Transdisciplinarity: Promise and Practice

The Problem Is The Problem

Critical Thinking for Problem Engagement

By

Steven M. Price

Copyright © 2021 Steven M. Price

All rights reserved.

Distributed by Smashwords

Thank you for downloading this ebook. This book remains the copyrighted property of the author and may not be redistributed to others for commercial or non-commercial purposes. If you enjoyed this book, please encourage your friends to download their own copy from their favorite authorized retailer. Thank you for your support.

Ebook formatting by www.ebooklaunch.com

Contents

Detailed Table of Contents

1. THINKING CRITICALLY ABOUT CRITICAL THINKING

2. PROBLEM ENGAGEMENT, NOT PROBLEM SOLVING

3. THE INDIVIDUAL AS A CRITICAL THINKER

4. CRITICAL THINKING AS COLLABORATIVE ACTION

5. OUR COGNITIVE CAPACITY FOR CRITICAL THINKING

6. PERCEPTION AND SENSORY APPRAISAL IN CRITICAL THINKING

7. EMOTIONAL INTERPRETATION AND JUDGEMENT IN CRITICAL THINKING

8. MEMORY INFLUENCES CRITICAL THINKING

9. PERSONAL EPISTEMOLOGY INFLUENCES CRITICAL THINKING

10. HOW MODES OF THINKING INFLUENCE CRITICAL THINKING

11 SOCIAL CONTROLS AND THINKING CRITICALLY

12 THE PHILOSOPHICAL INFLUENCES OF CRITICAL THINKING

13 OUR VALUES INFLUENCE CRITICAL THINKING

14 EXAMINING ARGUMENTS CRITICALLY

15 THINKING CRITICALLY ABOUT LOGICAL FALLACIES

16 LEVERAGING LANGUAGE TO THINK CRITICALLY

17 COGNITIVE BIAS AND PROCESS MISSTEPS

18 INSTITUTIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL INFLUENCES ON CRITICAL THINKING

19 THE AUXILIARY ELEMENTS OF CRITICAL THINKING

20 THINKING CRITICALLY ABOUT COMPLEXITY

21 MEDIA AND CRITICAL THINKING

22 THE DISPOSITION TO THINK CRITICALLY

23. THINKING CRITICALLY ABOUT TECHNOLOGY

24 CONDUCTING A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT

25 TOWARD A CRITICAL THINKING CONSTRUCT

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Endnotes

Detailed Table of Contents

1. THINKING CRITICALLY ABOUT CRITICAL THINKING

1.1 WHY CRITICAL THINKING IS SO DESPERATELY NEEDED

1.2 THE CRITICAL THINKING ORIENTATIONS

1.3 DEFINING CRITICAL THINKING IS DIFFICULT

1.4 CRITICAL THINKING AS A DEVELOPMENT PHASE

1.5 CAN WE LEARN TO THINK CRITICALLY?

1.6 TOWARD A POTENTIAL CRITIC THINKING PEDAGOGY

1.7 PERSPECTIVES ON CRITICL THINKING

2. PROBLEM ENGAGEMENT, NOT PROBLEM SOLVING

2.1 THE PROBLEMS OF OUR TIME

2.2 THE PROBLEMS OF SOCIETY REQUIRE A COGNITIVE SHIFT

2.3 UH-OH: THE COMPLEX SYSTEMS PROBLEM

3. THE INDIVIDUAL AS A CRITICAL THINKER

3.1 OUR HUMAN NATURE

3.2 SELF-EFFICACY AND HUMAN AGENCY

3.3 EXPLAINING OUR ABILITY TO ADAPT

3.4 CONCEPTIONS OF SELF

3.5 IDENTITY AND SELF-AWARENESS

4. CRITICAL THINKING AS COLLABORATIVE ACTION

4.1 THE SOCIAL BRAIN

4.2 OUR PROSOCIAL DISPOSITION

4.3 CULTURE AND SOCIETY

4.4 GROUPTHINK

4.5 THE PRESUMPTION OF TEAMS

4.6 COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE

5. OUR COGNITIVE CAPACITY FOR CRITICAL THINKING

5.1 DUAL PROCESSING: SYSTEM 1 AND SYSTEM 2 THINKING

5.2 EXECUTIVE FUNCTION AFFECTS CRITICAL THINKING

5.3 RATCHETING BETWEEN FAST AND SLOW THINKING

5.4 INFORMATION PROCESSING AND BRAIN DOMINANCE

5.5 METACOGNITION

6. PERCEPTION AND SENSORY APPRAISAL IN CRITICAL THINKING

6.1 PERCEPTION AND SENSORY APPRAISAL

6.2 OUR PREDISPOSITIONS FOR SENSORY INPUT

6.3 PAYING ATTENTION AND DISTRACTIONS

6.4 THE VISUAL PERCEPTUAL FIELD

7. EMOTIONAL INTERPRETATION AND JUDGEMENT IN CRITICAL THINKING

7.1 OUR EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE

7.2 EMOTIONAL CYCLES AND INTERPRETING CUES

7.3 THE SELF-CONSCIOUS EMOTIONS

7.4 SELF-CONTROL IN SOCIETY

8. MEMORY INFLUENCES CRITICAL THINKING

8.1 THE MEMORY HIERARCHY

8.2 THE MEMORY CONNECTION

8.3 MEMORY IN ACTION

9. PERSONAL EPISTEMOLOGY INFLUENCES CRITICAL THINKING

9.1 THE MENTAL HIERARCHY

9.2. THE STRUCTURE OF KNOWLEDGE

9.3 THE INSTRANSIGENCE OF DISCIPLINE

9.4 OUR KNOWLEDGE HAS BECOME FRAGMENTED

9.5 OUR PERSONAL EPISTEMOLOGY

9.6 OUR CONFDENCE IN KNOWLEDGE

9.7 HOW WE COME TO KNOW

10. HOW MODES OF THINKING INFLUENCE CRITICAL THINKING

10.1 THINKING IN TERMS OF SYSTEMS

10.2 THINKING DIRECTIONALLY

10.3 PHYSICAL SCIENCES AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

10.4 SOCIAL SCIENCES AND SOCIAL RESEARCH

10.5 DESIGN THINKING AND PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

10.6 MEDICAL DIAGNOSTIC THINKING

10.7 THINKING SYSTEMATICALLY

10.8 POLICY THINKING

10.9 ECOLOGICAL THINKING

10.10 LEGAL AND REGULATORY THINKING

11 SOCIAL CONTROLS AND THINKING CRITICALLY

11.1 THE GRAND NARRATIVE

11.2 THE ILLUSION OF CONTROL

11.3 UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL CONTROLS

11.4 POWER AND SOCIAL CONTROL

11.5 INSTITUTIONAL LEVELS OF SOCIAL CONTROL

11.6 THE RESISTANCE TO SOCIAL CONTROLS

12 THE PHILOSOPHICAL INFLUENCES OF CRITICAL THINKING

12.1 THE REFLECTIVE PROCESS

12.2 REFLECTIVE PRACTICE

12.3 FORGING OUR WORLDVIEW

12.4 EXAMINING IDEOLOGY

12.5 THE CRITICAL SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS

12.6 CONTEMPLATING OUR QUALITY OF LIFE

13 OUR VALUES INFLUENCE CRITICAL THINKING

13.1 VALUE SYSTEMS

13.2 UNDERSTANDING BELIEF FORMATION

13.3 UNDERSTANDING VALUE ADOPTION

13.4 THE UNIVERSAL VALUES WE SHARE

13.5 ATTITUDES ARE FORMED FROM OUR INTERPRETATIONS

13.6 MORAL INSTINCTS

13.7 MORAL DEVELOPMENT

13.8 OUR SENSE OF ETHICAL PROPRIETY

14 EXAMINING ARGUMENTS CRITICALLY

14.1 EXAMINING THE CLAIM FOR REASONABLENESS

14.2 EXPERTISE AND EVIDENCE

14.3 EXPLAINING AND EXAMINING THE CLAIM’S WARRANT

14.4 ASSESSING QUALIFIERS AND MODULATING FACTORS

14.5 EVALUATING REBUTTALS

15 THINKING CRITICALLY ABOUT LOGICAL FALLACIES

15.1 DISTRACTIONS AND THE SLIGHT OF HAND

15.2 APPEALS TO MOTIVES IN PLACE OF SUPPORT

15.3 CHANGING THE SUBJECT

15.4 INDUCTIVE FALLACIES

15.5 CAUSAL FALLACIES

15.6 OUT IN LEFT FIELD OR MISSING THE POINT

15.7 FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY

15.8 CATEGORY ERRORS

16 LEVERAGING LANGUAGE TO THINK CRITICALLY

16.1 INTERPRETING SIGNIFICANCE AND CLARIFYING MEANING

16.2 AVOIDING ARGUMENTATION

16.3 ASSESSING POLITICAL ARGUMENTS

16.4 FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AS SUGGESTION

16.5 LITERARY DEVICES AS AESTHETICS

16.6 RHETORICAL DEVICES TO CREATE EFFECT

17 COGNITIVE BIAS AND PROCESS MISSTEPS

17.1 THE MENTAL HEURISTICS OF COGNITIVE BIAS

17.2 OUR TENDENCY TO ASSOCIATE INFORMATION

17.3 PRIORITIZING INFORMATION THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH OUR KNOWLEDGE

17.4 RETAINING INFORMATION THAT IS IRRELEVANT

17.5 FOCUSING ON DOMINANT INFORMATION YET NEGLECTING RELEVANT INFORMATION

17.6 OUR MISTAKES AND ERRORS AS PROCESS MISSTEPS

17.7 WHEN PROBLEM ARE MISUNDERSTOOD

18 INSTITUTIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL INFLUENCES ON CRITICAL THINKING

18.1 THE ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIETY

18.2 ORGANIZATIONAL HEALTH

18.3 ORGANIZATIONAL PATHOLOGY

18.4 THE PUBLIC PRIVATE DIVIDE

18.5 THE TECHNOCRACY

19 THE AUXILIARY ELEMENTS OF CRITICAL THINKING

19.1 PROBLEM CLASSIFICATION AS RISK ASSESSMENT

19.2 TIME IS THE MOST VALUABLE RESOURCE

19.3 UNDERSTANDING RISK AND RESPONSE

20 THINKING CRITICALLY ABOUT COMPLEXITY

20.1 THE LINEAR AND NON-LINEAR REALITY

20.2 THE COMPLEXITY SCIENCES

20.3 WHY WE SIMPLIFY THE COMPLEX

20.4 COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEMS

20.5 NETWORKS CONNECT EVERYTHING

20.6 COUPLING IS ANOTHER CONNECTION

21 MEDIA AND CRITICAL THINKING

21.1 THE FOURTH ESTATE IS HERE

21.2 MEDIA MISDIRECTION

21.3 HOW REPORTING BECAME ANALYSIS AND OPINION

21.4 SUBSTITUTING POLLING FOR INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING

21.5 INFORMATION CONTROL AFFECTS CRITICAL THINKING

21.6 DOES MEDIA MATTER?

22 THE DISPOSITION TO THINK CRITICALLY

22.1 OUR WILLINGNESS TO ENGAGE

22.2 PERSONALITY AND ENGAGEMENT

22.3 IT’S OUR TEMPERAMENT

22.4 MOODS ARE TEMPORARY

22.5 MOTIVATION AND INTENTIONALITY

23. THINKING CRITICALLY ABOUT TECHNOLOGY

23.1 OMNIPRESENT TECHNOLOGY

23.2 EXPERTISE AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

23.3 TECHNOLOGY AND PRODUCTIVITY

23.4 THE VICARIOUS EXISTENCE

23.5 THE TECHNOLOGY TIME TRAP – OBSOLESCENCE

24 CONDUCTING A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT

24.1 STARTING WITH THE RIGHT MINDSET

24.2 UNDERSTANDING AND MAKING SENSE OF CASE

24.3 THE REASONING BEHIND THE CASE

25 TOWARD A CRITICAL THINKING CONSTRUCT

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

1 Thinking Critically About Critical Thinking

Thinking critically has a deep history from the Socratic method. A more modern rendition exemplified John Dewey’s educational focus to develop better citizens and problem solvers[1].

It was thought that it took a different kind of thinking, not merely everyday thinking, but a more diligent and focused thinking to acquire the insight and understanding needed within society. This is especially true today as the barrage of issues and available information is incessant.

Critical thinking is difficult to characterize. At first glance, one must ask what is the difference between ‘thinking’ and ‘critical thinking’? Are we to believe that ‘critical’ implies thinking harder or more diligently?

Critical thinking does suggest a more engaged thought process, but is not concerned with the power imbalances espoused by critical theory. Critical thinking does however benefit the discussions of social and psychological issues, but the notion of ‘critical’ is more critiquing than conquering.

Actually, critical, as in ‘critique’, is the critical examination or review of the merits of a subject, position, or theory as a reflection of contemporary society. Examples might include social issues, conservative politics, or public policy. Invariably, almost anything that forces us to evaluate and judge has potential to be ‘a problem’.

1.1 Why Critical Thinking is So Desperately Needed

Look around. All one must do is look around and observe what is making news, causing controversy, or infuriating the public consciousness. Much of what we observe and experience, are the by-products of the ever-expanding specter of modernization.

There are numerous probable causes as to why there is so much anger and vitriol in contemporary society. All of us are challenged by the heightened stress and strain, yet we can take solace in knowing what we think and believe about the issues and problems of our time.

Our educational decline is obvious. Russell Ackoff observed[2] that teaching is the major obstruction of learning. Most of what you are taught you never use and is irrelevant, and what you do use, you’ve learned on the job, usually in an apprenticeship relationship.

His argument suggests the education system is not dedicated to produce learning by students but rather teaching by teachers. In effect we are poorly educated to solve complex problems. There is a great deal of empirical evidence to bolster this observation.

The death of civil discourse has been disastrous. The polarization of society has rocked the very essence of civil discourse. The increased divisiveness in discourse has been exacerbated by information and communications technology that enables the proliferation of extreme language, disinformation, and ultimately censorship.

The notion of civil discourse is rooted in the decorum and rituals of the elites whose penchant for and value of reasoned discourse is emblematic of the well-educated. The university system allowed that same value system to permeate the middle class. Why has our civil society changed?

Today, we seem to be embracing a valueless society in which all are free to create their own principles, truths, and insist on the primacy of their own feelings. This has led to a type of communicative immaturity in which one side is suppresses dissenting speech, the other strives to trigger the most hysterical overreactions of their opponents.

The death of civil discourse has been replaced with a new discourse of the hoi polloi that challenges the haughtiness and pretention of elitist discourse. No longer are the masses irrelevant, they are irreverent.

The Problem Is The Problem suggests the arrogance of either sides insistence on being ‘correct’ is not the issue for concern. It is the closing off the conversation from scrutiny and evaluation. There is more common ground than we realize, yet the environment has changed the potential for consensus and community. Whatever emerges from all of this will require critical thinkers.

The demise of rational inquiry is spreading. The shift away from the decorum of civil discussions, has come a receding of rational inquiry. It seems the heterodoxy of ‘feelings’ versus ‘facts’ now dominates our world.

The long-lost forum of rational debate has largely been replaced with droning ideologies and intolerant attitudes toward dissenting opinions. Sadly, our need for rational inquiry could not be more acute, yet is now considered a waste of time.

The postmodern miasma has created confusion. The one aspect of post-modernity that is not discussed in this particular essay is the reflexive appropriation of knowledge by the postmodernist thinkers. At issue, postmodernists revile much of conventional thought, including science and religion, by replacing what we believe we know, with a personalized version of what we know can be whatever we want it to be.

Postmodernism is the philosophical proposal that reality is ultimately inaccessible by human investigation, that knowledge is a social construction, that truth-claims are political power plays, and that the meaning of words is to be determined by readers not authors[3].

Obviously this radical departure from tradition, and the condemnation of the conservative movement are a distraction. The intent to question the relevance of everything does little to reinforce an initiative promoting critical thinking.

The accelerated pace of social change is creating unnatural factions. Each generation faces its own challenges. Today, unlike any time in history, the generations are overlapping. Just to make the point, this is what we face today. Traditionalists (1928 - 1945), Baby Boomers (1946 - 1964), Generation X (1965 - 1980), Millennials (1981 - 1996), and Generation Z (1997 - 2012). In addition to these demographic demarcations, we are also seeing the rise of factions within and between generations that subscribe to various ideals and issues.

Technological change is suffering diminishing returns. Although much of the dramatic technological shifts have occurred in the past two decades, the acceleration of technological change continues. Much of the change is not apparent, but rather incremental change in the background and with user interfaces in the foreground.

Our cognitive laziness is a coping mechanism. The overwhelming amount of data and information that bombard the human condition every day is uniquely exacerbating our ability to comprehend. The natural tendency to simplify and evade heavy intellectual involvement has never been so apparent with the 'Google phenomena' of type and search.

Our aversion to complexity is obvious. Critical thinking strives to penetrate the complexity that confounds our efforts to understand and make meaning of the world. Naturally, we tend to have an aversion to complexity because it taxes us intellectually and psychologically.

The false narrative is being pushed beyond reason. The mantra of contemporary society is often at odds with our values and beliefs. The repeated onslaught of opinion domination and thought leaderships can become tiring. It seems the more we try to escape the constant inculcation of media, the less chance we have of recapturing our own opinions.

Clearly, there is a critical need for all of us to think more critically about the world in which we live. The ability to navigate the majority of our day without incident is important, but we must also realize that we do have an obligation to stay engaged with the pressing issues of our time.

1.2 The Critical Thinking Orientations

Critical thinking began as an educational focus. The modern renditions expanded critical thinking into cognitive psychology and operationalization of skills and abilities demonstrated by individual thinkers.

Critical thinking has evolved through two historic waves of orientation[4]. The first wave exclusively focused on the inferential and evidential strengths of arguments. The second wave extended the focus into self-reflective awareness of worldview, bias, and our predispositions.

The first wave reinforced the philosophical and normative approach to critical thinking. In this manner, thinking critically involved understanding the ‘attributes’ of the thinker. This included skills and abilities of the thinker. Criticisms of first wave orientations largely entailed the universality of what is ‘normative’ or debating requisite skill sets.

Second wave orientations focused upon psychological and non-normative considerations. The focus on awareness and reflective contemplation introduced a deeper meaning of thinking critically. Criticism of the second wave suggests that our dependence of which perspective we adopt for assessing reflective action, often devolves into a value conflict over what constitutes the ‘right’ thinking.

There is yet another set of orientations that underscores a more common way of examining critical thinking. The research and literature indicate these orientations underlie the notion of critical thinking as cognitive (characteristics), educational (content), or philosophical (qualities).

The cognitive psychology orientation emphasizes information processing. Critical thinking orientations that emerge from cognitive psychology are less characteristic of the thinker, and more directed toward the types of cognitive actions or behaviors exhibited while thinking critically.

The cognitive orientation suggests critical thinking uses cognitive skills or strategies that increase the probability of a desirable outcome[5], reasons dispassionately[6] to maintain objectivity, and uses higher order thinking skills[7].

Cognitive psychology is a substantial field of study. For our purposes, we are primarily interested in information processing. Specifically, how we vacillate between the automated aspects of thinking versus those slower, more deliberate operations.

Cognitive psychology focuses on how people actually think, rather than, how they should think in certain situations, or defining the actions or behaviors critical thinkers perform. Thus it becomes necessary to have a basic understanding of ‘what thinking entails’.

The beauty of cognitive psychology is its reliance on the total human experience. It is not just information processing, but more broadly, there is the affective states of emotion, attitudes, and impulses that affect our thinking. In addition, there are aspects of perception and our interactions with our memory and knowledge base.

One criticism of the cognitive orientation suggests it tends to reduce information processing into a procedural or process. Indeed, thinking critically is a process, but it is not limited to process thinking. One can argue that the cognitive orientation helps to explain the individual difference in reasoning[8].

The educational orientation leverages educational goals as a means of learning. Critical thinking has a long association with the educational focus to develop better citizens and problem solvers, yet preserve a healthy inquisitiveness.

The educational orientation suggests critical thinking can leverage educational goals[9] to develop a potential curriculum and pedagogical process.

The driving issue that germinates when critical thinking and education are discussed in the same sentence, is whether critical thinking can be taught. Two things immediately come to mind. Can a critical thinking curricula be developed, perhaps independent of disciplines, and second, what would be the best approach for educational delivery?

Any curriculum that could be developed for critical thinking would be extremely eclectic. This is because thinking must be able to shift contextually, and at varying levels of complexity.

Conversely, if we cannot teach critical thinking, how would anyone develop the necessary skills or dispositions to engage at a critical level? Pedagogy, for all its glamor, is simply the art and science of teaching. Not everyone can think critically. And, for the most part, cannot be taught as some would believe possible[10].

Critical thinking will always have difficulty in developing boundaries and frameworks that give it structure and methodology.

Both curricular development and a critical thinking pedagogy are challenging. They seem to converge as a possible remedy suggesting critical thinking must be holistic and transdisciplinary. At issue, whether it can do so without committing each of us to becoming a polymath.

The educational approach benefits from observing the outcome of educating multiple cohorts of students to think critically. The issue of course is how do we assess whether or not students are learning to think critically?

The educational perspective may present some challenges. The issue rests with bounding critical thinking into subjects and evaluating some degree of proficiency ‘in the subject’. Given the complexity of critical thinking, the effectiveness of teaching must also be suspect.

The philosophical orientation relies on the ideals of the archetypical critical thinker. Definitions of critical thinking emerging from the philosophical orientation describe the ideal or archetypical qualities of a critical thinker.

The philosophical orientation suggests critical thinking contains reflective skepticism[11], facilitates good judgment[12], exemplifies the perfections of thinking[13], is fair-mindedness and intellectually honesty[14], and meets standards of adequacy and accuracy[15].

When the great philosophical traditions of the Greek scholars such as Socrates are evaluated, their outlook can be encapsulated by a Socratic quote, It is not living that matters, but living rightly. The notion of not just thinking, but thinking properly, belies the essence of the philosophical orientation.

Focusing upon an archetypical critical thinker places the emphasis on how that thinker behaves, rather than, how the critical thinking actually occurs. One might think that ‘posturing’ or sitting in reflective repose like Rodin’s bronze sculpture, The Thinker is sufficient to define critical thinking. In reality, it is not.

The notion of considering the qualities for the critical thinker are weak characterizations. It is as though emphasizing the ideal critical thinker and their potential capacity to think are sufficient to define the orientation. ‘Dressing the part’ is mere theater and not substance.

Critical thinking is a disciplined, self-directed thinking that exemplifies the perfections of thinking appropriate to a particular mode or domain of thought. Accordingly, critical thinking requires a process of thought, an object of thought, and an intellectual standard to which the thinking must adhere.

In a similar sense, critical thinking facilitates good judgment because it relies on criteria. These criteria may differ across domains, yet this infers that the subject, position, or theory being evaluated can be judged.

One of the primary issues with critical thinking as individual reflection is the durability of the trait. In this sense, is critical thinking a transitory or ephemeral? Is it possible that we can have good or bad episodes of critical thinking? Arguably, reinforcing critical thinking as the emulation of values and standards may be time sensitive.

A philosophical orientation seems to emphasize the ideal critical thinker and what people have the capacity to do. In some sense, this orientation may be perceived as superficial if too much emphasis is placed upon posturing, and less on the characteristics that define the perfection of thinking.

Collectively, all three orientations are required to develop a balanced critical thinker. Thus the cognitive, educational, and philosophical orientations can be used as the foundation to delve into additional perspectives for inclusion.

As part of the orientation to critical thinking it is important to consider how many scholars have contributed to the body of knowledge. In the next section the diversity of perspective is exemplified by different critical thinking definitions.

1.3 Defining Critical Thinking is Difficult

The critical thinking orientations, and plethora of research, offer us a panorama of critical thinking definitions. The following renditions of a critical thinking definition frame the challenges that are found in the research and literature.

1) The ability to clarify a viewpoint by judging wisely the basis of the view and accurately support that view with dispatch, sensitivity, and rhetorical skill[16].

2) The ability to identify central issues and assumptions in an argument, recognize important relationships, make correct inferences, deduce conclusions, interpret whether conclusions are warranted, and evaluate evidence or authority[17].

3) The intellectually disciplined process of conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information relative to observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action[18].

4) The ability to evaluate an issue yet being open to new evidence that disconfirms your ideas, reasoning dispassionately, demanding that claims be backed by evidence, deducing and inferring conclusions from available facts[19].

5) The purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, and explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteria, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based[20].

6) The notion of critical thinking as the propensity and skill to engage in an activity with reflective skepticism. This definition amplifies the position that critical thinking has subject-specificity and epistemology rather than a generalized set of skills[21].

7) The systematic evaluation or formulation of beliefs, or statements, by rational standards[22].

8) The use of those cognitive skills or strategies that increase the probability of a desirable outcome[23].

9) The critical thinker is one who is appropriately moved by reason[24].

10) The skillful, responsible thinking that facilitates good judgment because it relies upon criteria, is self-correcting, and is sensitive to context[25].

There are literally dozens of critical thinking definitions. Let us examine the areas of trouble. The obvious start is the ambiguity with what do we mean by critical? Critical as 'crucial' does not lend itself to a strong definition, as much as, critical is displaying acute judgement. Also, one must be careful to characterize ‘critical thinking’ as ‘good’ thinking.

Any definition of critical thinking must differentiate critical thinking from the related cognitive activities, such as, reasoning, knowledge, problem-solving, and decision-making[26] it claims to perform. Invoking the activities performed creates a circular logic rather than defining what critical thinking means.

Of course, critical thinking will involve many cognitive activities, as well as, employing a host of skills. Critical thinking will also involve a considerable number of behaviors and characteristics that amplify the definitional ambiguity. Clearly, defining what critical thinking entails is a multidimensional challenge.

Realizing the immense hurdle to definition, the American Philosophical Association, convened a conference to forge a consensus definition for critical thinking. Their rendition of critical thinking is as follows[27].

"We understand critical thinking to be purposeful, self-regulatory judgement which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation and inference as well as explanation of the evidential conceptual, methodological, criteriological or contextual considerations upon which that judgement was based. Critical thinking is essential as a tool of inquiry. Critical thinking is a pervasive and self-rectifying human phenomenon. The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgements, willing to consider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in selection of criteria, focused in inquiry and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit".

The consensus definition suggests there is more confusion than consensus. Arguably, this ‘sanctioned’ definition, is further from the condensed versions attempted by those engaged within the academy.

At this point, the number of potential definitions belies that critical thinking is multidimensional. Although the critical thinking definition remains elusive, we can surmise that thinking critically is a deliberate, focused thinking pattern that requires structured inquiry. One can make the case that whichever definition is selected, may indeed, be based upon your perspective.

The recognition that critical thinking can be described through the cognitive, educational, and philosophical orientations, as a powerful combination, allows us to expand upon each to operationalize critical thinking.

1.4 Critical Thinking as a Development Phase

Does critical thinking have developmental phases? One of the initial questions that arises about critical thinking is whether or not it is part of our cognitive development. Is it a developmental phase that we have to go through?

Our cognitive talents develop in stages that proceed from action-bases to becoming abstract and systemized[28]. It appears that language is acquired quickly and robustly across a broad range of cultural conditions, before children start formal schooling, and