Lady,
"Can critical thinking be taught as a skill - Edward de Bono thinks so? If people don't want to think for themselves I'm nonplussed as to finding a solution but if anybody has any suggestions I'm open to hearing them."
I watched the films and for me it wasn't what I awaited for...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_de_BonoTo chalenge such a man is "adventerous"
, but in my opinion he can't sell his stuff to the common man.
Personally I find more in the following approach:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/thoughts-thinking/201804/no-such-thing-good-critical-thinkingFrom this site:
Leading on from my
last piece, which discussed the importance, in some contexts, of CT for the purpose of being right, in most cases, it’s not about being ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. It’s about the process. For example, if you believe you have thought critically but your answer is wrong, then there’s a good chance that you haven’t thought critically. However, if you acknowledge uncertainty and that your stance might be falsified, then you’re on the right track. On the other hand, people are often right about some things, but fail to conduct CT regarding that ‘thing’. Just because they’re right, doesn’t mean they got to ‘being right’ through CT.
And:
Again, CT is a process. Imagine you are presented a bundle of information on the topic. To think critically about the information, you need to:
Analyse - Tease out an argument structure and identify: a central claim, core reasons and objections to that claim; reasons and objections to the core propositions; and the sources of these propositions.
Evaluate – Examine the information and assess its: credibility; relevance to the central claim and other important propositions; logical strength; the balance of evidence; and the
bias of the evidence.
Infer – Gather only the credible, relevant and logical evidence, while at the same time keeping an eye out for the balance and bias of the evidence; and draw a reasonable conclusion. To double-check your thinking, re-evaluate and see if the same conclusion should be drawn.
This may seem straightforward, but to think critically, we must conduct
reflective judgment at the same time. That is, while we conduct these three steps (i.e. analysis, evaluation and inference), we must not only acknowledge the
nature, limits and certainty of both the information we’ve been provided and our own knowledge; but also how these factors can affect how we both defend our judgments and recognise that our views might be falsified by additional evidence obtained at a later time (see King & Kitchener, 1994). In a practice, this means that we must be open to admitting that we don’t know or that we might be wrong, even after we have spent a lot of time thinking about something. As I mentioned in my
last piece, people
love to be right; but they hate being wrong more. Personally, I’d much rather admit uncertainty to being wrong!
And I don't know why, perhaps my personality, or perhaps some teachers in the Roman-Catholic college taht I attended, let me always be critical, even about the obvious, till it was chalenged by something more founded and even then I remained critical till it was again challenged by as I found out something with more logical arguments.
But I have to admit that I was many times wrong with my critiques at the end but I don't find that a fault...if you are always critical, you will at least in some cases then not be deceived
That is really something we need nordmann's comments for...NORDMANN WHERE ARE YOU?
And as I see the grandchildren, but it could be exceptions, they have a good chunk of critical thinking...
Kind regards from Paul.