Critical thinking

A critique is an evaluation of a position in the light of certain standards that are (or are alleged to be) valid criteria applicable to various types of reasoning.

In the academic game, scholars are never supposed to adopt a position uncritically; that's what stupid or poorly-educated people do. In theory, reasons must be given that will stand up to the most severe scrutiny of skeptical inquirers. It is, of course, self-evident among self-styled "critical thinkers" that doubt is respectable and belief contemptible. An unwritten--and unfair!--rule of the game is that the one who launches the first critique is immune from criticism.

"Go by the evidence."

The goal of critical thinking is to limit one's beliefs to what is justified by evidence evaluated by the standards appropriate to the question in hand.

No double standards.

Those who aspire to be critical thinkers should evaluate their own assertions using the same standards that they apply to the assertions of others.

Maxims

• "Test everything; hold on to what is good" (1 Thess 5:21).
• Don't believe everything you hear--until you have made sure that it is from a reliable authority.
• Check the facts. Check your sources.
• If a theory doesn't correspond to the facts, get rid of the theory, not the facts.
• Treat like things according to like standards.
• Be thorough and consistent. Don't make hasty generalizations.

Unreasonable doubt

Unbalanced critical thinking leads to skepticism, relativism, and solipsism. The person who resolves to doubt everything and accept only what is perfectly proven usually ends up with a "proof" that nobody knows anything for certain. (It is not and cannot be a perfect proof because it depends upon assumptions that themselves cannot be proven.)

Questions for historical research

There is a long tradition, predating the development of English, that tried to identify the basic questions to ask about any story.

• Who?
• What?
• When?
• Where?
• Why?
• How?

I cannot arrive at a stable opinion about whether "How was it done?" is contained in "What was done?" "Five Ws" is neater than "Five Ws and an H" or "Six Ws." The more complex the event, the more the "When?" and "Where?" get spread out in time and space.