Can Critical Thinking Be Done Wrong?
Considering "degrees" of critical thinking..
Posted October 25, 2019
Be it in class, an academic presentation, or in everyday conversation, a question I’m often asked after explaining critical thinking (CT) is whether or not it’s something that can be done "wrong." Or, similarly, can it be done, but just with a few, minor errors? The degree of "wrongness" here is interesting and important to consider in coming to understand what are two quite distinct concepts.
Consistent with a previous post on this blog, " No Such Thing as 'Good' Critical Thinking ," where I noted that there is no such thing as good or bad critical thinking, CT cannot be done wrong, because if it is done wrong, then it’s not really critical thinking, is it? As a result, if CT isn’t wrong or bad, then what would "good CT" be like?
Well, good CT is just CT. Simply, was it conducted or not? In a way, it’s like being pregnant —you either are or you aren’t—there’s no "kind of pregnant." Much like this example, one does not conduct "good" CT or "kind of good" CT. You either thought critically, or you didn’t.
On the other hand, it can be said that CT has been conducted even if there are minor errors—depending, of course, on the types of errors. But small errors (e.g., missing a step in logic) do not make for "bad" CT, they just extend the amount of CT that is still required. So, in a way, it could be argued that there’s a threshold for thinking that constitutes CT at one end and being incorrect at another, similar to how we conceptualized Cognitive Continuum Theory in a recent post.
However, that’s not entirely accurate either, because one doesn’t require CT to be correct—perhaps the absence of CT , rather than incorrect , is a better way of putting it. That is, CT is a tool and a series of dispositions towards thinking, not necessarily an outcome. An outcome can be wrong or right; and in the event that the outcome is wrong, then we know that it’s less likely that CT was engaged. However, though the outcome might be wrong, it doesn’t necessarily mean that CT wasn’t engaged; rather, like in the context of making a few, minor errors, it just means that further CT is required.
With that, the nature of "degrees" of CT may depend on, as a previous commenter on this blog noted, whether someone is participating in CT in good faith. For example, if someone is attempting CT in good faith, then they’re applying the tool(s) of CT in an unbiased way. They may be wrong about a couple of things, but they will be open to both feedback about these "mistakes" and, as addressed above, extending their CT about the topic (i.e., they will continue until a reasonable, unbiased conclusion is drawn).
I would argue that this is CT because no thought is perfect—there will always be mistakes. What makes it CT is the process used to get there and the willingness to make it as accurate as it can be. Alternatively, one might perfectly execute the skills of CT, but do so in a biased way, not one that can necessarily be detectable, but in a manner aimed at deception . Is that CT? Well, it’s a good application of CT as a tool, but it’s also evidence of a lack of disposition towards CT (particularly the dispositions of truth-seeking and open-mindedness)—in which case, we cannot call this CT.
In conclusion, I reiterate the message from a previous post— there is no such thing as good CT or bad CT . A concept is either thought about in a critical manner, or it isn’t. An outcome can be wrong or right, but the process—the tool(s) used—was either CT, or it wasn’t. Though the conclusion may not always be right, if the process is conducted correctly and in good faith, then it’s OK to be wrong, just as long as the individual is willing to extend this thinking by continuing on to right the wrongs.
Christopher Dwyer, Ph.D., is a lecturer at the Technological University of the Shannon in Athlone, Ireland.
- Find a Therapist
- Find a Treatment Center
- Find a Psychiatrist
- Find a Support Group
- Find Online Therapy
- United States
- Brooklyn, NY
- Chicago, IL
- Houston, TX
- Los Angeles, CA
- New York, NY
- Portland, OR
- San Diego, CA
- San Francisco, CA
- Seattle, WA
- Washington, DC
- Asperger's
- Bipolar Disorder
- Chronic Pain
- Eating Disorders
- Passive Aggression
- Personality
- Goal Setting
- Positive Psychology
- Stopping Smoking
- Low Sexual Desire
- Relationships
- Child Development
- Self Tests NEW
- Therapy Center
- Diagnosis Dictionary
- Types of Therapy
When we fall prey to perfectionism, we think we’re honorably aspiring to be our very best, but often we’re really just setting ourselves up for failure, as perfection is impossible and its pursuit inevitably backfires.
- Emotional Intelligence
- Gaslighting
- Affective Forecasting
- Neuroscience
IMAGES
VIDEO