Proof and Critical Thinking Defined

Proof

For the purpose of any discussion where proof is offered, or examination of any question where proof is sought, proof shall be defined as:  A combination of logical consistency  and  empirical evidence.

These two elements (logic and evidence) are both required because theories attempt to describe what exists in our reality, and reality is both rational and material - Logic and evidence.

     Logical  Constancy: 

• The first requirement is logical  consistency.  If logic fails, the hypothesis or proposition fails.
• Logic is a necessary but not sufficient element
• If a conflict arises between logic and evidence, evidence always wins.

     Empirical Evidence:

• A source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.  
• Observation and experimentation must be conducted in accordance with the scientific method.

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a way to approach problems and make decisions.  We all do some critical thinking already and we can all improve our critical thinking ability. If you study and practice critical thinking, your concept of it will continue to develop.  We should all strive to become better, more critical thinkers.

Critical thinking is a method of "strong" or "correct" thinking. It is a method of avoiding "faulty" thinking;  A method of deciding whether a claim is always true, sometimes true, partly true, or false.  It clarifies goals, examines assumptions, discerns hidden values, evaluates evidence, accomplishes actions, and assesses conclusions.

• Faulty Thinking:  Any process of thinking (or thinking that does not conform to a formal process) that attempts to mentally examine a situation, problem, or question that just as likely as not lead to an incorrect or poor conclusion.
• Correct Thinking:  A process of thinking that, when properly employed, makes one much more likely to a correct conclusion by consciously avoiding common flaws or errors in logic or thinking.

Skills required for critical thinking: observation, interpretation, analysis, inference, evaluation, explanation, and meta-cognition.

An individual or group engaged in strong critical thinking gives due consideration to establish:

• Evidence through observation
• Context skills
• Relevant criteria for making the judgment well
• Applicable methods or techniques for forming the judgment
• Applicable theoretical constructs for understanding the problem and the question at hand

Critical thinking calls for the ability to:

• Recognize problems, to find workable means for meeting those problems
• Understand the importance of prioritization and order of precedence in problem solving
• Gather and marshal pertinent (relevant) information
• Recognize unstated assumptions and valuesComprehend and use language with accuracy, clarity, and discernment
• 
  
• Interpret data, to appraise evidence and evaluate arguments
• Recognize the existence (or non-existence) of logical relationships between propositions
• Draw warranted conclusions and generalizations
• Put to test the conclusions and generalizations at which one arrives
• Reconstruct one's patterns of beliefs on the basis of wider experience
• Render accurate judgments about specific things and qualities in everyday life

Universal Intellectual Standards for Critical Thinking:

CLARITY: Could you elaborate further on that point? Could you express that point in another way? Could you give me an illustration? Could you give me an example?

Clarity is the gateway standard. If a statement is unclear, we cannot determine whether it is accurate or relevant. In fact, we cannot tell anything about it because we don't yet know what it is saying. 

For example, the question, "What can be done about the education system in America?" is unclear. In order to address the question adequately, we would need to have a clearer understanding of what the person asking the question is considering the "problem" to be. A clearer question might be "What can educators do to ensure that students learn the skills and abilities which help them function successfully on the job and in their daily decision-making?"

ACCURACY: Is that really true? How could we check that? How could we find out if that is true? 

A statement can be clear but not accurate, as in "Most dogs are over 300 pounds in weight."

PRECISION: Could you give more details? Could you be more specific?

A statement can be both clear and accurate, but not precise, as in "Jack is overweight." (We don’t know how overweight Jack is, one pound or 500 pounds.)

RELEVANCE: How is that connected to the question? How does that bear on the issue?

A statement can be clear, accurate, and precise, but not relevant to the question at issue. For example, students often think that the amount of effort they put into a course should be used in raising their grade in a course. Often, however, the "effort" does not measure the quality of student learning; and when this is so, effort is irrelevant to their appropriate grade.

DEPTH: How does your answer address the complexities in the question? How are you taking into account the problems in the question? Is that dealing with the most significant factors?

A statement can be clear, accurate, precise, and relevant, but superficial (that is, lack depth). 

For example, the statement, "Just say No!" which is often used to discourage children and teens from using drugs, is clear, accurate, precise, and relevant. Nevertheless, it lacks depth because it treats an extremely complex issue, the pervasive problem of drug use among young people, superficially. It fails to deal with the complexities of the issue.

BREADTH: Do we need to consider another point of view? Is there another way to look at this question? What would this look like from a conservative standpoint? What would this look like from the point of view of . . .? 

 A line of reasoning may be clear accurate, precise, relevant, and deep, but lack breadth (as in an argument from either the conservative or liberal standpoint which gets deeply into an issue, but only recognizes the insights of one side of the question.)

LOGIC: Does this really make sense? Does that follow from what you said? How does that follow? But before you implied this, and now you are saying that; how can both be true? 

When we think, we bring a variety of thoughts together into some order. When the combination of thoughts are mutually supporting and make sense in combination, the thinking is "logical." When the combination is not mutually supporting, is contradictory in some sense or does not "make sense," the combination is not logical.

FAIRNESS: Do I have a vested interest in this issue? Am I sympathetically representing the viewpoints of others? Human think is often biased in the direction of the thinker - in what are the perceived interests of the thinker. 

Humans do not naturally consider the rights and needs of others on the same plane with their own rights and needs. We therefore must actively work to make sure we are applying the intellectual standard of fairness to our thinking. 

Since we naturally see ourselves as fair even when we are unfair, this can be very difficult. A commitment to fairmindedness is a starting place.

Personally, I think Fairness can be a bad term to use to describe this principle because of the biases and ideas associated with their perspective of fairness people associate with the term.  I prefer to think of this element as being "agnostic to my own perspective."  It's an important element because we can be easily misled by our own perspective.  

This element requires empathy, because empathy is required in order to be able to understand the perspective of another, which is required to satisfy the element of fairness.

More information on critical thinking:

The Analysis & Assessment of Thinking
Becoming a Critic Of Your Thinking

Open Minded Inquiry