Theories are excellent servants but very bad masters. Thomas Henry Huxley
As a professor in University, I tell my students that it is very important to develop a skill of critical thinking. However, in most exams at university, simple memorization is still very important for obtaining good marks. Particularly, for undergrad students in science disciplines, is there any chance they can be creative or critical in their exams? Probably barely.
What is critical thinking? Is it possible to learn ‘critical thinking’ from textbooks? I am not sure. I think I have a skill of ‘critical thinking’. I gained it through my PhD training. In my class and own research laboratory, I encourage the students to do ‘critical thinking’. However, what they usually do is nitpicking, instead. Until recently, I could not put it into words as a procedure, because I did not think seriously how I do ‘critical thinking’. Critical thinking is not simple rejection, denial or nailing weakness. A more constructive procedure. Re-evaluation of the available information with own cognitive and intellectual ability. At the end, this may result in rejection or denial. Or maybe, conditional, or full agreement. Until recently, I could not teach it because I had never verbalized it. Therefore, some students never understood the difference of nitpicking and critical thinking.
For me, ‘critical thinking’ is a skill to dissect the information receiving into three categories. 1. Raw observation, 2. Reliability of observation, 3. Interpretation of observation. When I do ‘critical thinking’, I evaluate what is raw information, subsequently if it is reliable. Finally, I build own interpretation or seek if alternative from the original interpretation would be possible. For each step of new information, I repeat this process. Then, what is the raw information?
For us, working in biomedical research, it would be raw data. The images in figures, graphs and tables in an article are not the raw data. They are processed by the authors. Whenever we read a manuscript, we need to trust as the authors properly handled the raw data to produce the images in figures, graphs, and tables. On the other hand, it is also important to recognize that the processed information is easily manipulated intentionally as well as non-intentionally. For example, changing contrast of an image or cropping it would give completely different impressions to readers. Graphs and tables are a great tool to convey the authors’ messages but if the authors applied inappropriate statistical treatments, no way to be captured. For example, taking average values of sample groups would be only meaningful if the distribution is normal. The processed information is easy to digest for readers but eliminate the ability to assess reliability of information.
There are three types of reliability. 1. the quality of the presented information, itself, 2. the person who created the information, 3. the methods that used to collect the information. For example, if the microscopic images are blur or oversaturated, or huge error bars in a graph, etc., these would trigger questions against the reliability of data quality. Second, a reputation is a matter. If someone is labeled as unreliable or untrustworthy, the information coming from this person would be seen with skepticism. Third, the methodology is also a matter. As technology advanced, the methods and strategies collecting information have been improved and new ones could develop. The ones used to be sufficiently reliable at the giving time may not be good enough anymore. One caveat we should keep in our mind is not necessarily always the new ones are better though. Importantly, the limitation of the methods and strategies should be recognized. Therefore, for evaluation of reliability, preacquisition knowledge and experience would be required. That is why the experts in respected fields are appreciated.
After these first two steps, I will build my own interpretation. If my interpretation is matched with the original one, I am in full agreement of the information and statement. If my interpretation is different, I will try to figure out what causes the difference. Once I identify the branching point of the two interpretations, seek any possibility to reconcile them. Sometimes, this process takes more than a decade or two.
Have you ever watched a Japanese classic movie “Rasho-mon” by the director, Akira Kurosawa in 1950 basing on a short story by Ryunosuke Akutagawa. This movie tells how fragile logically making sense could be and how truth/evidence could be different in each person. There is no doubt about that the logic is an essential tool for communication. However, the logic completely relies on the quality and reliability of information. The logic is not omnipotent, and it only works at the level of interpretation. Logically 100% correct at a giving time at one place is not necessarily universal and not forever. Because the quality and reliability of information keep getting updated with technological and social development.
‘Critical thinking’ is not nitpicking. More constructive activities of recapturing the giving information and re-evaluating it by yourself with own knowledge and experience. Of course, this ability makes you an annoying person if you use it always in daily conversation. However, this is an essential ability for those who work as professional to take full responsibilities of individual outcomes.
Comments