Within our capacity, as humans, we cannot arrive at the absolute truth & what we can reach is relative truth. In the educational process, the knowledge gained by the students can be divided into: 1) Something to be familiar with. 2) Something to grasp. 3) Something to memorize. 4) Something to think about & to elaborate on. Critical thinking is much needed in the 2nd & 4th types: For a student, comprehending a subject requires answering the question (why?) convincingly. When the student is required to think about a certain topic & to engage into details about it, then s/he is prepared to face life with all its easy & difficult aspects or to transfer abstract knowledge into functioning knowledge.  

I believe that critical thinking is always necessary, for any student. While it is true that to build knowledge itself must resort to facts or concepts, the creation or re-creation together with our own peers, is necessary. The consensus is a priority not only for the development of new ideas, trends or theories, but also for their own generation. I explain it as follows, the starting point is always an axiom, which is built around it and no, it is a postulate, a corollary, an assumption, conjecture or theory. At this point we must not forget that even what we regard as critical thinking is an axiom, which fails if its intention is to analyze another axiom, just look at the definition.

 But if you analyze a theory or concept, then you can find some gaps in argumentation, in theoretical construction or in experimental design, since no theory or law is perfect or universal strictly. Therefore, the student should be able to find gaps in knowledge, to construct their own knowledge, but without forgetting what this building is actually a reconstruction of a previous knowledge of external origin.

Interesting question. It's like the chicken or the egg question, which comes first? Critical thinking can co-exist with truth in that critical thinking is more process based. Critical thinking is constructivist and relative, but has to have foundations in some type of fact, prior knowledge, etc. So for example, in math, you know that the end result should be 35 (factual), but the formulas you use to arrive at that conclusion might vary (critical thinking).

Truth is fact. Any truth/fact may be in specific context. Knowing fact  is not development of knowledge. Giving reasoning and challenging that truth by analyzing pros, cons, and further reshaping the fact in changed circumstances -- is critical thinking and development of knowledge.

Students those are critical thinkers may challenge the old fact and move towards redefining the fact  -- it indicates the continuity of logic -- philosophy -- new direction.

The search for the truth has an important in the process of learning and research. Getting at the truth is the ultimate aim of the scientific community. Critical thinking is the process of using reasoning to distinguish what is true and what is not.  In that sense, critical thinking leads us to truths and facts ultimately. We teachers should motivate students to develop a habit of critical thinking before accepting anything they are taught ans are exposed to.

I think we should also define what we mean when we say "truth" or "done". truth from paraconsistent logic may have degrees or be diffuse. However my approach aims to investigate other cases. For example, we do not distinguish the historical truth which refers to what actually happened, for classical logic truth understood as the adequacy of thought with reality. Nor do we distinguish moral truth, understood as the fit between what you think and so, on the social truth, which is making it convenient for our society is made. Moreover, it is necessary to distinguish the literary truth, or what is understood as true within a text, the saving truth, the formation of a worldview that tries to connect with a higher being or deity.

Indeed critical thinking is one of the important parts of our thinking and reasoning processes necessary to investigate and validate truth in any discourse. Any education system should therefore have as one of its goals to foster critical thinking and reasoning to establish knowledge and truth.  Society is more stable and advanced in what it aspires to achieve when the education system promotes and nurtures skills of critical thinking, reasoning and above all encourages to use the imagination power of our brain so that always truth rules.

Critical thinking links domains that require logic and reasoning and domains imagined from outside of an existing logical structures. For instance Einstein used his critical thinking skills to imagine a concept called the curvedness of spacetime or universe and due to that concept the very convincing argument why gravity works.  

I agree with Dejenie and Subhash sir. Thank you Michael for sharing it.

CRITICAL THINKING has always been part of education. Socrates, Plato, Buddha, etc. who lived and taught before our common era all taught critical thinking. To say that critical thinking is the skill we sought in the 21st century would not be correct; critical thinking defines education and it has always been a foundation of education.

TRUTH is often mistakenly used interchangeably with FACTS. Education involves input + process = output + impact. In all 4 steps, facts are used. Truth is the conclusion from logical reasoning of series of facts. Thus FACTS + CRITICAL THINKING = PERCEIVED TRUTH hopefully. Without critical thinking, facts remain bits of information. With critical thinking, these bits of information may lead to one's conclusion of truth. To say that "truth is not the interpretation of facts" is to deny the distinction between men and beasts. We conceive truth; beats conceives facts. If a buffalo, horse, donkey or elephant can conceive truth they would not be beasts of burden---in their own grunts, they would demand their freedom (if we humans espouse the concept that freedom is a universal truth and beasts can also conceive truth).

TRUTH NON-ABSOLUTE: One may not argue that mathematics is the language of universal truth. This is a false argument. Suppose we present this equation to a person living in the 21st century: 1 + 0 = ?. The 21th century person says "1 + 0 = 1 because this is the universal truth under the law of mathematics." This is a false conclusion. Present this same equation to the Roman emperor or the brilliant minds of Rome prior to 400 BC, they would not know the answer to 1 + 0 = ? because there was no concept of zero at that time. Does it mean that truth (mathematical truth) did not exist in Rome? The 21st century man in Rome today knows that 1 + 0 = 1 because 0 is part of our inventory of knowledge. See Attached Graphix: Is it a drawing of a face or a landscape? Neither one is absolutely wrong or correct; both may be correct (or both may be wrong---if someone can see a third possibility).

The chain with which reflective reason linked justice with truth and freedom is broken and the nexus formed by these three values is dissolved. Reflective and critical reason giving ground to moral, political, judicial or aesthetic judgments whereupon educational models had to be built, in the past, has been attacked as the main foresight.

https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Cont/ContDeli.htm

What is the value of truth versus critical thinking in lawyer cases? Is truth always reflected in the most logical convincing proposition?

Dear All,

I really liked your answer Paul Louangrath  Bangkok University and the diagram you presented. It is a perfect example of how truth is possibly built on perception.

And YES there is a third possibility of an older woman walking, which is what I saw first, then the face, then the landscape.

BUT IF I can see a third possibility, then there is perhaps another or another.... or another possibility, where in lies the truth, which can be discussed or analyzed using critical thinking in the manner of Socrates, Plato, Buddha, etc.

Critical thinking may lead one to find that what was once believed or perceived as truth  by experts or one's self is NOT truth, but rather a fallacy. Not all critical thinking leads one to believe what is being discussed is truth, but rather what is being discussed may lead to truth or finding fallacy with the concept. The world was believed to be flat, critical thinking allowed the exploration, which led to discovery of the truth, and more critical thinking. Aerial exploration led to mapping and more evidence of the truth.

But let us all go back the original question, Michael's original question:  HOW do you find the right balance in teaching critical thinking?

I suggest to students to:

A. Write/Discuss what you already know now [what you believe to be true at this time], if you have no prior knowledge write what you think may be true about the concept.

B. Do research on the topic to see if you can learn more of what is KNOWN and believed to be true; IF what you believe to be true is KNOWN or believed to be true by the experts, or IF what you believe to be true is considered false by the experts, or never explored.

C. Use critical thinking to compare the two, use critical thinking to discuss why you may still believe or may no longer believe your original ideas in part A, Use critical thinking to draw other possible ideas or conclusions based upon what is KNOWN, considered true and / or factual. Make statements that may conflict with what is known IF and only IF you believe you can support them and give your supporting 'statements'.  

In this exercise lies 'balance' of personal idea/critical thinking, research and search for facts, knowledge, comparison and critical thinking to decide what is possible with the original concept or idea.

Students may be asked to make the presentation. 

In another exercise, students who listen to the presentation are asked to 'counter' the critical thinking or thought process of the presenter. This can be done in a paper with or with our the presenter knowing what was said or who said it.

Hope this helps,

Respectfully,

Jeanetta Mastron

Agrdrknardrs in class about two or three minutes of rest given to the children in the classroom or at their own discretion in the event of problems like fatigue and corrosion of class will be

Well we teach some truths and not all the truths. Finding all the truths by students needs critical thinking. I think both are complementary.

Realizing you don't really know (critical thinking) is the historically well-known beginning of wisdom (truth)?

The system of education in schools in England positively discourages critical thinking which is why many university students struggle with the teaching and learning methods when they go on to be undergraduates.  Unfortunately many universities are now following the tick box mentality of primary and secondary education and teaching by the spoon feed method too.  The odd and ironic thing is that this is returning us to the old culture of elitism and undermining the egalitarian view that wanted more people educated at tertiary level.  Employers now look to the top universities and those who studied at the lower end are now disadvantaged.

Critical thinking is an absolute necessity not only for the individual student but for society itself.

Enlightening discussion. Many colleagues have explained what "critical thinking' means. This indeed helps to 'know' the 'what' of 'critical thinking'. This leads to one important, related but a different question - how to 'acquire' the faculty of 'critical thinking'. The Hindu scriptures, from time immemorial, provide a rich, and practicable, tools for this. One is, after having acquired the knowledge, is to do 'munun' (contemplation) of what has been learnt and 'munun' in turn is facilitated  by 'Dhyaan' (meditation).   

Dear Michael

The topic is interesting for training in the universities .

In terms of theories and facts, there is no absolute right and wrong; there are only degrees of condence. Furthermore, all conclusions are tentative because our information is always incomplete.

Empirical knowledge is a journey—not a destination. If, however, you think you have arrived at absolute truth, then your journey of science and critical thinking is over.

To be a critical thinker is to be comfortable with uncertainty and with the limits of human knowledge and to be aware of all the many flaws and limitations of human intelligence—and, therefore, to be flexible in the face of new ideas or information but to not be afraid to acknowledge that some ideas are objectively better than others.

http://anon.eastbaymediac.m7z.net/anon.eastbaymediac.m7z.net/teachingco/CourseGuideBooks/DG9344_B618F.PDF

As @Barry and other mentioned, critical thinking is "an absolute necessity..."! Yes, and there should no be a problem to develop both critical thinking skills and truth! They are complementary, as @Jalal have mentioned! What is the truth,truth in education?

The following reading Defining Truth in Terms of Belief is Bad for Critical Thinking brings good consideration and explanation about. "...The difference is important. On the correspondence conception, having enormous confidence that a claim is true doesn’t make it true. Having overwhelming evidence that a claim is true doesn’t make it true. If a claim is indeed true, what makes it true is the relevant facts of the matter, not what anyone thinks or believes about those facts.Now, with a few examples you can get students to see the relevance of the distinction and agree that we need a concept of truth that is independent of belief..."

http://www.criticalthinkeracademy.com/truth-and-belief/

If you present critical thinking to students as the exploration for deeper meaning - the why and the how something "works", is "true" or is valued, etc., then critical thinking becomes a tool or a skill for knowledge building and constructing meaning.  This takes it out of the realm of an adversarial task and puts it into the context of a collaborative endeavor, and this makes it less overwhelming or daunting to novice learners.  That perspective can also be transformative for more experienced learners.

Critical thinking is skill built on learning and experiences.It is worthwhile if we can teach or stimulate during childhood so that they will become confident in expressing critical ideas or analyses. Such level of critical thinking of students may vary from country to country possibly depending on enabling culture and environment.

Dear Michael,

I think that with critical thinking the educator  is helping students to think and share their ideas.  In this manner it is not only knowledge that is shared but also the emotions, fears, etc. of students are shared.  

I come from a nursing background and our students have their own experiences which at times they want or do not want to share.  Say for example when caring for a death patient, although we as educators give them the knowledge, we  cannot really give an account of what is happening in the mind.  We have to discover what they are thinking.  

In my early days of teaching I experienced a student who wanted to leave the class when I was giving a lecture on caring for a dying patient.  Obviously I called back the student to find out why he left the class, to discover that his family just had received the bad news that the mother had cancer.  From that I learnt to start off the lecture with some informal kind of talk to get to know first the experiences of students and then set the lecture from the feedback I get.

Well it is a teaching and learning process.  We teach students and we learn from students.  So that is the truth in education.

Regards

Carmen Camilleri

Hi @ Marcel M Lambrechts, in case of advocate perhaps critical thinking has higher ranking as compare to truth because at least one party advocate is against the truth. Good Comment. Regards

Thanks @Michael bringing this up:

Critical thinking is more important than overtaking opinions, although they mutated to dogma's through the decades

(bad example: the somatic mutation theory and carcinogenesis)

By this: Critical thinking is a habit and attitude in education as well as in science and research rather than an instrumental variable.

Non-believers will always find arguments not accepting the interpretation of a scientific result? When becomes thinking too critical (cf. lawyer cases, see above)?

two ways of critical thinking

Dear Michael, good question!

I think, that sometimes, we should be critical to some trues in the course of training..

Sincerely, Zmicer.

I agree, it's really good question.

In my opinion the basic approach starts from axioms presentation, but students will be encouraged for critical thinking.

Critical thinking, because we know the truth by criticizing and getting new awnsers.

Great question Michael,

I would just like to add that we build not on truth but on our understanding/perception of truth. In order for students to appreciate the essence of critical thinking, we have to allow our perception of truth to be subjected to their critical thinking abilities just like any other fact.

in the middle of the ocean Its always good to check your bearings often, but its even better to check your compass once in a while.. :)

best regards, raza

'Scientific Truth' to be truth should pass exams done by healthy critical thinking. 

I thought long time ago about this aspect MIchael brought up. At least to my understanding it is on the one hand easy and should be straight forward, but on the other hand, the questions gets deeper and it is a complex one with the need of a wide and global thinking, I wrote down my thoughts, but they were to long, therefore I posted it as an additional question. It can also be seen in the regard of the intent of our friend and colleague Michael Brückner:

http://www.researchgate.net/post/The_IRISH_SURGEON_JAMES_GRAVES_FRCS_27th_Mar_1796-20th_Mar_1853-should_we_remember_our_godfathers_in_surgery

http://www.researchgate.net/post/The_IRISH_SURGEON_JAMES_GRAVES_FRCS_27th_Mar_1796-20th_Mar_1853-should_we_remember_our_godfathers_in_surgery

In my fields there are no 'truths' and the need for critical thinking is essential.  I teach in both science and law and both require the highest levels of critical thought in order to decipher what is happening.  Science is a search for the truth, a search that is in all cases never ending.  Even in mathematics and physics, the 'hard sciences' there will always be something we do not understand so we continue on with our search for the truth through critical thinking.  

In law we try to impose 'truth' knowing it to be a fallacy.  We set rules knowing that they only crystallise when they are broken.  Both science and law deal in a search for truths but to use the legal metaphor we never get "The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".

The universe we exist in never clearly presents us with truths but with critical thinking we can still navigate it.  There is little in any case one can do with the truth unless we have the critical thinking, the insight and intellect to recognise it. 

Dear friends and fellows on Researchgate, you truly have set out for a remarkable debate here; I fully agree with @Martina on this matter. I usually wait for one week after posting the original question before I try my best to post a short summary of my view on the points of interest shared by peers. I do not want to diverge from this practice in this case, either. So, I just want to respond to some arguments and aspects raised in the posts so far. 

What is truth in education? This was a question raised at the beginning of the discussion, which has not been addressed much. Can we say that truth in education is what we as teachers tell our students? This would imply all aspects of doubt (which may be a part of truth) and reluctance to accept the 'absolute truth'. 

One observation made by @Barry (one day ago) regarding discouragement of critical thinking at universities in the UK called my attention because this is what we typically have here in the Thai education system (despite @Choen's call for critical thinking). Does the society tend to produce citizens that are merely capable of functioning (which means just having enough knowledge/skills) or that are also able to participate in the decision processes (which means critical thinking habits, for example)?

In another strand of the discussion, @Jeanette pointed to a method of teaching the skill of critical thinking. I think this is a well-thought-out way to get started. Do you agree or do you use other activities to stimulate critical thinking without losing the balance (too much truth vs. too confusing or daunting practices of critical thinking)?

Within our capacity, as humans, we cannot arrive at the absolute truth & what we can reach is relative truth. In the educational process, the knowledge gained by the students can be divided into: 1) Something to be familiar with. 2) Something to grasp. 3) Something to memorize. 4) Something to think about & to elaborate on. Critical thinking is much needed in the 2nd & 4th types: For a student, comprehending a subject requires answering the question (why?) convincingly. When the student is required to think about a certain topic & to engage into details about it, then s/he is prepared to face life with all its easy & difficult aspects or to transfer abstract knowledge into functioning knowledge.  

I will answer for Humanities and Social Sciences in Germany, Austria, Netherlands, France, Scandinavia, Italy and Switzerland. In the Seventies these sciences have been the avantgarde of societal change and brought as well democracy to universities. They were widely recognized in media and society.

Germany and Switzerland e.g. became that successful in economy because their managers were tought to think independent and flexible.

In 1983 we students were conducting "autonomous seminars" at the Free University of Berlin without permission of the chairs. There was an atmosphere of curiosity and openness towards all scientific subjects, either "truth" (metaphysics?) or "scepiticism" (rationalism?)

Today neither Social Sciences nor Humanities are considered in politics and economy. Social Sciences are reduced on their function to produce "stable" data. Humanities are to teach the history (grand recit) of Socrate, Enlightenment, Jesus and Islam.

Remember: at their time the teachings of Lao-Tse, Jesus, Mohammed, Aristotle and Plato have been political. They had an impact on the(ir) polis.

Today Social Sciences and Humanities became technical and historical, but they are no longer political. Of course the current technocracy reclaims "truth" all the time. But truth is disguised as scepticism such as wars are started "to bring peace and security".

That helps us to understand fundamentalism, which is a reaction on false flag truth.

A philosopher or a sociologist is always both, a truth seeker and and a scepticist. The dissident is hybrid. And I can't imagine a true dissident to silence on war and unjustice, hate and prejudice.

@Michael have asked us, the  teachers,  how to find the right balance between critical thinking and truth in education. I have read fine article - practical guide for students and academics about the issue!  "This document is a practical guide for both students and academics to improve their critical thinking skills. This practical guide will help readers think more effectively about their own research and about the research of others. ...critical thinking is not about setting out to find faults with an argument, it is abou tarriving at a provisional truth (what ever it may be) and providing the most probable and plausible understanding for the evidence at that time..."

It is very experienced article! "For the student, clear thinking leads to clear writing and this should help improve their performance across numerous areas of study. Of course, critical thinking and reasoning does not guarantee that your views will be true, but you do greatly increase your odds in favour of truth relative to self-delusion and error." 

We, the teachers must find a proper balance in this issue! Our role is crucial! 

http://www.academia.edu/316239/Critical_Thinking_Logic_and_Reason_A_Practical_Guide_for_Students_and_Academics

Critical thinking is of value primarily in the search for truth: I think this is what needs to be emphasized. Its origins lie in the Socratic method of dialectic, and even in the Platonic dialogues we see discussion of the difference between a true dialectic (whose aim is to move closer to truth) and a misuse of dialectic (where the goal is chiefly to win an argument or befuddle an opponent). This doesn't answer your question fully, and I'm sure it is flawed, but we should be teaching critical thinking not as a way of demonstrating one's cleverness but as a way of moving closer to whatever truth our minds can grasp.

I am a teacher of primary school children. Notwithstanding some of the philosophical arguments being put by others, I have much more pragmatic concerns. Someone said that this was a chicken and egg problem and I concur with this view. How can children construct understanding without some factual knowledge to base it on. Constructivist approaches are all very well, but they can be hi-jacked by ideology and unsubstantiated opinion, children need to understand such frameworks are the lenses people use to construct a particular point of view (POV). However, children need something to start with before they can develop worthwhile opinions of their own. 

Inquiry-based learning is a methodology which begins with identifying the big questions that the children would like an answer to. That gives you, the teacher, a focus for the learning to come. However, a great many subjects (too many IMProfessionalO) are taught in primary school and while these can be approached in a content-based fashion, I find it a better learning process for both me and my students if they are addressed in a thinking-based approach.

In my school all subjects are subsumed into ways of thinking: Thinking with language; Thinking mathematically; Thinking aesthetically; Thinking scientifically; Thinking systematically (outside in), and Situated thinking (inside out). Critical thinking is not specifically taught but it is exhibited by students constructing knowledge. These students can appreciate a different POV to their own and make a logical defence of their own understandings. Quite often, these students show true empathy for the subject. They get it. Not all students achieve this.

The critical piece of work is giving the kids just enough information to get started. As a practical matter, in my class,  they research and I record. It is important that they don't get bogged down.  

I have written about this more fully elsewhere.

https://independent.academia.edu/PeterFarrell

CT is non-linear and recursive to the extent that in thinking critically a person is able to apply CT skills to each other as well as to the problem at hand.  Critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit

http://t.insightassessment.com/content/download/789/4985/file/Disposition_to_CT_1995_JGE.pdf

Human beings have a basic motivation to achieve some level of control over relationships, events, and resources that are of significance in their life (Geary, 2005). That is the source of our desire to solve problems. In order to solve problems we have to use critical thinking (in the sense of rational thinking). As Brenda mentions above, our ability to think is in part a function of our knowledge base and the range of our experiences.  In relation to teaching children to think critically I have elaborated these ideas in Teaching Kids to Think Critically: Effective Problem-Solving and Better Decisions -   Paperback

http://www.amazon.com/Teaching-Kids-Think-Critically-Problem-Solving/dp/1475810660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1409899515&sr=8-1&keywords=Teaching+Kids+to+Think+Critically

@Hsu, you come exactly with those experiences that have led me to ask this question. I will try to provide an answer to the problem of HOW to improve critical thinking skills on the thread you mentioned in your post.

@Brenda, thank you so much for sharing your observations relating knowledge and decision making (yesterday) and relating part of the process of making decisions (13 hrs ago).   In your last post you describe decision making by using two systems of mind: System 1 and System 2. Eugéne Custer says in a recent paper (2013, see link below), "System 1 is variously described as unconscious, automatic, intuitive, rapid, holistic, parallel, tacit, or a combination of these features; System 2 as conscious, deliberate, slow, analytic, reflective, or controlled." So, your rapid problem solving would best fit to System 1, which is viewed as an evolutionary old system used for intuitive processes. 

@Martina, I agree that one the problems for students is that they typically do not learn how to think and do this in a rather unreflected way. Maybe the following link presents a helpful for all of us that would like to help their students in this matter: http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/critical-thinking-in-everyday-life-9-strategies/512. 

Article Medical Education and Cognitive Continuum Theory: An Alterna...

The purpose of educative programs is to acquire some data, information and knowledge in the learn fields. How to make these data understood by students or children and how allow them cognitive and critical reasoning to memorize and to build on further data is pedagogy and cognitive sciences  basis.

Here some interesting documents in this subject:

http://www.csun.edu/science/ref/pedagogy/pck/

http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@msh_peda/documents/web_document/wtvm053188.pdf

https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/1219-understanding-and-developing-science-teachers-pedagogical-content-knowledge.pdf

I don't really see the difficulty as even a "truth" can be issue of critical thinking. It's not that you should bust a myth or a truth but to tell students not to take everything for granted. Tables e.g. are highly dangerous as it is the selection of data and the form of presentation that are subjective. When we use language to describe things and facts the description is subjective as a result of the linguistic choices. So that's what I tell my students: be critical and don't take everything for given and true.

Issues in Critical Thinking and Educational Reform

It is crucial as we work on this question (whether intuition or mysticism or some such shows limits of critical thinking) that we watch out for our desire to know or to think we know when we do not. Every example of thinking, knowledge, wisdom, insight, truth derived by means other than critical thinking has to be investigated and cannot simply be laughed away or discounted. The means must be investigated not by intuition or mysticism disconnected from arguments, or any other noncritical means. There are truths or insights or profundities which are not derivable by critical thinking, but as soon as there is any issue about their status or about how we know them, we have no other choice but critical thinking. When we know things but do not know how we know, it does not make the how any more known to call it intuition or mysticism. It's arguments and critical thinking all the way down.

@Brenda, thanks for being critical with my remarks. The answer to your rhetorical question ('does that mean that nurses and Doctors are not somehow calling on their body of knowledge in making the snap decisions they are often required to make') is 'No, it doesn't. You have to distinguish between the decisions actually made and the decision process.' I talked about the process, and a layman from the street could make an intuitive decision, which will most likely be suboptimal. The more knowledge and expertise the decision maker has the more intuitive (and faster) they can decide.

If you study Custer's arguments (I linked to his paper in my post), you'll see that system 1 is considered as an early way of thinking before humans could develop rationality in the thinking process. 

Your last remark is perfectly right and corresponds to Custer's idea of a cognitive continuum, which allows for seamless crossovers between the two formerly distinctive systems. I was referring to the extreme of system 1 which, of course, builds on knowledge and experience gained by the individual but does not need the time the individual would use to think all arguments through before making the decision urgently needed.

I hope I could clarify this point somewhat.

"21st-century skills" refers to core competencies such as

• collaboration,
• digital literacy,
• critical thinking, and
• problem-solving

that schools need to teach to help students thrive in today's world.

http://www.edweek.org/tsb/articles/2010/10/12/01panel.h04.html

Socrates

Thinking the unthinkable is unthinkable? 

Anything we can think about can be educated?

Socrates

The impact of efficient education is more than just memorizing for memorizing and therefore just repeated what others tell without doing something else with it?

Mankind censures injustice fearing that they may be the victims of it and not because they shrink from committing it. (Plato)

George Orwell said it best: “In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” Some blog about the truth in education reform, ..., the story of crisis in American education!

http://truthinedreform.org/

http://truthinedreform.org/blog/

Michael, I am always challenged by what you post - thank you - 

This question, begs the whole "what is truth" issue.  So what skills are we then needing to teach in a world where "reality" appears less certain?  You started with critical thinking - which is to me looking at something from every possible point of view, tearing it apart in analysis and then reconstructing it  - because we have less "there" there in this world, less control over how the reconstruction may go in our students minds, this new world, requires those skills 

I'm rambling a bit, but if our job in education is to teach in order to provide the skills for a better life, and if our students have more options on the realities they create within their lives then perhaps we should start and end with critical analysis in every topic we consider.  Maybe we always did?

Dear Michael and all,

Applause for: "...then perhaps we should start and end with critical analysis in every topic we consider.Maybe we always did?" by E. Alana James. 

The 'wheel' began with critical thinking and a need. 

Jeanetta Mastron

Michael,

This is an important question in many fields.  Does critical thinking necessarily lead us to "Truth?"  Is that a universally constructed truth or one that has been sanctioned within political systems.  The field of History (sorry, I am not a historian, but do hope to see responses from historians) is interesting since researchers had traditionally used archived manuscripts and other  primary sources (and today they turn to computer-generated data and born-digital materials) to support analysis and historiography.  Herein lies the next question: Do we know for sure that the materials in the archives all attest to the Truth behind those records? After all, governments, corporations, and even individuals are known to have hidden something from public view.  These may be critical materials that might shape your analysis and interpretations, which may further be sanctioned or banned, depending on where you are.  With critical thinking, we can get closer to the Truth even if all we can do, is eliminate as many bad analyses and interpretations and focus on knowledge that can be confirmed from independent sources, which includes other archives, oral histories, and period publications, given that the circumstances allowed record creators, authors, and interviewees to respond without any fear of retaliation.

Another question that may fascinate researchers is whether Truth is objective, subjective, or intersubjective, and different fields (like Mathematics, History) may view such Truths differently.

Here is a question: 1/2 = 2/1.  It is true in music but false in mathematics.  There is critical thinking that would justify both positions. 

Great discussion, Michael!

Best regards,

Arjun

This thread is continuously on my radar, of course, and I thank all of you for your thoughtful and inspiring contributions. Right now, I'm in the outbacks of Thailand armed with an Aircard for connecting to you, so I'll have to wait for being able to respond adequately (if I can) until I got back to university.

Marxian dialectics puts truth into two categories: absolute and relative. Absolute are nothing but historical truths as perceived by society. Relative truths are hypothesis and could be changing as we come across new evidences. And then beyond its social relevance truth or untruth makes little sense.

Critical thinking is core of education, whereas truth is fact and basis of critical thinking!

Yes; I agree with Kundu.

The answer is not simple, but it shows some problems.

Thus, critical thinking is only productive if one has acquired sufficient knowledge of good. In the natural sciences and engineering these things are usually very clear and unambiguous, unlike in the human sciences.

The true education is also a critical size. I think we should existing knowledge well, so practicable, give to the students, then the uch be able to see certain things critically.

I see great problem of our age is that everything is seen "critical", and of the fear of doing something wrong, no longer active, our world is affected. Critical thinking should not be a hindrance to the development, because after every good solution, I'm usually more critical questions unanswered.

Here is one way to start attacking propositions: Argue with this author:

8 Great Philosophical Questions That We’ll Never Solve

from: http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2mGkSB/HUVMmDOy:ns6Z@UT4/io9.com/5945801/8-philosophical-questions-that-well-never-solve?popular=true

They should provide grounds for argument about clarity, chickens-and-eggs, facts, and assumptions for all scientists and non-scientist. 

This whole subject is fascinating but I'm very interested in the two systems discussed and in Hsu's remarks about the need for KNOWLEDGE.  Brenda's points about doctors and nurses is also important here--it applies just as well to police, soldiers, and most professionals whose jobs require split-second decisions made often under life-death situations.  The link between Brenda and Hus's points is the existence of two kinds of knowledge--knowledge THAT and knowledge HOW.  Without knowledge "that," one cannot build up to knowledge " HOW" nor react intuitively.  What appears split-second decisions by doctors, soldiers, and others is actually an accumulation of past gained knowledge "that" (how the whole body, system, situation works) and the present input of sensory data about the specific individual or situation or knowledge "how." As Hsu makes clear, knowledge THAT must be taught before we can move to using that knowledge quickly and in the proper situation.  Medical professionals do not enter into the clinical level of their education before they have completed courses in biology, chemistry, organic chemistry, etc.  They must complete research projects, work in labs, shadow doctors and nurses.  Police spend up to six months in the academy, first learning the law, procedures, and gaining skill with virtual reality scenarios that mimic street-level policing.  Still, the officer is like an intern in his/her first year--always under supervision, always training, gaining the ability to critically analyze a situation almost instantly. 

We can't teach critical thinking to children until those children have some level of facts,knowledge to think about.  Actually, this is one of my problems with the present  Common Core Curriculum of the public schools here.  Children learn to think about, for instance, ratio/proportion, fractions, even basic math operations.  But they can't perform the basic operations and see the relationships between numbers--essential skills tested on all these high-stakes tests that dominate American education these days.  Critical reasoning/analytical skill is absolutely essential to handle the overwhelming amount of information coming at us 24/7, but we have to have a foundation upon which to think.  And all too often that foundation is missing (as in Hsu's situation).

In Bloom's taxonomy, analysis, application, and evaluation are the three highest skill levels, far beyond simple recognition and recall.  We have types of questions that fit the development of those high-level skills, but they are all dependent upon first recognizing the principles that form the foundation of what we are talking about. Proof of the problem that the lack of foundation creates lies with some of the experiences some of my foreign students have in dealing with graduate admission exams here in the U.S. The GRE (natural science and literature), GMAT (business), LSAT (law) all demand critical reasoning in the form of short paragraphs with missing premises. Students have to identify the individual parts of the logic question, or respond to the missing premise, etc.  Very few students whether US-born or foreign-born handle these questions well. (American universities used to require logic in the freshman year, but that course has been gone for years). 

I hear all the time from TESOL instructors that our foreign students (chiefly Asian, Middle East science majors) are so good at math, yet they do not do well with the graduate exams in math.  Those exams require very little calculation--nothing in math goes beyond middle school math (pre-algebra, Algebra I, a bit of Algebra II, and plane geometry with some solid geometry thrown in at the highest levels of those tests).  And the problems are presented in word-style format, making recognition of the principles difficult. My students may have the basic knowledge of HOW to calculate the problem, but they lack extensive knowledge of the core principles that govern those calculations.  Therefore, a students can know HOW but if that lack the broader-based knowledge THAT, they are still at a loss to solve problems of just about any sort.  The two knowledge bases work together to create what seems to be an intuitive grasp of a situation.

Those people who often seem most brilliant can take these two types of knowledge and then extrapolate far beyond what the rest of us seem able to do.  At 16, Einstein sat in the patent office in Switzerland, thinking about what would happen if he could travel at the speed of light--because he knew the principles of theoretical physics and understood the implications of that hypothetical situation, he could extrapolate and create a new reality for the world as we know it.

But critical thinking is part of a long sequence of skills that needs to be a part of every subject at every level.  There has always been a "scope and sequence" of skills to teach at each level, but some of that seems to be lost or terribly muddled in today's curriculum. One cannot just start to teach or learn critical thinking without a foundation from the lower-level skills.  K-2 and primary 3-5 are the grades that are supposed to establish what we call "facts" or the basic skills.  In the sixth grade in most U.S. schools, we again lay the foundation for the future higher-level skills, whether in science, math, or language arts. It is a pivotal grade, but if those previous five years (not to mention the years in developmental daycare environments) have not solidly established the core knowledge, then that student will encounter trouble in all the years to come.

I have been a basic math/algebra/geometry tutor for many years; I also teach freshman composition, electronic research, academic writing, and argumentative writing at the university level.  I see huge gaps in the core knowledge of students in a wide variety of courses, and with the overwhelming amount of material available at the click of a button, critical thought and reasoning are of desperate importance not only to individual students but also to the overall welfare of a society

Medical professionals do not enter into the clinical level of their education before they have completed courses in biology, chemistry, organic chemistry, etc.  They must complete research projects, work in labs, shadow doctors and nurses.  Police spend up to six months in the academy, first learning the law, procedures, and gaining skill with virtual reality scenarios that mimic street-level policing.  Still, the officer is like an intern in his/her first year--always under supervision, always training, gaining the ability to critically analyze a situation almost instantly

Critical thinking vs. truth in education? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Critical_thinking_vs_truth_in_education [accessed Jul 22, 2015].

Any experience, study, facts, and truth lead to critical thinking.

Dear Subhash C. Kundu,

I agree that "Any experience, study, facts, and truth" CAN "lead to critical thinking".

But I do NOT believe that it WILL ALWAYS lead to critical thinking !  That is with out training and help from  a mentor, tutor or teacher.  I am not sure if you meant can, may or will, so I offer CAN/MAY as opposed to WILL. 

I teach at a school in which many of our students are immigrants, with English as a second language. I have often noted that the majority of these students VALUE their education much more than the US born student. However being a healthcare university most students are there to eventually go on to masters and PhD's at other schools also in healthcare.

Imagine how I felt, what I thought when after 10 years of teaching with awards in teaching,I was suddenly bombarded by several students [of all cultures VN,PI, Korean, Hispanic] in the hallway after their first exam who said to me: 

"Why did you put critical thinking questions on the exam? We are not taking a course in critical thinking ! We are just BS students ! "

This happened about 5 yrs ago.  The test was a mirror of what they had done and learned in a hands on pharmacy  compounding lab. over the last 2 weeks. They were told that they would have to compare contrast discuss, give supporting ideas and answers and conclusions, make diagrams in their answers to the test. These students did not believe it was fair that they had to do some critical thinking to 'support' their answers and diagrams....even though they were told 2 weeks in advance AND we discussed every topic in class and they demonstrated to me that they understood, and showed critical thinking in segments of discussion.  In addition, what I was asking on the exam was not much different than the lab reports they have to write/computer generate with diagrams [mimicked] Most students did good lab reports a few excellent their first time. So of about 20 students 6 were whining about the critical thinking on the exam. [by the way entrance exams require critical thinking questions and answers].

Granted I am a tough teacher, expect an demand a lot....with love for my students. But this shocked me. I soon learned that each class there after had poorer and poor critical thinking skills and it was up to me to teach them how to develop them. I use to have about 10% with  fair critical thinking skills [90% good to excellent].  Now I have 25 % with good to excellent critical thinking coming in, and 75% fair to poor 

Something has changed, and I say it is technology, with more information accessible many students ask themselves "why should I understand it, when I can look it up?". but not all do not understand that learning is more than rote.  

I began teaching students how the brain works in surface vs deep learning showing the pyramid with rote at the bottom which served as a motivational tool because no one wanted to be on the bottom.

That is what I have to do now for the first 2 to 3 weeks of school for the newbies.

Respectfully to you and everyone,

Just my experience.

Jeanetta Mastron

Dear Jeanetta, similar experiences as you have stated in your answer have triggered this original question. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

The question as well as the responses reminds of the book: ZEN AND THE ART OF MOTOR CYCLE MAINTENANCE!

vc 

I don't want people to say, 'Something is true because Tyson says it is true.' That's not critical thinking.

--- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Passing bubble tests celebrates and rewards a peculiar form of analytical intelligence. This kind of intelligence is prized by money managers and corporations. They don’t want employees to ask uncomfortable questions or examine existing structures and assumptions. They want them to serve the system. These tests produce men and women who are just literate and numerate enough to perform basic functions and service jobs. The tests elevate those with the financial means to prepare for them. They reward those who obey the rules, memorize the formulas and pay deference to authority.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_the_united_states_is_destroying_her_education_system_20110410

Money talks - even in education. And still, money is  based on pure trust and we cannot eat it.

Relating this to the original question: how can me make students aware of the pitfalls of a economically globalized world? 

Thank you, Michael for validating my experiences ! 

I am glad I am not alone and sorry I am not alone! :)

Regarding: Michael Brückner, Naresuan University post:

"Dear Jeanetta, similar experiences as you have stated in your answer have triggered this original question. Thanks for sharing your thoughts."

Respectfully,

Jeanetta Mastron

I believe the discomfort one feels when engaging in "critical thinking" is the result of a kind of self-consciousness -- some would call it "awkwardness". This is particularly painful for sentient children (and adults!), and they will avoid it as much as possible. However, developmentally, one needs the practice of accepting failure as a primary and essential path to competency. The educator must accept the role of supporting a student through the trials of learning from failure. Is this coaching? Indeed, it is. What is the result? In a safe learning environment, the result is growth. Painful? That is the human condition. In the 21st century, the paradigm of pedagogy has changed in the face of the explosion of information technology, so that a teacher is no longer the purveyor of knowledge, rather, a teacher should assume the role of the master of engaging with knowledge. I'm not interested in sharing with my students what I think, rather, how I think. Have the courage to share a bit of your confusion with your students, and be with them to work each other out of the confusion -- you will be discovering what is truly new in the world.

There is a fundamental confusion between, on the one hand, "truth" or "fact"; and, on the other hand "critical thinking."

One good example to illustrate the difference would be the write up of a chemistry experiment:

The "critical thinking" is encapsulized in the Scientific Method. This is a method to think carefully: 1) Describe the measurement conditions and the apparatus clearly and in detail; 2) Describe the methods used precisely; 3) Describe your objective observations, including measurements; 4) Give your interpretation of what you observed; 5) Relate the significance of the experiment in reference to existing or new hypotheses, models, established knowledge.

The "truth" or "facts" are stated in Steps 1), 2), and 3), as well as the recitation of hypotheses, models, or knowledge. These exist - there is no disputing their existence - unless you have discovered something fundamentally different.

If you offer a new interpretation that does not conform with existing knowledge, then you are indeed thinking critically - but this is rare.

In conclusion, except for rare instances, there is no conflict between critical thinking and truth.

Dear All,

Critical thinking about an observation of a chemistry lab experiment IS truth as a thermometer does not lie, the separation of two substances: one a vapor the other a metal does not lie.

BUT, if you are observing a crime scene and you are looking for clues and there is no DNA [which would not lie] you will critically think about what you see and what you know and do not know, but you might conclude incorrectly; which is WHY some people [men usually] have been put behind bars when they were actually innocent. In the end a witness, or other evidence or DNA is brought forward, even years later. One might say the TRUTH is the critical thinking of the original detectives and scientist was incorrect, even though it was observed and/or discussed critically. It could be said the same for jurors. Another might say, it WAS correct at the TIME when the evidence was not available.

Critical thinking is a process [as Nizar Matar mentioned] but it does NOT state the QUALITY of that process or the end result. Just because one is critically thinking does not mean that he or she will come to the SAME understanding or conclusion as another person, who is also critically thinking about the same things or set of facts or issues. The process that a person uses may lead him or her to the wrong conclusion. The process may be critical [to ask questions] and thinking [of conscious mind while reasoning]. The process may lead him or her to the correct conclusion. It IS HOW one THINKS or the process of HOW one thinks.

Just my humble opinion!

Respectfully,

Jeanetta Mastron

There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.

--- William Shakespeare

This is the Hamlet's quote dear @Subhash. Actually, here is complete as by Hamlet:

"Why, then, 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so: to me it is a prison."

http://shakespeare.mit.edu/hamlet/hamlet.2.2.html

Hamlet feels trapped physically by the situation, but he also feels trapped by having to deal with the feelings he experiences as he is forced to actually think clearly to free himself -- forced to judge what is the truth that will solve his and his countrymen's dire predicament. Everyone around him seems to be lying or evading finding out the truth. Here is where critical thinking becomes tangled with one's prejudices, one's internal struggle between gut feeling and rationality. "Why must I... unpack my heart with words?" The discourse of words representing the nature of one's rationality.  Hamlet the play, in it's own time, I believe, emerged as a kind of public discussion of accepting one's own truth in the face of everyone else's truth. This is a timeless point of conflict in politics, science, and much of human experience,  making this play one of the first popular discussions of empirical knowledge, at the time, a revolutionary idea expressed by Bacon who was a contemporary of Shakespeare. It marks a beginning of modern thinking. Critical thinking, and the rational expression of it is essential to all things educational. As an English teacher, I use the play as an example of critical thinking for my students, urging them to consider Hamlet's experience in their own problem-solving issues. Actually,  if you analyze the pattern of Hamlet's process, there is the portrait of a model of the scientific process, from observation to theory and action upon that theory. He just doesn't allow himself to accept what he and others experience without observation, hypothesis, then testing. When he reacts without thinking, disaster. The play ends, seemingly, with only with Hamlet's own truth resolved. Elegant and beautiful.

Critical thinking is a part of education. A person can't learn without critical thinking on a learning material. Otherwise a student becomes a "believer" instead of a learner.