Critical Thinking - Quareness Series 209th "Lecture".
The oyster retreating into its shell
Draws all the windows of its overcoat
With enormous effort,
And having thus shut up shop
Ceases to function,
No longer radiating heat
All tightly closed down.
Much of today's prose and poetry too
Seems held in death's grim grasp
Where warm and living muscle
Can no longer muster necessary force,
And looking from my fifty-sevenish shell
I'm now sensing how heavy is this shutting
Away from the light of the possible.
("Today" 2006).
Becoming aware that none of us can know it all can also make us aware that no matter how experienced or knowledgeable our life has been, this awareness in itself is incomplete. And the curiosity to search for answers more often than not serves to open us to a deeper awareness. In this way a strong sense of curiosity can be a potent driver of critical thinking.
Critical thinking necessarily involves reflexive analysing, evaluating and questioning of what is received. Being more than simply accepting information, it also involves the ability to frame intelligent questions and seek informed answers through research...a perhaps crucial skill for promoting effective development of our ability to understand the world around us. In addition being exposed to different opinions and perspectives allows us to consider multiple options and to clarify our own ideas coherently. Essentially critical thinking is a metacognitive process involving such as curiosity, analysis, maturity, open-mindedness, self-confidence, systematics, truth-seeking, etc. The critical thinker needs evidence to discern the truth and to visualise possible explanations, as well as the resilience to be open to ideas that may contradict his/her beliefs. In short critical thinking requires a strong desire to know the truth driven by curiosity and with a large dollop of humility.
When we accept being spoon-fed or even force-fed answers from sources insisting we are not allowed to ask questions, any constant expanded searching for knowledge ain't possible. Our natural curiosity is highjacked (indeed stolen from us) with such as "this is it or do this because we say so...trust only us". We could come to regret losing sight of the fact that it's our curiosity which makes us humans special in the pursuit and application of knowledge.
Any questioning of "hard facts" is liable to draw particularly strong responses e.g. insisting on the validity of the "laws of physics". But what if someone were to say..."we have no idea what those are...rather what we do have are vague but useful notions amounting to gentlemen's agreements which change when they become less useful". Which is more likely the truth?
Or let's consider someone asserting that "all the scientists agree". Would it be more realistic to observe that scientists can't all agree?
It might be the better part of wisdom to regularly ask ourselves (a) can this person know this? (b) if not, on what authority are they stating it? and (c) is it really knowable at all? In considering who/what we should trust in, maybe some quare fella could offer a couple of pointers - I trust my dog because (s)he is transparent, and I trust gravity...don't always like it...but I trust it.
Sean.
Dean of Quareness.
August, 2024.