• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Critical and Uncritical Thinkers

Skwim

Veteran Member
NOTE: I've put this in the Science Religion forum because this is where I see the differences listed below cropping up most frequently.

"Critical Thinkers

a) Are honest with themselves, acknowledging what they do not know, recognizing their limitations, and being watchful of their own errors.

b) Regard problems and controversial issues as exciting challenges.

c) Strive for understanding, keep curiosity alive, remain patient with complexity and ready to invest time to overcome confusion.

d) Set aside personal preferences and base judgments on evidence, deferring judgment whenever evidence is insufficient. They revise judgments when new evidence reveals error.

e) Are interested in other people's ideas, so are willing to read and listen attentively, even when they tend to disagree with the other person.

f) Recognize that extreme views (whether conservative or liberal) are seldom correct*, so they avoid them, practice fair-mindedness, and seek a balanced view.

g) Practice restraint, controlling their feelings rather than being controlled by them, and thinking before acting.



Uncritical Thinkers

a) Pretend they know more than they do, ignore their limitations, and assume their views are error-free.

b) Regard problems and controversial issues as nuisances or threats to their ego.

c) Are impatient with complexity and thus would rather remain confused than make the effort to understand.

d) Base judgments on first impressions and gut reactions. They are unconcerned about the amount or quality of evidence and cling to earlier views steadfastly.

e) Are preoccupied with self and their own opinions, and so are unwilling to pay attention to others' views. At the first sign of disagreement they tend to think, "How can I refute this?"

f) Ignore the need for balance and give preference to views that support their established views.

g)Tend to follow their feelings and act impulsively."
So, has Ruggiero nailed this or not?
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
So, "uncritical" means "biased".
In some case it could, although Ruggiero suggests it's more.

In any case, here is what he has to say about bias on p. 79

"Evaluating Evidence
We all like to think of ourselves as totally objective, equally open to either
side of every issue. But that is rarely the case. Even if we have not yet
taken a firm position on an issue at the outset of our evaluation, we will
usually be tilted in one direction or the other by our overall philosophy of
life, our political or social views, our opinions on related issues, or our at-
titude toward the people associated with the various views. This tilting,
also known as bias, may be so slight that it has little or no effect on our
judgment. On the other hand, it may be significant enough to short-circuit
critical thinking. The more we tilt on an issue, the greater our thinking
deficit is likely to be. How can you tell when bias is hindering your evaluation of evidence?

Look for one or more of these signs:

• You approach your evaluation wanting one side to be proved right.
• You begin your investigation assuming that familiar views willprove correct.
• You look for evidence that supports the side of the issue you favor
and ignore evidence that opposes it.
• You rate sources by how favorable they are to your thinking rather
than by their reliability and the quality of their research.
• You are nitpickingly critical of evidence for views you oppose and
uncritical of evidence for views you favor.
• When you encounter evidence that opposes your bias, you begin
arguing against it, often before you have completed examining it."
 
Last edited:

Sees

Dragonslayer
Seems good to me...the difference is how much thinking actually goes on. When does it become stale, stagnant, halt in deference to "knowing". How honest are we about our knowing, certain groups truth-claims are top priority so you will hear certainty regardless of whether it is there. There is also the lazy, fearful thinker. Ignorance is scarier than self-delusion - critical-thinking challenges the security.
 

FunctionalAtheist

Hammer of Reason
I think that people tend to be both critical and uncritical in their thinking: subject contingent.

Yea, this! I agree with most of the overall points Skwim posted. But I know as hard as I try to maintain an unbiased opinion and critical mindset, I think most here know there are a few things I will not be open to. While we can categorize qualities, no one demonstrates the same qualities all the time.
 

psychoslice

Veteran Member
Critical Thinkers are the ones who make this life safe and a better place to live, uncritical thinking can be dangerous.
 
Top