The Critical Mind is A Questioning Mind
Learning How to Ask Powerful, Probing Questions
Introduction
The key to powerful thinking is powerful questioning. When we ask
the right questions, we succeed as a thinker, for questions are
the force that powers our thinking. Thinking, at any point in time,
can go off in thousands of different directions, some of which,
by the way, are dead-ends. Questions define the agenda of our thinking.
They determine what information we seek. They lead us in one direction
rather than another. They are, therefore, a crucial part of our
thinking.
"By their questions yea shall know them"
If there were a bible for critical thinking, "By their questions
yea shall know them" would be a salient teaching within it. We shall
use the art of asking powerful questions as a key organizer for
this book. We shall use it as the vehicle for teaching the fundamental
tools of critical thinking. We shall translate all concepts, understandings,
and principles into the questions one asks when one internalizes
them.
The Basic Building Blocks for Thinking:
One Key To Powerful Questioning
For example, one basic understanding essential to critical thinking
is based on insight into the basic structures common to all thinking.
Another is based on insight into fundamental standards for the assessment
of thinking. From the foundation of both of these understandings
we can generate powerful questions for the thinker to ask, questions
that can be usefully asked about virtually any thinking in virtually
any context; questions that give us leverage by helping us not only
to get to the foundation of thinking, but also to begin to determine
its strengths and weaknesses. Let us begin with the elements of
thought. These are the inescapable structures underlying one's thinking
every step along the path of thought. If one is thinking about anything,
one is using these structures. They are generated by every act of
thinking by its very nature.
The Elements of Thought
The elements of thinking are as important to thinking as the elements
of chemistry are to the composition of every substance. Unless we
know the basic chemical building blocks of chemical composition,
we cannot identify, examine, and check those building blocks (and
hence do chemistry).
Unless we know the basic building blocks of thinking, we cannot
identify, examine, and check those building blocks (and hence do
critical thinking).
Questions for Thinking about Thinking: Breaking
Thinking Down
As a developing critical thinker, you must regularly take your thinking
apart and come to terms with its interrelated elements (the constituent
parts that make it up). Coming to understand the elements of thought
is not a matter of memorizing definitions of a set of terms. Rather,
it is a matter of understanding an interrelated set of functions
that all thinking unavoidably includes. Just as you can say with
confidence that wherever there is a living human being, the body
of that person will necessarily include certain constituent, interrelated
physiological systems (the nervous system, the cardiovascular system,
the respiratory system, etc.), so too as a thinker you can say with
confidence that if you are dealing with the thinking of any human,
there are constituent, interrelated elements that make it up.
The Elements Enumerated
Let us now consider these elements. To think as a human is to think
for a purpose (our thinking never lacks some end, some motivation,
some goal). In pursuing a purpose (using thought), questions are
generated (for example, how can I best achieve this purpose?). To
answer a question you need information that bears on it. To use
information, you must make sense of it. To make sense of information,
you must come to some conclusions, make some inferences. To make
inferences, you must use concepts. To use concepts, you must make
assumptions. To make assumptions leading to inferences generates
implications and consequences. And, finally, to think purposively,
using information, to come to conclusions is to think within a point
of view.
This will be perhaps clearer with an example.
- Imagine, for a moment,
that my purpose is to get a better job, then there are
necessarily some questions inherent in that purpose: What
jobs are available that I might qualify for and would be interested
in? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each available
job? How can I most effectively apply for the jobs that best suit
me?
- Once these questions
are clear to us, it is a short step in thought to recognizing
that I will have to gather information about available
jobs, etc..
- Once I get my information,
I will then have to come to some conclusions about potential
jobs: which seem the best options and how I should go about pursuing
those options.
- Unavoidably in deciding to pursue some options I will be making some assumptions about my qualifications, the nature of the jobs themselves, and about the future (the likelihood of my being satisfied by working in this or that setting, for example).
- My thinking will also be generating some implications which I ought to look at: the implications of possibly being out of a job for a period of time, the implications of possibly losing seniority, or of having greater difficulty getting to and from work, the impact on my family, etc.
- In my thinking I should also look at the very concept or idea of improving the quality of my life by improving the quality of my job. I should make sure that I am not uncritically assuming that a job change will make my life better in general or that problems that stem from other parts of my life will be lessened by a change of job. (Remember, we cannot think without ideas and concepts)
- I should also think
about my overall point of view in pursing the option of
a change of job. How am I looking at my present circumstances?
How am I envisioning a change? How realistic is my viewpoint?
How does it relate to my overall life objectives (my way of looking
at the nature and direction of my life in general)? What other
points of view do I need to consider? If a job change might require
a move, what is my spouse's point of view?
This is, of course, only
a very sketchy example. If I were actually thinking through a potential
job change, there would be many details and specifics incorporated
in my thinking. Nevertheless, when you become comfortable with and
practiced in explicitly analyzing and evaluating these basic structures
of thought, they will serve as a powerful set of guides for the
generation of useful questions. You will find yourself frequently
questioning in each of these categories:
What is my purpose, goal, or agenda? (at this meeting, in
engaging in this discussion, in carrying on this argument, in my
job, in my marriage, as a parent, in buying a new car, in my relationship
with Jack, in my leisure time, in my life as a whole)
What is the key question I must answer? What is the main
problem I need to solve? What is the crucial issue I
must resolve? (at this meeting, in this discussion, in this argument,
in my job, in my marriage, as a parent, in buying a new car, in
my relationship with Jack, in my leisure time, in my life as a whole)
What is the key information I need to answer the question?
What is the information I need to solve the main problem? What is
the information I need to resolve the crucial issue? (at this meeting,
in this discussion, in this argument, in my job, in my marriage,
as a parent, in buying a new car, in my relationship with Jack,
in my leisure time, in my life as a whole)
Given the information I have at my disposal, what tentative conclusions
can I come to? How can I best interpret the information I
have? (at this meeting, in this discussion, in this argument, in
my job, in my marriage, as a parent, in buying a new car, in my
relationship with Jack, in my leisure time, in my life as a whole)
What is the key concept or idea I need to understand to make
sense of the data and to answer the question, solve the problem,
or resolve the issue? (at this meeting, in this discussion, in this
argument, in my job, in my marriage, as a parent, in buying a new
car, in my relationship with Jack, in my leisure time, in my life
as a whole)
As I think through this question, problem, or issue, what am
I taking for granted or assuming? Am I justified in doing so?
(at this meeting, in this discussion, in this argument, in my job,
in my marriage, as a parent, in buying a new car, in my relationship
with Jack, in my leisure time, in my life as a whole)
Given what I have reasoned through thus far, what does my reasoning
imply? If I act on my conclusions, what are the implications
or consequences likely to be? (at this meeting, in this discussion,
in this argument, in my job, in my marriage, as a parent, in buying
a new car, in my relationship with Jack, in my leisure time, in
my life as a whole)
From what point of view am I approaching this question, problem,
or issue? Should I consider an alternative point of view (at this
meeting, in this discussion, in this argument, in my job, in my
marriage, as a parent, in buying a new car, in my relationship with
Jack, in my leisure time, in my life as a whole)
As you deploy these questioning strategies in the various domains
of your life, you will discover features of your thinking that need
to be revised, rethought, and reconstructed. You will discover that
many of the purposes and goals that are buried in your behavior
need to be questioned. You will discover that you are often unclear
about questions and problems that you need to be clear about. You
will find that as you put questions and problems in a clear and
precise form, you are better able to answer and solve them. You
will find that when the key question is clearly before your mind,
the information relevant to the question is much more apparent.
You will then more explicitly
seek out the information you need. As you explicitly seek out information,
you will find yourself checking that information more closely and
judging it more effectively. When you are more clear about the information
you are using, you will also become more clear about the inferences
or conclusions you are coming to based on that information. Once
these relationships become clear, other relationships also become
clearer to you. For example, when you recognize you are coming to
a particular conclusion based on particular information, you will
also notice that you are making one or more assumptions and using
one or more concept or idea. Understanding that you are engaged
in the sum total of the above, you will recognize that you are thinking
within a point of view.
In other words, the process of simply questioning the basic elements
of your own thinking will automatically improve the quality of your
thinking. Furthermore, the more you do so, the better you get at
it.
For example, when I question the information I am using in coming
to conclusions about people and events in my life, I often discover
that I don't have enough relevant information to come to sound conclusions.
I nevertheless find myself coming to conclusions. When I catch myself
engaging in such flawed thought, I then question those conclusions.
I take them out of the category of "fact" and put them into the
category of a hypothesis or guess.
Recognizing that I don't have solid information to go on, I then
question my motivation. I ask myself whether I have an egocentric
motive for my conclusion. For example, suppose someone rubs me the
wrong way on one occasion. I may find myself coming to a negative
conclusion about the person on another occasion without good reason
for doing so. I then recognize that I am allowing my native egocentric
tendency toward prejudicial thinking to take control. I can then
correct for my unjustifiable inference.
Questions for Thinking about Thinking:
Using Explicit Intellectual Standards to Assess Thinking
As a developing critical
thinker, you must not only regularly take your thinking apart and
come to terms with its interrelated elements (the constituent parts
that make it up), you must also come to question those elements
using explicit intellectual standards. Coming to understand the
basic standards for thought is not a matter of memorizing definitions
of a set of terms. Rather, it is a matter of understanding an interrelated
set of standards that virtually all thinking must fulfill to be
sound thinking.
It is ironic that humans have been assessing thinking for thousands
of years but have spent very little time coming to terms with the
criteria they habitually use in deciding which thinking to accept
and which to reject, which to praise and which to criticize. Of
course, once we recognize that the human mind by nature is deeply
prone to self-deception and to using thinking in a highly self-serving
way---then, we should not be surprised that the implicit standards
that humans instinctively use to assess thinking are not only intellectually
flawed but actually intellectually absurd. We have in mind the following
criteria (which we set out in the first ):
"It's true because I believe it"
(innate egocentrism: in which case I find myself continually
assuming that what I believe is true even though I have never questioned
the basis for many of my beliefs)
"It's true because we believe it"
(innate sociocentrism: in which case I find myself continually
assuming that the dominant beliefs in the groups to which I belong
are true even though I have never questioned the basis for many
of these beliefs)
"It's true because I want to believe it"
(innate wish fulfillment: in which case I find myself believing
in, for example, accounts of behavior that put me (or the groups
to which I belong) in a positive rather than a negative light even
though I have not seriously considered the evidence for the more
negative account. I believe what "feels good," what supports my
other beliefs, what does not require me to change my thinking is
any significant way, what does not require me to admit I have been
wrong)
"It's true because I have always believed it"
(innate self-validation: in which case I feel a strong ego-attraction
to beliefs that I have long held even though I have not seriously
considered the evidence for the critique of these traditional beliefs).
"It's true because it is in my vested interest to believe it"
(innate selfishness: in which case I find myself gravitating
to beliefs which if true would justify my getting more power, money,
or personal advantage and not noticing the evidence or reasoning
against those beliefs)
If we concede that humans are naturally prone to assess thinking
in keeping with the above "criteria," then it is not surprising
that we, as a species, have not developed a significant interest
in establishing and teaching legitimate intellectual standards.
There are too many domains of our thinking that we, collectively,
do not want questioned. We have too many prejudices that we do not
want challenged. We are committed to having our vested interests
served. We are not in fact typically concerned to protect the rights
of others. We are not typically willing to sacrifice our desires
to meet someone else's basic needs. We do not want to discover that
beliefs which we have taken to be "obvious" and "sacred" might not
be either. We will ignore any number of basic principles if doing
so enables us to maintain our power or to gain more power and advantage.
In other words, the irony of the failure of humans to make a commitment
to substantive intellectual standards is not puzzling, however vexing
it may be. Nevertheless, to develop as a thinker, to become a thinker
with a foundational knowledge of how to analyze, assess, and improve
thinking; we must internalize the logic of basic intellectual standards.
These are eight basic intellectual standards we shall concentrate
on. Each speaks for itself and is consequently highly intuitive,
from an intellectual point of view. For example, suppose someone
said,
"OK, OK, admittedly my thinking is typically unclear, inaccurate,
imprecise, irrelevant, superficial, narrow-minded, illogical, and
trivial!!! What's wrong with that!!!!;" we would immediately recognize
the statement to be absurd. There is no need to "prove" that, all
other things being equal clear thinking is better than unclear thinking,
accurate thinking better than inaccurate, precise thinking better
than imprecise, relevant better than irrelevant, etc. This is intuitive
to us--if the question is explicitly put to us, because on many
occasions we have experienced the problems that result from a failure
to check thinking against such standards.
For example, we have tried to find a place with unclear directions;
we have been misled by inaccurate statements; we have not
had the (precise) details we needed in some context; we were diverted
from achieving what we were after by getting drawn off into irrelevant
details; we failed to deal with the complexity of an issue (responding
rather to it superficially); we reasoned narrowly
ignoring an alternative point of view only to find that we needed
the insight that only that point of view could provide; etc.
In other words, though we all frequently fall prey to using "absurd"
standards (because they often function subconsciously and self-servingly);
we nevertheless are quite capable of recognizing appropriate intellectual
standards when they are put to us explicitly and consciously. At
an abstract level virtually everyone--if the question were properly
put to them--would value being able to think clearly, precisely,
accurately, relevantly, deeply, broadly, and logically. The problem
is that the question is not being put to us. The basic intellectual
standards essential to critical thinking are not typically taught
in schools or in the home. They are certainly not being taught in
the popular media. Indeed, if anything, the school, the home, the
media, and social life in general tend to praise thinking that is
self-serving, egocentric, and sociocentric. Inadvertently, we teach,
therefore, "absurd" standards for thinking, though of course these
absurd standards serve various (pathological) human functions--like
justifying getting what we want (irrespective of the legitimate
rights of others) or protecting the status quo when it favors us
(irrespective of who suffers deprivation as a result), etc.
Questions based on the standards for thought are, as we have already
suggested, largely intuitive when explicitly expressed:
Is my thinking clear?
Is my thinking accurate?
Is my thinking as precise as it needs to be?
Is my thinking relevant to the issue?
Is my thinking dealing with the complexities of this issue or problem?
Is my thinking too narrow or one-sided?
Is my thinking logical?
Is my thinking focusing on what is most significant?
Each of these basic questions leads to more refined questions that
enable us to make a better determination of where our thinking stands.
Consider each of these sub-questions as follow-up on the basic ones:
Is my thinking clear?
Clarity is a 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 adequately address the
question, 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?"
Do I need to elaborate my thinking more?
Do I need to provide an illustration of what I mean?
Do I need to give an example from everyday life?
Is my thinking accurate?
How could I check to see if this is true?
How could I find out if this is correct?
How could I verify or test to see if this is accurate?
Is my thinking as precise as it needs to be?
Do I need to be more specific?
Do I need to give more details?
Do I need to be more exact?
Is my thinking relevant to the issue?
How does that relate to the question at issue?
How does that bear upon the problem I am concerned with?
How does this information help me effectively deal with the issue?
Is my thinking dealing with the complexities of
this issue or problem?
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.
What factors make this a difficult problem?
What are some of the complexities embedded in this issue?
What are some of the difficulties I need to deal with?
Is my thinking taking into account the multiple perspectives I need
to consider?
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 standpoints which gets deeply into an issue, but only
recognizes the insights of one side of the question.)
Am I look at this issue in a narrow-minded way?
Do I need to look at this from another perspective?
Do I need to consider another poing of view?
Do I need to look at this situation in other ways?
Is my thinking logical?
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."
Does my thinking make sense together?
Does my conclusion follow from the evidence or is there a more logical
conclusion?
Is my thinking focusing on what is most significant?
Is this the most important problem I need to deal with at this time?
Which of these facts are the most important for me to consider?
Is this the most essential idea which I should focus on?
And questions that can be used to apply them
Universal intellectual standards are standards which must be applied
to thinking whenever one is interested in checking the quality of
reasoning about a problem, issue, or situation. To think critically
entails having command of these standards. To help students learn
them, teachers should pose questions which probe student thinking,
questions which hold students accountable for their thinking, questions
which, through consistent use by the teacher in the classroom, become
internalized by students as questions they need to ask themselves.
The ultimate goal, then, is for these questions to become infused
in the thinking of students, forming part of their inner voice,
which then guides them to better and better reasoning. While there
are a number of universal standards, the following are the most
significant:
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 a 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 adequately address the
question, 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 me 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, "effort" does
not measure the quality of student learning, and when that 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?
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...?
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, I don't see how both can be true.
 |
 |
(Paul, R. and Elder, L. (May 1996). Foundation For Critical Thinking,
Online
at website: www.criticalthinking.org)