If you were to follow this trail to its end with me I'd likely still be asserting that no one can form a critical judgement under the definition you seem to be implying. Wikipedia, while great for the purposes of general reference (although I have to admit that the wording you've shared from that article appears more misleading than helpful), isn't adequate in my estimation for the question you seem to be asking here; neither would I try to rest on the laurels of Britannica or even Scholarpedia, because what you really appear to be asking for is the two pronged, fundamental question of epistemology: what is knowledge and by what means can it be acquired?
Given the question of epistemology I've researched most major positions in philosophy and am bound by the need to answer that question with a question of my own: is it possible to articulate and comprehend what knowledge is, and is there a means to acquire it in the first place?
Is that knowledge, then? What is knowledge, Progster? Out of so very many members here I have to say I've always found your content scintillating and am more than a little curious to see your perspective on the issue.
If no knowledge is truly objective then knowledge doesn't exist by the traditional definition, namely a justified true belief.
I would argue that we can't. As far as I've learned, critical thinking is an exercise in ordered, disciplined thought, and it isn't an enterprise that has arrived at a solid basis for knowledge. All of academia is a deck of cards.
If we're going to assess groups of people as a whole, I'm unresolved on the question on the basis of what I understand to be sound principles of logic. By that I mean that all of us here in the thread so far have nothing more than our own experiences and there are so very many people we haven't met. For all I know one or the other kind of person could have more of a natural predisposition towards critical thinking, but I don't find myself in the position to come to a conclusion that would satisfy me; what I have seen is many people with ASD online identifying themselves as ones who practice more logic than others, and them claiming that this is a trait related to the autism spectrum.
However let's not dismiss that there are some real reasons for people saying as much, it has not been an arbitrary claim. People on the spectrum are indeed more naturally prone to a degree of solipsism and it can make sense to think of that kind of world as one that engenders a preference for critical thinking.
I'm actually given to understand that this reliance on emotions at a base level is logical itself. Consider the issue, if you will, along these lines: emotions aren't necessarily extreme and irrational. That emotions have the potential to be detrimental to rationality doesn't make them inimical, on the contrary they are a fundamental component of reasoning.
Conscious thought, abstract thinking included, is in a constant state of flux which the brain regulates through the use of mood chemicals. The endless variety of nuances between emotions which is remarkable enough that we require a voluminous vocabulary to fail, albeit admirably, at articulating, is a gestalt product of simple combinations and permutations.
What am I driving at here? Emotional states are really part and parcel of the reasoning process itself because they are the micro level to the mind's macro level when using abstract reasoning. Reward and punishment, inhibition and openness to suggestion, these are all part of what motivates a person to reason in the first place, what colors their responses toward what they deem to be reasonable or not reasonable.
Critical thinking is as much about ordering those emotions as it is about ordering perceptual information.
You certainly appear to be a promising new member in my estimation, and I'm interested in hearing you account of this process in which you underwent such a change. Clearly you are perspicacious enough to provide us with a worthy reading on it.
Haven't many of us? Although I have to admit that I'm not as confident as you are that fear binds everything. For that matter my tendency in thinking is to assume that no situation is reducible like that and in this case my exposure to literature in psychology and cultural anthropology has borne out that truth. Human motivations are complex and if any one glue could be sought after here, I'd have to guess it is that people are social creatures, which if you look a little closer isn't really "one glue" or one fundamental observation at all.
I've seen a fair amount of your content and have noticed your tendency to be more impartial than others and to demonstrate a methodology to your thinking. Really it wasn't heard to guess at you at least having a well practiced interest in political science.
Would you say that these experiences in your background have contributed to you generally having a more disciplined attitude when it comes to abstract thought? That if you were out of your wheelhouse your thoughts would still have their own grammar?
As counter-intuitive as it sounds, all of these traits are arguably a demonstration of some baseline level of logic, even exceptionally useful depending on the context. Everyone does have basic critical thinking skills because it is an inherent feature of the species.
It could even be said that all thought is critical, as even what people are wont to consider as the meanest intelligence and the crudest thought process are in all reality something extremely ordered, once one has broken it down and seen the cogs of the machine.
People think lazily because they are prioritizing how they use their mental energy and capacity to reason abstractly in accordance with what suits them at that time. They avoid facts and fact checking because they are organisms which have developed in a world which doesn't always afford a cumbersome thought process before the moment of decision, intuition just has to do. Intuition and reasoning both exist in an endless loop of cost/benefit swinging either way.
People are exceptionally biased because that can actually serve as a rapid and effective form of reasoning. Yes, they can be wrong, even in unilateral error about a particular bias, but people have myriads upon myriads of different experiences in their lives and the cost/benefit loop is one that plays out over a broad canvas indeed.
And lastly, of course people are followers who diligently participant in and subscribe to their own cultures. Have you seen the evolutionary premium that the brain puts on streamlining? Well, intuition streamlining meet streamlining 2.0: expanding your own grey matter with the other grey matter around it. A group is in a lot of ways a practical, usable extension for one's psyche.
Last edited:
