Challenge of Critical Thinking

Throughout the lifespan of an average human being, one will be faced with the challenge of critical thinking. Whether you know it or not critical thinking has five basic steps or guidelines that if known will help the critical thinker in his/her decision making process.

The first mental skill required to critically think is the ability for one to be flexible while also maintaining positive skepticism. (Hockenbury, 2011) This means that the person would have to be open to new ideas even if they differ from his/her original beliefs. The critical thinker cannot just accept ideas because someone said something was different they must even question the evidence in which it came from to ensure it's credible; after all "Wikipedia" is not a reliable source, this of course being mental skill required in critically thinking. The critical thinker must always weigh the evidence and make sure it is credible; contrary to popular belief not everything you read on the internet is correct or even close. (Hockenbury, 2011) The critical thinker must be ready to change their beliefs if they no longer valid. (Hockenbury, 2011) Just like any other science if something is proven wrong, you must be able to adopt the new view (Example: if I don't believe in aliens and then E.T. knocks on my front door and invites me over for dinner.). When writing a paper or making any kind of statement one must always be conscious of if they are giving their own opinion subliminally. Also, the same would be said when one is reading sources, he/she should be able to recognize if the source they are reading is biased. (Hockenbury, 2011) After the critical thinker has all the evidence laid out, he/she must weigh all the evidence and make a well formulated decision while avoiding quick responses. Most decisions are more complex than just a simple answer and deserve more thought. (Hockenbury, 2011)

When I was in high school I was on the debate team. We traveled all over Arkansas debating various topics. My senior year I had to debate whether or not the United States Federal Government should increase alternative energy incentives in the United States of America. Unlike everyone else that I had debated against, I actually developed my own plan from scratch getting all of the evidence for myself rather than getting it from the National Forensics League website. I had to find an alternative energy source that could substantially decrease the use of coal within the United States while remaining cheaper. While looking for this alternative energy that seemed mythological I found Energy Towers, of Israeli design developed by a team of Israeli scientists. I contacted their head scientist Dr. Zaslavsky and acquired more information about Energy Towers as means of a primary alternative energy incentive.

Although I debated for the use of the Energy Towers I never truly believed it would work. The reason why I used the Energy Towers debate was because there was at the time not enough negative information that would conclude that it could not work; only evidence there was said it would work. The only things that showed it could possibly fail in the end were my discussions with Dr. Zaslavsky. I always tried to maintain an open mindset even though I didn't necessarily agree with Energy Towers. An Energy Tower works best in arid environments of high temperatures; it operates by shooting cool water into the air, letting the hot air above the tower cool and lower to the bottom of the tower going through a series of turbines creating electricity. The reason I thought it would work and my discussions with Dr. Zaslavsky showed to me this energy source wouldn't work in a non-arid environment such as our own because of the amount of humidity in the air, and the variations in our environment (seasonal change). In an arid environment, it would require a mass aqueduct (example in the deserts of Southern California it would require up to a 400 mile aqua duct). When I first started debating I was supportive of Energy Towers however, by the time the semester was over, I was against it. At the time I debated this topic, I was unaware of the mental skills required to effectively critically think; however, I still in my mind followed most of them fairly well, even though I didn't portray them in my work. I chose that topic not because I agreed with it necessarily but because it was hard for the opponent to debate against it because they had no information against it.

The paper I chose to critically analyze is about treating soldiers with PTSD; the author discusses various parts about PTSD: symptoms, history, benefits, and skepticism. PTSD stands for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, commonly associated with returning war veterans of the current campaign in Afghanistan and the previous campaign in Iraq.

The cause of PTSD is normally from that categorized by Criterion A (Constituted by the APA), "A Patient diagnosed with PTSD was confronted with events that involved actual or threatened death