Should I Always Be a Critical Thinker?

April 21, 2006

Philosophy 221

Should I always be a critical thinker?

According to John Dewey on How We Think, "Critical thinking [1. An attitude of being disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the problem and subject that comes within the range of one experience; 2 Knowledge of the methods of logical enquiry and reasoning; and 3 Some skill in applying those methods.] Critical thinking calls for a persistent effort to examine any belief in the light of the evidence that's supports it and the further conclusion to which it tends."

According to John Dewey on How we Think, critical thinking is "an active, persistent effort to examine any belief in light of the evidence that supports it and the further conclusion to which it tends." This definition applies to the passage on Woods on belief, where it states that "we should be autonomous in belief." In contrast to Dewey we should only believe things because they make sense to us and not because others want us to believe them. For example, if we like a certain a type of food and someone tells us we should not eat it because it's not good for us and we know that we can eat it, by listening to the person we were not persistent in our belief because we listened to the that person. In my opinion I agree with Dewey and Woos on their perception on critical thinking. I believe that one should always be a critical thinker. To think critically is to reason and figure out problems that are fundamental. To being focused on critical thinking is to determine whether an argument is sound, whether they have a true premise, or logical strength. One should always be a critical thinker especially in if you are a nursing major. Being a nurse makes you think critically because you are dealing with people's lives. For example, if you have a patient with hypertension and they are on blood pressure medication, for intense say you take their blood pressure and their pressure was real low, you have to think critically whether or not you have to give them the blood pressure medication.

Critical thinking is a process that helps you establish your belief. According to Plantiga, "if god exists, we are warranted in believing that our belief in god is the result of instilling in us a means of coming to know him." According to Plantiga's statement, we believe what we were instilled to believe. The only reason we believe in God is because we grew up on coming to know him. For example, my parents instilled in me that my name was Andrea. Because they instilled that in me I grew up believing that was my name and nothing else.

Sometimes I think that it is o.k. not to think critically. Sometimes you do things that are spontaneous and you do not have to think critically. You do not always have to be a critical thinker because for instance, someone sees a person from a different country and they automatically believe that they do not speak English. Without you analyzing the person and trying to figure out if they speak English, you go to them and talk to them yourselves. That situation does not require critical thinking.

In conclusion critical thinking can be defined many ways. It can be used to analyze ideas in different ways. It also allows a person to come up with many different scenarios on belief. In my belief my presumption of critical thinking is to prove different premises that a conclusion can support.

Argument on Wood on belief

1. We should be autonomous in belief; that is we should only believe things that should make sense to us, not because others want us to believe them.

2. We can believe things that make sense to us only if our beliefs derive from our own judgments of the evidence by standards that are the same for all of us.

3. We should preserve intellectual integrity of our belief.

4. If we believe because others believe, then we should undermine the intellectual integrity of our belief.

5. If we believe the belief is comforting, we undermine the intellectual integrity of our belief.

6. If we believe because the belief is expectable to others, we undermine intellectual integrity of our belief.

7. Only if our beliefs derive from our own judgment of the evidence by standard that are the same for all of us, do we preserve the intellectual integrity of our belief.

8. Our belief should derive from our judgment of the evidence by standards that are the same for all of us. [ From 1 and 2, only by a separate argument; 4, 5, 6, and 7]

1 + 2 3 + 4 + 5 +6 +7

DV DV

8

Deductively Valid Inference A deductively inference can have true reason and true conclusions, false reasons and a false conclusion, and false reasons and a true conclusions. Only one combination is impossible: all of the reasons true and the conclusion are false.

The inference from 1and 2 to 8 is deductively valid because it would be impossible for 1 and 2 to be true and 8 false. The inference from 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 to 8 is deductively valid because it would be impossible for 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 to be true and 8 false.

A deductively valid argument may contain more than one inference. An argument is deductively valid if and only if all of its inferences are deductively valid.

The argument contains two inferences. The inferences of 1 and 2 are deductively valid because if we are independent in our beliefs we really should believe things that make sense to us, people can say things they want to say for us to believe but it is up to us to use our own judgment. It is also true because you have no evidence. Belief is what you as an individual perceive as that to be true. The inference of 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 is deductively valid because we preserve intellectual integrity of our own belief. It is within our selves to believe what we want to believe and not to believe what others make us to believe.

(a) Under the heading autonomy the author states "autonomy is self- government." In the second line, it states "we cannot decide what to believe merely because of what someone else believe." (b) In the same paragraph it is also stated in line four