This is an attempt to introduce the ideas of Critical Thinking or CT to the faculty and to provide some materials with which to pursue these ideas in class.
It is common to hear it said of students that they have many received ideas, and no original ones, and this is blamed on the educational culture in which they have grown up.
Rote learning, the overvaluation of authority, the passivity of learning facts to be examined and forgotten as soon as the exams are passed, these are all the sort of ingrained habits that we see in our students, and which we wish to overcome.
I have taken some ideas from a very active movement in Europe and the States which encourages the teaching of critical thinking from an early age. One of their slogans is the witty "I am four, therefore I think!"
In the UK, Critical Thinking is a curriculum subject in Sixth Form, and one report has a philosopher asking 7-year old schoolchildren about Heraclitus’ famous dictum that “ You can’t step in the same river twice” : one girl takes a literal approach:
"Well - I think you can step in twice because if you step in once with one leg you can step in a second time with the other leg," she says.
Another says: "You could step in the river one day and then go home. Then the next day you could come back to the same river - as long as you know the way - and do it again."
Neither of them question whether the river is still the same, or if it has changed, or if indeed they themselves have changed, but one bright spark says:
"If you step in the river on Saturday and then you went to step in the river on the next day - where you stepped on Saturday would be gone because the river keeps on moving."
How little Johnny saw this possibility while his peers did not is a mystery, but perhaps by continuing with the questioning game, we can encourage insights like his.
It might be also fun to ask 7 year olds whether they themselves are in fact characters in some cosmic video game, and how they could show that they are not, but that might be tantamount to child abuse.
.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Think for yourself instead.
Socrates was an annoying old man who would ask awkward questions like;
"What exactly do you mean by that? " or
" What do you mean by Truth?" or
"Does what you say now agree with what you said before?"
Questioning is at the heart of critical thinking so many exercises can be based on these six types of Socratic questions: [See link]
For students and teachers alike. Help to develop your thinking skills with exercises and discussion.
Burn your Books !
Think for yourself instead.
Blog Archive
Socratic Questioning
Socrates was an annoying old man who would ask awkward questions like;
"What exactly do you mean by that? " or
" What do you mean by Truth?" or
"Does what you say now agree with what you said before?"
Questioning is at the heart of critical thinking so many exercises can be based on these six types of Socratic questions: [See link]
Vital Links
Inference
Inferences are evidence-based guesses. They are the conclusions a reader draws about what is left unsaid based on what is actually said. Inferences we draw while reading are much like inferences drawn in everyday life... If your friend says she does not want to talk, you might infer that she has a problem. If a letter makes your friend look depressed, you infer that the letter contains bad news. Drawing inferences while you read requires exactly the same willingness to look at the evidence and come to a conclusion that has not been expressed in words.
See Link for exercises
Exercises
Types of Argument
Many people distinguish between two basic kinds of argument: inductive and deductive. Induction is usually described as moving from the specific to the general, while deduction begins with the general and ends with the specific; arguments based on experience or observation are best expressed inductively, while arguments based on laws, rules, or other widely accepted principles are best expressed deductively. Consider the following example:
| Adham: I've noticed previously that every time I kick a ball up, it comes back down, so I guess this next time when I kick it up, it will come back down, too. Rizik: That's Newton's Law. Everything that goes up must come down. And so, if you kick the ball up, it must come down. |
Adham is using inductive reasoning, arguing from observation, while Rizik is using deductive reasoning, arguing from the law of gravity. Rizik's argument is clearly from the general (the law of gravity) to the specific (this kick); Adham's argument may be less obviously from the specific (each individual instance in which he has observed balls being kicked up and coming back down) to the general (the prediction that a similar event will result in a similar outcome in the future) because he has stated it in terms only of the next similar event--the next time he kicks the ball.
Thinking about Life
The most difficult questions are the ones that are most important to us:
Who am I?
Where do I belong?
How should I live my life?
Our religion answers these questions, but we still have to think about them clearly and critically.
As Socrates said,
"The Unexamined Life is not worth living."
'
Who am I?
Where do I belong?
How should I live my life?
Our religion answers these questions, but we still have to think about them clearly and critically.
As Socrates said,
"The Unexamined Life is not worth living."
'
Six Types of Question
1 Questions for clarification
2 Questions that probe assumptions
3 Questions that probe reasons and evidence
4 Questions about Viewpoints and Perspectives
5 Questions that probe implications and consequences
6 Questions about the question
2 Questions that probe assumptions
3 Questions that probe reasons and evidence
4 Questions about Viewpoints and Perspectives
5 Questions that probe implications and consequences
6 Questions about the question