3.1: Critical Thinking- a Vital Skill for the Information Age--Readings

Critical Thinking: A Vital Skill for the Information Age

By Paul J. Butera, PhD

Richard J. Daley College, one of the City Colleges of Chicago 

Critical thinking is an essential capability. It is an invaluable skill for you as a student, a writer, and as a contributing member of your community. This is especially true today because of the deluge of information that we must sift through every day to find the truth. Modern technologies and the ubiquity of misinformation and disinformation, which often divide people and maintain the imbalance of power that restricts opportunities for less favored groups. Thus, the ability to look at evidence, evaluate the trustworthiness of a source, and think critically is one of the most vital skills required for future success and the creation of an inclusive community.

We often must make tough decisions on what is best for us, our families, and our communities. For whom should we vote? What university should we choose? Should we get involved in a neighborhood controversy? What is the right vocation for us? We are always making choices, and we often must base our decisions on information with a hidden agenda that meets someone else's needs and not ours. At the same time, we must struggle with our own subjective perspectives, and we favor information and opinions that confirm previously held beliefs and biases. As the Reverend Martin Luther King warned us, “To think incisively and to think for oneself is difficult. We are prone to let our mental life become invaded by legions of half-truths, prejudices, and propaganda” (“The Purpose of Education” ¹).

Thus, we are challenged to become critical thinkers if we are to manage the daily barrage of misinformation and disinformation and become thoughtful and informed citizens. But what does it mean to be a critical thinker and what are the attributes we should emulate?

In general, critical thinkers engage in a straightforward process:

1. They evaluate issues from a variety of perspectives.
2. They examine issues in terms of their contexts (historical, cultural, political, social, etc.).
3. They review their own personal assumptions and biases to ensure that their personal perspective is not influencing their assessment.
4. They formulate conclusions based on all the examined evidence without personal bias.

As Dr. King emphasized, this is not a painless process, and it requires dedication and commitment to, at least, six practices or qualities: rationality, self-awareness, broad-mindedness, discipline, engagement, and skeptical independence. Table One provides greater detail on these practices.

Quality	Critical Thinkers
Rationality	rely on reason rather than emotion. require evidence, ignore no known evidence, and follow it where it leads. are concerned more with finding the best explanation than being right. analyze apparent confusion and contradictions and ask questions.
Self-Awareness	weigh the influences of motives and bias. recognize their own assumptions, prejudices, biases, and points of view.
Broad-Mindedness	evaluate all reasonable inferences. consider a variety of viewpoints or perspectives. remain open to alternative interpretations. do not reject unpopular views out of hand.
Discipline	are precise, meticulous, comprehensive, and exhaustive. resist manipulation and irrational appeals. avoid snap judgments.
Engagement	are active, not passive, ask questions, analyze, and consciously apply tactics and strategies to uncover meaning or assure their understanding. are open to innovative ideas and perspectives and are willing to challenge their beliefs and investigate competing evidence.
Independence and Skepticism	recognize the relevance and/or merit of alternative assumptions and perspectives. recognize the extent and weight of evidence. approach texts or internet content with the same skepticism and suspicion as they approach spoken remarks.

Of course, one way to understand what critical thinkers do is to look at what they do not. That is, what are the characteristics of non-critical thinkers and what practices should one avoid. In general, non-critical thinkers tend to be hidebound and dogmatic. They see things in black or white, avoid complexity and nuance, and are insular and isolated. Since they are totally committed to their viewpoint and ideas, they fear anything that challenges their beliefs and are inclined to avoid evidence that contradicts their position. In a debate, they rely on intellectually dishonest tactics and are fond of logical fallacies, such as attacking their opponents’ motives or character.

There are many attributes that separate critical thinkers from non-critical. In particular, critical thinkers are dedicated to finding the truth. Consequently, they are engaged and committed to evaluating what they read or hear to ensure its integrity before they use it. One question remains: How do critical thinkers determine the veracity of content and the credibility of a source? One approach is the Five-Step CRAAP process, which consists of five sets of questions:

1. Current—When was the material published? Is the information dated?
2. Relevant—Is the information related to your topic? Is it written for an appropriate audience? Is the material advanced enough for your needs? Or is it too advanced for your audience?
3. Authoritative—Who is the author (or authors)? Who or what organization was it written for? Are they credible? Has it been peer reviewed? Did an organization or individual sponsor the content? If so, what is their agenda? Is the information surprising and counter to common knowledge?
4. Accurate—What are the sources of the information? Are there references? Is the statistical evidence solid? Has it been “cherry picked?” Does it meet statistical standards? Is the sample size sufficient and appropriate? Was the methodology solid?
5. Purposes—Why was the source created? Was the reference written to inform, sell something, advance an opinion, or entertain? Is there a hidden agenda? Can you identify any bias?

Focusing on the CRAAP criteria can reveal issues that can lead you to reject sources or handle the information carefully. For example, the Greening Earth Society, which closed its doors in 2005, purported to be “a non-profit organization whose goal is to make our life, our environment and our energy greener” (“Welcome to Greening Earth Society²). However, a quick review of the society’s website disclosed that the sponsoring organization had an agenda different from the one implied by the welcoming statement. The sponsor of the society was Western Fuels Association. Its current mission is “To champion our members and provide exceptional benefit by acquiring and transporting fuel at the lowest possible cost.”³ When the Society existed, the Association's focus was “to mitigate the impact of initiatives and legislation that would increase the delivered cost of coal and subsequently increase the price of electricity.” ⁴ The Society and Western Fuels were closely aligned, sharing both office space and leadership. Moreover, their agenda seems to have been shared as well. According to SourceWatch, the Greening Earth Society claimed that greenhouse gas emissions promoted plant growth and would create a greener environment, a theory ridiculed by most climate scientists.⁵

Critical thinkers are also alert to startling statements that seem too good to be true or are counter to accepted truth. You should not reject them out of hand, but you should check them out. For example, the following statement appeared in the October 1, 2019, issue of Firearms News: 

In news unsurprising to anyone familiar with crime statistics, the recent FBI data revealed five times as many deaths are caused by knives than guns according to a recent Breitbart News article.⁶

In fact, despite the magazine’s assertion, it is unlikely that most people familiar with crime statistics would find it surprising that killers use knives in five times as many murders in the United States as guns. This is the kind of statement that should lead a critical thinker to check the source of the data to determine accuracy. Breitbart News said that, in 2018, guns were used to kill 297 people in the United States, while 1,515 were killed by knives. The News cited the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) as its source. The figures come from the Criminal Justice Information Services Division’s “Expanded Homicide Data Table 8.”⁷ The table connects U.S. murder victims to the weapons used to kill them. If you checked the Table, you would discover that the figure of 297 cited a the number of people killed by guns is, in fact, the number killed by rifles. The change of the word from “rifles” to “guns” made an enormous difference. In fact, murders use guns to kill 10,265 people in the United States in 2018, more than 6.5 times those committed with knives that year. Sometimes this change may have been deliberate. Other times it may have been a matter of carelessness or ignorance. Headline writers, whose goal is to attract readers, often used “guns” when the article itself specifies “rifles.” In addition, rifles have two more letters than guns and take up more of a newspaper’s precious space.

Critical thinkers are also often wary of statistical evidence, which, at times, can be technically true but still be misleading, which has given rise to the cliché, “Lies, damn lies, and statistics.” Pundits and politician have often emphasized that the number of white people who die in fatal police shooting is higher than the number of Black people, suggesting that people of color do not suffer disproportionate amounts of police violence. However, according to Statista, the rate per million of the population of Black individuals killed (5.8) by police is 2.5 times that of White people (2.3). Since the White population is much larger than the Black one, absolute numbers do not prove that Whites are just as likely to be fatally shot by police as Black people.⁸

These examples of misinformation and disinformation remind us that critical thinking requires rigor and demanding work, but the toughest challenge we face as critical thinkers is confirmation bias. We evaluate content through the lens of our existing beliefs and favor information that confirms our previously held beliefs and biases. In USA Today, Jeff Stibel points out that, “Confirmation bias is evolutionary efficient . . . Reinforcing what we already know helps us make good decisions quickly.”⁹ Since confirmation bias is, in general, helpful, it is particularly difficult to determine when it is subconsciously urging us to reject good information and make a wrong decision. Consequently, we should strive to identify our own biases and evaluate how they influence our reasoning. Bernard Marr encourages us “to think objectively about [our] likes and dislikes, preferences, and beliefs, and consider how these might affect [our] thinking.10

Clearly, our information inundated society requires us to become astute thinkers who are cautious and curious. We agree with Dr. King that we must be independent thinkers, and we are careful to check sources, identify the agenda behind what we read, see, and hear, and be wary of our own emotional responses to content. We also identify a list of sources that we know to be reputable and committed to inclusive, objective reporting, and we use these sources to assess information from those with which we are unfamiliar or have less confidence.

Most of all, we are alert to biases in ourselves that arise from the influences of our social, political, economic, or cultural backgrounds. We endeavor to root out untruths inspired by bigotry or ignorance, and we seek to understand the perspectives of others who are different from us in various ways, such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and mental and physical abilities.

 

 

Works Cited

¹Martin Luther King, Jr., "The Purpose of Education", The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr. Volume I: Called to Serve, January 1929-June 1951, The Martin Luther King, Jr.              Research and Education Institute, Stanford University, January 1, 1947 to February 28, 1947 https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/purpose-    education#:~:text=To%20think%20incisively%20and%20to,education%20is%20fulfilling%20its%20purpose.

²The Greening Earth Society, This information is from the original website, which no longer exists. Archived pages of the defunct website are available at the Web Archive here—   http://web.archive.org/web/20230000000000*/http://www.greeningearthsociety.org

³Western Fuels Association, “Mission,” https://www.westernfuels.org/about#Mission

⁴Greening Earth Society original website.

⁵“Greening Earth Society”, SourceWatch, The Center for Media and Democracy, February 25, 2020  https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Greening_Earth_Society

⁶Jim Grant, “Knives are Five times more dangerous than Guns,” Editorial, Firearms News, October 1, 2019 https://www.firearmsnews.com/editori...an-guns/368276

⁷“Expanded Homicide Data: Table 8”, 2018 Crime in the United States, Criminal Justice Information Servies Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U. S. Department of     Justice. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ta-table-8.xls

⁸“Rate of fatal police shootings in the United States from 2015 to July 2023, by ethnicity(per million of the population per year),”  Statista Research Department, August 1,     2023 https://www.statista.com/statistics/1123070/police-shootings-rate-ethnicity-us/

⁹Jeff Stibel,“Fake news: How our brains lead us into echo chambers that promote racism and sexism”, USATODAY, May 15,     2018 https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/2018/05/15/fake-news-social-media-confirmation-bias-echo-chambers/533857002/

¹⁰Bernard Marr, “13 Easy Steps to Improve Your Critical Thinking Skills”, Forbes, August 5, 2022 https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernard...h=210171665ecd