critical thinking layman terms

Critical Thinking

I. definition.

Critical thinking is the ability to reflect on (and so improve ) your thoughts, beliefs, and expectations. It’s a combination of several skills and habits such as:

Curiosity : the desire for knowledge and understanding

Curious people are never content with their current understanding of the world, but are driven to raise questions and pursue the answers. Curiosity is endless — the better you understand a given topic, the more you realize how much more there is to learn!

Humility : or the recognition that your own understanding is limited

This is closely connected to curiosity — if you’re arrogant and think you know everything already, then you have no reason to be curious. But a humble person always recognizes the limitations and gaps in their knowledge . This makes them more receptive to information, better listeners and learners.

Skepticism : a suspicious attitude toward what other people say

Skepticism means you always demand evidence and don’t simply accept what others tell you. At the same time, skepticism has to be inwardly focused as well! You have to be equally skeptical of your own beliefs and instincts as you are of others’.

Rationality or logic: The formal skills of logic are indispensable for critical thinkers

Skepticism keeps you on the lookout for bad arguments, and rationality helps you figure out exactly why they’re bad. But rationality also allows you to identify good arguments when you see them, and then to move beyond them and understand their further implications.

Creativity: or the ability to come up with new combinations of ideas

It’s not enough to just be skeptical and knock the holes in every argument that you hear. Sooner or later you have to come up with your own ideas, your own solutions, and your own visions. That requires a creative and independent mind, but one that is also capable of listening and learning.

Empathy : the ability to see things from another person’s perspective

Too often, people talk about critical thinkers as though they’re solitary explorers, forging their own path through the jungle of ideas without help from others. But this isn’t true at all. Real critical thinking means you constantly engage with other people, listen to what they have to say, and try to imagine how they see the world. By seeing things from someone else’s perspective, you can generate far more new ideas than you could by relying on your own knowledge alone.

II. Examples

Although video games are sometimes simply a passive way to enjoy yourself, they sometimes rely on critical thinking skills. This is particularly true of puzzle games and role playing games (RPGs) that present your character with puzzles at critical moments. For example, at one stage in the classic RPG Neverwinter Nights , your character has the option to serve as a juror on another character’s trial. In order to save the innocent man, you have to talk to people throughout the town and, using a combination of empathy and skepticism, figure out what really happened.

In one episode of South Park , Cartman becomes obsessed with conspiracy theories and sings a song about needing to think for himself and find out the truth. The show is poking fun at conspiracy theorists, who often think that they are exercising critical thinking when in fact they are simply exercising too much skepticism towards common sense and popular beliefs, and not enough skepticism towards new, unnecessarily complicated explanations.

III. Critical Thinking vs. Traditional Thinking

Critical thinking, in the history of modern Western thought, is strongly associated with the Enlightenment, the period when European and American philosophers decided to approach the world with a rational eye, rejecting blind faith and questioning traditional authority. It was this moment in history that gave us modern medicine, democracy , and the early forms of industrial technology.

At the same time, the Enlightenment also came with many downsides, particularly the fact that it was so hostile to tradition. This hostility is understandable given the state of Europe at the time — ripped apart by bloody conflict between different religions, and oppressed by traditional monarchs who rooted their power in that of the Church. Enlightenment thinkers understandably rejected traditional thinking, holding it responsible for all this violence and injustice. But still, the Enlightenment sometimes went too far in the opposite direction. After all, rejecting tradition just for the sake of rejecting it is not really any better than accepting tradition just for the sake of accepting it! Traditions provide valuable resources for critical thinking, and without them it would be impossible. Think about this: the English language is a tradition, and without it you wouldn’t be sitting there reading these (hopefully useful) words about critical thinking!

So critical thinking absolutely depends on traditions. There’s no question that critical thinking means something more than just accepting traditions; but it doesn’t mean you necessarily reject them, either. It just means that you’re not blindly following tradition for its own sake ; rather, your relationship to your tradition is based on humility, creativity, skepticism, and all the other attributes of critical thinking.

IV. Quotes about Critical Thinking

“If I have seen further than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.” (Isaac Newton)

Until Einstein, no physicist was ever more influential than Isaac Newton. Through curiosity and probable skepticism, he not only worked out the basic rules for matter and energy in the universe — he also realized that the force causing objects to fall was the same as the force causing celestial objects to orbit around each other (thus discovering the modern theory of gravity). He was also known for having a big ego and being a little arrogant with those he considered beneath his intellect — but even Newton had enough humility to recognize that he wasn’t doing it alone. He was deeply indebted to the whole tradition of scientists that had come before him — Europeans, Greeks, Arabs, Indians, and all the rest.

“It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses… and at the same time a great openness to new ideas. Obviously those two modes of thought are in some tension. But if you are able to exercise only one of these modes, whichever one it is, you’re in deep trouble.” (Carl Sagan, The Burden of Skepticism )

In this quote, Carl Sagan offers a sensitive analysis of a tension within the idea of critical thinking. He points out that skepticism is extremely important to critical thinking, but at the same time it can go too far and become an obstacle. Notice, too, that you could replace the word “new” with “old” in this quote and it would still make sense. Critical thinkers need to be both open to new ideas and skeptical of them; similarly, they need to have a balanced attitude toward old and traditional ideas as well.

V. The History and Importance of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking has emerged as a cultural value in various times and places, from the Islamic scholars of medieval Central Asia to the secular philosophers of 18th-century America or the scientists and engineers of 21st-century Japan. In each case, critical thinking has taken a slightly different form, sometimes emphasizing skepticism above the other dimensions (as occurred in the European Enlightenment), sometimes emphasizing other dimensions such as creativity or rationality.

Today, many leaders in science, education, and business worry that we are seeing a decline in critical thinking. Education around the world has turned increasingly toward standardized testing and the mechanical memorization of facts, an approach that doesn’t leave time for critical thinking or creative arts. Some politicians view critical and creative education as a waste of time, believing that education should only focus on job skills and nothing else — an attitude which clearly overlooks the fact that critical thinking is an important job skill for everyone from auto mechanics to cognitive scientists.

a. Creativity

b. Skepticism

d. These are all dimensions of critical thinking

a. They are opposites

b. They are synonyms

c. They are in tension, but not incompatible

d. None of the above

a. The Enlightenment

b. The Renaissance

c. The current era

d. All of the above

a. Being constantly skeptical

b. Not being skeptical

c. Having a balance between too much skepticism and too little

d. No relation to skepticism

What is critical thinking and how can it be improved?

Helen lee bouygues.

updated Feb. 6, 2023

The term “critical thinking” is used a lot: by educators, politicians, journalists, and the general public. But what is critical thinking? When it comes to defining what critical thinking is – and is not – vagueness and confusion ensue. 

What is critical thinking?

Although it’s complicated and multi-faceted, critical thinking can be defined.  As cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham writes, critical thinking can be divided into three areas: reasoning, making judgments, and problem-solving. Critical thinking means becoming skilled in all three areas. In layman’s terms, it means thinking well.  

So how can we think better? What does improved critical thinking look like? Because good thinking is so entwined in our daily lives, acquiring critical thinking skills is not as straightforward as becoming better at math or tennis. The exact skills depend on the stage of development as well as the domain in which the thinking skills are applied.

Moreover, critical thinking involves certain dispositions – curiosity, humility, independence – and values – openness, fairness, diversity – that make it more complicated than a more straightforward area of study.

All that said, there are some general components of critical thinking that will help clarify what exactly it means to become a critical thinker.

How To Improve Critical Thinking Skills

Below we expand on the definition of critical thinking by outlining three areas where we can all improve our critical thinking:

• Reflective thinking or what’s sometimes called “ metacognition; ”
• Objective thinking, which requires an ability to manage emotions and recognize biases;
• Analytical thinking, which involves skills in logic and argumentation.

You can also check out our SHARP Thinking method .

What Is Reflective Thinking and How Does It Relate To Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking starts with reflection. Indeed, the American philosopher John Dewey often referred to critical thinking as “reflective thinking .” He contrasted reflective thinking, in which thoughts are consciously ordered and follow each other in a sequence, from idle thinking where our thoughts meander from point to point without any structure.

Put differently, reflective thinking involves thinking about our own thoughts in such a way that we can intentionally improve, order, and regulate them. This practice is often referred to as “metacognition.”

Metacognition involves seeing our thinking from the outside. The approach includes observing our own thought processes and thinking habits. It requires us to evaluate and employ different thinking strategies reflectively, and to notice when we are thinking irrationally or unproductively.

Reflective thinking involves thinking about our own thoughts in such a way that we can intentionally improve, order, and regulate them. Tweet

Metacognition is also crucial for learning. Some research suggests that metacognitive or reflective skills can be as important as raw intelligence in predicting student success. Children become capable of reflecting on their thinking in this way at around four, and metacognitive awareness increases with age up until early early adulthood. 

Metacognition also depends on education and practice. There’s a lot of evidence that much like riding a bike, metacognition can be learned. One way metacognitive skills can be nurtured is by writing. For example, journaling about thinking can be extraordinarily useful.

Asking a lot of “why” questions can also promote metacognition: Why am I doing this? Why am I thinking this? These sorts of practices pull us outside of ourselves and give us the perspective from which we can reflect on and improve our thinking.

What is Objective Thinking?

When people think of “objectivity,” they usually imagine cold-blooded and perfectly rational thinking, almost like a computer processing data. But the truth is that being objective requires a great deal of emotional intelligence, and honesty about our own biases.

First of all, a balanced emotional foundation is necessary for sound reasoning. Critical thinking requires both confidence and humility— the confidence to think independently of group pressures and the humility to acknowledge that we might be wrong or biased. If we’re either too susceptible to a need for peer approval or too arrogant to consider others’ opinions, we are bound to fail at being objective.

It is therefore crucial that emotional management skills be developed at a young age, and renewed continually throughout our lives. Trying new activities and taking on new challenges — like learning a new language, for example — may seem far removed from critical thinking. But they are crucial to developing feelings of competence, openness to challenges, and the ability to cope with failure which is crucial to high-level reasoning across all domains.

Another substantial barrier to objectivity is bias. We are all inherently limited by our own experiences and backgrounds. But these subjective biases do not need to determine how we think. To be more objective, we must learn to identify particular thought patterns that lead us into error or misinterpretation.

Biases include not just those derived from our personal experience, but general cognitive biases we all suffer from. For example, it is easy to think that past events were easily predictable all along (hindsight bias) or that if a coin turns heads five times in a row, it’s more likely to be tails next time (Gambler’s fallacy). The only way to overcome cognitive biases is to be educated about them , and strive for objectivity.

Objective thinking builds on reflective thinking. We have to be able to see our thinking from the outside, if we are to learn to control biases or emotions that can distort our reasoning. With practice, we can learn to adjust our thought processes and see the world more as it is. We are all inherently limited by our own experiences and backgrounds. But these subjective biases do not need to determine how we think. To be more objective, we must learn to identify particular thought patterns that lead us into error or misinterpretation.

We are all limited by our own experiences and backgrounds. To be more objective, we must learn to identify particular thought patterns that lead us into error or misinterpretation. Tweet

What Is Analytical Thinking?

The ability to plan and regulate one’s thinking and to manage emotions and biases are necessary preconditions for higher-level logical analysis. These skills allow critical thinkers to build and evaluate information and arguments step-by-step so they can persuade others of their positions and criticize mistaken arguments. This is known as analytical thinking. 

Young children, of course, usually aren’t ready to tackle formal logic, but there are plenty of ways that parents and other adults can help stimulate their analytical thinking. They can ask them to give reasons for their opinions or how they might criticize someone else’s argument.

Later on – in high school, college, and beyond – training in formal logic can help adults think more about how arguments are structured, whether conclusions follow from premises, and how to use logic to evaluate others’ arguments. 

Learning the logic of conditional (if-then) statements, for instance, can help students think more precisely. To take one example, the logical rule known as modus tollens states that if a conditional statement (“if p then q”) is true, and we know that the consequent (q) is false, then we can infer that the antecedent is false, too.

So if it’s true that “If there is smoke, there is fire” and there is no fire, we can conclude that there is no smoke either. By contrast, we cannot conclude from the statement that just because there is fire, there must also be smoke.

This close attention to the logical connections between statements is necessary for students to be able to reason well about complex issues like climate change or the size of government.

Logic and Critical Thinking

However, it’s important to keep in mind that, while logic is a crucial part of critical thinking, there is more to critical thinking than mere logic. Critical thinking also requires argumentative skills that go beyond logic.

In a political debate, for example, two opponents may both have perfectly logical arguments but differing relative values as starting points – leading to vastly different conclusions. Similarly, if an airtight logical argument is not advanced with any rhetorical skill, it is unlikely to be persuasive.

In other words, just as objectivity requires skills in both reasoning and emotional management, analytical or argumentative thinking requires both logical skill and an ability to understand and empathize with one’s audience. 

Keep in mind that, while logic is a crucial part of critical thinking, there is more to critical thinking than mere logic. Tweet

Parting Thoughts 

Critical thinking is, therefore, never a mere intellectual exercise, but requires an all-around ability to put reasoning into practice. It goes well beyond raw intelligence or logical skill, and involves the virtues of practical reasoning like self-awareness, humility, independence, and empathy that are cultivated and deepened throughout a lifetime. It is not a stretch, then, to say that learning to think critically can make you a better person. 

To sum up, critical thinkers can reflect on and correct their thought processes, remain objective even in overheated or deceptive circumstances, and cogently analyze the information as well as the structure and logic of arguments. These skills require commitment and dedication, but the rewards — sounder judgments, better decisions, more productive work, and even healthier relationships — are well worth it.

Helen Lee Bouygues is the president of the Reboot Foundation

Privacy Overview

Critical Thinking in Reading and Composition

Glossary of Grammatical and Rhetorical Terms

gawrav/Getty Images

• An Introduction to Punctuation
• Ph.D., Rhetoric and English, University of Georgia
• M.A., Modern English and American Literature, University of Leicester
• B.A., English, State University of New York

Critical thinking is the process of independently analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information as a guide to behavior and beliefs.

The American Philosophical Association has defined critical thinking as "the process of purposeful, self-regulatory judgment. The process gives reasoned consideration to evidence , contexts , conceptualizations, methods, and criteria" (1990). Critical thinking is sometimes broadly defined as "thinking about thinking."

Critical thinking skills include the ability to interpret, verify, and reason, all of which involve applying the principles of logic . The process of using critical thinking to guide writing is called critical writing .

Observations

• " Critical Thinking is essential as a tool of inquiry. As such, Critical Thinking is a liberating force in education and a powerful resource in one’s personal and civic life. While not synonymous with good thinking, Critical Thinking is a pervasive and self-rectifying human phenomenon. The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit." (American Philosophical Association, "Consensus Statement Regarding Critical Thinking," 1990)
• Thought and Language "In order to understand reasoning [...], it is necessary to pay careful attention to the relationship between thought and language . The relationship seems to be straightforward: thought is expressed in and through language. But this claim, while true, is an oversimplification. People often fail to say what they mean. Everyone has had the experience of having their \ misunderstood by others. And we all use words not merely to express our thoughts but also to shape them. Developing our critical thinking skills, therefore, requires an understanding of the ways in which words can (and often fail to) express our thoughts." (William Hughes and Jonathan Lavery, Critical Thinking: An Introduction to the Basic Skills , 4th ed. Broadview, 2004)
• Dispositions That Foster or Impede Critical thinking "Dispositions that foster critical thinking include [a] facility in perceiving irony , ambiguity , and multiplicity of meanings or points of view; the development of open-mindedness, autonomous thought, and reciprocity (Piaget's term for the ability to empathize with other individuals, social groups, nationalities, ideologies, etc.). Dispositions that act as impediments to critical thinking include defense mechanisms (such as absolutism or primary certitude, denial, projection), culturally conditioned assumptions, authoritarianism, egocentrism, and ethnocentrism, rationalization, compartmentalization, stereotyping and prejudice." (Donald Lazere, "Invention, Critical Thinking, and the Analysis of Political Rhetoric." Perspectives on Rhetorical Invention , ed. by Janet M. Atwill and Janice M. Lauer. University of Tennessee Press, 2002)
• Critical Thinking and Composing - "[T]he most intensive and demanding tool for eliciting sustained critical thought is a well-designed writing assignment on a subject matter problem. The underlying premise is that writing is closely linked with thinking and that in presenting students with significant problems to write about—and in creating an environment that demands their best writing—we can promote their general cognitive and intellectual growth. When we make students struggle with their writing, we are making them struggle with thought itself. Emphasizing writing and critical thinking , therefore, generally increases the academic rigor of a course. Often the struggle of writing, linked as it is to the struggle of thinking and to the growth of a person's intellectual powers, awakens students to the real nature of learning." (John C. Bean,  Engaging Ideas: The Professor's Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom , 2nd ed. Wiley, 2011) - "Finding a fresh approach to a writing assignment means that you must see the subject without the blinders of preconception. When people expect to see a thing in a certain way, it usually appears that way, whether or not that is its true image. Similarly, thinking based on prefabricated ideas produces writing that says nothing new, that offers nothing important to the reader. As a writer, you have a responsibility to go beyond the expected views and present your subject so that the reader sees it with fresh eyes. . . . [C]ritical thinking is a fairly systematic method of defining a problem and synthesizing knowledge about it, thereby creating the perspective you need to develop new ideas. . . . " Classical rhetoricians used a series of three questions to help focus an argument . Today these questions can still help writers understand the topic about which they are writing. An sit? (Is the problem a fact?); Quid sit (What is the definition of the problem?); and Quale sit? (What kind of problem is it?). By asking these questions, writers see their subject from many new angles before they begin to narrow the focus to one particular aspect." (Kristin R. Woolever, About Writing: A Rhetoric for Advanced Writers . Wadsworth, 1991)

Logical Fallacies

Ad Misericordiam

Appeal to Authority

Appeal to Force

Appeal to Humor

Appeal to Ignorance

Appeal to the People

Begging the Question

Circular Argument

Complex Question

Contradictory Premises

Dicto Simpliciter , Equivocation

False Analogy

False Dilemma

Gambler's Fallacy

Hasty Generalization

Name-Calling

Non Sequitur

Poisoning the Well

Red Herring

Slippery Slope

Stacking the Deck

• Critical Thinking Definition, Skills, and Examples
• Introduction to Critical Thinking
• Critical Analysis in Composition
• Definition and Examples of Evaluation Essays
• Heuristics in Rhetoric and Composition
• How to Facilitate Learning and Critical Thinking
• Creativity & Creative Thinking
• Higher-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) in Education
• Research in Essays and Reports
• What Does Argumentation Mean?
• Audience Analysis in Speech and Composition
• A Guide to Deep Reading
• 12 Online Classes to Build Intellectual Character
• What Is a Personal Essay (Personal Statement)?
• Definition and Examples of Conclusions in Arguments
• Basic Writing

• Programs & Services
• Delphi Center

Ideas to Action (i2a)

• What is Critical Thinking?

The ability to think critically calls for a higher-order thinking than simply the ability to recall information.

Definitions of critical thinking, its elements, and its associated activities fill the educational literature of the past forty years. Critical thinking has been described as an ability to question; to acknowledge and test previously held assumptions; to recognize ambiguity; to examine, interpret, evaluate, reason, and reflect; to make informed judgments and decisions; and to clarify, articulate, and justify positions (Hullfish & Smith, 1961; Ennis, 1962; Ruggiero, 1975; Scriven, 1976; Hallet, 1984; Kitchener, 1986; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Mines et al., 1990; Halpern, 1996; Paul & Elder, 2001; Petress, 2004; Holyoak & Morrison, 2005; among others).

After a careful review of the mountainous body of literature defining critical thinking and its elements, UofL has chosen to adopt the language of Michael Scriven and Richard Paul (2003) as a comprehensive, concise operating definition:

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.

Paul and Scriven go on to suggest that critical thinking is based on: "universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness. It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue, assumptions, concepts, empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions, implication and consequences, objections from alternative viewpoints, and frame of reference. Critical thinking - in being responsive to variable subject matter, issues, and purposes - is incorporated in a family of interwoven modes of thinking, among them: scientific thinking, mathematical thinking, historical thinking, anthropological thinking, economic thinking, moral thinking, and philosophical thinking."

This conceptualization of critical thinking has been refined and developed further by Richard Paul and Linder Elder into the Paul-Elder framework of critical thinking. Currently, this approach is one of the most widely published and cited frameworks in the critical thinking literature. According to the Paul-Elder framework, critical thinking is the:

• Analysis of thinking by focusing on the parts or structures of thinking ("the Elements of Thought")
• Evaluation of thinking by focusing on the quality ("the Universal Intellectual Standards")
• Improvement of thinking by using what you have learned ("the Intellectual Traits")

Selection of a Critical Thinking Framework

The University of Louisville chose the Paul-Elder model of Critical Thinking as the approach to guide our efforts in developing and enhancing our critical thinking curriculum. The Paul-Elder framework was selected based on criteria adapted from the characteristics of a good model of critical thinking developed at Surry Community College. The Paul-Elder critical thinking framework is comprehensive, uses discipline-neutral terminology, is applicable to all disciplines, defines specific cognitive skills including metacognition, and offers high quality resources.

Why the selection of a single critical thinking framework?

The use of a single critical thinking framework is an important aspect of institution-wide critical thinking initiatives (Paul and Nosich, 1993; Paul, 2004). According to this view, critical thinking instruction should not be relegated to one or two disciplines or departments with discipline specific language and conceptualizations. Rather, critical thinking instruction should be explicitly infused in all courses so that critical thinking skills can be developed and reinforced in student learning across the curriculum. The use of a common approach with a common language allows for a central organizer and for the development of critical thinking skill sets in all courses.

• SACS & QEP
• Planning and Implementation
• Why Focus on Critical Thinking?
• Paul-Elder Critical Thinking Framework
• Culminating Undergraduate Experience
• Community Engagement
• Frequently Asked Questions
• What is i2a?

Copyright © 2012 - University of Louisville , Delphi Center

Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life, Second Edition by Linda Elder, Richard Paul

Get full access to Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life, Second Edition and 60K+ other titles, with a free 10-day trial of O'Reilly.

There are also live events, courses curated by job role, and more.

A Glossary of Critical Thinking Terms and Concepts: The Critical Analytic Vocabulary of the English Language

This compendium of terms is testament to the fact that critical thinking entails a body of concepts and principles that, when internalized and practiced, enable people to raise their thinking to a higher level.

Critical thinking concepts encompass a large network of interrelated ideas. Understanding one such idea often entails understanding other ideas. As such, critical thinking concepts are best understood in relationship to each other and in contrast to their opposites.

The concept of critical thinking, comprehensively viewed, is a rich, variegated, and, to some extent, open-ended concept. There is no way to encompass it “completely” ...

Get Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life, Second Edition now with the O’Reilly learning platform.

O’Reilly members experience books, live events, courses curated by job role, and more from O’Reilly and nearly 200 top publishers.

Don’t leave empty-handed

Get Mark Richards’s Software Architecture Patterns ebook to better understand how to design components—and how they should interact.

It’s yours, free.

Check it out now on O’Reilly

Dive in for free with a 10-day trial of the O’Reilly learning platform—then explore all the other resources our members count on to build skills and solve problems every day.

"resources/articles/glossary.shtml" not found

Sorry the page you are looking for is not found.

• Critical Thinking Online Courses
• The Center for Critical Thinking Community Online
• Certification Online Course
• Critical Thinking Blog
• Online Courses for Your Students
• Guided Study Groups
• Critical Thinking Channel on YouTube

Glossary: C An Educator's Guide to Critical Thinking Terms and Concepts

clarify : To make easier to understand, to free from confusion or ambiguity, to remove obscurities. Clarity is a fundamental perfection of thought and clarification a fundamental aim in critical thinking. Students often do not see why it is important to write and speak clearly, why it is important to say what you mean and mean what you say. The key to clarification is concrete, specific examples. See accurate, ambiguous, logic of language, vague.

concept : An idea or thought, especially a generalized idea of a thing or of a class of things. Humans think within concepts or ideas. We can never achieve command over our thoughts unless we learn how to achieve command over our concepts or ideas. Thus we must learn how to identify the concepts or ideas we are using, contrast them with alternative concepts or ideas, and clarify what we include and exclude by means of them. For example, most people say they believe strongly in democracy, but few can clarify with examples what that word does and does not imply. Most people confuse the meaning of words with cultural associations, with the result that ‘democracy' means to people whatever we do in running our government-any country that is different is undemocratic. We must distinguish the concepts implicit in the English language from the psychological associations surrounding that concept in a given social group or culture. The failure to develop this ability is a major cause of uncritical thought and selfish critical thought. See logic of language.

conclude/conclusion : To decide by reasoning, to infer, to deduce; the last step in a reasoning process; a judgment, decision, or belief formed after investigation or reasoning. All beliefs, decisions, or actions are based on human thought, but rarely as the result of conscious reasoning or deliberation. All that we believe is, one way or another, based on conclusions that we have come to during our lifetime. Yet, we rarely monitor our thought processes, we don't critically assess the conclusions we come to, to determine whether we have sufficient grounds or reasons for accepting them. People seldom recognize when they have come to a conclusion. They confuse their conclusions with evidence, and so cannot assess the reasoning that took them from evidence to conclusion. Recognizing that human life is inferential, that we continually come to conclusions about ourselves and the things and persons around us, is essential to thinking critically and reflectively.

consistency : To think, act, or speak in agreement with what has already been thought, done, or expressed; to have intellectual or moral integrity. Human life and thought is filled with inconsistency, hypocrisy, and contradiction. We often say one thing and do another, judge ourselves and our friends by one standard and our antagonists by another, lean over backwards to justify what we want or negate what does not serve our interests. Similarly, we often confuse desires with needs, treating our desires as equivalent to needs, putting what we want above the basic needs of others. Logical and moral consistency are fundamental values of fairminded critical thinking. Social conditioning and native egocentrism often obscure social contradictions, inconsistency, and hypocrisy. See personal contradiction, social contradiction, intellectual integrity, human nature.

contradict/contradiction : To assert the opposite of; to be contrary to, go against; a statement in opposition to another; a condition in which things tend to be contrary to each other; inconsistency; discrepancy; a person or thing containing or composed of contradictory elements. See personal contradiction, social contradiction.

criterion (criteria, pl) : A standard, rule, or test by which something can be judged or measured. Human life, thought, and action are based on human values. The standards by which we determine whether those values are achieved in any situation represent criteria. Critical thinking depends upon making explicit the standards or criteria for rational or justifiable thinking and behavior. See evaluation.

critical listening : A mode of monitoring how we are listening so as to maximize our accurate understanding of what another person is saying. By understanding the logic of human communication-that everything spoken expresses point of view, uses some ideas and not others, has implications, etc.-critical thinkers can listen so as to enter sympathetically and analytically into the perspective of others. See critical speaking, critical reading, critical writing, elements of thought, intellectual empathy.

critical person : One who has mastered a range of intellectual skills and abilities. If that person generally uses those skills to advance his or her own selfish interests, that person is a critical thinker only in a weak or qualified sense. If that person generally uses those skills fairmindedly, entering empathically into the points of view of others, he or she is a critical thinker in the strong or fullest sense. See critical thinking.

critical reading : Critical reading is an active, intellectually engaged process in which the reader participates in an inner dialogue with the writer. Most people read uncritically and so miss some part of what is expressed while distorting other parts. A critical reader realizes the way in which reading, by its very nature, means entering into a point of view other than our own, the point of view of the writer. A critical reader actively looks for assumptions, key concepts and ideas, reasons and justifications, supporting examples, parallel experiences, implications and consequences, and any other structural features of the written text, to interpret and assess it accurately and fairly. See elements of thought.

critical society : A society which rewards adherence to the values of critical thinking and hence does not use indoctrination and inculcation as basic modes of learning (rewards reflective questioning, intellectual independence, and reasoned dissent). Socrates is not the only thinker to imagine a society in which independent critical thought became embodied in the concrete day-to-day lives of individuals; William Graham Sumner, North America's distinguished anthropologist, explicitly formulated the ideal:

The critical habit of thought, if usual in a society, will pervade all its mores, because it is a way of taking up the problems of life. Men educated in it cannot be stampeded by stump orators and are never deceived by dithyrambic oratory. They are slow to believe. They can hold things as possible or probable in all degrees, without certainty and without pain. They can wait for evidence and weigh evidence, uninfluenced by the emphasis or confidence with which assertions are made on one side or the other. They can resist appeals to their dearest prejudices and all kinds of cajolery. Education in the critical faculty is the only education of which it can be truly said that it makes good citizens. (Folkways, 1906)

Until critical habits of thought pervade our society, however, there will be a tendency for schools as social institutions to transmit the prevailing world view more or less uncritically, to transmit it as reality, not as a picture of reality. Education for critical thinking, then, requires that the school or classroom become a microcosm of a critical society. See didactic instruction, dialogical instruction, intellectual virtues, knowledge.

critical thinking :

1) Disciplined, self-directed thinking which exemplifies the perfections of thinking appropriate to a particular mode or domain of thinking.

2) Thinking that displays mastery of intellectual skills and abilities.

3) The art of thinking about your thinking while you are thinking in order to make your thinking better: more clear, more accurate, or more defensible. Critical thinking can be distinguished into two forms: "selfish" or "sophistic", on the one hand, and "fairminded", on the other. In thinking critically we use our command of the elements of thinking to adjust our thinking successfully to the logical demands of a type or mode of thinking. See critical person, critical society, critical reading, critical listening, critical writing, perfections of thought, elements of thought, domains of thought, intellectual virtues.

critical writing : To express ourselves in language requires that we arrange our ideas in some relationships to each other. When accuracy and truth are at issue, then we must understand what our thesis is, how we can support it, how we can elaborate it to make it intelligible to others, what objections can be raised to it from other points of view, what the limitations are to our point of view, and so forth. Disciplined writing requires disciplined thinking; disciplined thinking is achieved through disciplined writing. See critical listening, critical reading, logic of language.

critique : An objective judging, analysis, or evaluation of something. The purpose of critique is the same as the purpose of critical thinking: to appreciate strengths as well as weaknesses, virtues as well as failings. Critical thinkers critique in order to redesign, remodel, and make better.

cultural association : Undisciplined thinking often reflects associations, personal and cultural, absorbed or uncritically formed. If a person who was cruel to me as a child had a particular tone of voice, I may find myself disliking a person who has the same tone of voice. Media advertising juxtaposes and joins logically unrelated things to influence our buying habits. Raised in a particular country or within a particular group within it, we form any number of mental links which, if they remain unexamined, unduly influence our thinking. See concept, critical society.

cultural assumption : Unassessed (often implicit) belief adopted by virtue of upbringing in a society. Raised in a society, we unconsciously take on its point of view, values, beliefs, and practices. At the root of each of these are many kinds of assumptions. Not knowing that we perceive, conceive, think, and experience within assumptions we have taken in, we take ourselves to be perceiving "things as they are", not "things as they appear from a cultural vantage point". Becoming aware of our cultural assumptions so that we might critically examine them is a crucial dimension of critical thinking. It is, however, a dimension almost totally absent from schooling. Lip service to this ideal is common enough; a realistic emphasis is virtually unheard of. See ethnocentricity, prejudice, social contradiction.

Glossary: D An Educator's Guide to Critical Thinking Terms and Concepts

data: Facts, figures, or information from which conclusions can be inferred, or upon which interpretations or theories can be based. As critical thinkers we must make certain to distinguish hard data from the inferences or conclusions we draw from them.

dialectical thinking : Dialogical thinking (thinking within more than one perspective) conducted to test the strengths and weaknesses of opposing points of view. (Court trials and debates are, in a sense, dialectical.) When thinking dialectically, reasoners pit two or more opposing points of view in competition with each other, developing each by providing support, raising objections, countering those objections, raising further objections, and so on. Dialectical thinking or discussion can be conducted so as to "win" by defeating the positions one disagrees with-using critical insight to support one's own view and point out flaws in other views (associated with critical thinking in the restricted or weak sense), or fairmindedly, by conceding points that don't stand up to critique, trying to integrate or incorporate strong points found in other views, and using critical insight to develop a fuller and more accurate view (associated with critical thinking in the fuller or strong sense). See monological problems.

dialogical instruction : Instruction that fosters dialogical or dialectic thinking. Thus, when considering a question, the class brings all relevant subjects to bear and considers the perspectives of groups whose views are not canvassed in their texts-for example, "What did King George think of the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress, Jefferson and Washington, etc.?" or, "How would an economist analyze this situation? A historian? A psychologist? A geographer?" See critical society, didactic instruction, higher order learning, lower order learning, Socratic questioning, knowledge.

dialogical thinking : Thinking that involves a dialogue or extended exchange between different points of view or frames of reference. Students learn best in dialogical situations, in circumstances in which they continually express their views to others and try to fit other's views into their own. See Socratic questioning, monological thinking, multilogical thinking, dialectical thinking.

didactic instruction : Teaching by telling. In didactic instruction, the teacher directly tells the student what to believe and think about a subject. The student's task is to remember what the teacher said and reproduce it on demand. In its most common form, this mode of teaching falsely assumes that one can directly give a person knowledge without that person having to think his or her way to it. It falsely assumes that knowledge can be separated from understanding and justification. It confuses the ability to state a principle with understanding it, the ability to supply a definition with knowing a new word, and the act of saying that something is important with recognizing its importance. See critical society, knowledge.

domains of thought : Thinking can be oriented or structured with different issues or purposes in view. Thinking varies in accordance with purpose and issue. Critical thinkers learn to discipline their thinking to take into account the nature of the issue or domain. We see this most clearly when we consider the difference between issues and thinking within different academic disciplines or subject areas. Hence, mathematical thinking is quite different from, say, historical thinking. Mathematics and history, we can say then, represent different domains of thought. See the logic of questions.

Glossary: E An Educator's Guide to Critical Thinking Terms and Concepts

egocentricity : A tendency to view everything in relationship to oneself; to confuse immediate perception (how things seem) with reality. One's desires, values, and beliefs (seeming to be self-evidently correct or superior to those of others) are often uncritically used as the norm of all judgment and experience. Egocentricity is one of the fundamental impediments to critical thinking. As one learns to think critically in a strong sense, one learns to become more rational, and less egocentric. See human nature, strong sense critical thinker, ethnocentrism, sociocentrism, personal contradiction.

elements of thought : All thought has a universal set of elements, each of which can be monitored for possible problems: Are we clear about our purpose or goal? about the problem or question at issue? about our point of view or frame of reference? about our assumptions? about the claims we are making? about the reasons or evidence upon which we are basing our claims? about our inferences and line of reasoning? about the implications and consequences that follow from our reasoning? Critical thinkers develop skills of identifying and assessing these elements in their thinking and in the thinking of others.

emotion : A feeling aroused to the point of awareness, often a strong feeling or state of excitement. When our egocentric emotions or feelings get involved, when we are excited by infantile anger, fear, jealousy, etc., our objectivity often decreases. Critical thinkers need to be able to monitor their egocentric feelings and use their rational passions to reason themselves into feelings appropriate to the situation as it really is, rather than to how it seems to their infantile ego. Emotions and feelings themselves are not irrational; however, it is common for people to feel strongly when their ego is stimulated. One way to understand the goal of strong sense critical thinking is as the attempt to develop rational feelings and emotions at the expense of irrational, egocentric ones. See rational passions, intellectual virtues.

empirical : Relying or based on experiment, observation, or experience rather than on theory or meaning. It is important to continually distinguish those considerations based on experiment, observation, or experience from those based on the meaning of a word or concept or the implications of a theory. One common form of uncritical or selfish critical thinking involves distorting facts or experience in order to preserve a preconceived meaning or theory. For example, a conservative may distort the facts that support a liberal perspective to prevent empirical evidence from counting against a theory of the world that he or she holds rigidly. Indeed, within all perspectives and belief systems many will distort the facts before they will admit to a weakness in their favorite theory or belief. See data, fact, evidence.

empirical implication : That which follows from a situation or fact, not due to the logic of language, but from experience or scientific law. The redness of the coil on the stove empirically implies dangerous heat.

ethnocentricity : A tendency to view one's own race or culture as central, based on the deep-seated belief that one's own group is superior to all others. Ethnocentrism is a form of egocentrism extended from the self to the group. Much uncritical or selfish critical thinking is either egocentric or ethnocentric in nature. ('Ethnocentrism' and 'sociocentrism' are used synonymously, for the most part, though 'sociocentricity' is broader, relating to any group, including, for example, sociocentricity regarding one's profession.) The "cure" for ethnocentrism or sociocentrism is empathic thought within the perspective of opposing groups and cultures. Such empathic thought is rarely cultivated in the societies and schools of today. Instead, many people develop an empty rhetoric of tolerance, saying that others have different beliefs and ways, but without seriously considering those beliefs and ways, what they mean to those others, and their reasons for maintaining them.

evaluation : To judge or determine the worth or quality of. Evaluation has a logic and should be carefully distinguished from mere subjective preference. The elements of its logic may be put in the form of questions which may be asked whenever an evaluation is to be carried out:

1) Are we clear about what precisely we are evaluating?;

2) Are we clear about our purpose? Is our purpose legitimate?;

3) Given our purpose, what are the relevant criteria or standards for evaluation?;

4) Do we have sufficient information about that which we are evaluating? Is that information relevant to the purpose?; and

5) Have we applied our criteria accurately and fairly to the facts as we know them? Uncritical thinkers often treat evaluation as mere preference or treat their evaluative judgments as direct observations not admitting of error.

evidence : The data on which a judgment or conclusion might be based or by which proof or probability might be established. Critical thinkers distinguish the evidence or raw data upon which they base their interpretations or conclusions from the inferences and assumptions that connect data to conclusions. Uncritical thinkers treat their conclusions as something given to them in experience, as something they directly observe in the world. As a result, they find it difficult to see why anyone might disagree with their conclusions. After all, the truth of their views is, they believe, right there for everyone to see! Such people find it difficult or even impossible to describe the evidence or experience without coloring that description with their interpretation.

explicit : Clearly stated and leaving nothing implied; explicit is applied to that which is so clearly stated or distinctly set forth that there should be no doubt as to the meaning; exact and precise in this connection both suggest that which is strictly defined, accurately stated, or made unmistakably clear; definite implies precise limitations as to the nature, character, meaning, etc. of something; specific implies the pointing up of details or the particularizing of references. Critical thinking often requires the ability to be explicit, exact, definite, and specific. Most students cannot make what is implicit in their thinking explicit. This deficiency hampers their ability to monitor and assess their thinking.

Glossary: F-H An Educator's Guide to Critical Thinking Terms and Concepts

fact : What actually happened, what is true; verifiable by empirical means; distinguished from interpretation, inference, judgment, or conclusion; the raw data. There are distinct senses of the word 'factual': "True" (as opposed to "claimed to be true"); and "empirical" (as opposed to conceptual or evaluative). You may make many "factual claims" in one sense, that is, claims which can be verified or disproven by observation or empirical study, but I must evaluate those claims to determine if they are true. People often confuse these two senses, even to the point of accepting as true, statements which merely "seem factual", for example, "29.23 % of Americans suffer from depression." Before I accept this as true, I should assess it. I should ask such questions as "How do you know? How could this be known? Did you merely ask people if they were depressed and extrapolate those results? How exactly did you arrive at this figure?" Purported facts should be assessed for their accuracy, completeness, and relevance to the issue. Sources of purported facts should be assessed for their qualifications, track records, and impartiality. Education which stresses retention and repetition of factual claims stunts students' desire and ability to assess alleged facts, leaving them open to manipulation. Activities in which students are asked to "distinguish fact from opinion" often confuse these two senses. They encourage students to accept as true statements which merely "look like" facts. See intellectual humility, knowledge.

fair : Treating both or all sides alike without reference to one's own feelings or interests; just implies adherence to a standard of rightness or lawfulness without reference to one's own inclinations; impartial and unbiased both imply freedom from prejudice for or against any side; dispassionate implies the absence of passion or strong emotion, hence, connotes cool, disinterested judgment; objective implies a viewing of persons or things without reference to oneself, one's interests, etc.

1) Unquestioning belief in anything.

2) Confidence, trust, or reliance. A critical thinker does not accept faith in the first sense, for every belief is reached on the basis of some thinking, which may or may not be justified. Even in religion one believes in one religion rather than another, and in doing so implies that there are good reasons for accepting one rather than another. A Christian, for example, believes that there are good reasons for not being an atheist, and Christians often attempt to persuade non-Christians to change their beliefs. In some sense, then, everyone has confidence in the capacity of his or her own mind to judge rightly on the basis of good reasons, and does not believe simply on the basis of blind faith.

fallacy/fallacious : An error in reasoning; flaw or defect in argument; an argument which doesn't conform to rules of good reasoning (especially one that appears to be sound). Containing or based on a fallacy; deceptive in appearance or meaning; misleading; delusive.

higher order learning : Learning through exploring the foundations, justification, implications, and value of a fact, principle, skill, or concept. Learning so as to deeply understand. One can learn in keeping with the rational capacities of the human mind or in keeping with its irrational propensities, cultivating the capacity of the human mind to discipline and direct its thought through commitment to intellectual standards, or one can learn through mere association. Education for critical thought produces higher order learning by helping students actively think their way to conclusions; discuss their thinking with other students and the teacher; entertain a variety of points of view; analyze concepts, theories, and explanations in their own terms; actively question the meaning and implications of what they learn; compare what they learn to what they have experienced; take what they read and write seriously; solve non-routine problems; examine assumptions; and gather and assess evidence. Students should learn each subject by engaging in thought within that subject. They should learn history by thinking historically, mathematics by thinking mathematically, etc. See dialogical instruction, lower order learning, critical society, knowledge, principle, domains of thought.

human nature : The common qualities of all human beings. People have both a primary and a secondary nature. Our primary nature is spontaneous, egocentric, and strongly prone to irrational belief formation. It is the basis for our instinctual thought. People need no training to believe what they want to believe: what serves their immediate interests, what preserves their sense of personal comfort and righteousness, what minimizes their sense of inconsistency, and what presupposes their own correctness. People need no special training to believe what those around them believe: what their parents and friends believe, what is taught to them by religious and school authorities, what is repeated often by the media, and what is commonly believed in the nation in which they are raised. People need no training to think that those who disagree with them are wrong and probably prejudiced. People need no training to assume that their own most fundamental beliefs are self-evidently true or easily justified by evidence. People naturally and spontaneously identify with their own beliefs. They experience most disagreement as personal attack. The resulting defensiveness interferes with their capacity to empathize with or enter into other points of view.

On the other hand, people need extensive and systematic practice to develop their secondary nature, their implicit capacity to function as rational persons. They need extensive and systematic practice to recognize the tendencies they have to form irrational beliefs. They need extensive practice to develop a dislike of inconsistency, a love of clarity, a passion to seek reasons and evidence and to be fair to points of view other than their own. People need extensive practice to recognize that they indeed have a point of view, that they live inferentially, that they do not have a direct pipeline to reality, that it is perfectly possible to have an overwhelming inner sense of the correctness of one’s views and still be wrong. See intellectual virtues.

Glossary: I An Educator's Guide to Critical Thinking Terms and Concepts

idea : Anything existing in the mind as an object of knowledge or thought; concept refers to generalized idea of a class of objects, based on knowledge of particular instances of the class; conception, often equivalent to concept, specifically refers to something conceived in the mind or imagined; thought refers to any idea, whether or not expressed, that occurs to the mind in reasoning or contemplation; notion implies vagueness or incomplete intention; impression also implies vagueness of an idea provoked by some external stimulus. Critical thinkers are aware of what ideas they are using in their thinking, where those ideas came from, and how to assess them. See clarify, concept, logic, logic of language.

imply/implication : A claim or truth which follows from other claims or truths. One of the most important skills of critical thinking is the ability to distinguish between what is actually implied by a statement or situation from what may be carelessly inferred by people. Critical thinkers try to monitor their inferences to keep them in line with what is actually implied by what they know. When speaking, critical thinkers try to use words that imply only what they can legitimately justify. They recognize that there are established word usages which generate established implications. To say of an act that it is murder, for example, is to imply that it is intentional and unjustified. See clarify, precision, logic of language, critical listening, critical reading, elements of thought.

infer/inference : An inference is a step of the mind, an intellectual act by which one concludes that something is so in light of something else's being so, or seeming to be so. If you come at me with a knife in your hand, I would probably infer that you mean to do me harm. Inferences can be strong or weak, justified or unjustified. Inferences are based upon assumptions. See imply/implication.

insight : The ability to see and clearly and deeply understand the inner nature of things. Instruction for critical thinking fosters insight rather than mere performance; it cultivates the achievement of deeper knowledge and understanding through insight. Thinking one’s way into and through a subject leads to insights as one synthesizes what one is learning, relating one subject to other subjects and all subjects to personal experience. Rarely is insight formulated as a goal in present curricula and texts. See dialogical instruction, higher order learning, lower order learning, didactic instruction, intellectual humility.

intellectual autonomy : Having rational control of ones beliefs, values, and inferences. The ideal of critical thinking is to learn to think for oneself, to gain command over one’s thought processes. Intellectual autonomy does not entail willfulness, stubbornness, or rebellion. It entails a commitment to analyzing and evaluating beliefs on the basis of reason and evidence, to question when it is rational to question, to believe when it is rational to believe, and to conform when it is rational to conform. See know, knowledge.

(intellectual) confidence or faith in reason : Confidence that in the long run one's own higher interests and those of humankind at large will best be served by giving the freest play to reason-by encouraging people to come to their own conclusions through a process of developing their own rational faculties; faith that (with proper encouragement and cultivation) people can learn to think for themselves, form rational viewpoints, draw reasonable conclusions, think coherently and logically, persuade each other by reason, and become reasonable, despite the deep-seated obstacles in the native character of the human mind and in society. Confidence in reason is developed through experiences in which one reasons one's way to insight, solves problems through reason, uses reason to persuade, is persuaded by reason. Confidence in reason is undermined when one is expected to perform tasks without understanding why, to repeat statements without having verified or justified them, to accept beliefs on the sole basis of authority or social pressure.

intellectual courage : The willingness to face and fairly assess ideas, beliefs, or viewpoints to which we have not given a serious hearing, regardless of our strong negative reactions to them. This courage arises from the recognition that ideas considered dangerous or absurd are sometimes rationally justified (in whole or in part), and that conclusions or beliefs espoused by those around us or inculcated in us are sometimes false or misleading. To determine for ourselves which is which, we must not passively and uncritically "accept" what we have "learned". Intellectual courage comes into play here, because inevitably we will come to see some truth in some ideas considered dangerous and absurd and some distortion or falsity in some ideas strongly held in our social group. It takes courage to be true to our own thinking in such circumstances. Examining cherished beliefs is difficult, and the penalties for non-conformity are often severe.

intellectual empathy : Understanding the need to imaginatively put oneself in the place of others to genuinely understand them. We must recognize our egocentric tendency to identify truth with our immediate perceptions or longstanding beliefs. Intellectual empathy correlates with the ability to accurately reconstruct the viewpoints and reasoning of others and to reason from premises, assumptions, and ideas other than our own. This trait also requires that we remember occasions when we were wrong, despite an intense conviction that we were right, and consider that we might be similarly deceived in a case at hand.

intellectual humility : Awareness of the limits of one's knowledge, including sensitivity to circumstances in which one’s native egocentrism is likely to function self-deceptively; sensitivity to bias and prejudice in, and limitations of one's viewpoint. Intellectual humility is based on the recognition that no one should claim more than he or she actually knows. It does not imply spinelessness or submissiveness. It implies the lack of intellectual pretentiousness, boastfulness, or conceit, combined with insight into the strengths or weaknesses of the logical foundations of one's beliefs.

intellectual integrity : Recognition of the need to be true to one’s own thinking, to be consistent in the intellectual standards one applies, to hold oneself to the same rigorous standards of evidence and proof to which one holds one's antagonists, to practice what one advocates for others, and to honestly admit discrepancies and inconsistencies in one's own thought and action. This trait develops best in a supportive atmosphere in which people feel secure and free enough to honestly acknowledge their inconsistencies, and can develop and share realistic ways of ameliorating them. It requires honest acknowledgment of the difficulties of achieving greater consistency.

intellectual perseverance : Willingness and consciousness of the need to pursue intellectual insights and truths despite difficulties, obstacles, and frustrations; firm adherence to rational principles despite irrational opposition of others; a sense of the need to struggle with confusion and unsettled questions over an extended period of time in order to achieve deeper understanding or insight. This trait is undermined when teachers and others continually provide the answers, do students' thinking for them or substitute easy tricks, algorithms, and short cuts for careful, independent thought.

intellectual sense of justice : Willingness and consciousness of the need to entertain all viewpoints sympathetically and to assess them with the same intellectual standards, without reference to one’s own feelings or vested interests, or the feelings or vested interests of one's friends, community, or nation; implies adherence to intellectual standards without reference to one’s own advantage or the advantage of one's group.

intellectual virtues : The traits of mind and character necessary for right action and thinking; the traits of mind and character essential for fairminded rationality; the traits that distinguish the narrowminded, self-serving critical thinker from the openminded, truth-seeking critical thinker. These intellectual traits are interdependent. Each is best developed while developing the others as well. They cannot be imposed from without; they must be cultivated by encouragement and example. People can come to deeply understand and accept these principles by analyzing their experiences of them: learning from an unfamiliar perspective, discovering you don’t know as much as you thought, and so on. They include: intellectual sense of justice, intellectual perseverance, intellectual integrity, intellectual humility, intellectual empathy, intellectual courage, (intellectual) confidence in reason, and intellectual autonomy.

interpret/interpretation : To give one's own conception of, to place in the context of one's own experience, perspective, point of view, or philosophy. Interpretations should be distinguished from the facts, the evidence, the situation. (I may interpret someone's silence as an expression of hostility toward me. Such an interpretation may or may not be correct. I may have projected my patterns of motivation and behavior onto that person, or I may have accurately noticed this pattern in the other.) The best interpretations take the most evidence into account. Critical thinkers recognize their interpretations, distinguish them from evidence, consider alternative interpretations, and reconsider their interpretations in the light of new evidence. All learning involves personal interpretation, since whatever we learn we must integrate into our own thinking and action. What we learn must be given a meaning by us, must be meaningful to us, and hence involves interpretive acts on our part. Didactic instruction, in attempting to directly implant knowledge in students' minds, typically ignores the role of personal interpretation in learning.

intuition : The direct knowing or learning of something without the conscious use of reasoning. We sometimes seem to know or learn things without recognizing how we came to that knowledge. When this occurs, we experience an inner sense that what we believe is true. The problem is that sometimes we are correct (and have genuinely experienced an intuition) and sometimes we are incorrect (having fallen victim to one of our prejudices). A critical thinker does not blindly accept that what he or she thinks or believes but cannot account for is necessarily true. A critical thinker realizes how easily we confuse intuitions and prejudices. Critical thinkers may follow their inner sense that something is so, but only with a healthy sense of intellectual humility.

There is a second sense of 'intuition' that is important for critical thinking, and that is the meaning suggested in the following sentence: "To develop your critical thinking abilities, it is important to develop your critical thinking intuitions." This sense of the word is connected to the fact that we can learn concepts at various levels of depth. If we learn nothing more than an abstract definition for a word and do not learn how to apply it effectively in a wide variety of situations, one might say that we end up with no intuitive basis for applying it. We lack the insight into how, when, and why it applies. Helping students to develop critical thinking intuitions is helping them gain the practical insights necessary for a ready and swift application of concepts to cases in a large array of circumstances. We want critical thinking to be "intuitive" to our students, ready and available for immediate translation into their everyday thought and experience.

irrational/irrationality:

1) Lacking the power to reason.

2) Contrary to reason or logic.

3) Senseless, absurd. Uncritical thinkers have failed to develop the ability or power to reason well. Their beliefs and practices, then, are often contrary to reason and logic, and are sometimes senseless or absurd. It is important to recognize, however, that in societies with irrational beliefs and practices, it is not clear whether challenging those beliefs and practices-and therefore possibly endangering oneself-is rational or irrational. Furthermore, suppose one's vested interests are best advanced by adopting beliefs and practices that are contrary to reason. Is it then rational to follow reason and negate one's vested interests or follow one's interests and ignore reason? These very real dilemmas of everyday life represent on-going problems for critical thinkers. Selfish critical thinkers, of course, face no dilemma here because of their consistent commitment to advance their narrow vested interests. Fairminded critical thinkers make these decisions self-consciously and honestly assess the results.

irrational learning : All rational learning presupposes rational assent. And, though we sometimes forget it, not all learning is automatically or even commonly rational. Much that we learn in everyday life is quite distinctively irrational. It is quite possible – and indeed the bulk of human learning is unfortunately of this character-to come to believe any number of things without knowing how or why. It is quite possible, in other words, to believe for irrational reasons: because those around us believe, because we are rewarded for believing, because we are afraid to disbelieve, because our vested interest is served by belief, because we are more comfortable with belief, or because we have ego identified ourselves, our image, or our personal being with belief. In all of these cases, our beliefs are without rational grounding, without good reason and evidence, without the foundation a rational person demands. We become rational, on the other hand, to the extent that our beliefs and actions are grounded in good reasons and evidence; to the extent that we recognize and critique our own irrationality; to the extent that we are not moved by bad reasons and a multiplicity of irrational motives, fears, and desires; to the extent that we have cultivated a passion for clarity, accuracy, and fairmindedness. These global skills, passions, and dispositions, integrated into behavior and thought, characterize the rational, the educated, and the critical person. See higher and lower order learning, knowledge, didactic instruction.

Glossary: J-L An Educator's Guide to Critical Thinking Terms and Concepts

1) The act of judging or deciding.

2) Understanding and good sense. A person has good judgment when they typically judge and decide on the basis of understanding and good sense. Whenever we form a belief or opinion, make a decision, or act, we do so on the basis of implicit or explicit judgments. All thought presupposes making judgments concerning what is so and what is not so, what is true and what is not. To cultivate people's ability to think critically is to foster their judgment, to help them to develop the habit of judging on the basis of reason, evidence, logic, and good sense. Good judgment is developed, not by merely learning about principles of good judgment, but by frequent practice judging and assessing judgments.

justify/justification : The act of showing a belief, opinion, action, or policy to be in accord with reason and evidence, to be ethically acceptable, or both. Education should foster reasonability in students. This requires that both teachers and students develop the disposition to ask for and give justifications for beliefs, opinions, actions, and policies. Asking for a justification should not, then, be viewed as an insult or attack, but rather as a normal act of a rational person. Didactic modes of teaching that do not encourage students to question the justification for what is asserted fail to develop a thoughtful environment conducive to education.

know : To have a clear perception or understanding of, to be sure of, to have a firm mental grasp of; information applies to data that are gathered in any way, as by reading, observation, hearsay, etc. and does not necessarily connote validity; knowledge applies to any body of facts gathered by study, observation, etc. and to the ideas inferred from these facts, and connotes an understanding of what is known. Critical thinkers need to distinguish knowledge from opinion and belief. See knowledge.

knowledge : The act of having a clear and justifiable grasp of what is so or of how to do something. Knowledge is based on understanding or skill, which in turn are based on thought, study, and experience. 'Thoughtless knowledge' is a contradiction. 'Blind knowledge' is a contradiction. 'Unjustifiable knowledge' is a contradiction. Knowledge implies justifiable belief or skilled action. Hence, when students blindly memorize and are tested for recall, they are not being tested for knowledge. Knowledge is continually confused with recall in present-day schooling.

This confusion is a deep-seated impediment to the integration of critical thinking into schooling. Genuine knowledge is inseparable from thinking minds. We often wrongly talk of knowledge as though it could be divorced from thinking, as though it could be gathered up by one person and given to another in the form of a collection of sentences to remember. When we talk in this way, we forget that knowledge, by its very nature, depends on thought.

Knowledge is produced by thought, analyzed by thought, comprehended by thought, organized, evaluated, maintained, and transformed by thought. Knowledge can be acquired only through thought. Knowledge exists, properly speaking, only in minds that have comprehended and justified it through thought. Knowledge is not to be confused with belief nor with symbolic representation of belief. Humans easily and frequently believe things that are false or believe things to be true without knowing them to be so. A book contains knowledge only in a derivative sense, only because minds can thoughtfully read it and through that process gain knowledge.

logic : Correct reasoning or the study of correct reasoning and its foundations. The relationships between propositions (supports, assumes, implies, contradicts, counts against, is relevant to, …).

The system of principles, concepts, and assumptions that underlie any discipline, activity, or practice. The set of rational considerations that bear upon the truth or justification of any belief or set of beliefs. The set of rational considerations that bear upon the settlement of any question or set of questions. The word 'logic' covers a range of related concerns all bearing upon the question of rational justification and explanation. All human thought and behavior is to some extent based on logic rather than instinct. Humans try to figure things out using ideas, meanings, and thought. Such intellectual behavior inevitably involves "logic" or considerations of a logical sort: some sense of what is relevant and irrelevant, of what supports and what counts against a belief, of what we should and should not assume, of what we should and should not claim, of what we do and do not know, of what is and is not implied, of what does and does not contradict, of what we should or should not do or believe.

Concepts have a logic in that we can investigate the conditions under which they do and do not apply, of what is relevant or irrelevant to them, of what they do or don't imply, etc. Questions have a logic in that we can investigate the conditions under which they can be settled. Disciplines have a logic in that they have purposes and a set of logical structures that bear upon those purposes: assumptions, concepts, issues, data, theories, claims, implications, consequences, etc.

The concept of logic is a seminal notion in critical thinking. Unfortunately, it takes a considerable length of time before most people become comfortable with its multiple uses. In part, this is due to people's failure to monitor their own thinking in keeping with the standards of reason and logic. This is not to deny, of course, that logic is involved in all human thinking. It is rather to say that the logic we use is often implicit, unexpressed, and sometimes contradictory. See knowledge, higher and lower order learning, the logic of a discipline, the logic of language, the logic of questions.

the logic of a discipline : The notion that every technical term has logical relationships with other technical terms, that some terms are logically more basic than others, and that every discipline relies on concepts, assumptions, and theories, makes claims, gives reasons and evidence, avoids contradictions and inconsistencies, has implications and consequences, etc.

Though all students study disciplines, most are ignorant of the logic of the disciplines they study. This severely limits their ability to grasp the discipline as a whole, to think independently within it, to compare and contrast it with other disciplines, and to apply it outside the context of academic assignments. Typically now, students do not look for seminal terms as they study an area. They do not strive to translate technical terms into analogies and ordinary words they understand or distinguish technical from ordinary uses of terms. They do not look for the basic assumptions of the disciplines they study. Indeed, on the whole, they do not know what assumptions are nor why it is important to examine them.

What they have in their heads exists like so many BB's in a bag. Whether one thought supports or follows from another, whether one thought elaborates another, exemplifies, presupposes, or contradicts another, are matters students have not learned to think about. They have not learned to use thought to understand thought, which is another way of saying that they have not learned how to use thought to gain knowledge. Instruction for critical thinking cultivates the students’ ability to make explicit the logic of what they study. This emphasis gives depth and breath to study and learning. It lies at the heart of the differences between lower order and higher order learning. See knowledge.

the logic of language : For a language to exist and be learnable by persons from a variety of cultures, it is necessary that words have definite uses and defined concepts that transcend particular cultures. The English language, for example, is learned by many peoples of the world unfamiliar with English or North American cultures. Critical thinkers must learn to use their native language with precision, in keeping with educated usage.

Unfortunately, many students do not understand the significant relationship between precision in language usage and precision in thought. Consider, for example, how most students relate to their native language. If one questions them about the meanings of words, their account is typically incoherent. They often say that people have their own meanings for all the words they use, not noticing that, were this true, we could not understand each other.

Students speak and write in vague sentences because they have no rational criteria for choosing words-they simply write whatever words pop into their heads. They do not realize that every language has a highly refined logic one must learn in order to express oneself precisely. They do not realize that even words similar in meaning typically have different implications. Consider, for example, the words explain, expound, explicate, elucidate, interpret, and construe.

Explain implies the process of making clear and intelligible something not understood or known. Expound implies a systematic and thorough explanation, often by an expert. Explicate implies a scholarly analysis developed in detail. Elucidate implies a shedding of light upon by clear and specific illustration or explanation. Interpret implies the bringing out of meanings not immediately apparent. Construe implies a particular interpretation of something whose meaning is ambiguous. See clarify, concept.

the logic of questions : The range of rational considerations that bear upon the settlement of a given question or group of questions. A critical thinker is adept at analyzing questions to determine what, precisely, a question asks and how to go about rationally settling it. A critical thinker recognizes that different kinds of questions often call for different modes of thinking, different kinds of considerations, and different procedures and techniques. Uncritical thinkers often confuse distinct questions and use considerations irrelevant to an issue while ignoring relevant ones.

lower order learning : Learning by rote memorization, association, and drill. There are a variety of forms of lower order learning in the schools which we can identify by understanding the relative lack of logic informing them. Paradigmatically, lower order learning is learning by sheer association or rote. Hence students come to think of history class, for example, as a place where you hear names, dates, places, events, and outcomes; where you try to remember them and state them on tests. Math comes to be thought of as numbers, symbols, and formulas-mysterious things you mechanically manipulate as the teacher told you in order to get the right answer.

Literature is often thought of as uninteresting stories to remember along with what the teacher said is important about them. Consequently, students leave with a jumble of undigested fragments, scraps left over after they have forgotten most of what they stored in their short-term memories for tests. Virtually never do they grasp the logic of what they learn. Rarely do they relate what they learn to their own experience or critique each by means of the other. Rarely do they try to test what they learn in everyday life. Rarely do they ask "Why is this so? How does this relate to what I already know? How does this relate to what I am learning in other classes?"

To put the point in a nutshell, very few students think of what they are learning as worthy of being arranged logically in their minds or have the slightest idea of how to do so. See didactic instruction, monological and multilogical problems and thinking.

Glossary: M-O An Educator's Guide to Critical Thinking Terms and Concepts

monological (one-dimensional) problems : Problems that can be solved by reasoning exclusively within one point of view or frame of reference. For example, consider the following problems: 1) Ten full crates of walnuts weigh 410 pounds, whereas an empty crate weighs 10 pounds. How much do the walnuts alone weigh?; and 2) In how many days of the week does the third letter of the day's name immediately follow the first letter of the day's name in the alphabet? I call these problems and the means by which they are solved "monological". They are settled within one frame of reference with a definite set of logical moves. When the right set of moves is performed, the problem is settled. The answer or solution proposed can be shown by standards implicit in the frame of reference to be the "right" answer or solution.

Most important human problems are multilogical rather than monological, nonatomic problems inextricably joined to other problems, with some conceptual messiness to them and very often with important values lurking in the background. When the problems have an empirical dimension, that dimension tends to have a controversial scope. In multilogical problems, it is often arguable how some facts should be considered and interpreted, and how their significance should be determined. When they have a conceptual dimension, there tend to be arguably different ways to pin the concepts down.

Though life presents us with predominantly multilogical problems, schooling today over-emphasizes monological problems. Worse, and more frequently, present instructional practices treat multilogical problems as though they were monological. The posing of multilogical problems, and their consideration from multiple points of view, play an important role in the cultivation of critical thinking and higher order learning.

monological (one-dimensional) thinking : Thinking that is conducted exclusively within one point of view or frame of reference: figuring our how much this $67.49 pair of shoes with a 25% discount will cost me; learning what signing this contract obliges me to do; finding out when Kennedy was elected President. A person can think monologically whether or not the question is genuinely monological. (For example, if one considers the question, "Who caused the Civil War?" only from a Northerner's perspective, one is thinking monologically about a multilogical question.)

The strong sense critical thinker avoids monological thinking when the question is multi-logical. Moreover, higher order learning requires multi-logical thought, even when the problem is monological (for example, learning a concept in chemistry), since students must explore and assess their original beliefs to develop insight into new ideas.

multilogical (multi-dimensional) problems : Problems that can be analyzed and approached from more than one, often from conflicting, points of view or frames of reference. For example, many ecological problems have a variety of dimensions to them: historical, social, economic, biological, chemical, moral, political, etc. A person comfortable thinking about multilogical problems is comfortable thinking within multiple perspectives, in engaging in dialogical and dialectical thinking, in practicing intellectual empathy, in thinking across disciplines and domains. See monological problems, the logic of questions, the logic of disciplines, intellectual empathy, dialogical instruction.

multilogical thinking : Thinking that sympathetically enters, considers, and reasons within multiple points of view. See multilogical problems, dialectical thinking, dialogical instruction.

national bias : Prejudice in favor of one's country, its beliefs, traditions, practices, image, and world view; a form of sociocentrism or ethnocentrism. It is natural, if not inevitable, for people to be favorably disposed toward the beliefs, traditions, practices, and world view within which they were raised. Unfortunately, this favorable inclination commonly becomes a form of prejudice: a more or less rigid, irrational ego-identification which significantly distorts one's view of one's own nation and the world at large. It is manifested in a tendency to mindlessly take the side of one's own government, to uncritically accept governmental accounts of the nature of disputes with other nations, to uncritically exaggerate the virtues of one's own nation while playing down the virtues of "enemy" nations.

National bias is reflected in the press and media coverage of every nation of the world. Events are included or excluded according to what appears significant within the dominant world view of the nation, and are shaped into stories to validate that view. Though constructed to fit into a particular view of the world, the stories in the news are presented as neutral, objective accounts, and uncritically accepted as such because people tend to uncritically assume that their own view of things is the way things really are.

To become responsible critically thinking citizens and fairminded people, students must practice identifying national bias in the news and in their texts, and to broaden their perspective beyond that of uncritical nationalism. See ethnocentrism, sociocentrism, bias, prejudice, world view, intellectual empathy, critical society, dialogical instruction, knowledge.

opinion : A belief, typically one open to dispute. Sheer unreasoned opinion should be distinguished from reasoned judgment-beliefs formed on the basis of careful reasoning. See evaluation, judgment, justify, know, knowledge, reasoned judgment.

Glossary: P-Q An Educator's Guide to Critical Thinking Terms and Concepts

the perfections of thought : Thinking, as an attempt to understand the world as it is, has a natural excellence or fitness to it. This excellence is manifest in its clarity, precision, specificity, accuracy, relevance, consistency, logicalness, depth, completeness, significance, fairness, and adequacy. These perfections are general canons for thought; they represent legitimate concerns irrespective of the discipline or domain of thought.

To develop one's mind and discipline one's thinking with respect to these standards requires extensive practice and long-term cultivation. Of course, achieving these standards is a relative matter and varies somewhat among domains of thought. Being precise while doing mathematics is not the same as being precise while writing a poem, describing an experience, or explaining a historical event.

Furthermore, one perfection of thought may be periodically incompatible with the others: adequacy to purpose. Time and resources sufficient to thoroughly analyze a question or problem is all too often an unaffordable luxury. Also, since the social world is often irrational and unjust, because people are often manipulated to act against their interests, and because skilled thought often serves vested interest, thought adequate to these manipulative purposes may require skilled violation of the common standards for good thinking. Skilled propaganda, skilled political debate, skilled defense of a group's interests, skilled deception of one's enemy may require the violation or selective application of any of the above standards.

Perfecting one's thought as an instrument for success in a world based on power and advantage differs from perfecting one's thought for the apprehension and defense of fairminded truth. To develop one's critical thinking skills merely to the level of adequacy for social success is to develop those skills in a lower or weaker sense.

personal contradiction : An inconsistency in one's personal life, wherein one says one thing and does another, or uses a double standard, judging oneself and one's friends by an easier standard than that used for people one doesn't like; typically a form of hypocrisy accompanied by self-deception. Most personal contradictions remain unconscious. People too often ignore the difficulty of becoming intellectually and morally consistent, preferring instead to merely admonish others. Personal contradictions are more likely to be discovered, analyzed, and reduced in an atmosphere in which they can be openly admitted and realistically considered without excessive penalty. See egocentricity, intellectual integrity.

perspective (point of view) : Human thought is relational and selective. It is impossible to understand any person, event, or phenomenon from every vantage point simultaneously. Our purposes often control how we see things. Critical thinking requires that this fact be taken into account when analyzing and assessing thinking. This is not to say that human thought is incapable of truth and objectivity, but only that human truth, objectivity, and insight is virtually always limited and partial, virtually never total and absolute. The hard sciences are themselves a good example of this point, since qualitative realities are systematically ignored in favor of quantifiable realities.

precision : The quality of being accurate, definite, and exact. The standards and modes of precision vary according to subject and context. See the logic of language, elements of thought.

prejudice : A judgment, belief, opinion, point of view-favorable or unfavorable-formed before the facts are known, resistant to evidence and reason, or in disregard of facts which contradict it. Self-announced prejudice is rare. Prejudice almost always exists in obscured, rationalized, socially validated, functional forms. It enables people to sleep peacefully at night even while flagrantly abusing the rights of others. It enables people to get more of what they want, or to get it more easily. It is often sanctioned with a superabundance of pomp and self-righteousness.

Unless we recognize these powerful tendencies toward selfish thought in our social institutions, even in what appear to be lofty actions and moralistic rhetoric, we will not face squarely the problem of prejudice in human thought and action. Uncritical and selfishly critical thought are often prejudiced.

Most instruction in schools today, because students do not think their way to what they accept as true, tends to give students prejudices rather than knowledge. For example, partly as a result of schooling, people often accept as authorities those who liberally sprinkle their statements with numbers and intellectual-sounding language, however irrational or unjust their positions. This prejudice toward psuedo-authority impedes rational assessment. See insight, knowledge.

premise : A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn. A starting point of reasoning. For example, one might say, in commenting on someone's reasoning, "You seem to be reasoning from the premise that everyone is selfish in everything they do. Do you hold this belief?

principle : A fundamental truth, law, doctrine, value, or commitment, upon which others are based. Rules, which are more specific, and often superficial and arbitrary, are based on principles. Rules are more algorithmic; they needn't be understood to be followed. Principles must be understood to be appropriately applied or followed. Principles go to the heart of the matter. Critical thinking is dependent on principles, not rules and procedures. Critical thinking is principled, not procedural, thinking. Principles cannot be truly grasped through didactic instruction; they must be practiced and applied to be internalized. See higher order learning, lower order learning, judgment.

problem : A question, matter, situation, or person that is perplexing or difficult to figure out, handle, or resolve. Problems, like questions, can be divided into many types. Each has a (particular) logic. See logic of questions, monological problems, multilogical problems.

problem-solving : Whenever a problem cannot be solved formulaically or robotically, critical thinking is required: first, to determine the nature and dimensions of the problem, and then, in the light of the first, to determine the considerations, points of view, concepts, theories, data, and reasoning relevant to its solution. Extensive practice in independent problem-solving is essential to developing critical thought. Problem-solving is rarely best approached procedurally or as a series of rigidly followed steps. For example, problem-solving schemas typically begin, "State the problem." Rarely can problems be precisely and fairly stated prior to analysis, gathering of evidence, and dialogical or dialectical thought wherein several provisional descriptions of the problem are proposed, assessed, and revised.

proof (prove) : Evidence or reasoning so strong or certain as to demonstrate the truth or acceptability of a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt. How strong evidence or reasoning have to be to demonstrate what they purport to prove varies from context to context, depending on the significance of the conclusion or the seriousness of the implications following from it. See domain of thought.

Glossary: R An Educator's Guide to Critical Thinking Terms and Concepts

rational/rationality : That which conforms to principles of good reasoning, is sensible, shows good judgment, is consistent, logical, complete, and relevant. Rationality is a summary term like 'virtue' or 'goodness'. It is manifested in an unlimited number of ways and depends on a host of principles. There is some ambiguity in it, depending on whether one considers only the logicalness and effectiveness by which one pursues one's ends, or whether it includes the assessment of ends themselves. There is also ambiguity in whether one considers selfish ends to be rational, even when they conflict with what is just. Does a rational person have to be just or only skilled in pursuing his or her interests? Is it rational to be rational in an irrational world? See perfections of thought, irrational/irrationality, logic, intellectual virtues, weak sense critical thinking, strong sense critical thinking. rational emotions/passions : R. S. Peters has explained the significance of the affective side of reason and critical thought in his defense of the necessity of "rational passions":

There is, for instance, the hatred of contradictions and inconsistencies, together with the love of clarity and hatred of confusion without which words could not be held to relatively constant meanings and testable rules and generalizations stated. A reasonable man cannot, without some special explanation, slap his sides with delight or express indifference if he is told that what he says is confused, incoherent, and perhaps riddled with contradictions. Reason is the antithesis of arbitrariness. In its operation it is supported by the appropriate passions which are mainly negative in character-the hatred of irrelevance, special pleading, and arbitrary fiat. The more developed emotion of indignation is aroused when some excess of arbitrariness is perpetuated in a situation where people's interests and claims are at stake. The positive side of this is the passion for fairness and impartial consideration of claims....

A man who is prepared to reason must feel strongly that he must follow the arguments and decide things in terms of where they lead. He must have a sense of the giveness of the impersonality of such considerations. In so far as thoughts about persons enter his head they should be tinged with the respect which is due to another who, like himself, may have a point of view which is worth considering, who may have a glimmering of the truth which has so far eluded himself. A person who proceeds in this way, who is influenced by such passions, is what we call a reasonable man.

rational self : Our character and nature to the extent that we seek to base our beliefs and actions on good reasoning and evidence. Who we are, what our true character is, or our predominant qualities are, is always somewhat or even greatly different from who we think we are. Human egocentrism and accompanying self-deception often stand in the way of our gaining more insight into ourselves. We can develop a rational self, become a person who gains significant insight into what our true character is, only by reducing our egocentrism and self-deception. Critical thinking is essential to this process. rational society : See critical society.

reasoned judgment : Any belief or conclusion reached on the basis of careful thought and reflection, distinguished from mere or unreasoned opinion on the one hand, and from sheer fact on the other. Few people have a clear sense of which of their beliefs are based on reasoned judgment and which on mere opinion. Moral or ethical questions, for example, are questions requiring reasoned judgment. One way of conceiving of subject-matter education is as developing students' ability to engage in reasoned judgment in accordance with the standards of each subject.

reasoning : The mental processes of those who reason; especially the drawing of conclusions or inferences from observations, facts, or hypotheses; the evidence or arguments used in this procedure. A critical thinker tries to develop the capacity to transform thought into reasoning at will, or rather, the ability to make his or her inferences explicit, along with the assumptions or premises upon which those inferences are based. Reasoning is a form of explicit inferring, usually involving multiple steps. When students write a persuasive paper, for example, we want them to be clear about their reasoning.

reciprocity : The act of entering empathically into the point of view or line of reasoning of others; learning to think as others do and by that means sympathetically assessing that thinking. (Reciprocity requires creative imagination as well as intellectual skill and a commitment to fairmindedness.)

relevant : Bearing upon or relating to the matter at hand; relevant implies close logical relationship with, and importance to, the matter under consideration; germane implies such close natural connection as to be highly appropriate or fit; pertinent implies an immediate and direct bearing on the matter at hand (a pertinent suggestion); apposite applies to that which is both relevant and happily suitable or appropriate; applicable refers to that which can be brought to bear upon a particular matter or problem. Students often have problems sticking to an issue and distinguishing information that bears upon a problem from information that does not. Merely reminding students to limit themselves to relevant considerations fails to solve this problem. The usual way of teaching students the term 'relevant' is to mention only clear-cut cases of relevance and irrelevance. Consequently, students do not learn that not everything that seems relevant is, or that some things which do not seem relevant are. Sensitivity to (ability to judge) relevance can only be developed with continual practice-practice distinguishing relevant from irrelevant data, evaluating or judging relevance, arguing for and against the relevance of facts and considerations.

Glossary: S An Educator's Guide to Critical Thinking Terms and Concepts

self-deception : Deceiving one's self about one's true motivations, character, identity, etc. One possible definition of the human species is "The Self-Deceiving Animal". Self-deception is a fundamental problem in human life and the cause of much human suffering. Overcoming self-deception through self-critical thinking is a fundamental goal of strong sense critical thinking. See egocentric, rational self, personal contradiction, social contradiction, intellectual virtues.

social contradiction : An inconsistency between what a society preaches and what it practices. In every society there is some degree of inconsistency between its image of itself and its actual character. Social contradiction typically correlates with human self-deception on the social or cultural level. Critical thinking is essential for the recognition of inconsistencies, and recognition is essential for reform and eventual integrity.

sociocentricity : The assumption that one's own social group is inherently and self-evidently superior to all others. When a group or society sees itself as superior, and so considers its views as correct or as the only reasonable or justifiable views, and all its actions as justified, there is a tendency to presuppose this superiority in all of its thinking and thus, to think closedmindedly. All dissent and doubt are considered disloyal and rejected without consideration. Few people recognize the sociocentric nature of much of their thought.

Socratic questioning : A mode of questioning that deeply probes the meaning, justification, or logical strength of a claim, position, or line of reasoning. Socratic questioning can be carried out in a variety of ways and adapted to many levels of ability and understanding. See elements of thought, dialogical instruction, knowledge.

specify/specific : To mention, describe, or define in detail; limiting or limited; specifying or specified; precise; definite. Student thinking, speech, and writing tend to be vague, abstract, and ambiguous rather than specific, concrete, and clear. Learning how to state one's views specifically is essential to learning how to think clearly, precisely, and accurately. See perfections of thought.

strong sense critical thinke r: One who is predominantly characterized by the following traits:

an ability to question deeply one's own framework of thought an ability to reconstruct sympathetically and imaginatively the strongest versions of points of view and frameworks of thought opposed to one's own an ability to reason dialectically (multilogically) in such a way as to determine when one's own point of view is at its weakest and when an opposing point of view is at its strongest.

Strong sense critical thinkers are not routinely blinded by their own points of view. They know they have points of view and therefore recognize on what framework of assumptions and ideas their own thinking is based. They realize the necessity of putting their own assumptions and ideas to the test of the strongest objections that can be leveled against them.

Teaching for critical thinking in the strong sense is teaching so that students explicate, understand, and critique their own deepest prejudices, biases, and misconceptions, thereby discovering and contesting their own egocentric and sociocentric tendencies. Only if we contest our inevitable egocentric and sociocentric habits of thought, can we hope to think in a genuinely rational fashion. Only dialogical thinking about basic issues that genuinely matter to the individual provides the kind of practice and skill essential to strong sense critical thinking.

Students need to develop all critical thinking skills in dialogical settings to achieve ethically rational development, that is, genuine fairmindedness. If critical thinking is taught simply as atomic skills separate from the empathic practice of entering into points of view that students are fearful of or hostile toward, they will simply find additional means of rationalizing prejudices and preconceptions, or convincing people that their point of view is the correct one. They will be transformed from vulgar to sophisticated (but not to strong sense) critical thinkers.

Glossary: T-Z An Educator's Guide to Critical Thinking Terms and Concepts

teach : The basic inclusive word for the imparting of knowledge or skills. It usually connotes some individual attention to the learner; instruct implies systematized teaching, usually in some particular subject; educate stresses the development of latent faculties and powers by formal, systematic teaching, especially in institutions of higher learning; train implies the development of a particular faculty or skill or instruction toward a particular occupation, as by methodical discipline, exercise, etc. See knowledge.

theory : A systematic statement of principles involved in a subject; a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree. Often without realizing it, we form theories that help us make sense of the people, events, and problems in our lives. Critical thinkers put their theories to the test of experience and give due consideration to the theories of others. Critical thinkers do not take their theories to be facts.

think : The general word meaning to exercise the mental faculties so as to form ideas, arrive at conclusions, etc.; reason implies a logical sequence of thought, starting with what is known or assumed and advancing to a definite conclusion through the inferences drawn; reflect implies a turning of one's thoughts back on a subject and connotes deep or quiet continued thought; speculate implies a reasoning on the basis of incomplete or uncertain evidence and therefore stresses the conjectural character of the opinions formed; deliberate implies careful and thorough consideration of a matter in order to arrive at a conclusion. Though everyone thinks, few people think critically. We don't need instruction to think; we think spontaneously. We need instruction to learn how to discipline and direct our thinking on the basis of sound intellectual standards. See elements of thought, perfections of thought.

truth : Conformity to knowledge, fact, actuality, or logic: a statement proven to be or accepted as true, not false or erroneous. Most people uncritically assume their views to be correct and true. Most people, in other words, assume themselves to possess the truth. Critical thinking is essential to avoid this, if for no other reason.

uncritical person : One who has not developed intellectual skills (naive, conformist, easily manipulated, dogmatic, easily confused, unclear, closedminded, narrowminded, careless in word choice, inconsistent, unable to distinguish evidence from interpretation). Uncriticalness is a fundamental problem in human life, for when we are uncritical we nevertheless think of ourselves as critical. The first step in becoming a critical thinker consists in recognizing that we are uncritical. Teaching for insight into uncriticalness is an important part of teaching for criticalness.

vague : Not clearly, precisely, or definitely expressed or stated; not sharp, certain, or precise in thought, feeling, or expression. Vagueness of thought and expression is a major obstacle to the development of critical thinking. We cannot begin to test our beliefs until we recognize clearly what they are. We cannot disagree with what someone says until we are clear about what they mean. Students need much practice in transforming vague thoughts into clear ones. See ambiguous, clarify, concept, logic, logic of questions, logic of language.

verbal implication: That which follows, according to the logic of the language. If I say, for example, that someone used flattery on me, I imply that the compliments were insincere and given only to make me feel positively toward that person, to manipulate me against my reason or interest for some end. See imply, infer, empirical implication, elements of thought.

weak sense critical thinkers:

Those who do not hold themselves or those with whom they ego-identify to the same intellectual standards to which they hold "opponents" Those who have not learned how to reason empathically within points of view or frames of reference with which they disagree Those who tend to think monologically Those who do not genuinely accept, though they may verbally espouse, the values of critical thinking Those who use the intellectual skills of critical thinking selectively and self-deceptively to foster and serve their vested interests (at the expense of truth); able to identify flaws in the reasoning of others and refute them; able to shore up their own beliefs with reasons. world view: All human action takes place within a way of looking at and interpreting the world. As schooling now stands, very little is done to help students to grasp how they are viewing the world and how those views determine the character of their experience, their interpretations, their conclusions about events and persons, etc. In teaching for critical thinking in a strong sense, we make the discovery of one's own world view and the experience of other people's world views a fundamental priority. See bias, interpret.

{Paul, R. (1995). Critical Thinking: How to Prepare Students for a Rapidly Changing World . Dillon Beach, CA.: Foundation For Critical Thinking, Appendix B, pp. 521-552.}

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

16 Definition

Robert h. ennis, 1. introduction [1] , [2].

Definition, though often neglected, plays an important role in critical thinking by helping us make our positions, inquiries, and reasoning clear.

Every definition has three dimensions: form, action, and content . The form of a definition is essentially the structure of the definition. An example of form is definition by synonym, a simple form of definition in which the word being defined is equal in meaning to one other word.

Three definitional actions that can be performed with any form of definition are reporting a meaning, stipulating a meaning, and adv o cating a meaning that incorporates a position on an issue.

This chapter focuses on these first two dimensions, form and action.

The third dimension, content , deals with the meaning conveyed by the definition. The content dimension is enormous because it involves the definitional content of all subject matter areas, as well as all other areas of human life. Attention to the content dimension will here be exemplified only in a discussion of a case of probable equivocation with the term ‘reliability’.

To the extent possible, a definition should be clear, brief, efficient, informative, responsive to background information, and easy to remember and understand. It should be at an appropriate level of sophistication and difficulty for the situation. It should employ an appropriate form and have a reasonable amount of vagueness and specificity. Because so much depends on the situation, and because these general criteria overlap to some extent, informed cautious judgment is required.

There has been little recent work with practical application in the area of definition. I hope that in the future there will be more explicit attention given to this topic than has been afforded it so far.

2. Common forms of definition

Full-definition forms to be presented are: (1 ) classification, (2) equi v alent-expression, (3) range, (4) synonym, (5) extended-synonym, (6) antonym, and (7) operational. Partial-definition forms to be considered are (8) giving examples, non-examples, and borderline cases (all three either verbally or ostensively), as well as using the term in a sentence . [3] There is much to consider in a given context in choosing what form is more successful in specifying the meaning of a term. It is often helpful to compare a definition with another definition of the same word in the same form or in a different form.

2.1 Classification definition

Classification definition is a very common form of definition of nouns. Here is one of a number of possible classification definitions of the noun, ‘argument’ (Example 1):

E1 An argument is a reason-based attempt to justify a conclusion.

I have called this popular type of definition “classification definition” because things labeled by the term being defined (in this case, ‘argument’) are classified as the members of a general class (e.g., reason-based attempts ) and then further classified under one or more distinguishing features (e.g., to justify a conclusion ).

In definition lore, classification definition is often called “genus-differentia definition”, with the word ‘genus’ referring to the general class and the word ‘differentia’ referring to the distinguishing fe a tures . [4] I prefer the label “classification definition” over the label “genus-differentia definition” primarily because the words ‘classification definition’ are more user-friendly for beginners than ‘genus-differentia’. Another reason is that in ‘genus-differentia’ terminology the differentia must be treated as one thing because the word, ‘differentia’ is singular. Even though there are ways around this, I usually find it easier to develop and work with definitions that make it easy to treat multiple distinguishing features separately.

In logical terms the components mentioned in the defining part of a simple classification definition (the general class and the distinguis h ing features ) are each necessary and jointly sufficient for something to be what is labeled by the term being defined. Most other definition forms do not have the strictness of ‘necessary’ and ‘sufficient’.

2.1.1 Flexibility in offering and selecting the general class

In this classification definition of ‘stapler’, ‘a device for fastening two or more pieces of paper together’, device is the general class. In this classification definition of ‘automobile’ (adapted from Dictio n ary.c om , accessed Sept. 5, 2017) , ‘ a vehicle designed for operation on ordinary roads, able to carry passengers, and typically having four wheels and a gasoline or diesel internal-combustion en gine’ , vehicle is the general class. In a classification definition, there must be a general class.

However there is often more than one legitimate choice of the general class for any given meaning of a term. One way to look at Example 1 (above) is to consider reason-based attempt as the general class and to justify a conclusion as a distinguishing feature. A different way to analyze this meaning of ‘argument’ is to treat attempt as the general class and the rest ( based on reasons and to justify a conclusion ) as the distinguishing features, as is explicitly exemplified in Example 2.

E2 An argument is an attempt based on reasons to justify a concl u sion.

Such variations in general class and accompanying variations among the distinguishing features often are possible without changing the meaning of the term being defined. Note that in Example 3 (below), the same meaning of ‘argument’ is captured, though there is a considerably different general class, set of reasons and a conclusion offered by the arguer, and different distinguishing features, in an attempt and to justify a conclusion :

E3 An argument is a set of reasons and a conclusion offered by the arguer in an attempt to justify a conclusion.

One should be flexible in choosing the general class because one choice is often better than the others, so we should not hastily accept the first to occur to us. This flexibility calls for paying attention to the general criteria for a definition mentioned earlier.

Of the three general classes so far considered (each of which introduces what is basically the same meaning of ‘argument’), the one that I prefer is reason-based attempt. I choose it over attempt because attempt seems to be too broad a category; it does not rule out enough things; that is, it does not give much guidance. Furthermore, I prefer reason-based attempt over set of reasons and a conclusion offered by an arguer as the general class, because the definition in Example 1 using reason-based attempt seems to satisfy more of the above-mentioned criteria for a definition than Example 3. Example 1 seems clear, brief, efficient, easy to remember, and easy to understand.

One important thing to be learned from these examples is that there can be explicitly different definitions of a term, each of which defines the term adequately without changing the basic meaning. Elsewhere (2016), I have gathered fourteen definitions of ‘critical thinking’ by leaders in the field, starting with John Dewey (1933, first ed., 1910), who inspired the current critical thinking movement under the label “critical thinking”. Most of these fourteen definitions are classification definitions They are essentially in agreement with each other about the meaning of ‘critical thinking’, even though they use different words and cite different features. Each one seems essentially right. This sort of occurrence is an interesting content-dimension fact about a number of concepts and definitions. Many concepts have more than enough necessary and/or sufficient conditions to identify them uniquely. And different definitions have different amounts of informative but not logically necessary material.

2.1.2 Imprecision

Ordinary language being what it is, we often must accept some imprecision, which often depends on the context. For instance, Example 3 does not tell us whether a pair of people working together can constitute an arguer . But specifics like that might not matter at all, given the context in which the term is being defined. Also the first three examples above do not specify what kind of justification is involved (for example, deductive validity, or validity in its non-technical sense, meaning roughly ‘correctness’), but the context might settle that. If the context were a course in deductive logic, the “necessary-follows” sense of ‘validity’ would probably be appropriate.

In these cases, given that the context is the field of critical thinking, the three definitions are concerned with all kinds of justification, and are not limited to deductive validity.

The range definition form, which is soon to be considered, explicitly makes imprecision evident when defining obviously imprecise terms. But at some level of elaboration, most everyday terms have a degree of possible imprecision, and the definer must decide how much precision is available and desirable, given the context and the ordinary meaning of the term in the context, and implement that decision with appropriate wording.

2.1.3 Nouns and Non-nouns

Classification definition and genus-differentia definition require that the term being defined be a noun. If some other part of speech, for example, a verb (an example being ‘argue’) is to be defined using the classification form, perhaps because of familiarity with classification definition, or its completeness, the term ‘argue’ can be converted to a noun (possibly ‘argument’) and defined as a noun. From this definition the receiver must infer what the original word (‘argue’) means. If an expected audience can infer the meaning of ‘argue’ from Examples 1, 2, and/or 3, then these examples of classification definition might well be used to define ‘argue’ in this manner, that is, indirectly. But there are other definition forms, especially the equivalent-expression form, which might work as well or better in some cases.

2.2 Equivalent-expression definition

When the term we want to define is not a noun, another form, equivalent-expression definition might be appropriate. Equivalent-expression definition does not require that we convert the term to be defined to a noun, which can make problems, as I shall later show. Instead the term to be defined remains unchanged and is put in a larger expression that is equated with an equivalent expression. This type of definition, which I call “equivalent-expression definition”, is called “contextual definition” by Hempel (1952, p. 5), and Dictionary.com (August, 2017). Example 4 is an equivalent-expression definition of the verb, ‘argue’:

E4 ‘ To a rgue in support of a conclusion’ is ‘ to attempt to justi fy it’ . [5]

The expressions on each side of the word ‘is’ are claimed to be equal in meaning to each other, giving us a good idea of the meaning of ‘argue’ in the sense in which I believe it is usually used in the field of critical thinking.

The adjective ‘biased’ can be handled the same way, as shown in an equivalent-expression definition in Example 5:

E5 To say “a person is biased” is to say “the person lets his or her prejudices influence his or her judgment”.

However, if we try to convert the non-noun (‘biased’ for example) to a noun, such as ‘bias’, as we might in trying to make a classification definition for ‘biased’, the task might become difficult. I invite you to ask yourself, “What general class could one use to give a classification definition of the noun, ‘bias’?” After rejecting a number of candidates that occurred to me, I chose ‘disposition’ , resulting in Example 6:

E6 A bias is a persistent prejudiced disposition toward issues and/or people.

But it took me a while to come up with that. I considered ‘quality’, which is a common, but often not very informative, general class term, and feel it is too general to be of much help. The result in Example 6 is usable, but I prefer Example 5, the equivalent-expression definition. It seems more informative. Some readers might prefer Example 6. The important thing is that there are generally different alternatives in defining terms, and a definer should consider the alternatives and apply the general criteria for definitions. No one form is always best. Sometimes the classification form seems best, sometimes the equivalent-expression form, sometimes another form. This is a matter about which reasonable people can differ.

Another instructive example is the term, ‘valid’, as used by logicians. Although not a noun, its companion noun, ‘validity’ can be given a classification definition as a noun by introducing the very general noun, ‘quality’, followed by a user’s inference back to the meaning of the adjective, ‘valid’ (assuming a logician’s context). Here is such a classification definition:

E7 Validity is the quality of an argument in which the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.

Here is an equivalent-expression definition of ‘valid’:

E8 ‘ An argument is v alid ’ means the same as ‘ The conclusion fo l lows necessarily from the premises.’

The equivalent-expression form obviates the need to find a workable noun for a general class term, and generally provides a convenient definition, as noted in dealing with ‘bias’ (Examples 5 and 6), and ‘valid’ (Examples 7 and 8).

But the equivalent-expression form does not provide the general class and distinguishing features characteristic of the classification form, and so is not so clearly bounded as a classification definition of the term. For example, it does not necessarily provide an interpretation when the term being defined is not in the chosen context, and is in other contexts, or no context. Furthermore it does not require the necessary and sufficient condition guarantee provided by a classification definition.

One must decide, and not only between these two forms. There are other forms as well. In any case one must consider the definition criteria, the situation, and one’s personal theoretically-motivated or pedagogically-motivated preferences.

2.3 Range definition

Range definition , a deliberately-vague form named by Max Black (1954), can be roughly a classification definition in form, specifying a general class and roughly distinguishing the term being defined from other members of the class. But it deliberately introduces explicit vagueness. Black likened the vagueness to that of a mountain range (hence the term “range”). The following range definition of ‘scientific method’, based on Black (1954), exhibits deliberate vagueness:

E9 Scientific method is a method of investigation characteristically involving a substantial number, but rarely all, of the following characteristics: observation, generalization, experimentation, measurement, calculation, use of instruments, formulating and testing hypotheses that get support from their being able to e x plain the facts and their competitors’ being inconsistent with the facts, and being more or less tentative when concluding.

The general class is method of investigation . The vagueness is deliberately introduced by the terms ‘characteristically’, ‘substantial number’, ‘rarely all’, ‘more or less’ , and ‘tentative’. The definer should use such qualifiers as these to indicate when defining a term that is clearly vague in the situation. Although this particular definition of ‘scientific method’ is close to being in a classification form, range definitions need not approximate the classification form. They can be similar to other forms. But of course they should satisfy definition criteria, as is feasible, given their vagueness.

2.4 Synonym definition

The synonym form uses one word to define another word. One advantage of the synonym form is that it is suitable for non-nouns. Another advantage is its brevity. Here is an example:

E10 ‘Biased’ means the same as ‘prejudiced’.

Although convenient when time is short, synonym definitions often do not capture the full meaning of the word being defined, sometimes because they are made in a hurry, but often because there is no single word that is equivalent. Synonym form may not be the best way to define a term in a given situation because, although convenience and understandability are important, accuracy is often more important.

2.5 Extended-synonym definition

Instead of being limited to a one-word meaning as we are with a synonym definition, it is often helpful to add clarification to the defining component, producing an extended-synonym definition. This form does not embed the term being defined in a context, and thus is not the equivalent-expression form. Furthermore the extended-synonym form is useful for those terms that do not work well with the rigid necessary-and-sufficient-condition structure of a classification definition.

I think that ‘objective’ is such a term and suggest the following extended-synonym definition of ‘objective’ from Dictionary.com (2017):

E11 ‘Objective’ means not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased.

The term ‘objective’ I believe loosely fits each part of the array of terms in Example 11. But it fits no one of these terms exactly, although as a group, they do a fairly good job, making the extended-synonym form appropriate for this term. Adding a use-in-a-sentence partial definition ( see Example 17 below) to Example 11 provides what I believe is an even better grasp of the term, ‘objective’.

I realize this is a somewhat subjective appraisal. But th e principal goal of this chapter is to provide a choice of alternative forms that one can use. This requires using one’s judgment (which often will be somewhat subjective) in each situation with due respect to the criteria for a good definition.

Example 12 is an unsuccessful attempt to convert Example 11 into a classification definition:

E12 Objectivity is the quality of not being influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; being based on facts; being unbiased.

Using quality as the general class does help in this case by somewhat narrowing down the alternatives. However, the rest of Example 12 does not provide a set of necessary-and-sufficient condition distinguishing features. So Example 12 is not a classification definition. It is basically another extended-synonym definition and, as such, is a helpful conveyor of the meaning of ‘objective’ and ‘objectivity’. As I noted earlier for Example 11, it can helpfully be supplemented by Example 17, yet to be presented, which adds concreteness to this definition.

2.6 Antonym definition

In the antonym form the defining term is one that means the opposite of the term being defined, an antonym being the opposite of a synonym. According to The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, College Edition (1968) and Dictionary.com (August, 2017):

E13 ‘F ast’ is an antonym of ‘slow’.

When the antonym is clear, well understood, and accurate (as it is in this case), the antonym form is quite useful.

2.7 Operational definition

The idea of operational definitions is often attributed to Percy Bridgman (1927) working in theoretical physics, where he suggested that the value of the term being defined is the reading on an instrument, assuming that the appropriate operation has been performed. An example in everyday life is the use of the basic fever thermometer to determine one’s temperature, when the appropriate operation (including placing the tip of the thermometer under one’s tongue for two minutes) has been performed. Using an operational definition, the operation and the reading on the instrument operationally define the meaning of the word ‘temperature’, by providing helpful concrete interpretation.

Roughly speaking there are two different directions of emphasis in implementing this basic operational idea: strict and loose . In the strict approach, the language does not leave room for human judgment. Here is an example of the strict approach:

E14 If student X is given the “ Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children”, X has an IQ of Y if and only if X gets a score of Y.

Note that there are no qualifications in this strict version. This definition does not allow for exceptions and unforeseen situations. If a person had been up all night with the flu and could hardly concentrate when taking the test, there is no leeway. The person’s IQ is the score on the test, if the test is given and scored.

Strict operational definition was adopted by participants in the reductionist, behaviorist, logical-positivist tradition of the early part of the Twentieth Century, which equated the meaning of a theoretical concept (for example, IQ) with the use of a particular measuring instrument and the resulting score, as in Example 14 above. Especially in testing humans, precision is claimed at the cost of ignoring the obvious problems.

In the loose approach (Ennis, 1964), qualifying words are inserted in anticipation of possible problems. Human judgment is needed and accepted in order to apply the words of the loose operational definition of Example 15, which contains qualifying words like ‘probably’, ‘roughly’, and ‘under standard conditions’:

E15 If a native-English-speaking college student is given the “Cornell Critical Thinking Test, Level Z” under standard conditions; then, if and only if that person gets a score of X, that person has probably mastered critical thinking roughly to the degree of X.

Actually in my experience there never has been a complete precise list of standard conditions for any test, presumably because it is impossible to know everything that can go wrong. There is always some variation in conditions. Many people do not realize the looseness introduced by “standard conditions”. Furthermore the causal relationships between a student’s characteristics and a test score are a matter of continuing controversy. All this justifies the use of such terms as ‘probably’, and ‘roughly’ when the defined term applies to a human mental characteristic, such as “critical thinking” does in Example 15.

Operational definitions provide a basis for some of the current extensive school testing emphasis in United States schools, but so used should be of the loose interpretation form of operational definition because of reasons given in the previous paragraph.

Both Examples 14 and 15 apply to human mental characteristics. When the definitions apply to characteristics of physical objects (like the fever thermometer), at least a somewhat strict approach is generally appropriate. But watchfulness and care are still required.

Some people have totally abandoned both the strict and the loose interpretations of the original spirit of operational definition, and think of operational definitions as just examples, or alternatively, as criteria for good things like “walkable neighborhoods” (Moudon, et al. , 2006). I urge us not to abandon the loose spirit of operational definitions, because holding at least a loose connection among the meaning of a term, a test, and a test result is insightful. It is politically important in dealing with the current testing movement at all levels of education.

2.8 Partial-definition forms

Strictly speaking, examples, non-examples, and borderline cases, as well as the use-in-a-sentence form of definition, do not approximate being full definitions. So I call them ‘partial-definition forms’ .

2.8.1 Examples, non-examples, and borderline cases

Examples, non-examples, and borderline cases are partial forms of definition that can sometimes be especially helpful in providing meaning because they indicate crucial limits and provide helpful concrete elaboration. Often they can convey meaning to an extent that is sufficient for the situation, and can often do so even more effectively than, say, a classification definition that lacks concreteness. However, combining examples, non-examples, and borderline cases with full classification definitions can sometimes be even better.

The example, borderline-case, and non-example passages in Examples 16a and 16b below were useful to me elsewhere in introducing and clarifying a new meaning of the term ‘ subject-specific critical thinking ability ’ (Ennis, 2018, p. 169):

E16a An example of a subject-specific critical thinking ability is the ability to plan, perform, and judge the results and relevance of analysis of covariance (used in several social and psychological sciences in order to judge the practical and statistical significance of a difference) with an understanding of the limitations involved. However, just understanding the concept of statistical significance , including sensitivity to its major strengths and weaknesses, is arguably a general abil ity.

Analysis of covariance is not used in most fields and is totally unfamiliar to most educated people I know. So the example of doing analysis of covariance as a subject-specific critical thinking ability, which is specific to certain subjects or fields, should I believe help make this new meaning of the term ‘subject-specific critical thinking ability’ clear.

Statistical significance on the other hand is a borderline case. It is arguably general because most people have some sense of what it means. But most educated people I know do not really know what statistical significance is (in the social sciences), so it is arguably also subject-specific. It is thus a borderline case, and helps further to clarify ‘subject-specific critical thinking ability’.

Example 16b, from a list of critical thinking abilities (Ennis, 2011, 2017), is a striking non-example of subject-specific critical thinking ability :

E16b Make and judge inductive inferences and arg uments Enumerative induction Argument an d inference to best explanation

‘Inductive inferences and arguments’, including the subctegories ‘Enumerative induction’ and ‘Argument and inference to best explanation’, are widely used in almost all fields (although perhaps not by those names), including such widely disparate fields as courtroom trials and Shakespearean criticism (Ennis, 1996, pp. 221-228). So they are helpful non-example s of ‘subject-specific critical thinking ability’.

So because of their immediacy and concreteness, the example and the borderline case in Example 16a and the non-example in Example 16b can be helpful in introducing and clarifying a new and useful term, ‘subject-specific critical thinking ability’, a term that I have found helpful in advocating critical thinking across the curriculum (2018).

Examples, non-examples, and borderline cases need not be only verbally presented. They can be presented in part by physically pointing, as in for example pointing at an almost-leafless formerly-healthy grapefruit tree to show someone an example of citrus greening (a serious citrus tree disease). Such pointing is called “ostensive definition”. Like most ostensive definitions, it usually requires some verbal supplementation as well as background experience on the part of the learner. In this example the learner must have some grasp of the appearance of a healthy grapefruit tree. Together the pointing and the background knowledge are helpful in understanding the ostensive act. This example shows that ostensive definitions can be quick and effective in the right conditions. Incidentally they are also helpful in teaching words to children.

2.8.2 Using the term in a sentence

Here is a helpful example of the use-in-a-sentence form of partial definition for the term ‘objective’, provided by Cambridge Dictionaries Online (October, 2016):

E17 I can’t really be objective when I’m ​ judging my daughter’s ​ work .

Example 17 recognizes the prohibition against being influenced by personal feelings when trying to be objective, and makes use of well-known strong feelings most people have about their offspring. By itself, the use-in-a-sentence form is often not sufficient to convey fully the meaning of a term. However, as noted earlier in discussing Examples 11 and 12, combining the use-in-a-sentence partial-definition form with some of the other definition forms I have described can contribute to a fuller understanding of the meaning of a term.

3. Three basic actions that definers perform: reporting a meaning, stipulating a meaning, and advocating a meaning that incorporates a position

The form of a definition is one basic dimension of defining. A second basic dimension is the action the definer is performing when offering a meaning of a term. When the definition’s form and content are combined with the action, the result is part of an act of human communication.

There are three basic definitional actions: (1) the definer’s reporting what the definer claims to be a meaning, (2) the definer’s stipulating a meaning, and (3) the definer’s advocating a particular meaning that incorporates a position on an issue. A definition such as Example 4, an equivalent-expression definition of ‘argue’ , can be used to introduce the distinctions among these three actions.

Example 18 uses Example 4 in a reporting action, Example 19 uses it in a stipulatin g action, and Example 20 uses it in a positional action. The exact same words (Example 4) are used as the definition in all three contexts, but a different action is being performed in each case.

E18 On the basis of my experience communicating with critical thinking experts, I report that the following definition states what the experts generally mean by ‘argue’ in the field of critical thinking: ‘ To a rgue in support of a conclusion’ is ‘ to at tempt to justify it ’. ( reportin g  a meaning)

E19 As the instructor of this critical thinking course in this institution, I stipulate that in this course we shall mean the follow ing by the word ‘argue’: ‘ To argue in support of a conclu sion’ is ‘ to attempt to justify it ’ . ( stipulating a meaning)

E20 As long-time members of this department, we advocate the following definition of ‘argue’ for use in the critical think ing course we are developing: ‘ To argue in support of a conclu sion’ is ‘to attempt to justify it.’ We believe that this sense of ‘argue’ is the appropriate one for a course in critical thinking, because (their position) the major concern in a critical thinking course is how to tell whether the conclusion of an argument is justified . ( advocating a particular meaning that incorporates a position )

3.1 Reporting a meaning

In reporting a meaning, the reporter (the definer) claims that the reported meaning is a meaning of the term. [6] The definer in Example 18 claims the meaning in Example 4 to be a meaning of the term ‘argue’. Such a report can be true or false, and thus requires critical thinking (including inference to best explanation, as well as observation and other data gathering) to judge its acceptability.

Note that Example 18 is a special case of reporting a meaning. It is also reporting the meaning held by a certain group of people. So it requires more information for its support than simply reporting a meaning.

The definition that results from reporting a (or the) meaning shall here be called a “ reportive definition” a term suggested by David Hitchcock (personal communication). [7] If I used the label ‘ reported definition’ instead of ‘ reportive definition’, then according to the ordinary meaning of ‘ reported ’, a reported definition could be a definition that the definer tells us about (reports) but does not claim to be a meaning of a term. This means that it would not necessarily be a product that the reporter (the definer) claims to be a (or the) meaning. I stipulate that a ‘reportive definition’ is one in which the definer claims that the meaning reported is a (or the) meaning of the term.

Although ordinarily we report a meaning that is widely used or at least used by a group, a specific person’s meaning could be claimed in a reportive definition, as in Example 21:

E21 By ‘silly ’, she mean s good .

3.2 Stipulating a meaning

Stipulating a meaning of a term is deeming that the meaning given is what the term shall be taken to mean in a given situation. Grammatically, the definer expresses the stipulation in the imperative mood, rather than the indicative mood. A stipulation of a meaning is neither true nor false.

In stipulating a meaning, a definer assumes that she or he has the right to determine what the term shall mean in the situation. As author, I have the right to stipulate the meaning of ‘reportive’ in this chapter. If the would-be stipulator does not have the right, then the stipulation fails, and the definition ordinarily would be considered a positional definition that incorporates a position on an issue (see next section), if the author desires to perform that action. A definer can choose both actions if the definer does have the right to stipulate. I treat my definition of ‘reportive’ not only as a stipulative definition, but also as a positional definition, because I advocate the theory of, and approach to, definition in which it is embedded.

In 2006, the International Astronomical Union reached a decision about Pluto that was implied by the following apparently stipulative classification definition of ‘planet’ (International Astronomical Union, 2006):

E 22 Planet: A celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

An implication of this apparently stipulative definition is that Pluto is not a planet, because it does not meet criterion (c). There is a nearby large mass called Eris.

Stipulating a meaning as part of a theory is a common occurrence. The International Astronomical Union, I suspect, has a right to stipulate a definition of a key term (‘planet’) that plays an important role in a theory it is advancing, but in this case the extent of this right, or its existence at all, is a matter of some controversy.

Former NASA scientist Phil Metzger provided conflicting usage rejecting the apparent stipulation: “We are free to call it a planet right now. The planetary science community has never stopped calling bodies like Pluto ‘planets’” (Wiener-Bronner, 2015). So, given this description of the situation, it is not clear that the International Astronomical Union has the authority to stipulate the meaning for ‘planet’ in Example 22. If it does not have the right, the definition cannot be considered a stipulative definition, and in this case would be considered a positional and reportive definition that conflicts with Metzger’s positional and reportive definition, and so must be defended by critical thinking evidence and argument.

3 .3 Advocating a m eaning of a term i ncorporating a p osition on an i ssue (p ositional d efinition )

Sometimes definers advocate a meaning for a term that incorporates a position on an issue. Scheffler (1960) has given this topic a thorough treatment under the label, “programmatic definition”. I will use the topics of segregation and marriage to exemplify definitions that take a position.

3.3.1 Segregation

School segregation was judged unconstitutional (but was not defined) by the United States Supreme Court (1954). Since it was not defined, it was too vague to provide specific guidance to a school system, which was needed. Then a possible result was that a superintendent in a large school system would propose to the governing board the following equivalent-expression positional definition of ‘segregated’:

E 23 To say ‘ a school is segregated ’ is to say ‘ it has a population more than 80% of which is of a given minority race .

Example 23 advocates the position that a school with more than 80% of its students of a given minority race, but not a school with 80% or fewer of its students of a minority race, is in violation of the segregation law. Thus it is a definition that expresses a position on an issue. Argument is needed to support that position in the ensuing discussion.

A desirable condition for success of a positional definition is that the position being taken be a clear position, the clearer the better. A further condition for its success is that the position be justified. Critical thinking is called for in making this judgment.

3.3.2 Marriage

Here is a positional definition of ‘marriage’:

E 24 Marriage is a legal, committed union of a woman and a man .

Inherent in this classification definition, assuming the ‘is’ is the ‘is’ of equality, when it was presented, was the position that two people of the same sex cannot and should not be married, currently a controversial issue. In this case the position of the definer was opposition to same-sex marriage. So it was a positional definition.

Example 24 was also a reportive definition because the definer claimed that this was a common meaning of the word ‘marriage’, which it was. The definition of ‘marriage’ in Example 24 thus is another instance of a definer’s performing more than one definitional action with the same definition, in this case, positional and reportive.

4. A glimpse of the content dimension: equivocation and impact equivocation with the term, ‘reliability’

Because words in virtually any subject matter or area of interest are subject to definition, and all definitions have content, any fully-exemplified discussion of definition content would be huge in scope. So, at least to give the flavor of dealing with a content issue, I shall present one example, which deals with the ambiguity of a term, ‘reliability’, and its possible exploitation.

Exploitation of the ambiguity of a term is equivocation and is a significant critical thinking concern. When such equivocation is inadvertent, I call it “impact equivocation”, because it has the impact of equivocation, though it is unintentional. Equivocation is a topic within the area of the third dimension of definition, content.

In what follows, I shall describe an occurrence of impact equivocation, explain why I think it occurred, and hold that such impact equivocation occurrences are likely to happen often if the field of psychometrics retains its meaning of ‘reliability’, given the ordinary-language meaning of ‘reliability’.

Impact equivocation faced me when, inquiring of a school principal about the validity of the academic aptitude test taken by my then 5 th -grade son, I was told that the test was quite valid because it had a “reliability” of 0.94. This rating was thought by the principal to be a high validity rating. This was a case of impact equivocation. The principal believed that this “reliability” meant validity , which it did not.

The psychometric definition of ‘reliability’ does not specify anything about the quality of a performance; it only indicates consistency and patterns of consistency. Psychometric ‘reliability’ is defined as follows in the fourth edition of Educational Measurement (Haertel, 2006, p.65): Reliability is “concerned solely with how the scores resulting from a measurement procedure would be expected to vary across replications of that procedure”. In simpler terms, ‘reliability’ in psychometrics basically means ‘consistency’.

On the other hand, the ordinary meaning of ‘reliability’ incorporates consistency, but also requires good quality performance. Here are the two definitions of ‘reliability’ in Oxforddictionaries.com (accessed September 8, 2017):

• The quality of being trustworthy or of performing consistently well.
• The degree to which the result of a measurement, calculation, or specification can be depended on to be accurate.

Here is the definition of ‘reliability’ in Dictionary.com (accessed August 22, 2017):

the ability to be relied on or depended on, as for accuracy, honesty, or achievement.

These dictionary definitions of ‘reliability’ are in accord with the ordinary meaning of ‘reliability’: ‘dependability in getting things right’; more briefly, ‘consistency plus quality’.

Furthermore, correlations of aptitude tests with later grades or other indicators of success (validity correlations) are only “modest” (Thorndike, 1971; Linn, 1982, p. 287, two major leaders in psychometrics over the years). For example, an analysis of the validity of the Graduate Record Exam (GRE) in predicting graduate school success found correlations of .30 to .45 between the GRE and both first year and overall graduate GPA. Correlations with faculty ratings ranged from .35 to .50 (Kunzel & Hazlett, 2001). Because validity correlations are generally “modest”, and because the correlation of 0.94 on my son’s test was called “reliability” in a psychometric publication, the 0.94 correlation clearly was not a validity correlation.

So given that psychometric reliability does not imply quality, which an inference to validity would require; given that ordinary reliability does require good quality; and given that the correlations for validity run much lower than the 0.94 that was reported, the principal’s reporting the 0.94 as indicating validity depended on a shift from the psychometric meaning of ‘reliability’ to the ordinary meaning of ‘reliability’. So the principal was impact equivocating. I say “impact equivocating” rather than “equivocating” because it appeared that the principal did not realize that she was not answering my question about validity.

In view of the widespread ordinary meaning of ‘reliability’, I suggest that the field of psychometrics consider changing the label ‘reliability’ in their vocabulary to ‘consistency’ in order to minimize such impact equivocations. The ordinary-language meaning of ‘reliability’ is not likely to change.

This suggestion and accompanying discussion fit within the content dimension of definition. The meanings discussed here and their interaction are matters of content.

5. Summary: A three-dimensional theory of definition, encompassing form, action, and content

A variety of possible forms and variations thereof are available for defining terms, form being a first dimension of definition. Three different actions , reporting, stipulating, and advocating a position, comprise the second dimension of defining, action . And the broad area of content provides the third basic dimension of definition. In this chapter I have focused on the two dimensions, form and action, and provided one case of attention to content, a concern about equivocation.

The maker of a definition should be flexible in selecting an appropriate form for defining the term, given the situation. The classification form is used often, because it offers completeness in a simple structure, specifying a set of necessary and jointly sufficient conditions for the use of the term being defined. But it has the disadvantages of needing the term being defined to be a noun, or be convertible into a noun, a process which is not always easy to perform, leading on occasion to the use of the rather broad and often uninformative general class, quality . Furthermore classification definition generally lacks the helpful concreteness of some of the other forms of definition.

The equivalent-expression form puts the term to be defined in a larger expression, which is equated with another expression. It is often easier to construct than a classification definition, and usually provides sufficient coverage of the meaning, although it does not provide the clear necessary-and-sufficient boundaries of a classification definition.

The range form has the advantage of making vagueness quite explicit, a characteristic that we should acknowledge when it exists. Synonym and antonym definitions provide quick equivalence and the opposite when available, but are often overly simple. The extended-synonym definition provides more detail in the defining part of the definition than a pure synonym definition. Although it does not provide the precision of a classification definition, it can be quite useful, especially for terms that seem not to have exact equivalents.

The operational form provides a connection among the meaning of a term, a test, and a test result. Strict operational definition allows no exceptions in application, and is not generally suited to defining human characteristics. Loose-form operational definition loosens the connection among its elements with the use of such terms as ‘generally’ and ‘probably’ and is better suited for use when discussing human characteristics.

While parti al definition s , such as example, non-example, borderline case, and the use-in-a-sentence form, are not full-blown definitions, they are often useful and can sometimes be sufficient to define a term. They can also be helpful as supplements to other forms of definition to provide better understanding of a term.

A definition in a form but not yet offered in an action is inert. The action of the definer transforms an inert definition into part of an act of human communication. The three major definer actions are: (1) reporting a meaning that the definer claims to be a meaning, (2) stipulating a meaning that the definer deems shall be the meaning of the term in some type of circumstance, and (3) advocating a meaning that incorporates a position on an issue. The results of these actions are reportive, stipulative, and positional definitions.

The result for the first action, reporting, can at least in part be judged by critical thinking criteria, including truth. The second action, stipulating a meaning, can be judged by its convenience in dealing with the situation, but not for its correctness, which in pure examples it is not claimed to possess. It is stated in the imperative mood. Stipulating can only be successfully done by someone who has the right to stipulate in the situation. Positional definitions are successful in part to the extent that the position they advocate is clear, and even more successful if their positions are justified. Critical thinking is relevant here. Care and sensitivity to the situation are crucial throughout.

Because many crucial terms have more than one meaning, there is often danger of equivocation and impact equivocation for which we must be on guard. The example used here is ‘reliability’. I thus give some attention to the content dimension, which, because of its immensity, must be treated elsewhere, at greater length.

Language and its meanings are crucial aspects of critical thinking. Defining terms cannot be neglected. I hope that the ideas about definition in this chapter will contribute to more critical thinking.

Black, Max (1954). The definition of scientific method. Definition, presupposition, and assertion. Both in Max Black (ed.), Problems of A nalysis: Philosophical essays (pp. 3-23; pp. 24-45). Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.

Bridgman, Percy (1927). The logic of modern physics . New York: Macmillan.

Cambridge Dictionaries Online (2016). Examined April 2, 2016, at http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/objective

Copi, Irving (1953). Introduction to l ogic. New York: Macmillan.

Cronbach, Lee (1971). Test validation. In R. L. Thorndike (ed.), Educational measurement , 2 nd ed. (pp. 443-507). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Dewey, John (1933; original edition, 1910). How we think. Boston: D. C. Heath.

Dictionary.com (2016, 2017), http://www.dictionary.com , definition of ‘objective’, April 9, 2016; definition of ‘contextual definition’ Aug.14, 2017).

Ennis, Robert H (2018, online first). Critical thinking across the curriculum: A vision. TOPOI 37(1), 165-184.

Ennis, Robert H (2017). The nature of critical thinking. Viewed April 12, 2017, at http://criticalthinking.net/longdefinition.html .

Ennis, Robert H. (2016). Definition: A three-dimensional analysis with bearing on key concepts. OSSA Conference Archive. http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papers andcommentaries/105

Ennis, Robert H (2011). Critical thinking: Reflection and perspective—Part I. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 26 (1), 4-18.

Ennis, Robert H (1996). Critical t hinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ennis, Robert H. (1964). Operational definitions. American Educational Research Journal, 1, 183-201. (Reprinted in L. I. Krimerman (ed.), (1969), The nature and scope of social science: A critical anthology . New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts (pp. 431-444). (Title as reprinted: Operationism can and should be divorced from covering law assumptions.)

Haertel, Edward H. (2006). Reliability. In Robert L. Brennan (ed.), Educational M easurement , 4 th ed. (pp. 65-110). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Hempel, Carl (1952). Fundamentals of concept formation in empirical science . Founda tions of the unity of science , II 7. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

International Astronomical Union (2006). Pluto and the developing landscape of our solar system. Downloaded April 4, 2016, from http://www.iau.org/static/resolutions/Resolution_GA26-5-6.pdf

Kane, Michael (2006), Validation. In Robert Brennan (ed.), Educational measurement , 4 th ed. (pp.17-64). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Kelley, Truman (1927). Interpretation of educational measurements. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Book.

Kuncel, N. R.; Hezlett, S. A.; Ones, D. S. (2001). “A comprehensive meta-analysis of the predictive validity of the Graduate Record Examination: Implications for graduate student selection and performance” (PDF). Psychological Bulletin. 127 (1), 162–181. doi : 10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.162 . ( https://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki//GraduateRecoredExamination#Validity ).

Linn, Robert (1982). Admission testing on trial. American Psychlogist, 37 (3), 279-291.

Moudun, Anne, et al . (2006). Operational definitions of walkable neighborhood: theoretical and empirical insights. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 3, Suppl 1, S99-S117.

Scheffler, Israel (1960). The language of education . Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.

Thorndike, R. L. (1971). Concepts of cultural fairness. Jour nal of Educational Measurement ( 8 ) , 63-70.

United States Supreme Court (1954) . Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka . 347 US 483.

Urdan g, Laurence (1968). The Random H ouse dictionary of the English language . New York: Random  House.

Weiner-Bronner, Danielle (2015). Is Pluto a planet? The answer may surprise you. Examined March 28, 2016, at http://fusion.net/story/158379/is-pluto-a-planet-the-answer-may-surprise-you/ .

• © Robert H. Ennis ↵
• I deeply appreciate the help and advice of Jennie Berg, David Hitchcock, and Kevin Possin in the development of this chapter. ↵
• Recursive definition is not included because it is used too rarely by expected readers to warrant explaining its complexities. Those who need it will have good sources for it. ↵
• Copi (1953 and later editions), in a popular book, used the label “genus-difference” definition (rather than “genus differentia”). He stated that by “difference” he meant “differentia”. ↵
• Notes about punctuation of definitions: Equivalent-expression definitions equate expressions, so the things equated are in quotes. Classification definitions are about classes, so the items in the definition are not in quotes. Similar ideas apply to other definitions in this chapter. If the verb in the definition is ‘means’, the subject of the definition sentence is a word and is in quotes, and the part after ‘means’ is not in quotes. If the equating verbal phrase in the definition is ‘means the same as’, both sides of it are in quotes. The basic idea is that references to words are in quotes; other references are not. ↵
• By “a meaning” I mean a way the term has been used. ↵
• Something like it is called “lexical definition” or “descriptive definition” by some other authors. I do not feel that these names are sufficiently descriptive of what this type of definition does. ↵

Studies in Critical Thinking Copyright © by Robert H. Ennis is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

What Are Layman’s Terms? A Guide to Plain English

4-minute read

• 26th October 2019

When people refer to expressing something in layman’s terms, they mean plain or simple language. But what exactly is a layman? And how can you simplify your writing to make it easier to read? In this post, we offer a few tips on how to express yourself in plain English.

What Is a Layman? And What Are Layman’s Terms?

The words “layman,” “laywoman,” and “layperson” were originally related to religion, referring to someone who belongs to a religious organization but who has no special training . For example:

Both clergy and laypeople have an important role in the Catholic Church.

More generally, though, these terms can now apply to any non-specialist in a particular field. So we could also say:

As a layman , Tim struggled to follow the dense legal language.

The phrase “layman’s terms,” then, refers to using language that could be understood by a layperson (i.e., plain English, free from jargon).

5 Tips to Help You Write in Plain English

But how do you write in layperson’s terms? We have a few guidelines.

1. Avoid Jargon and Explain Technical Terms

Jargon – language used by experts or insiders in a specific field of study or industry – is the enemy of plain English. As such, you should try to avoid jargon when writing for a lay audience, including:

• Technical language (e.g., saying “cardialgia” instead of “heartburn”).
• Slang terms specific to a profession (e.g., the medical slang “gomer” ).
• Undefined acronyms that only specialists would recognize.

All the above rely on insider knowledge, so anyone not already in the know may find your writing difficult to follow if it’s full of jargon.

Instead, try to use everyday language wherever possible. And if you do need to use a technical term, make sure to define it clearly when you introduce it.

2. Use Short Sentences and Paragraphs

Short sentences are easier to follow than long ones. So, while varying sentence length is good, using short simple sentences where possible will help to improve readability. Tips for keeping your sentences short include:

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

• Using the active voice to keep your writing clear and direct.
• Eliminating unnecessary modifiers, repetition and wordiness .
• Breaking longer sentences down into two or more short sentences.

The same applies to paragraph length. Ideally, each paragraph should be around 100 to 200 words and focus on one key point. And while some variation is fine, keeping paragraphs concise will help you avoid intimidating blocks of uninterrupted text, making your work easier to read.

3. Get to the Main Point Quickly

People are busy. They skim read. So unless you can grab their attention as soon as possible, they may get bored and stop reading.

As such, in the first paragraph of your writing, state your main point as clearly and concisely as possible. In this blog post, for example, we could have begun by discussing religious laity. But since that isn’t our main interest, we make it clear that the post is about plain English from the start.

4. Don’t Dumb Down Unnecessarily!

Simplifying your language doesn’t mean dumbing down your ideas. And if your reader feels like you’re talking down to them, they may lose interest.

The key is to find a level that suits your audience. If you’re explaining a scientific theory to children, then you may have to simplify some ideas. But if you’re addressing college-level students, you can assume they are clever people even if they don’t know the technical language involved.

So, when writing something for a lay audience, ask yourself:

• Does my target audience already know anything about my chosen topic?
• What will readers need to know to understand my point?
• How accustomed are my audience to grasping complicated ideas?

You can then tailor the complexity of your writing to suit your target readers.

5. Get Your Documents Proofread

Asking a non-specialist friend or colleague to read a draft of your writing is a great idea. They can give you a different perspective, including pointing out areas that may be hard to understand for a lay audience.

And for an expert opinion, you can even have your work proofread by a professional . Our editors, for instance, can provide feedback on writing in plain English as well as making sure your work is error free.

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

How to Ace Slack Messaging for Contractors and Freelancers

Effective professional communication is an important skill for contractors and freelancers navigating remote work environments....

3-minute read

How to Insert a Text Box in a Google Doc

Google Docs is a powerful collaborative tool, and mastering its features can significantly enhance your...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

Westside Toastmasters is located in Los Angeles and Santa Monica, California

Westside toastmasters on meetup.

Critical thinking definition

Critical thinking, as described by Oxford Languages, is the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgement.

Active and skillful approach, evaluation, assessment, synthesis, and/or evaluation of information obtained from, or made by, observation, knowledge, reflection, acumen or conversation, as a guide to belief and action, requires the critical thinking process, which is why it's often used in education and academics.

Some even may view it as a backbone of modern thought.

However, it's a skill, and skills must be trained and encouraged to be used at its full potential.

People turn up to various approaches in improving their critical thinking, like:

• Developing technical and problem-solving skills
• Engaging in more active listening
• Actively questioning their assumptions and beliefs
• Seeking out more diversity of thought
• Opening up their curiosity in an intellectual way etc.

Is critical thinking useful in writing?

Critical thinking can help in planning your paper and making it more concise, but it's not obvious at first. We carefully pinpointed some the questions you should ask yourself when boosting critical thinking in writing:

• What information should be included?
• Which information resources should the author look to?
• What degree of technical knowledge should the report assume its audience has?
• What is the most effective way to show information?
• How should the report be organized?
• How should it be designed?
• What tone and level of language difficulty should the document have?

Usage of critical thinking comes down not only to the outline of your paper, it also begs the question: How can we use critical thinking solving problems in our writing's topic?

Let's say, you have a Powerpoint on how critical thinking can reduce poverty in the United States. You'll primarily have to define critical thinking for the viewers, as well as use a lot of critical thinking questions and synonyms to get them to be familiar with your methods and start the thinking process behind it.

Are there any services that can help me use more critical thinking?

We understand that it's difficult to learn how to use critical thinking more effectively in just one article, but our service is here to help.

We are a team specializing in writing essays and other assignments for college students and all other types of customers who need a helping hand in its making. We cover a great range of topics, offer perfect quality work, always deliver on time and aim to leave our customers completely satisfied with what they ordered.

The ordering process is fully online, and it goes as follows:

• Select the topic and the deadline of your essay.
• Provide us with any details, requirements, statements that should be emphasized or particular parts of the essay writing process you struggle with.
• Leave the email address, where your completed order will be sent to.
• Select your prefered payment type, sit back and relax!

With lots of experience on the market, professionally degreed essay writers , online 24/7 customer support and incredibly low prices, you won't find a service offering a better deal than ours.