I would like to think that the study of argumentation, logic, mathematics, and similar topics that require analytic reasoning as well as the study of the ways in which humans are prone to particular reasoning/interventional errors and various biases has caused me to be more critical of capacity to reason critically and to question not only my beliefs but whether I am operating under assumptions I do not realize I am.

Unfortunately, I am human. I am inclined as much as anyone else to error, fallacy, and so forth. I do think, though, that knowing how, when, and under what circumstances counter-intuitive (even bizarre) inferences tend to be correct as well as the study and work with formal systems helps one to think more critically, analyze one's conclusions more logically, and approach ideas and concepts more rationally. We are all biased, we all tend to accept evidence for beliefs we hold less critically while requiring more evidence for beliefs we don't. We are prone to seeing patterns where none exist, thinking causally without reason (despite the emphasis in even the most elementary statistics textbooks that correlation doesn't equal causation peer-reviewed studies continue to make that mistake and reviewers fail to pick up on it), and so forth.

Also, there is a point at which critical reception of ideas becomes unwarranted skepticism. There is great value in having an open mind, so long at it is not so open one's brains fall out. I have found that arguing a position I do not hold helps me to evaluate any epistemic claims I might make while enabling me to possibly realize that it is not reason but bias that forms the basis or a belief I hold (or some aspect thereof).

We are inclined to question mostly those beliefs we don't hold, and to respond negatively to those who challenge our beliefs: Socrates learned this the hard way (Why do all the prophets die? We hate the truth but love the lie). That said, anybody who acted as Plato's Socrates does would be exceedingly irritating to most. But when one employs the Socratic method to challenge one's own beliefs, the result is, I have found, far more fruitful. And I try to recall constantly the humbling definition Plato's Socrates gives for concluding that he is wiser:

πρὸς ἐμαυτὸν δ’ οὖν ἀπιὼν ἐλογιζόμην ὅτι τούτου μὲν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐγὼ σοφώτερός εἰμι· κινδυνεύει μὲν γὰρ ἡμῶν οὐδέτερος οὐδὲν καλὸν κἀγαθὸν εἰδέναι, ἀλλ’ οὗτος μὲν οἴεταί τι εἰδέναι οὐκ εἰδώς, ἐγὼ δέ, ὥσπερ οὖν οὐκ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι

"I thought to myself that I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know." Plato Apology

And for an added bonus that is perhaps more directly relevant, I like to think of what Joel said of the Socratic problem and keep in mind it can be applied to any field of inquiry:

“…man mag in dieses Problem sich lange Jahre und immer wieder versenken…und kann doch am Ende von Sokrates sagen, was er von sich selber bekannte: wir wissen, daß wir nichts wissen"

“ one can immerse himself in this problem for many years, but can at the end  only say of Socrates what he admitted himself: we know that we know nothing.”

Good background information helps me to think more clearly.

Thank you Hassan, for such interesting question.

But in fact, I am myself quite interested in reading the answers and to maybe learn how to think better!

Kind regards, Maria

I would like to think that the study of argumentation, logic, mathematics, and similar topics that require analytic reasoning as well as the study of the ways in which humans are prone to particular reasoning/interventional errors and various biases has caused me to be more critical of capacity to reason critically and to question not only my beliefs but whether I am operating under assumptions I do not realize I am.

Unfortunately, I am human. I am inclined as much as anyone else to error, fallacy, and so forth. I do think, though, that knowing how, when, and under what circumstances counter-intuitive (even bizarre) inferences tend to be correct as well as the study and work with formal systems helps one to think more critically, analyze one's conclusions more logically, and approach ideas and concepts more rationally. We are all biased, we all tend to accept evidence for beliefs we hold less critically while requiring more evidence for beliefs we don't. We are prone to seeing patterns where none exist, thinking causally without reason (despite the emphasis in even the most elementary statistics textbooks that correlation doesn't equal causation peer-reviewed studies continue to make that mistake and reviewers fail to pick up on it), and so forth.

Also, there is a point at which critical reception of ideas becomes unwarranted skepticism. There is great value in having an open mind, so long at it is not so open one's brains fall out. I have found that arguing a position I do not hold helps me to evaluate any epistemic claims I might make while enabling me to possibly realize that it is not reason but bias that forms the basis or a belief I hold (or some aspect thereof).

We are inclined to question mostly those beliefs we don't hold, and to respond negatively to those who challenge our beliefs: Socrates learned this the hard way (Why do all the prophets die? We hate the truth but love the lie). That said, anybody who acted as Plato's Socrates does would be exceedingly irritating to most. But when one employs the Socratic method to challenge one's own beliefs, the result is, I have found, far more fruitful. And I try to recall constantly the humbling definition Plato's Socrates gives for concluding that he is wiser:

πρὸς ἐμαυτὸν δ’ οὖν ἀπιὼν ἐλογιζόμην ὅτι τούτου μὲν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐγὼ σοφώτερός εἰμι· κινδυνεύει μὲν γὰρ ἡμῶν οὐδέτερος οὐδὲν καλὸν κἀγαθὸν εἰδέναι, ἀλλ’ οὗτος μὲν οἴεταί τι εἰδέναι οὐκ εἰδώς, ἐγὼ δέ, ὥσπερ οὖν οὐκ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι

"I thought to myself that I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know." Plato Apology

And for an added bonus that is perhaps more directly relevant, I like to think of what Joel said of the Socratic problem and keep in mind it can be applied to any field of inquiry:

“…man mag in dieses Problem sich lange Jahre und immer wieder versenken…und kann doch am Ende von Sokrates sagen, was er von sich selber bekannte: wir wissen, daß wir nichts wissen"

“ one can immerse himself in this problem for many years, but can at the end  only say of Socrates what he admitted himself: we know that we know nothing.”

Dear Hassan:

I try to help my undergraduate and graduate students acquire the basic skills for critical thinking; without them, their academic work becomes relatively meaningless, with too much emphasis on form and not enough on intellectual content.

I have found two texts that complement each other nicely, providing the most essential tools for critical thinking, and my students use them to analyze texts critically. The first is by anthropologist James Lett:

Lett, James (1990). “A field guide to critical thinking,” in Skeptical Inquirer (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal), vol. 14, no. 4 (http://www.csicop.org/si/show/field_guide_to_critical_thinking/, access: May 25, 2014).

Lett also wrote a book in which he explores these ideas more fully:

Lett, James (1997). Science, reason, and anthropology. The principles of rational inquiry. Lanham/New York/Boulder/Oxford, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

The second text is the chapter, "The fine art of baloney detection," in a book by astronomer Carl Sagan:

Sagan, Carl (1995). The demon-haunted world. Science as a candle in the dark. Nueva York, Random House.

Here is a link: http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/pmo/eng/Sagan-Baloney.pdf

It is interesting to note that, judging by these two texts, there is a common denominator in science, since the tools provided by the anthropologist are very similar to those recommended by the astronomer.

P. S. I have prepared translations in Castilian (improperly called Spanish). I am providing copies here for our Castilian-speaking colleagues.

Dear @Hassan, there are many good threads related to this one of yours, links follow! Many good answers on how to improve thinking! Hope it will help for your research!

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_methods_have_you_found_to_be_effective_for_helping_students_improve_critical_thinking_skills

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_can_we_attract_new_critical_thinking_responsive_people_who_are_learners_to_the_profession_of_teaching

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_critical_thinking_come_from_the_same_palce_as_creative_thinking_or_are_they_2_different_things

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_can_we_promote_critical_thinking_skills_across_learning_areas_in_our_classrooms

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_do_we_improve_higher_order_thinking_skills_among_our_students

If I may contribute 2 cents' worth, I think the answer is probably simple and involves 2 steps :

1- Question everything. Never take somebody else's say-so at face value. They may be wrong, may have an ulterior motive, etc., no matter who they are.

2- Analyse everything in the light of mathematics and/or mathematical logic. If your math level is not enough on any particular occasion or purpose, suspend judgment until you have achieved a sufficient level and/or understanding.  

Finally, for those rare questions not amenable to mathematical analysis, bear in mind that they are so for everyone, and hence that §1 applies

Ljubomir, you certainly managed to pack a lot of information into your anwer! Thank you for the links. I had not visited all the threads you provide.

A constructive criticism is only possible after a careful analysis.

Analytical thinking involves the process of gathering relevant information and identifying key issues related to this information. This type of thinking also requires you to compare sets of data from different sources; identify possible cause and effect patterns, and draw appropriate conclusions from these datasets in order to arrive at appropriate solutions.

http://www.visualthinkingmagic.com/framework/competencies/analytical-think

Dear Hassan, you should probably first answer the question:

"At what kind of circumstances I don't think critically and analytically?"

Then you should be able to limit the range of the problem.

Have you thought about it as a preliminiary action?

Key principles which are described as follows by Northedge (2005):

• Debate: arguing different points of view.
• Scholarship: awareness of what else has been written, and citing it correctly.Argument: developing points in a logical sequence which leads to a conclusion.
• Criticism: looking at strengths and weaknesses.
• Analysis: taking the argument apart, as described above.
• Evidence: ensuring that the argument is backed by valid evidence.
• Objectivity: the writing should be detached and unemotional and without direct appeal to the reader.
• Precision: anything that does not assist the argument should be omitted.

Northedge, A. (2005), The Good Study Guide, Open University Press, Buckingham, UK