Are 'Skepticism' and 'Critical Thinking' the same things?

Wolfman

Chief Solipsistic, Autosycophant
Wolfman
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
13,415
Location
Vancouver, Canada
A lot of skeptics tend to consider the terms 'skeptic' and 'critical thinker' as being mostly interchangeable, as if they are virtually synonymous. I'd like to argue that they are actually different...that being a skeptic does not automatically make one a critical thinker. Some people will agree, others will disagree...and more will probably say either, "I never really thought about it before" or "I don't care".

To the latter group, you can stop reading now :) For everyone else, allow me to present my case.

First, we must settle on a definition. I would consider Michael Shermer to be a fairly reliable authority on the topic of what a skeptic is (he is, after all, the founding publisher of Skeptic magazine, and Director of the Skeptics Society), and in his book "Why People Believe Weird Things", he gives the following definition:
“...a skeptic is one who questions the validity of a particular claim by calling for evidence to prove or disprove it.”
​
Skepticism, by its nature, focuses most of its attention on those issues about which…well…we are skeptical. But it doesn’t focus so much attention on those claims about which we are not skeptical…those things we believe to be true.

Now, let's define critical thinking. One of my favorite definitions is the following:
"Critical thinking is that mode of thinking - about any subject, content, or problem - in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them." (source)
​
The important difference between these two definitions, in my opinion, is demonstrated by the the fact that skepticism "questions the validity of a particular claim", while critical thinking "is that mode of thinking - about any subject, content, or problem". In other words, skepticism is applied inconsistently, with greater focus on some areas, and less/none on others; whereas critical thinking is applied equally to every topic and issue.

To put it another way...all critical thinkers would also be skeptics; but not all skeptics would be critical thinkers.

Consider some of the topics discussed here in these forums. 9/11 conspiracy theories, for example. We could easily have a 9/11 debunker who could very effectively tear apart and expose all of the problems and weaknesses with the conspiracy theories (making them a great skeptic in this area)...but who simultaneously was a fundamentalist Christian who believed the world is 6000 years old. Personally, I find Penn and Teller to be brilliant skeptics when it comes to exposing paranormal fakery...yet severely lacking in critical thinking skills when it comes to discussing their political beliefs (for those who don't know, they're quite committed Libertarians).

Now, I'm not seeking to knock skepticism...its valuable. But it seems to me that if we're seeking to 'promote' anything here, it should be critical thinking, not skepticism. We should be seeking to promote the idea that people should expose all areas of their lives to critical examination, that they should demand the same standard of consistency and rationalism in all their beliefs.

So...what do others have to say? Comments? Disagreements?

:)
 
Last edited:
Seems like little more than semantics to me: personally I consider a skeptic to be someone who applies skepticism to all propositions, including the ones that they hold dear.

I am also aware that we live in a messy, real, world and thus will call someone a skeptic even if he/she only tries to do the above, as long as he/she only fails infrequently. :)

But if you want to use the definitions you gave above, then, yeah, critical thinking is more worthy of support. I just don't see any reason to use the words that way.
 
Roboramma said:
Seems like little more than semantics to me: personally I consider a skeptic to be someone who applies skepticism to all propositions, including the ones that they hold dear.

I am also aware that we live in a messy, real, world and thus will call someone a skeptic even if he/she only tries to do the above, as long as he/she only fails infrequently. :)

But if you want to use the definitions you gave above, then, yeah, critical thinking is more worthy of support. I just don't see any reason to use the words that way.
Click to expand...
While its a question of semantics, certainly, I'd say that it's a rather important question of semantics. After all, lots of people (particularly in this forum) identify themselves as skeptics. In fact, a lot of people who are 9/11 conspiracy theorists call themselves skeptics (because they're skeptical of the official story). This entire forum, and the JREF as an organization, are dedicated to skepticism.

Should it not therefore be relevant and important to define what exactly we mean by the word?

Humes fork said:
According to The Skeptic's Dictionary, (scientific) skepticism means promoting science and critical thinking. That's also the self-reported goal of The Skeptics Society.

So (scientific) skepticism = science and critical thinking? On the other hand, doesn't science rely on critical thinking?
Click to expand...
The article that you linked to is actually a good illustration of my point...if you read it in its entirety, you'll quickly find that "skeptic" has many different meanings for many different people.

To elaborate on my post above...to me personally, "skepticism" is more of an attitude towards specific propositions, while "critical thinking" is more of a holistic approach to all aspects of life. After all...a skeptic is not skeptical about everything (or at least, very very few are)...in general, there would be some things that even the staunchest skeptic would accept as true. Whereas a critical thinker applies their approach to all aspects of their life. Skepticism applies primarily to those propositions that we consider to be questionable, or false...not to those things we are certain are true. Critical thinking applies equally to all propositions, whether we regard them as true or not.
 
Wolfman said:
Should it not therefore be relevant and important to define what exactly we mean by the word?
Click to expand...

I've bolded the problem word here. Who exactly is "we"? It doesn't make any difference how you personally decide to define the words, because a large number of people won't agree with you. For example, as you say conspiracy theorists often like to call themselves skeptics, as do various other people such as global warming deniers. You can argue semantics here all you like, but those people will continue to call themselves skeptics and claim they're thinking critically.

Wolfman said:
you'll quickly find that "skeptic" has many different meanings for many different people.
Click to expand...

So does "critical thinking". And they will continue to have many different meanings for many different people regardless of anything you say.

It's fine if you want to define your terms at the start of a discussion so everyone knows exactly what you mean, but it's completely pointless to try to do so as a general point that everyone will agree on. Not only will everyone not agree, but the vast majority will never even see this and will carry on using the words exactly as they were before.
 
I think we can all agree that broadly applied critical thinking is better than narrowly applied critical thinking.

I think we can also all agree that neither Shermer nor Paul and Scrivener are such authoritative sources that they can define fuzzy words like "skepticism" and "critical thinking" once and for all time by their say-so.

I think that it would be much more productive to discuss the specific characteristics of rational and irrational thought than to argue over the labels we put on subsets of that kind of thought. The labels don't matter in the end.
 
It seems to me that the distinction appears to be based on a rather unrealistic supposition that "critical thinking" exists as an activity independently of any specific subject. I would disagree with that; we do not think without a subject to think about. Critical thinking can only be seen, therefore, as thinking critically about a subject. In that sense, I would argue that it's no different to skepticism. In fact, that seems to be inherent in the definitions in the OP, in that the qualification "about any subject, content, or problem" is no different to the qualification "of a particular claim".

Dave
 
Cuddles said:
I've bolded the problem word here. Who exactly is "we"? It doesn't make any difference how you personally decide to define the words, because a large number of people won't agree with you. For example, as you say conspiracy theorists often like to call themselves skeptics, as do various other people such as global warming deniers. You can argue semantics here all you like, but those people will continue to call themselves skeptics and claim they're thinking critically.
Click to expand...
Actually, I'd kinda' intended that "we" meant "those members of this forum who value science over superstition, and seek to encourage people to examine the evidence for various claims".

We've constantly got people demanding evidence, debunking paranormal theories, pseudo-scientific nonsense, and a variety of insane conspiracy theories. Those are the people I'm referring to as "we" here.

The issue I'm trying to raise is that there's a world of difference between trying to "prove" someone else is wrong...and teaching people how to think for themselves, and rationally evaluate all aspects of their life.

For example, people may be successful in convincing a 9/11 conspiracy theorist that their theory is wrong. That's a victory for skepticism, certainly. But that person, if not taught the skills to think for themselves and rationally evaluate evidence, is just as likely to run off and end up believing some other kind of irrational nonsense, replacing one conspiracy theory with another.

If you object to the attempt to assign specific definitions, no problem. The general attitudes are what I'm seeking to address here, and are a far more important issue.

So does "critical thinking". And they will continue to have many different meanings for many different people regardless of anything you say.
Click to expand...
Actually, at least in my experience, there are far, far fewer different definitions of "critical thinker" than there are of "skeptic". There are differences as to when people think they are applying critical thinking...but their core definition of what they think it is tends to be fairly similar.

It's fine if you want to define your terms at the start of a discussion so everyone knows exactly what you mean, but it's completely pointless to try to do so as a general point that everyone will agree on. Not only will everyone not agree, but the vast majority will never even see this and will carry on using the words exactly as they were before.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think quite the opposite...by seeking to use my definitions as a general point, it provokes responses from others that, ideally, leads to more detailed discussions of those differing definitions, and the reasons for it. If I were seeking simple agreement, I'd sure as hell not be posting in these forums!

Disagreement and debate are great ways of both understanding what/how others think, and of having your own assumptions and ideas challenged. I'd feel rather sad for the individual who posts something only when they think that the majority of others are going to agree with them ;)
 
Wolfman said:
The article that you linked to is actually a good illustration of my point...if you read it in its entirety, you'll quickly find that "skeptic" has many different meanings for many different people.
Click to expand...

Very true. What Randi, Shermer, Novella et al are doing is called scientific skepticism, as opposed to for example philosophical skepticism.

Kevin_Lowe said:
I think that it would be much more productive to discuss the specific characteristics of rational and irrational thought than to argue over the labels we put on subsets of that kind of thought. The labels don't matter in the end.
Click to expand...

But what if I don't agree with your definition of "rational"?:p

On a more serious note, "rational" is one of the most nebulous words there is. It means different things in different fields, like philosophy, economics, and so on.

I don't think this kind of conversation is entirely meaningless. I have a tendency to take things rather literally (that's just how my mind is wired I think), so different definitions of these things can be confusing.
 
Wolfman said:
First, we must settle on a definition. I would consider Michael Shermer to be a fairly reliable authority on the topic of what a skeptic is (he is, after all, the founding publisher of Skeptic magazine, and Director of the Skeptics Society), and in his book "Why People Believe Weird Things", he gives the following definition:
“...a skeptic is one who questions the validity of a particular claim by calling for evidence to prove or disprove it.”
​
Skepticism, by its nature, focuses most of its attention on those issues about which…well…we are skeptical. But it doesn’t focus so much attention on those claims about which we are not skeptical…those things we believe to be true.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I don't like the reasoning here. Shermer is an authority because he has a magazine called the "Skeptic" and a society called the "Skeptic Society"?

Well, I have a magazine called the Genius and a society called The Excellent Society for Excellent People.

It seems circular as a definition anyway, skepticism refers to things we are skeptical about. (?????)

Is this some kind of trick or a test whereby if you fail you are not allowed in? Hmmmm....

Wolfman said:
Now, let's define critical thinking. One of my favorite definitions is the following:
"Critical thinking is that mode of thinking - about any subject, content, or problem - in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them." (source)
​
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I don't like this either. Critical thinking is a way of thinking that improves your thinking????

A bit of padding seems to have been added to disguise this obviously flawed definition - presumably as a pitfall for those who aren't critical thinkers. Again I have to wonder if this is a test or a trick. And I think it is possibly a joke that this definition is put forward by "the Critical Thinking Society". (See above objection)
 
Humes fork said:
On a more serious note, "rational" is one of the most nebulous words there is. It means different things in different fields, like philosophy, economics, and so on.
Click to expand...

Rational thinking produces testable predictions about future phenomena that are more likely to be fulfilled than those generated by irrational thinking, or produces useful and/or consistent conclusions about matters not resolvable by just by observing phenomena.

(The theories that humans are game-theory-rational or economically-rational are not rational, since it can be observed that humans do not always act so as to maximise their own economic benefits without regard for other factors).
 
angrysoba said:
I'm afraid I don't like the reasoning here. Shermer is an authority because he has a magazine called the "Skeptic" and a society called the "Skeptic Society"?

Well, I have a magazine called the Genius and a society called The Excellent Society for Excellent People.
Click to expand...
If your magazine was considered to be one of the leading magazines in its field, and your society had members who were famous and reputable professionals in that field...then yes, I'd say that I would likely consider your definition of terms related to the work of that magazine/society to be fairly authoritative.



I'm afraid I don't like this either. Critical thinking is a way of thinking that improves your thinking????
Click to expand...
Actually, its not circular at all. There are whole realms of scientific endeavor that are dedicated to the proposition of understanding how we think...so yes, "thinking about how we think" is both a reasonable definition, and one that is well supported within the scientific community.
A bit of padding seems to have been added to disguise this obviously flawed definition - presumably as a pitfall for those who aren't critical thinkers. Again I have to wonder if this is a test or a trick. And I think it is possibly a joke that this definition is put forward by "the Critical Thinking Society". (See above objection)
Click to expand...
The fact that we think is, I consider, a fairly well proven assumption. But understanding how we evaluate information, how our senses affect (and can sometimes trick) our perceptions, how we reach conclusions...all of this is of great importance. It is an area that the critical thinker, in particular, considers to be central to their view of the world, how they evaluate information, and how they reach conclusions.

Is it your assertion, then, that we should not explore these questions? That thinking about how we think is irrelevant or unimportant?
 
A lot of skeptics tend to consider the terms 'skeptic' and 'critical thinker' as being mostly interchangeable, as if they are virtually synonymous. I'd like to argue that they are actually different...that being a skeptic does not automatically make one a critical thinker. Some people will agree, others will disagree...and more will probably say either, "I never really thought about it before" or "I don't care"
Click to expand...

I will not contradict you here.... I always said I am a skeptic but not a very good critical thinker. Probably more out of laziness than anything else.
 
Most of you run circles around me in these areas, but I have to say I agree: being a skeptic doesn't automatically make one a critical thinker. Reading the OP, it did strike me that someone who calls for "evidence to prove or disprove" something, as per Shermer's definition, may not necessarily know how to evaluate evidence well, which is perhaps where the broader "critical thinking" skills come in.

So for example, a person may call themselves a skeptic as a vaccine/autism link proponent, skeptical of mainstream science for example, and think they are basing this on solid evidence, but do they actually know how to evaluate the existing evidence? It's true they are skeptical, but is their skepticism of mainstream science enough or do they need something more?

To evaluate evidence well, it probably requires, depending on the issue, some combination of: an understanding of the difficulties with scientific research protocols and statistics, a working knowledge of logical fallacies, a familiarity with the current body of research and arguments from both sides, ways in which the mind can be tricked, ways in which people have been fooled in the past regarding certain issues, etc.

In a very basic way, being skeptical can be replaced with "doubt." If you doubt something, you are a skeptic about that thing, even if what you doubt is the theory of gravity. You can be dumb as a rock and rightfully call yourself a skeptic.

Years of applying these critical thinking methods to various areas of the paranormal, conspiracy theories, even religion, may turn you into something of a permanent "skeptic" of the paranormal. As a result, you may self-identify as a skeptic, but it would still be reasonable for someone to ask, "A skeptic of what, and why?" If you are hoping to encourage others to think more critically about these areas, that's when you begin to share the reasons for your skepticism and how you got there, to demonstrate where the thinking, if there has been any, has gone wrong in the other camp.

All of which reminds me of TAM 8, where one of the waiters said, "A skeptic's group?! So what do you guys do in there all day, sit around and doubt things?" :)
 
Wolfman said:
If your magazine was considered to be one of the leading magazines in its field, and your society had members who were famous and reputable professionals in that field...then yes, I'd say that I would likely consider your definition of terms related to the work of that magazine/society to be fairly authoritative
Click to expand...

Not really. I don’t think there really is a “field” of skepticism. The word skeptic is often used to impress people and if it denotes anything it is not of the same kind of things as other “fields”. It isn’t the same as calling yourself a scientist or even an artist or a writer because with those things a person can positively demonstrate something whereas with skepticism it is usually demonstrated with a negation of something, “I don’t believe in ghosts because all evidence I have so far seen I have discovered to be unreliable.” Essentially it is a claim by that person that they are not gullible and that they are less hasty to assert they believe something.

Wolfman said:
Actually, its not circular at all. There are whole realms of scientific endeavor that are dedicated to the proposition of understanding how we think...so yes, "thinking about how we think" is both a reasonable definition, and one that is well supported within the scientific community.
Click to expand...

I didn’t say the definition of “critical thinking” was circular. I said that this definition of skepticism is circular: “Skepticism, by its nature, focuses most of its attention on those issues about which…well…we are skeptical.” It is at the very least lacking explanatory value. I am sure you can see that. The point is what things are we skeptical of? Shermer is clearly skeptical of things that UFOlogists and Truthers believe and vice-versa. So, why don’t UFOlogists and Truthers get to call themselves skeptics? Because UFOs and 9/11 Truth are “obviously false”? Well, maybe but we can hardly say that such sharp distinctions can be made about everything without saying that you know a priori what is true and false, which is somewhat lacking in skepticism IMHO.

As for “critical thinking”, I am just not sure if the definition you like is any good at all:
“There are whole realms of scientific endeavor that are dedicated to the proposition of understanding how we think.”

I don’t dispute that at all, except to say that you may have misused the word “proposition” (would “pursuit” not be better here?), I am saying that critical thinking needn’t be defined as “Critical thinking is a way of thinking that improves your thinking.” *And this is not the same thing at all. Can we not apply critical thinking to, say, building a bridge? Would it actually be improving our thinking or would it be a useful way of thinking to improve the bridge?

Wolfman said:
The fact that we think is, I consider, a fairly well proven assumption. But understanding how we evaluate information, how our senses affect (and can sometimes trick) our perceptions, how we reach conclusions...all of this is of great importance. It is an area that the critical thinker, in particular, considers to be central to their view of the world, how they evaluate information, and how they reach conclusions.
Click to expand...

I think here there are two different meanings rolled into one. If I asked you for the meaning of “Statistics” then I imagine you wouldn’t answer that it is the study of statistics. And yet here you seem to be implying that your definition of critical thinking is the subject which explores critical thinking.

Of course I understand that there are all kinds of ways of thinking that are confused and that it is usually a good idea for us to recognize all kinds of cognitive biases in order to refine out thinking but I think that some people are good critical thinkers without training and they use critical thinking to make judgments NOT to improve their thinking.

To make it clearer, here are two different definitions of critical thinking:

a) To make clear judgments which are relatively unaffected by distorting cognitive and cultural biases.
b) The study of (a)

** Yes, I realize that that is my re-wording and yet I don't see it being qualitatively different from the original: "Critical thinking is that mode of thinking - about any subject, content, or problem - in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them."
 
Last edited:
There may be many different types of skeptics but the Randi-Skeptic is typically someone who refuses to believe (without proof) in ghosts, aliens, magic, religion, supernatural phenomena, conspiracy theories etc.

If critical thinking is defined as the correct application of logic and the scientific method then many Randi-Skeptics show a lot of critical thinking in their posts. Others appear to simply make random choices about what they believe in.
 
Last edited:
Wolfman said:
The important difference between these two definitions, in my opinion, is demonstrated by the the fact that skepticism "questions the validity of a particular claim", while critical thinking "is that mode of thinking - about any subject, content, or problem". In other words, skepticism is applied inconsistently, with greater focus on some areas, and less/none on others; whereas critical thinking is applied equally to every topic and issue.

To put it another way...all critical thinkers would also be skeptics; but not all skeptics would be critical thinkers.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I tend to agree that not all self professed "skeptics" are "critical thinkers". For instance, as you noted, creationists often try to play the role of "skeptic" when it comes to evolutionary theory, but they aren't typically "critical thinkers" when it comes to reciprocating by providing evidence to support their own beliefs and biases. I that find EU haters act in much that same fashion.

I think it really depends on how one "practices" skepticism. It CAN be applied to all topics and IMO should be applied to all topics. Critical thinking involves skepticism, but it also involved EQUAL application of skepticism. Maybe that's where the difference lies?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Hmm. I tend to agree that not all self professed "skeptics" are "critical thinkers". For instance, as you noted, creationists often try to play the role of "skeptic" when it comes to evolutionary theory, but they aren't typically "critical thinkers" when it comes to reciprocating by providing evidence to support their own beliefs and biases.
Click to expand...

But nor are they skeptics. They are simply pretending to be.

Dave
 
Humes fork said:
What about philosophical skeptics? Are they just pretending, or not?
Click to expand...

If they are applying philosophical skepticism consistently, then they are not.

The problem with creationists is that they approach one subset of claims with outright denialism, and another with unquestioning acceptance. Neither of these positions is rational skepticism, nor can they claim a consistent approach. Their claim to be skeptics is not borne out by the evidence, so I conclude that they are merely pretending to be skeptics.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
If they are applying philosophical skepticism consistently, then they are not.

The problem with creationists is that they approach one subset of claims with outright denialism, and another with unquestioning acceptance. Neither of these positions is rational skepticism, nor can they claim a consistent approach. Their claim to be skeptics is not borne out by the evidence, so I conclude that they are merely pretending to be skeptics.

Dave
Click to expand...

That tends to border on a "true Scotsman" fallacy, but you're technically correct IMO. :) I would argue that a "true skeptic" (and a critical thinker) is one that applies skepticism equally to all topics, not just to randomly selected topics.
 
Michael Mozina said:
That tends to border on a "true Scotsman" fallacy, but you're technically correct IMO. :)
Click to expand...

For all that the "No True Scotsman" is a deceptive argument, there has to be a point at which someone is not, by any sense, a Scotsman. It seems to me a reasonable argument that someone who has never been to Scotland, is not aware of any Scottish ancestry, and has no particular interest in Scottish culture, is genuinely not a True Scotsman, and has no right to call himself one. The same is true of the right of people to claim the title of rational skeptics while not, in fact, applying the methodology of rational skepticism to any claims at all.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
For all that the "No True Scotsman" is a deceptive argument, there has to be a point at which someone is not, by any sense, a Scotsman. It seems to me a reasonable argument that someone who has never been to Scotland, is not aware of any Scottish ancestry, and has no particular interest in Scottish culture, is genuinely not a True Scotsman, and has no right to call himself one. The same is true of the right of people to claim the title of rational skeptics while not, in fact, applying the methodology of rational skepticism to any claims at all.

Dave
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you Dave.
 
While we are at the definition issue, what is the difference between "critical thinking" and "scientific method"? How are they related? Some Youtube video claimed that critical thinking was the scientific method used by ordinary people, is this correct or not?

Also, what's the difference between "science" and "skepticism"? The "big guys" like Skeptic (the magazine) and the SGU claim that they producing a science magazine and a science podcast, respectively.
 
Wolfman said:
The issue I'm trying to raise is that there's a world of difference between trying to "prove" someone else is wrong...and teaching people how to think for themselves, and rationally evaluate all aspects of their life.

For example, people may be successful in convincing a 9/11 conspiracy theorist that their theory is wrong. That's a victory for skepticism, certainly. But that person, if not taught the skills to think for themselves and rationally evaluate evidence, is just as likely to run off and end up believing some other kind of irrational nonsense, replacing one conspiracy theory with another.
Click to expand...

In other words, not only is there a "world of difference", but also that the latter is actually superior to the former. In this case I would agree, and I'd also add this as yet another reason it's bad to use insults and other such petty techniques in debates with believers in those things. It does nothing to teach them how to think for themselves, it may hurt their feelings, and worse, it may give them a poor view of anything to do with skepticism, critical thinking, etc. not to mention there is absolutely no good reason it would do more harm than good to abstain from such techniques. (Note that I'm not accusing anyone here of doing anything -- this is just a personal peeve of mine.)
 
Humes fork said:
While we are at the definition issue, what is the difference between "critical thinking" and "scientific method"?
Click to expand...

The scientific method requires very high standards of proof before fixing a belief, whereas general-purpose critical thinking accepts claims like "X is 80% likely to be true" or "Y is 55% likely to be false". In science you get P<0.05 or you do it again.

How are they related? Some Youtube video claimed that critical thinking was the scientific method used by ordinary people, is this correct or not?
Click to expand...

Not strictly correct, but pretty close.

Also, what's the difference between "science" and "skepticism"?
Click to expand...

Just the requirement that you suspend judgment until you see evidence that the chance of the null hypothesis being true is less than 5%.

The "big guys" like Skeptic (the magazine) and the SGU claim that they producing a science magazine and a science podcast, respectively.
Click to expand...

There's no incompatibility inherent in the claim as long as they stick to subjects where we have scientific certainty (e.g. that homeopathy is bunk).
 
I would say that skepticism is what we do (e.g. applying the scientific method), while critical thinking is the mode of thinking (e.g. not taking truth for granted or obvious).

I usually say skepticism and critical thinking, because they're not the exact same thing, if heavily intertwined.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
The scientific method requires very high standards of proof before fixing a belief, whereas general-purpose critical thinking accepts claims like "X is 80% likely to be true" or "Y is 55% likely to be false". In science you get P<0.05 or you do it again.



Not strictly correct, but pretty close.
Click to expand...

I see. The main issue I saw with that definition is that critical thinking courses are usually taught by philosophy departments, not scientific departments. Philosophers don't really use the scientific method.

Anyways, what's the difference between critical thinking and reason/rationality?
 
Wolfman said:
A lot of skeptics tend to consider the terms 'skeptic' and 'critical thinker' as being mostly interchangeable, as if they are virtually synonymous. I'd like to argue that they are actually different...that being a skeptic does not automatically make one a critical thinker. Some people will agree, others will disagree...and more will probably say either, "I never really thought about it before" or "I don't care".

To the latter group, you can stop reading now :) For everyone else, allow me to present my case.

First, we must settle on a definition. I would consider Michael Shermer to be a fairly reliable authority on the topic of what a skeptic is (he is, after all, the founding publisher of Skeptic magazine, and Director of the Skeptics Society), and in his book "Why People Believe Weird Things", he gives the following definition:
“...a skeptic is one who questions the validity of a particular claim by calling for evidence to prove or disprove it.”
​
Skepticism, by its nature, focuses most of its attention on those issues about which…well…we are skeptical. But it doesn’t focus so much attention on those claims about which we are not skeptical…those things we believe to be true.

Now, let's define critical thinking. One of my favorite definitions is the following:
"Critical thinking is that mode of thinking - about any subject, content, or problem - in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them." (source)
​
The important difference between these two definitions, in my opinion, is demonstrated by the the fact that skepticism "questions the validity of a particular claim", while critical thinking "is that mode of thinking - about any subject, content, or problem". In other words, skepticism is applied inconsistently, with greater focus on some areas, and less/none on others; whereas critical thinking is applied equally to every topic and issue.

To put it another way...all critical thinkers would also be skeptics; but not all skeptics would be critical thinkers.

Consider some of the topics discussed here in these forums. 9/11 conspiracy theories, for example. We could easily have a 9/11 debunker who could very effectively tear apart and expose all of the problems and weaknesses with the conspiracy theories (making them a great skeptic in this area)...but who simultaneously was a fundamentalist Christian who believed the world is 6000 years old. Personally, I find Penn and Teller to be brilliant skeptics when it comes to exposing paranormal fakery...yet severely lacking in critical thinking skills when it comes to discussing their political beliefs (for those who don't know, they're quite committed Libertarians).

Now, I'm not seeking to knock skepticism...its valuable. But it seems to me that if we're seeking to 'promote' anything here, it should be critical thinking, not skepticism. We should be seeking to promote the idea that people should expose all areas of their lives to critical examination, that they should demand the same standard of consistency and rationalism in all their beliefs.

So...what do others have to say? Comments? Disagreements?

:)
Click to expand...

No, critical thinking is just that. Blind skepticism is just, blind.
 
Thinking of all these labels, would it be fair to say that the essential thing is to believe things based on evidence, that you should have some evidence for your beliefs? At least that is what Richard Dawkins emphasizes a lot, and also Bertrand Russell when he lived.
 
In my opinion, skepticism is the practice of using critical thinking (with the primary focus being the scientific method) towards a specific subject matter. Skepticism is something one does while critical thinking is the tool one does it with.

Also, not all skeptics are adept with their tools. It's easy to find evidence, but hard to find good solid scientifically sound evidence. If a skeptic only shallowly looks for evidence without looking at it critically is he/she really a skeptic?
 
Humes fork said:
I see. The main issue I saw with that definition is that critical thinking courses are usually taught by philosophy departments, not scientific departments. Philosophers don't really use the scientific method.
Click to expand...

Where I work it's the philosophers who teach scientific methodology too. While philosophers are usually very good at verbal critical thinking skills but ignorant of the mathematical underpinnings, some of them do understand the stats as well, and the ones that don't usually have an excellent non-mathematical grasp of the basic ideas.

Anyways, what's the difference between critical thinking and reason/rationality?
Click to expand...

There are slight points of non-overlap in the fuzzy domains the two words point to. "Reason" seems a better fit for advanced formal logic than "critical thinking", for example. However they overlap very substantially so that if you said they meant the same thing I wouldn't quibble about it in the overwhelming majority of cases.
 
Wolfman said:
A lot of skeptics tend to consider the terms 'skeptic' and 'critical thinker' as being mostly interchangeable, as if they are virtually synonymous. I'd like to argue that they are actually different...that being a skeptic does not automatically make one a critical thinker. Some people will agree, others will disagree...and more will probably say either, "I never really thought about it before" or "I don't care".

To the latter group, you can stop reading now :) For everyone else, allow me to present my case.

First, we must settle on a definition. I would consider Michael Shermer to be a fairly reliable authority on the topic of what a skeptic is (he is, after all, the founding publisher of Skeptic magazine, and Director of the Skeptics Society), and in his book "Why People Believe Weird Things", he gives the following definition:
“...a skeptic is one who questions the validity of a particular claim by calling for evidence to prove or disprove it.”
​
Skepticism, by its nature, focuses most of its attention on those issues about which…well…we are skeptical. But it doesn’t focus so much attention on those claims about which we are not skeptical…those things we believe to be true.

Now, let's define critical thinking. One of my favorite definitions is the following:
"Critical thinking is that mode of thinking - about any subject, content, or problem - in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them." (source)
​
The important difference between these two definitions, in my opinion, is demonstrated by the the fact that skepticism "questions the validity of a particular claim", while critical thinking "is that mode of thinking - about any subject, content, or problem". In other words, skepticism is applied inconsistently, with greater focus on some areas, and less/none on others; whereas critical thinking is applied equally to every topic and issue.

To put it another way...all critical thinkers would also be skeptics; but not all skeptics would be critical thinkers.

Consider some of the topics discussed here in these forums. 9/11 conspiracy theories, for example. We could easily have a 9/11 debunker who could very effectively tear apart and expose all of the problems and weaknesses with the conspiracy theories (making them a great skeptic in this area)...but who simultaneously was a fundamentalist Christian who believed the world is 6000 years old. Personally, I find Penn and Teller to be brilliant skeptics when it comes to exposing paranormal fakery...yet severely lacking in critical thinking skills when it comes to discussing their political beliefs (for those who don't know, they're quite committed Libertarians).

Now, I'm not seeking to knock skepticism...its valuable. But it seems to me that if we're seeking to 'promote' anything here, it should be critical thinking, not skepticism. We should be seeking to promote the idea that people should expose all areas of their lives to critical examination, that they should demand the same standard of consistency and rationalism in all their beliefs.

So...what do others have to say? Comments? Disagreements?

:)
Click to expand...
This is like the belief vs conclusion arguments. These terms mean the same thing in some circumstances and not in others. But the underlying concept, you are suggesting that critical thinkers are like True Scotsmen and skeptics are flawed. But it could just as easily be a very skilled critical thinker who still gets something wrong and a very poor skeptic most of the time who occasionally gets it right. Or vice versa.


Personally I use the two terms interchangeably.
 
What about a logician? An expert of logic would seem to trump both critical thinking and skepticism because it specifically calls for logic.

Perhaps to apply to wolfman's conclusion:

all critical thinkers would also be skeptics; but not all skeptics would be critical thinkers.
Click to expand...


All logicians would be critical thinkers and skeptics, but not all skeptics and critical thinkers would necessarily be logical.
 
Naive1000 said:
In my opinion, skepticism is the practice of using critical thinking (with the primary focus being the scientific method) towards a specific subject matter. Skepticism is something one does while critical thinking is the tool one does it with.

Also, not all skeptics are adept with their tools. It's easy to find evidence, but hard to find good solid scientifically sound evidence. If a skeptic only shallowly looks for evidence without looking at it critically is he/she really a skeptic?
Click to expand...

Horse Puckey; Critical thinkers think critically, skeptics just try to figure out how to debunk something.
 
Wolfman said:
“...a skeptic is one who questions the validity of a particular claim by calling for evidence to prove or disprove it.”
​
...
"Critical thinking is that mode of thinking - about any subject, content, or problem - in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them." (source)
​
Click to expand...
I would suggest these definitions make skepticism an example of critical thinking. Skepticism is a form of critical thinking that imposes the particular intellectual standard of requiring evidence for claims.
 
mikeyx said:
Horse Puckey; Critical thinkers think critically, skeptics just try to figure out how to debunk something.
Click to expand...

And your proof of this? Last time I checked skeptics have proven things too. All peer review is skepticism. So, cite your proof. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom