join us as we speak to a range of experts about how emerging technology, such as artificial intelligence, are likely to change the world around us and what this might mean for education.

Why might an AI future require students to have stronger ethical reasoning and critical thinking skills? How can learning philosophy in schools support this? And is there value in focusing on these skills in the early years.

We asked Sandra Lynch why philosophical reasoning might be important to preparing young people for an increasingly complex world, and how schools might approach it? Sandra is a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame Australia, who works to deepen students' active engagement with ethics and critical thinking skills, through the Philosophy in Schools Association of New South Wales.

Sandra Lynch:

My name is Sandy Lynch, I'm Professor of Moral Philosophy and the former director of the Institute for Ethics and Society at the University of Notre Dame Australia. Describing philosophy isn't easy. It's difficult to categorise it, partly because it has no particular subject matter. But describing how it can help develop thinking skills, I think it's something much easier because it does have characteristic methods of undertaking its aim, so helping students address problems or concerns or things that they find puzzling.

The way in which we do that is not by studying philosophy per se, but by developing a set of critical thinking skills. It's that approach to philosophy that I and my colleagues in Philosophy in Schools Association is trying to undertake. Our broad aim is to encourage students in the giving reasons, to help them appreciate and to recognise rules that govern argumentation. But also rules that govern sentence structure and the connections between sentences to see whether or not what they are arguing is logical or not.

We also want them to recognise reasonable standards of behaviour and to investigate what those are, and why a civilised society regards a certain kind of standards as reasonable. And to be able to articulate that and to do that really requires them to be offering reasons, to be speculating on other people's reasons or speculating about premises.

And I think this is interesting in the context of artificial intelligence to be predicting what seems to be logically possible and what are the implications of those kinds of possibilities. I would argue that philosophy can help students to ask the sorts of questions that you might want them to be asking about AI.

So, for example, what is artificial intelligence? Is it a system or a machine that thinks like a human being, that acts like a human being? Is it a machine that reasons like a human being, or that acts rationally in the way some human beings do or is the focus on rationality and who works through that to decide, for example, in the ethical context, what does ethical reasoning and good ethical decision making consist in? And that's a philosophical task of figuring out what would that consist in.

And then there is an ethical task - if robots have been made, built in such a way that they can be coercive or that their actions can be lethal, how do we decide whether or not those robots should be able to make weighty or autonomous decisions?

Who makes that decision? The sorts of questions that we would want our students asking if they are really to participate in our democracy, in a really meaningful way, what are the sets of more basic skills, the strategies and the practices that will enhance students' ability to analyse, to synthesise, to categorise? How do you go about that?

These are a set of very specific skills, so things like learning to really actively listen, asking fruitful questions and knowing the difference between a fruitful and relatively fruitless question, in the context of a substantive discussion. Analysing part-whole relationships, learning to be consistent and to clarify statements, drawing out inferences, offering examples or perhaps counterexamples, making distinctions and comparisons, generalisations, recognising implications, using criteria. I could go on, but these are the sorts of skills that allow students to come to deeper understandings.

The other thing that I think is important is undertaking this in a collaborative way, so creating within the classroom, a community of enquiry, so that students are thinking together rather than in an isolated fashion.

We want our students to be able to really grapple with whether or not we should allow robots to make autonomous decisions, and to be able to predict what allowing that might mean for us to be able to predict the consequences. So, there is a kind of, not just critical thinking but creative imaginative thinking here, speculating on possibilities and then interrogating those possibilities. So, I think that's really crucial, students don't need to be of a particular age or to have a deep content knowledge to be able to undertake philosophical enquiry in the classroom much like reading and mathematics.

Reading and mathematics are cognitive processes and they are dependent upon thinking skills. So, if those thinking skills are better developed, then those cognitive processes will be more efficient.

If you want to develop students' sustained interest in these areas, you want to make it relevant to their lives and to their experience and philosophy is much the same. If you can make the stimulus material that you are using relevant to the age and experience of the students, taking into account, of course, curriculum requirements, then you can engage their interest and your aim there is to create questions, create puzzles to leave them wondering, so that they begin to ask questions and their questions, then, become the stimulus for discussion.

So, you ask, what is the difference between listening and hearing? And get them to tease out the criteria there and doing that means that they are making that distinction, so they are thinking and making those distinctions and coming to a deeper understanding.

One might wonder whether students needed a depth of content knowledge, to be able to undertake a philosophical enquiry in the classroom and I'm arguing that no they don't. Because what we are beginning with, in this context, is their own experience and we are getting them to philosophise and to think critically and creatively about that experience.

One of the things that philosophy can do, is help students to understand their own thought processes. Doing that is really valuable because what happens when they engage with their own thought processes, is that they develop a set of skills that can be translated from one key learning area or discipline area in the high school to another.

So, they're developing a reasoning toolbox that they can take from one area to another. I'm not recommending that we have dedicated philosophy lessons - I don't think that that's necessary, I think that we can help teachers to develop their own skills in teaching critical and creative thinking. And then, they will themselves be able to enhance that transference between different key learning areas or different discipline areas.

It's not easy to teach philosophy well, the kinds of critical and creative thinking skills that we are trying to develop take time for teachers to come to terms with themselves, and then to be able to initiate and facilitate in their students. But with practice, the rewards for the students, not to mention the teachers, are really very great, in fact, many teachers say that this kind of philosophical enquiry has really invigorated or reinvigorated their teaching and I think that's something worthwhile to note.

The advice that I would give myself, if I were to go back to myself as a school student, is to have the courage, I would encourage myself not to be afraid to make mistakes, not to be afraid to show my curiosity, asking questions I think is really crucial and holding views tentatively and even expecting or welcoming disagreement.

So, that what you begin to develop is a set of capacities for engaging in reasonable and civil dialogue with others and from my perspective, that's absolutely crucial in our society. That would have been good advice to myself, but I think it's good advice to anybody and particularly, in the context of new technology like artificial intelligence.

Thank you for listening to this episode of the Edspresso series. You can find out more about the Education for a Changing World initiative via the New South Wales Department of Education's website.

• Teaching and learning

Business Unit:

• Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation

2.2 Overcoming Cognitive Biases and Engaging in Critical Reflection

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Label the conditions that make critical thinking possible.
• Classify and describe cognitive biases.
• Apply critical reflection strategies to resist cognitive biases.

To resist the potential pitfalls of cognitive biases, we have taken some time to recognize why we fall prey to them. Now we need to understand how to resist easy, automatic, and error-prone thinking in favor of more reflective, critical thinking.

Critical Reflection and Metacognition

To promote good critical thinking, put yourself in a frame of mind that allows critical reflection. Recall from the previous section that rational thinking requires effort and takes longer. However, it will likely result in more accurate thinking and decision-making. As a result, reflective thought can be a valuable tool in correcting cognitive biases. The critical aspect of critical reflection involves a willingness to be skeptical of your own beliefs, your gut reactions, and your intuitions. Additionally, the critical aspect engages in a more analytic approach to the problem or situation you are considering. You should assess the facts, consider the evidence, try to employ logic, and resist the quick, immediate, and likely conclusion you want to draw. By reflecting critically on your own thinking, you can become aware of the natural tendency for your mind to slide into mental shortcuts.

This process of critical reflection is often called metacognition in the literature of pedagogy and psychology. Metacognition means thinking about thinking and involves the kind of self-awareness that engages higher-order thinking skills. Cognition, or the way we typically engage with the world around us, is first-order thinking, while metacognition is higher-order thinking. From a metacognitive frame, we can critically assess our thought process, become skeptical of our gut reactions and intuitions, and reconsider our cognitive tendencies and biases.

To improve metacognition and critical reflection, we need to encourage the kind of self-aware, conscious, and effortful attention that may feel unnatural and may be tiring. Typical activities associated with metacognition include checking, planning, selecting, inferring, self-interrogating, interpreting an ongoing experience, and making judgments about what one does and does not know (Hackner, Dunlosky, and Graesser 1998). By practicing metacognitive behaviors, you are preparing yourself to engage in the kind of rational, abstract thought that will be required for philosophy.

Good study habits, including managing your workspace, giving yourself plenty of time, and working through a checklist, can promote metacognition. When you feel stressed out or pressed for time, you are more likely to make quick decisions that lead to error. Stress and lack of time also discourage critical reflection because they rob your brain of the resources necessary to engage in rational, attention-filled thought. By contrast, when you relax and give yourself time to think through problems, you will be clearer, more thoughtful, and less likely to rush to the first conclusion that leaps to mind. Similarly, background noise, distracting activity, and interruptions will prevent you from paying attention. You can use this checklist to try to encourage metacognition when you study:

• Check your work.
• Plan ahead.
• Select the most useful material.
• Infer from your past grades to focus on what you need to study.
• Ask yourself how well you understand the concepts.
• Check your weaknesses.
• Assess whether you are following the arguments and claims you are working on.

Cognitive Biases

In this section, we will examine some of the most common cognitive biases so that you can be aware of traps in thought that can lead you astray. Cognitive biases are closely related to informal fallacies. Both fallacies and biases provide examples of the ways we make errors in reasoning.

Connections

See the chapter on logic and reasoning for an in-depth exploration of informal fallacies.

Watch the video to orient yourself before reading the text that follows.

Cognitive Biases 101, with Peter Bauman

Confirmation bias.

One of the most common cognitive biases is confirmation bias , which is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information that confirms or supports your prior beliefs. Like all cognitive biases, confirmation bias serves an important function. For instance, one of the most reliable forms of confirmation bias is the belief in our shared reality. Suppose it is raining. When you first hear the patter of raindrops on your roof or window, you may think it is raining. You then look for additional signs to confirm your conclusion, and when you look out the window, you see rain falling and puddles of water accumulating. Most likely, you will not be looking for irrelevant or contradictory information. You will be looking for information that confirms your belief that it is raining. Thus, you can see how confirmation bias—based on the idea that the world does not change dramatically over time—is an important tool for navigating in our environment.

Unfortunately, as with most heuristics, we tend to apply this sort of thinking inappropriately. One example that has recently received a lot of attention is the way in which confirmation bias has increased political polarization. When searching for information on the internet about an event or topic, most people look for information that confirms their prior beliefs rather than what undercuts them. The pervasive presence of social media in our lives is exacerbating the effects of confirmation bias since the computer algorithms used by social media platforms steer people toward content that reinforces their current beliefs and predispositions. These multimedia tools are especially problematic when our beliefs are incorrect (for example, they contradict scientific knowledge) or antisocial (for example, they support violent or illegal behavior). Thus, social media and the internet have created a situation in which confirmation bias can be “turbocharged” in ways that are destructive for society.

Confirmation bias is a result of the brain’s limited ability to process information. Peter Wason (1960) conducted early experiments identifying this kind of bias. He asked subjects to identify the rule that applies to a sequence of numbers—for instance, 2, 4, 8. Subjects were told to generate examples to test their hypothesis. What he found is that once a subject settled on a particular hypothesis, they were much more likely to select examples that confirmed their hypothesis rather than negated it. As a result, they were unable to identify the real rule (any ascending sequence of numbers) and failed to “falsify” their initial assumptions. Falsification is an important tool in the scientist’s toolkit when they are testing hypotheses and is an effective way to avoid confirmation bias.

In philosophy, you will be presented with different arguments on issues, such as the nature of the mind or the best way to act in a given situation. You should take your time to reason through these issues carefully and consider alternative views. What you believe to be the case may be right, but you may also fall into the trap of confirmation bias, seeing confirming evidence as better and more convincing than evidence that calls your beliefs into question.

Anchoring Bias

Confirmation bias is closely related to another bias known as anchoring. Anchoring bias refers to our tendency to rely on initial values, prices, or quantities when estimating the actual value, price, or quantity of something. If you are presented with a quantity, even if that number is clearly arbitrary, you will have a hard discounting it in your subsequent calculations; the initial value “anchors” subsequent estimates. For instance, Tversky and Kahneman (1974) reported an experiment in which subjects were asked to estimate the number of African nations in the United Nations. First, the experimenters spun a wheel of fortune in front of the subjects that produced a random number between 0 and 100. Let’s say the wheel landed on 79. Subjects were asked whether the number of nations was higher or lower than the random number. Subjects were then asked to estimate the real number of nations. Even though the initial anchoring value was random, people in the study found it difficult to deviate far from that number. For subjects receiving an initial value of 10, the median estimate of nations was 25, while for subjects receiving an initial value of 65, the median estimate was 45.

In the same paper, Tversky and Kahneman described the way that anchoring bias interferes with statistical reasoning. In a number of scenarios, subjects made irrational judgments about statistics because of the way the question was phrased (i.e., they were tricked when an anchor was inserted into the question). Instead of expending the cognitive energy needed to solve the statistical problem, subjects were much more likely to “go with their gut,” or think intuitively. That type of reasoning generates anchoring bias. When you do philosophy, you will be confronted with some formal and abstract problems that will challenge you to engage in thinking that feels difficult and unnatural. Resist the urge to latch on to the first thought that jumps into your head, and try to think the problem through with all the cognitive resources at your disposal.

Availability Heuristic

The availability heuristic refers to the tendency to evaluate new information based on the most recent or most easily recalled examples. The availability heuristic occurs when people take easily remembered instances as being more representative than they objectively are (i.e., based on statistical probabilities). In very simple situations, the availability of instances is a good guide to judgments. Suppose you are wondering whether you should plan for rain. It may make sense to anticipate rain if it has been raining a lot in the last few days since weather patterns tend to linger in most climates. More generally, scenarios that are well-known to us, dramatic, recent, or easy to imagine are more available for retrieval from memory. Therefore, if we easily remember an instance or scenario, we may incorrectly think that the chances are high that the scenario will be repeated. For instance, people in the United States estimate the probability of dying by violent crime or terrorism much more highly than they ought to. In fact, these are extremely rare occurrences compared to death by heart disease, cancer, or car accidents. But stories of violent crime and terrorism are prominent in the news media and fiction. Because these vivid stories are dramatic and easily recalled, we have a skewed view of how frequently violent crime occurs.

Another more loosely defined category of cognitive bias is the tendency for human beings to align themselves with groups with whom they share values and practices. The tendency toward tribalism is an evolutionary advantage for social creatures like human beings. By forming groups to share knowledge and distribute work, we are much more likely to survive. Not surprisingly, human beings with pro-social behaviors persist in the population at higher rates than human beings with antisocial tendencies. Pro-social behaviors, however, go beyond wanting to communicate and align ourselves with other human beings; we also tend to see outsiders as a threat. As a result, tribalistic tendencies both reinforce allegiances among in-group members and increase animosity toward out-group members.

Tribal thinking makes it hard for us to objectively evaluate information that either aligns with or contradicts the beliefs held by our group or tribe. This effect can be demonstrated even when in-group membership is not real or is based on some superficial feature of the person—for instance, the way they look or an article of clothing they are wearing. A related bias is called the bandwagon fallacy . The bandwagon fallacy can lead you to conclude that you ought to do something or believe something because many other people do or believe the same thing. While other people can provide guidance, they are not always reliable. Furthermore, just because many people believe something doesn’t make it true. Watch the video below to improve your “tribal literacy” and understand the dangers of this type of thinking.

The Dangers of Tribalism, Kevin deLaplante

Sunk cost fallacy.

Sunk costs refer to the time, energy, money, or other costs that have been paid in the past. These costs are “sunk” because they cannot be recovered. The sunk cost fallacy is thinking that attaches a value to things in which you have already invested resources that is greater than the value those things have today. Human beings have a natural tendency to hang on to whatever they invest in and are loath to give something up even after it has been proven to be a liability. For example, a person may have sunk a lot of money into a business over time, and the business may clearly be failing. Nonetheless, the businessperson will be reluctant to close shop or sell the business because of the time, money, and emotional energy they have spent on the venture. This is the behavior of “throwing good money after bad” by continuing to irrationally invest in something that has lost its worth because of emotional attachment to the failed enterprise. People will engage in this kind of behavior in all kinds of situations and may continue a friendship, a job, or a marriage for the same reason—they don’t want to lose their investment even when they are clearly headed for failure and ought to cut their losses.

A similar type of faulty reasoning leads to the gambler’s fallacy , in which a person reasons that future chance events will be more likely if they have not happened recently. For instance, if I flip a coin many times in a row, I may get a string of heads. But even if I flip several heads in a row, that does not make it more likely I will flip tails on the next coin flip. Each coin flip is statistically independent, and there is an equal chance of turning up heads or tails. The gambler, like the reasoner from sunk costs, is tied to the past when they should be reasoning about the present and future.

There are important social and evolutionary purposes for past-looking thinking. Sunk-cost thinking keeps parents engaged in the growth and development of their children after they are born. Sunk-cost thinking builds loyalty and affection among friends and family. More generally, a commitment to sunk costs encourages us to engage in long-term projects, and this type of thinking has the evolutionary purpose of fostering culture and community. Nevertheless, it is important to periodically reevaluate our investments in both people and things.

In recent ethical scholarship, there is some debate about how to assess the sunk costs of moral decisions. Consider the case of war. Just-war theory dictates that wars may be justified in cases where the harm imposed on the adversary is proportional to the good gained by the act of defense or deterrence. It may be that, at the start of the war, those costs seemed proportional. But after the war has dragged on for some time, it may seem that the objective cannot be obtained without a greater quantity of harm than had been initially imagined. Should the evaluation of whether a war is justified estimate the total amount of harm done or prospective harm that will be done going forward (Lazar 2018)? Such questions do not have easy answers.

Table 2.1 summarizes these common cognitive biases.

Think Like a Philosopher

As we have seen, cognitive biases are built into the way human beings process information. They are common to us all, and it takes self-awareness and effort to overcome the tendency to fall back on biases. Consider a time when you have fallen prey to one of the five cognitive biases described above. What were the circumstances? Recall your thought process. Were you aware at the time that your thinking was misguided? What were the consequences of succumbing to that cognitive bias?

Write a short paragraph describing how that cognitive bias allowed you to make a decision you now realize was irrational. Then write a second paragraph describing how, with the benefit of time and distance, you would have thought differently about the incident that triggered the bias. Use the tools of critical reflection and metacognition to improve your approach to this situation. What might have been the consequences of behaving differently? Finally, write a short conclusion describing what lesson you take from reflecting back on this experience. Does it help you understand yourself better? Will you be able to act differently in the future? What steps can you take to avoid cognitive biases in your thinking today?

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-philosophy/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Nathan Smith
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Philosophy
• Publication date: Jun 15, 2022
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-philosophy/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-philosophy/pages/2-2-overcoming-cognitive-biases-and-engaging-in-critical-reflection

© Mar 1, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

8. Philosophy and Critical Thinking: The Value of Asking the Deep Questions

Although we’ve emphasized in this guide that critical thinking skills cannot be taught in isolation from subject matter, there is a great deal of critical thinking to be learned from a subject that studies thinking itself: namely, philosophy. Philosophy and critical thinking are a natural pair.

American schools, unlike schools in some other parts of the world, have been hesitant to adopt philosophy courses into the curriculum. (One exception is the International Baccalaureate curriculum which includes a course called “Theory of Knowledge.”) One reason for this is that philosophical texts are often thought of as too dense and difficult for primary and secondary school students. 

Philosophy does, of course, involve a corpus of often quite difficult texts from different traditions, but philosophical reasoning itself is not at all outside the reach of even young children. Indeed, children show an interest in philosophical questions at a very young age. 

And older students, especially those who might be demotivated or struggle in other subjects, can be stimulated by the more open-ended, argumentative, and profound nature of philosophical thinking. Philosophical thinking also has a unique, interdisciplinary character that makes it ideal for helping students see connections across disciplines.

Philosophy for Kids

Philosophical reasoning is not something foreign to kids that needs to be forced on them from the outside. They all naturally ask philosophical questions like : 

• “How can we be sure that everything is not a dream?”
• “When Dad tells me to be good, what does he mean?”
• “Why is time so slow sometimes?”

Philosophy for kids programs and courses can help encourage this inquisitiveness and help kids to learn to channel it into a reflective frame of mind.

Many philosophy for kids programs attempt to initiate this type of thinking through narrative. For example, the Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children ( IAPC ) at Montclair State University, which goes back to the work of Matthew Lipman in the 1970s, uses stories to stimulate discussion of a philosophical topic. Children then discuss the topic in a “community of inquiry” where the teacher acts as a facilitator, who “both guides the children and models for them — by asking open-ended questions, posing alternative views, seeking clarification, questioning reasons, and by demonstrating self-correcting behavior.”

Other philosophy for kids initiatives use other stimuli, like visuals, thought experiments, or simply probing questions. But they share the goal of building a “community of inquiry,” where students get a chance to discuss and refine their ideas with one another, undertake to understand outside perspectives, and consider big questions outside the scope of more standard learning.

There is evidence that these kinds of philosophical activities can have a positive impact on student achievement . The Education Endowment Foundation in the UK found in an initial study of Philosophy for Children for 8-10 year olds that the program was promising: students made gains in math and reading compared to those who did not participate.

Teaching Philosophy to Middle and High School Students

As they get older, students are ready for more complex philosophical reasoning as well as instruction in formal logic. Philosophy can, moreover, be a driver of interdisciplinarity during middle and high school, since reflecting on the state of knowledge in other disciplines is one of the core tasks of philosophy.

Idea for Discussion : What Is Knowledge?

Philosophy is concerned, more than many other disciplines, with definitions. It takes concepts that we might take for granted, like knowledge, and problematizes them, by asking questions like:

• How do we know something?
• Are there general principles for what counts as knowledge or does it depend on the discipline?
• How do we come to know things in science? In our daily lives? In religion or aesthetic experiences?

It’s easy for these conversations to become too abstract so it’s best to start with something concrete. Break students up and assign them each a particular subject matter: art, science, religion, and morality, for example. Ask them to define knowledge in each of these domains?

• How do you know a piece of artwork is good?
• How is a scientific theory known to be true?
• How do people know a religious belief they have is true?
• How do we know the difference between right and wrong moral actions?

Ask students to come up with a definition. As they discuss, circulate to make sure students are using examples from their own study and experiences and trying to develop a list of criteria for knowledge in these different domains.

Bring the class back together to evaluate the definitions. Ask students from other groups to scrutinize each others’ definitions. The teacher might raise certain objections to try and deepen discussion:

• In science, for example, a group might say a theory is known to be true because it is verified in experimental results. But Isaac Newton’s physics were eventually shown to be inaccurate in certain cases. Is it right to say that before Albert Einstein came along, with a new, more experimentally accurate theory, people knew Newton’s theory was true? Or did they only think they knew?

Then, ask students to reflect on whether there is anything shared among these different kinds of “knowledge.” Questions that might come up include:

• Are there any general shared principles of inquiry common to these different domains: for example, experimentation or learning from one’s predecessors?
• Is it just happenstance that we happen to apply the words “know” and “knowledge” to these very different activities?
• Can we draw a clean distinction between practical knowledge (“knowing how”) and theoretical knowledge (“knowing that”)?

( please click here )

Sources and Resources

Goering, Sara, Nicholas J. Shudak, and Thomas E. Wartenberg, eds (2013). Philosophy in schools: An introduction for philosophers and teachers . Routledge. Collection of essays on different aspects of pre-college philosophy education.

Lone, J. M. & Burroughs, M.D. (2016). Philosophy in education: Questioning and dialogue in schools . Rowman & Littlefield. Argument for introducing philosophy in the K-12 context, with lesson ideas for elementary, middle, and high school. 

Millett, S., & Tapper, A. (2012). Benefits of collaborative philosophical inquiry in schools. Educational Philosophy and Theory , 44(5), 546-567. Overview on research into philosophy for kids and collaborative philosophical inquiry more broadly. 

Pritchard, Michael (2018). Philosophy for children . The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Encyclopedia entry on the history of rationale for philosophy for children. Also offers details on different approaches and more resources.

Free Critical Thinking Resources​

Subscribe to get updates and news about critical thinking, and links to free resources.

Reboot Foundation, 88 Rue De Courcelles, Paris, France 75008

[email protected], ⓒ 2024 - all rights are reserved, privacy overview.

Our mission is to develop tools and resources to help people cultivate a capacity for critical thinking, media literacy, and reflective thought.

• Français
• Preparatory

Lesson Explainer: Benefits of Philosophical Thinking Philosophy • First Year of Secondary School

In this explainer, we will learn how to recognize the benefits of philosophical thinking.

• Philosophical thinking has numerous benefits, for both the individual and society.

Philosophical thinking can enable us to develop our own worldview. A worldview is a system of beliefs and attitudes that shapes the way a person perceives, understands, and lives in the world.

Key Term: Worldview

A worldview is a system of beliefs and attitudes that shapes the way a person perceives and understands the world.

For example, suppose your friend, Fares, tells you that your other friend, Dina, had a party and did not invite you. What you think about this bit of news may have a lot to do with your worldview.

If according to your worldview, humans are caring and generous by nature, you will probably assume that Dina had a good reason not to invite you to her party. Maybe she was planning activities that she knew you would not enjoy, or maybe she was trying to protect someone else’s feelings.

On the other hand, if according to your worldview, human nature is selfish and cruel, you may think that Dina did not have any admirable reasons not to invite you.

We all have worldviews, but they are not always coherent; sometimes, they are full of contradictions. Philosophy can help us to better understand our own minds and be more consistent.

Another benefit of philosophical thinking is critical thinking. Critical thinking involves providing reasons for what we believe and do and refusing to accept beliefs without examining them.

The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates emphasized the importance of critical examination when he said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.”

Key Term: Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a type of thinking in which beliefs are not accepted unless they are examined.

You might be able to think of times that you have used critical thinking in everyday life.

For example, you can use critical thinking to understand the situation involving your friends Fares and Dina. You might think about whether Fares tends to tell the truth or whether it seems out of character for Dina not to want you at her party.

Critical thinking can help us avoid hasty judgments, unfounded beliefs, and habits or traditions that are not helpful or rational.

Example 1: Defining Critical Thinking

What does critical thinking mean?

• Refusing to accept beliefs without examining them
• Judging the behavior of others
• Assuming that other people are wrong
• Complaining about the food at a restaurant

Because critical thinking contains the word “critical,” it is easy to confuse it for holding negative beliefs about, or making negative statements regarding, the behavior and actions of other people.

However, “critical” does not refer to negative statements or beliefs.

In the sense of the term used in critical thinking, criticism means careful examination. It is for this reason that critical thinking means refusing to adopt beliefs without examination.

Therefore, the correct answer is A.

Philosophical thinking involves pursuing knowledge and searching for truth. This profound investigation is not limited, like the sciences, to the boundaries between subjects.

This means that the investigation of something like the origin and composition of the universe might lead to the investigation of another question entirely, such as the meaning of life.

On the other hand, a physicist studying the origin of the universe would avoid any question regarding the meaning of the universe. Questions like that would fall outside the boundaries of physics.

Example 2: Identifying Indications of Philosophical Thinking

What is the best indication that a person has taken up philosophy and the pursuit of truth?

• They only believe what they perceive with their own senses.
• They involve themselves in profound investigations.
• They suspend judgment on everything.
• They involve themselves in superficial investigations.
• They only believe what can be experimentally proven.

Philosophy and the pursuit of truth are investigations without any limits.

For that reason, someone who has taken up the pursuit of truth will not limit themselves to only believing what they can perceive with their own senses or what can be experimentally proven. That is because there are sources of truth other than what we perceive with our senses or prove in experiments.

They will not suspend judgment on everything because to suspend judgment would be to give up pursuing the truth.

Because philosophy and the pursuit of truth are investigations without any natural limit, they are not limited to superficial investigations, but involve profound investigations.

Therefore, the correct answer is B.

Philosophy allows us to understand our own values. Our values are what matters to us. They make the difference between what we consider good and bad, and they are reflected in what we consider worth doing with our lives.

Suppose you choose to join a junior football team. There are many values that could be behind that choice—it might be because you love the game or it might be because you want to exercise, make friends, or please your parents. It might be some combination of these.

Many values could be expressed by the choice to join a sports team.

By giving us ways to examine our values, philosophy helps us to find meaning in our lives and live in harmony with ourselves.

Key Term: Values

Our values are what matters to us. They make the difference between what we consider good and bad, and they are reflected in what we consider worth doing with our lives.

The philosophical examination of values also plays a vital role in the progress of human societies.

Different societies promote different values. For example, capitalist societies encourage increasing wealth, whereas religious societies often encourage faith and the avoidance of sin.

Philosophical thinking involves the evaluation, criticism, and defense of the values held by a particular society.

For example, the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates asked his friends to explain what they meant by one of the values that the ancient Greek society held highest: justice.

His friend Polemarchus defined justice as helping one’s friends and harming one’s enemies. However, Socrates showed him and his friends that this definition was not adequate. How could it be just to help a friend who is themself unjust or harm a just enemy?

In this way, Socrates showed the need for his friends to revise their understanding of justice.

Example 3: Recalling Socrates’s Criticism of Values

Why did Socrates keep questioning his friends about justice?

• He loved asking meaningless questions.
• He knew asking questions would make him look smart.
• He wanted to make his friends look like fools.
• He was a sophist.
• He wanted to find the true meaning of justice.

Socrates wanted to provoke his friends to examine their own values.

He believed that this kind of examination is necessary because we often accept the values that we are taught without thinking about what they really mean.

Instead of unthinkingly accepting taught values, Socrates encouraged people to critically examine them in order to understand their true meaning.

Therefore, the correct answer is E.

• Sometimes, philosophers also introduce new values into society.

For example, John Locke and other seventeenth- and eighteenth-century English philosophers helped to develop the ideas of liberalism. Liberalism is the idea that individual rights and freedoms, including freedom of speech and freedom of religion, should not be limited by any government.

These philosophers introduced a new social value—freedom—that was crucial in providing the justification for the American and French revolutions.

The relationship between philosophers and the societies that they live in is a complex one. Philosophers have an impact on society, as we can see in the example of liberalism. At the same time, the social context in which philosophers live has an effect on their philosophy.

For example, it was because the ancient Greek society considered justice one of its highest values that this is the value that Socrates chose to question his friends about.

What values does our society place highest today? They may not be the same values that the ancient Greeks considered highest. When society’s values change over time, philosophers can help us reconcile newer values with the older ones we inherit.

Let’s summarize some of the key points we have covered in this explainer.

• Philosophical thinking can enable us to develop our own worldview.
• Philosophy involves thinking critically.
• Philosophical thinking involves pursuing knowledge and searching for truth.
• Philosophy allows us to understand our own values.
• Philosophical thinking involves the evaluation, criticism, and defense of the values that a particular society holds.
• This philosophical examination of values plays a vital role in the progress of human societies.

Join Nagwa Classes

Attend live sessions on Nagwa Classes to boost your learning with guidance and advice from an expert teacher!

• Interactive Sessions
• Chat & Messaging
• Realistic Exam Questions

Nagwa uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more about our Privacy Policy

[C01] What is critical thinking?

Module: Critical thinking

• C02. Improve our thinking skills
• C03. Defining critical thinking
• C04. Teaching critical thinking
• C05. Beyond critical thinking
• C06. The Cognitive Reflection Test
• C07. Critical thinking assessment
• C08. Videos and courses on critical thinking
• C09. Famous quotes
• C10. History of critical thinking

Quote of the page

- Hannah Arendt

Popular pages

• What is critical thinking?
• What is logic?
• Hardest logic puzzle ever
• Free miniguide
• What is an argument?
• Knights and knaves puzzles
• Logic puzzles
• What is a good argument?
• Improving critical thinking
• Analogical arguments

Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally about what to do or what to believe. It includes the ability to engage in reflective and independent thinking. Someone with critical thinking skills is able to do the following :

• understand the logical connections between ideas
• identify, construct and evaluate arguments
• detect inconsistencies and common mistakes in reasoning
• solve problems systematically
• identify the relevance and importance of ideas
• reflect on the justification of one's own beliefs and values

Critical thinking is not a matter of accumulating information. A person with a good memory and who knows a lot of facts is not necessarily good at critical thinking. A critical thinker is able to deduce consequences from what he knows, and he knows how to make use of information to solve problems, and to seek relevant sources of information to inform himself.

Critical thinking should not be confused with being argumentative or being critical of other people. Although critical thinking skills can be used in exposing fallacies and bad reasoning, critical thinking can also play an important role in cooperative reasoning and constructive tasks. Critical thinking can help us acquire knowledge, improve our theories, and strengthen arguments. We can use critical thinking to enhance work processes and improve social institutions.

Some people believe that critical thinking hinders creativity because it requires following the rules of logic and rationality, but creativity might require breaking rules. This is a misconception. Critical thinking is quite compatible with thinking "out-of-the-box", challenging consensus and pursuing less popular approaches. If anything, critical thinking is an essential part of creativity because we need critical thinking to evaluate and improve our creative ideas.

§1. The importance of critical thinking

Critical thinking is a domain-general thinking skill . The ability to think clearly and rationally is important whatever we choose to do. If you work in education, research, finance, management or the legal profession, then critical thinking is obviously important. But critical thinking skills are not restricted to a particular subject area. Being able to think well and solve problems systematically is an asset for any career.

Critical thinking is very important in the new knowledge economy. The global knowledge economy is driven by information and technology. One has to be able to deal with changes quickly and effectively. The new economy places increasing demands on flexible intellectual skills, and the ability to analyse information and integrate diverse sources of knowledge in solving problems. Good critical thinking promotes such thinking skills, and is very important in the fast-changing workplace.

Critical thinking enhances language and presentation skills . Thinking clearly and systematically can improve the way we express our ideas. In learning how to analyse the logical structure of texts, critical thinking also improves comprehension abilities.

Critical thinking promotes creativity . To come up with a creative solution to a problem involves not just having new ideas. It must also be the case that the new ideas being generated are useful and relevant to the task at hand. Critical thinking plays a crucial role in evaluating new ideas, selecting the best ones and modifying them if necessary

Critical thinking is crucial for self-reflection . In order to live a meaningful life and to structure our lives accordingly, we need to justify and reflect on our values and decisions. Critical thinking provides the tools for this process of self-evaluation.

Good critical thinking is the foundation of science and democracy . Science requires the critical use of reason in experimentation and theory confirmation. The proper functioning of a liberal democracy requires citizens who can think critically about social issues to inform their judgments about proper governance and to overcome biases and prejudice.

§2. The future of critical thinking

The Fourth Industrial Revolution, which includes developments in previously disjointed fields such as artificial intelligence and machine-learning, robotics, nanotechnology, 3-D printing, and genetics and biotechnology, will cause widespread disruption not only to business models but also to labour markets over the next five years, with enormous change predicted in the skill sets needed to thrive in the new landscape.

The top three skills that supposed to be most relevant are thinking skills related to critical thinking, creativity, and their practical application. These are the cognitive skills that our website focuses on.

§3. For teachers

• The ideas on this page were discussed in a blog post on edutopia. The author uses the critical thinking framework here to apply to K-12 education. Very relevant to school teachers!

homepage • top • contact • sitemap

© 2004-2024 Joe Lau & Jonathan Chan

• iai Academy
• iai Podcast
• iai Festivals
• About the iai
• Join the Team
• Debates and Talks
• Support the iai
• iai Education
• iai Speakers

Welcome to the IAI.

As a new reader of IAI News, your first article is completely free!

To discover 3000+ more articles and videos, start a free trial today.

Timothy Snyder: The Paradox of President Zelensky

On the freedom of zelensky in ukraine.

Love the iai?

Sign up to get exclusive access.

Related Posts:

Why they killed Gaddafi

Only states can wage war, and why it matters

US clarity with China is a dangerous mistake

The oppressed vs oppressor mistake

Related videos:.

Truth, Gaza and Reportage

The new overlords

The Fires of Progress

Navigating the new world order

Continue reading.

Enjoy unlimited access to the world's leading thinkers.

Start by exploring our subscription options or joining our mailing list today.

Start Free Trial

Already a subscriber? Log in

Related Videos

Philosophy at the end of the world

AI, Google, and the fight for culture with Timothy Nguyen

Join the conversation.

Sign in to post comments or join now (only takes a moment) . Don't have an account? Sign in with Facebook, Twitter or Google to get started: -->