Critical thinking -- some guidelines & principles

February 27, 2008

After our little go-round last week about MSUing etc., and because I

have been studying up on critical thinking, levels of judgment, and

problem-solving skills (as part of my diagnosis class), I thought I

would post the following excerpts on critical thinking. These come

from a tiny little booklet titled " The Minature Guide to Critical

Thinking: Concepts and Tools by Dr. Richard Paul & Dr. Linda Elder. I

hope people find them useful. Please keep in mind, I'm only the

messenger here, but I am a strong proponent of the values of critical

thinking in the study and practice of CM.

Why Critical Thinking?

The Problem:

Everyone thinks; it is our nature to do so. But much of our thinking,

left to itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed, or

down-right prejudiced. Yet the quality of our life and that of what we

produce, make, or build depends precisely in the quality of our

thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of

life. Excellence in thought, however, must be systematically cultivated.

A Definition:

Critical thinking is the art of analyzing and evaluating thinking with

a view to improving it.

The Result:

A well cultivated critical thinker:

1. Raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and

precisely;

2. Gathers and assess relevant information, using abstract ideas to

interpret it effectively;

3. Comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them

against criteria and standards;

4. Thinks open-mindedly within alternative systems of thought,

recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions,

implications, and practical consequences; and

5. Communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to

complex problems.

Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined,

self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It requires rigorous

standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails

effective communication and problem-solving abilities and a commitment

to overcoming our native egocentrisim and sociocentrism.

A Checklist for Reasoning

1. All reasoning has a purpose

State your purpose clearly.

Distinguish your purpose from related purposes.

Check periodically to be sure you are still on target.

Choose significant and realistic purposes.

2. All reasoning is an attempt to figure something out, to settle some

questions, to solve some problem

State the question at issue clearly and precisely.

Express the question in several ways to clarify its meaning and scope.

Break the question into sub-questions.

Distinguish questions that have definitive answers from those that are

a matter of opinion and from those that require consideration from

multiple viewpoints.

3. All reasoning is based on assumptions

Clearly identify your assumptions and determine whether they are

justifiable.

Consider how your assumptions are shaping your point of view.

4. All reasoning is done from some point of view

Identify your point of view.

Seek other points of view and identify their strengths as well as

weaknesses.

Strive to be fair-minded in evaluating all points of view.

5. All reasoning is based on data, information, and evidence

Restrict your claims to those supported by the data you have.

Search for information that opposes your position as well as

information that supports it.

Make sure that all information used is clear, accurate, and relevant

to the question at issue.

Make sure you have gathered sufficient information.

6. All reasoning is expressed through and shaped by concepts and ideas

Identify key concepts and explain them clearly.

Consider alternative concepts or alternative definitions of concepts.

Make sure you are using concepts with care and precision.

7. All reasoning contains inferences or interpretations by which we

draw conclusions and give meaning to data

Infer only what the evidence implies.

Check inferences for their consistency with each other.

Identify assumptions that lead to inferences.

8. All reasoning leads somewhere or has implications and consequences

Trace the implications and consequences that follow from your reasoning.

Search for negative as well as positive implications.

Consider all possible consequences.

Criteria for Evaluating Reasoning

1. Purpose

What is the purpose of the reasoner? Is the purpose clearly stated or

clearly implied? Is it justifiable?

2. Question

Is the question at issue well-stated? Is it clear and unbiased? Are

the question and purpose directly relevant to each other?

3. Information

Does the reasoner cite relevant evidence, experiences, and/or

information essential to the issue? Is the information accurate?

4. Concepts

Does the reasoner clarify key concepts when necessary? Are the

concepts used justifiably?

5. Assumptions

Does the reasoner show sensitivity to what he or she is taking for

granted or assuming? Does the reasoner use questionable assumptions

without addressing problems that might be inherent in those assumptions?

6. Inferences

Does the reasoner develop a line of reasoning explaining well how s/he

is arriving at her or his main conclusions?

7. Point of view

Does the reasoner show a sensitivity to alternative relevant points of

view or lines of reasoning? Does s/he consider and respond to

objections framed from other relevant points of view?

8. Implications

Does the reasoner show a sensitivity to the implications and

consequences of the position s/he is taking?

February 27, 2008

Bob,

Excellant post. This is something all of us in CM could do better.

One thing I have learned from reading many pre-modern and modern case

studies and texts in Chinese is that there is long tradition of

critiquing, evaluating and hence striving for critical thinking to

keep things in check. One will often read comments describing how the

thinking and or formula is incorrect. This is a peer reviewed process

that has been going on for many many years.

If one believes that " counseling " methods are an integral part of of

CM, then it, along with one's core fundamental thinking about a case

and medicine, is subject to the same peer review process.

I stick to my original analysis of the case.

-

, " Bob Flaws "

<pemachophel2001 wrote:

>

> After our little go-round last week about MSUing etc., and because I

> have been studying up on critical thinking, levels of judgment, and

> problem-solving skills (as part of my diagnosis class), I thought I

> would post the following excerpts on critical thinking. These come

> from a tiny little booklet titled " The Minature Guide to Critical

> Thinking: Concepts and Tools by Dr. Richard Paul & Dr. Linda Elder. I

> hope people find them useful. Please keep in mind, I'm only the

> messenger here, but I am a strong proponent of the values of critical

> thinking in the study and practice of CM.

>

> Why Critical Thinking?

>

> The Problem:

>

> Everyone thinks; it is our nature to do so. But much of our thinking,

> left to itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed, or

> down-right prejudiced. Yet the quality of our life and that of what we

> produce, make, or build depends precisely in the quality of our

> thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of

> life. Excellence in thought, however, must be systematically cultivated.

>

> A Definition:

>

> Critical thinking is the art of analyzing and evaluating thinking with

> a view to improving it.

>

> The Result:

>

> A well cultivated critical thinker:

>

> 1. Raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and

> precisely;

>

> 2. Gathers and assess relevant information, using abstract ideas to

> interpret it effectively;

>

> 3. Comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them

> against criteria and standards;

>

> 4. Thinks open-mindedly within alternative systems of thought,

> recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions,

> implications, and practical consequences; and

>

> 5. Communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to

> complex problems.

>

> Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined,

> self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It requires rigorous

> standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails

> effective communication and problem-solving abilities and a commitment

> to overcoming our native egocentrisim and sociocentrism.

>

> A Checklist for Reasoning

>

> 1. All reasoning has a purpose

>

> State your purpose clearly.

> Distinguish your purpose from related purposes.

> Check periodically to be sure you are still on target.

> Choose significant and realistic purposes.

>

> 2. All reasoning is an attempt to figure something out, to settle some

> questions, to solve some problem

>

> State the question at issue clearly and precisely.

> Express the question in several ways to clarify its meaning and scope.

> Break the question into sub-questions.

> Distinguish questions that have definitive answers from those that are

> a matter of opinion and from those that require consideration from

> multiple viewpoints.

>

> 3. All reasoning is based on assumptions

>

> Clearly identify your assumptions and determine whether they are

> justifiable.

> Consider how your assumptions are shaping your point of view.

>

> 4. All reasoning is done from some point of view

>

> Identify your point of view.

> Seek other points of view and identify their strengths as well as

> weaknesses.

> Strive to be fair-minded in evaluating all points of view.

>

> 5. All reasoning is based on data, information, and evidence

>

> Restrict your claims to those supported by the data you have.

> Search for information that opposes your position as well as

> information that supports it.

> Make sure that all information used is clear, accurate, and relevant

> to the question at issue.

> Make sure you have gathered sufficient information.

>

> 6. All reasoning is expressed through and shaped by concepts and ideas

>

> Identify key concepts and explain them clearly.

> Consider alternative concepts or alternative definitions of concepts.

> Make sure you are using concepts with care and precision.

>

> 7. All reasoning contains inferences or interpretations by which we

> draw conclusions and give meaning to data

>

> Infer only what the evidence implies.

> Check inferences for their consistency with each other.

> Identify assumptions that lead to inferences.

>

> 8. All reasoning leads somewhere or has implications and consequences

>

> Trace the implications and consequences that follow from your reasoning.

> Search for negative as well as positive implications.

> Consider all possible consequences.

>

> Criteria for Evaluating Reasoning

>

> 1. Purpose

>

> What is the purpose of the reasoner? Is the purpose clearly stated or

> clearly implied? Is it justifiable?

>

> 2. Question

>

> Is the question at issue well-stated? Is it clear and unbiased? Are

> the question and purpose directly relevant to each other?

>

> 3. Information

>

> Does the reasoner cite relevant evidence, experiences, and/or

> information essential to the issue? Is the information accurate?

>

> 4. Concepts

>

> Does the reasoner clarify key concepts when necessary? Are the

> concepts used justifiably?

>

> 5. Assumptions

>

> Does the reasoner show sensitivity to what he or she is taking for

> granted or assuming? Does the reasoner use questionable assumptions

> without addressing problems that might be inherent in those assumptions?

>

> 6. Inferences

>

> Does the reasoner develop a line of reasoning explaining well how s/he

> is arriving at her or his main conclusions?

>

> 7. Point of view

>

> Does the reasoner show a sensitivity to alternative relevant points of

> view or lines of reasoning? Does s/he consider and respond to

> objections framed from other relevant points of view?

>

> 8. Implications

>

> Does the reasoner show a sensitivity to the implications and

> consequences of the position s/he is taking?

>

February 27, 2008

I had one more thought, which ties together all my previous psots.

I am not saying that we cannot (or should not) include western herbs,

counseling, tuning forks, reiki, functional medicine, or any of the

100+ other healing modalities that get frequently mixed with CM.

Merely that if one does, one must use solid critical thinking,

especially when trying to integrate (somewhat newer modalities) into

such a solid and long-standing medicine as CM. In my practice, to

avoid such confusion, I keep things fairly simple, but that is another

topic.

This whole debate ensued because some " fundamental CM ideas/ thinking "

were questioned. I for one, think this is essential for proper growth

of the profession. One of the reasons this forum is so nice is because

we have some fairly well read and educated people to call us on our

crap. I hope this process continues.

Although I am open to many avenues of healing and respect many

traditions, I also am not about to believe that healing theory is a

free for all where anyone can make up anything and have it be correct.

This is why everything (china or the US) must be questioned.