CRITICAL THINKING

Note/Acknowledgment: We obtained most of the information that follows in this section from handouts, discussions, and workshops at the 12th-17th International Conferences on Critical Thinking and Educational Reform, sponsored by Sonoma State University's Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique. It is used with their permission. Specific handouts include:

o Definition Of Terms Used In Critical Thinking

o Universal Intellectual Standards

o A Critical Thinker

o What is Critical Thinking?

o The Elements of Reasoning Within a Point of View

Their web page is a useful source of information on critical thinking techniques, and the conference itself is invaluable. Their internet address is http:\\www.sonoma.edu/cthink/. Information on their annual conference, along with other information, is readily available at that site.

Introduction

Many scientists believe that "critical thinking" is simply the application of the scientific method, but we think it is much more than that. Critical thinking involves developing skills by which issues can be dissected (called analysis) and put together, so that we can see interrelationships (called synthesis). It involves searching for assumptions, those basic ideas and concepts which guide our thoughts. And of great importance in approaching complex environmental issues, it involves developing an appreciation for our own and for others' points of view.

Too often, analyzing complex issues leads some to a belief that everyone is "entitled" to an opinion which should be respected. We do not necessarily concur. However, problem-solving does demand a willingness to listen for content to what others are saying. Talking is easy, but listening is not.

Developing critical thinking is not like learning to ride a bicycle. All of us must learn to use a set of intellectual standards as an "inner voice" by which we constantly test and hone our reasoning skills. But the standards must be set in an appropriate framework in order for true critical assessment to take place.

Here is a list of intellectual standards by which you can assess the quality of your reasoning, the basis for critical thinking.

INTELLECTUAL STANDARDS: THE CRITERIA OF SOLID REASONING

·CLARITY: Clarity is the "gateway (i.e., most important) standard" of critical thinking. For if a statement is not clear, we cannot assess its accuracy or relevance. As an example, contrast the following two questions (from Center for Critical Thinking unpublished handouts):

1: "What can we do about our failing educational system?"

2: "What can educators do to ensure that students learn the skills and abilities they need to function effectively at work, in exercising their civic responsibilities, and in their daily decision making?"

·ACCURACY: Is that statement true? How can we find out?

A statement can be clear and not accurate.

·PRECISION: Can we have more details? Can you be more specific? A statement can be clear and accurate, but not precise. For example, we could say that "Obesity is a problem in America." That statement is clear, it is accurate, but to what kind of a "problem " does the speaker refer?

·RELEVANCE: How is that statement related to the issue we are discussing? A statement can be clear, accurate and precise, but irrelevant. Let's take a rather complicated example. If we are discussing the environmental impact of pollutants emitted from coal-burning power plants, someone might say: "Electricity from coal-burning power plants provides power for one hundred thousand jobs in this state alone." That statement may be clear, accurate, and precise but it is not relevant to the issue.

·BREADTH: Is there another point of view that could provide us with some insight here? Is there another way to look at this question? Can we see the forest for the trees? For example, you will assess the problem of turf in Issue 8. One of us (RLM) wrote an article for the Washington Post which asserted that, since turf-care devices like mowers, trimmers, blowers and the like are significant sources of air pollution, and since their use is proliferating, it might be easier to address the problem they pose not by banning or regulating these devices, but by reducing the area of turf that must be maintained.

·DEPTH: How does a proposed solution address the complexities of an issue? Is it a realistic solution, or superficial? This is one of the most difficult questions of all to tackle, because here is where reasoning, "instinct," and moral values may interact. And we must be very careful to fairly consider the points of view of all who take part in the debate. Let's take one example. The statement "Just don't do it" was offered by presidential candidate Bob Dole as a solution to the problem of teenage drug use, including smoking. Is that a realistic solution to the problem, or is it a superficial approach? How would you defend your answer? Is your defense grounded in critical thinking?

·LOGIC: How does that statement follow from what you just said? Does that really make sense? Why or why not? When a series of statements or thoughts are mutually reinforcing and "make sense" together, and when they exhibit the intellectual standards described above, we say they are logical. When the combination does not "make sense," is internally contradictory, or not mutually reinforcing, it is not "logical." Logic in arguments is to the trained mind a bit like the apocryphal definition of obscenity: "You know it when you see it."

 

Intellectual standards in a critical thinking framework

The intellectual standards described above are a key to critical evaluation of environmental issues. But there are other criteria which must be considered. Among them are:

·Point of view: What viewpoint does each contributor bring to the debate? Would you expect someone who has a job in a defense plant to have the same view on military spending as someone who doesn't? Would you expect a tobacco company executive to have the same viewpoint on restricting smoking as someone who lost a relative to lung cancer? Think of other examples, and note that identifying point of view does not mean that the viewpoint should automatically be discounted. We should strive to identify our own point of view and any limitations, we should seek other viewpoints and evaluate their relevance, and we should strive to be fair-minded in our assessment. Few people are won over by having their viewpoints ridiculed.

·Assumptions: All reasoning and problem-solving is based on assumptions. These are statements accepted as true without proof. When we assume something we presuppose it or take it for granted. For example, students show up in class because they assume their professor/teacher will be there.

"Never assume" is an old cliché. Far better to be aware of and take care in our assumptions, and always be ready to examine and evaluate them. Sometimes they need revision in the light of new evidence.

·Evidence: All problem-solving is, or should be, based on evidence and information (sometimes called data, but we prefer to apply this term solely for numbers used in calculations). We must learn to restrict our conclusions or claims to those based on sufficient evidence, we must lay out the information clearly, and we must evaluate evidence against our position. And we must be open to new evidence that will challenge our conclusions.

·Purpose: All problem-solving has a purpose. We must strive to understand our purpose clearly, and to ensure that all participants are on the "same wavelength" so to speak. It is easy to wander off the subject, as we all know, so we should periodically check to make sure we are still "on target." As an example, students working on a research or term project, or for that matter employees in a firm who are tackling a problem, occasionally stray off into irrelevant and unrelated, if sometimes interesting or even seductive, subjects. It is vitally important therefore that we all understand as precisely as possible the issue that we are trying to address.

Conclusion

We have presented you with a set of intellectual standards by which critical thinking is carried out: they are logic, relevance, depth, breadth, precision, accuracy and clarity. These standards are applied in a framework delineated by purpose, assumptions, points of view, and evidence or information.

We hope you will return to this section whenever you need to refresh and polish your critical thinking skills.

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

We have found the following references to be particularly useful to understanding environmental issues. Most are updated annually or bi-annually, and may be found at good libraries.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1996 (116th ed.), Washington, D.C. 1996.

Available through bookstores and U.S. Gov. Printing Office; revised annually; One of the most useful sources of information; extensive chapters containing data on energy, population, transportation, science and technology, agriculture, air quality, land and water, etc. Price varies depending on source, around $30.

World Resources Institute. 1993 Information Please

Environmental Almanac, Houghton-Mifflin, New York. ISBN 0-395-63766-X.

Unfortunately, 1994 was the last edition of this

extremely useful publication which contained data and analysis on a country-by-country basis. There

is a possibility that another publisher will publish a book similar to this in the future.

World Resources Institute. World Resources 1996-97:

A Guide to the Global Environment. Oxford University Press, New York. ISBN 0-19-521160-X.

Available through bookstores, the publisher, and the World Resources Institute (WRI), 1709 New York Ave. NW Washington, DC 20006. Joint publication of the WRI, The United Nations Environment Program, the U.N. Development Program, and the World Bank. Widely available and reputable source of data and analysis on the global environment, published biannually. Around $25 paperback. (Data diskette available).

Worldwatch Institute. Vital Signs 1997. W.W. Norton and Co., New York. ISBN 0-393-31637-8.

Vital Signs focuses on key indicators of global environmental quality. These include food trends, energy trends, atmospheric trends, transportation, social and military trends. Also includes useful and provocative short articles with data on various topics of environmental significance. Around $12 paperback.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook. Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting. U.S. Department of Energy. Washington D.C. 20585.

A real bargain. Updated and revised annually, with forecasts to 2010. Abundant data on energy production and consumption, impact of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and many other useful subjects. Around $15 - 40.

Encyclopaedia Britannica. Britannica Book of the Year.

ISBN 9-996-31662-9

In addition to summaries of major events of the past year, this book features data on all of the nations of the world. They are published in the spring, and are available at bookstores or from Encyclopaedia Britannica.

The internet

Numerous government and non-governmental organizations

have outstanding internet web sites where valuable information may be obtained. We have found the following governmental sites to be particularly useful. Others are listed at the end of each issue.

U.S. Bureau of the Census

http://www.census.gov

U.S. Energy Information Administration

http://www.eia.doe.gov

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

http://www.epa.gov

Tiger Map Server Browser (for location maps of U.S.)

http://tiger.census.gov/cgi-bin/mapserver?

What’s New at EPA

http://www.epa.gov/docs/whatsnew.html

U.S. Geological Survey

http://www.usgs.gov