THINKING:CHALLENGES,POSSIBILITIES,ANDPURPOSE by: MarvinS.CohenandEduardoSalas CognitiveTechnologies,Inc.4200LaneArlington,VA22207(703)524-4331andSharonL.Riedel
U.S.ArmyResearchInstituteFieldUnit-Leavenworth Ft.Leavenworth,KS66027 March2002 ContractNo.DASW01-00-C-3010 TECHNICALREPORT02-
1 CRITICALTHINKING:CHALLENGES,POSSIBILITIES,ANDPURPOSE by: MarvinS.CohenandEduardoSalas CognitiveTechnologies,Inc.4200LaneArlington,VA22207(703)524-4331and SharonL.RiedelU.S.ArmyResearchInstitute FieldUnit-LeavenworthFt.Leavenworth,KS66027 March2002 ContractNo.DASW01-00-C-3010 Theviews,opinions,and/orfindingscontainedinthisreportarethoseoftheauthorsandshouldnotbeconstruedasanofficialDepartmentoftheArmyposition,policy,ordecision. REPORTDOCUMENTATIONPAGE FORMAPPROVEDOMBNO.0704-0188 Publicreportingburdenforthiscollectionofinformationisestimatedtoaverage1hourperresponse,includingthetimeforreviewinginstructions, searchingexistingdatasources,gatheringandmaintainingthedataneeded,pletingthereviewingthecollectionofinformation.ments regardingthisburdenestimateoranyotheraspectofthiscollectionofinformation,includingsuggestionsforreducingthisburdentoWashington HeadquartersServices,DirectorateforInformationOperationsandReports,1214JeffersonDavisHighway,Suite1204,Arlington,VA22202-4302,and totheOfficeofManagementandBudget,PaperworkReductionProject(0704-0188),WashingtonDC20503.
1.AGENCYUSEONLY(Leave
2.REPORTDATE
3.REPORTTYPEANDDATESCOVERED Blank) March2002 Final,January2000-December2000
4.TITLEANDSUBTITLE CriticalThinking:Challenges,Possibilities,andPurpose
6.AUTHOR(S) MarvinS.Cohen,EduardoSalas,andSharonL.Riedel
7.PERFORMINGORGANIZATIONNAME(S)ANDADDRESS(ES) CognitiveTechnologies,Inc.4200LaneArlington,VA22207
5.FUNDINGNUMBERS ContractNo.: DASW01-00-C-3010
8.PERFORMINGORGANIZATIONREPORTNUMBER TechnicalReport02-
1 9.SPONSORING/MONITORINGAGENCYNAME(S)ANDADDRESS(ES)
U.S.ArmyResearchInstituteFortLeavenworth,KS66027-0347 10.SPONSORING/MONITORINGAGENCYREPORTNUMBER 11.SUPPLEMENTARYNOTES Dr.SharonL.RiedelwastheContractingOfficer'sRepresentative. 12A.DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITYSTATEMENT DistributionauthorizedtoU.S.GovernmentAgenciesonly;reportcontainsproprietarydataproducedunderSBIRContractNo.DASW01-00-C-3010.OtherrequestsshallbereferredtotheanizationinBlock7ofthisform. 12B.DISTRIBUTIONCODE 13.ABSTRACT(Maximum200words): ThereiswidespreadinterestincriticalthinkingintheArmyandelsewhere,asasetofskillsforplex,novel,andinformation-intensivetasksforwhichinitiativeisrequired.Ourobjectiveswereto(i)developageneralframeworkforunderstandingcriticalthinkingbyindividualsandteams,and(ii)outlineanew,integrativetheoryofcriticalthinkingbasedonthatunderstanding.Wecontrastpetingparadigms.Criticalthinkinghastraditionallybeenconceptualizedfromaninternalistpointofview,whichlocatesitsvalidityinrulesmeanttofitthecontentsofanindividualconsciousness.Fromtheexternalistpointofview,criticalthinkingestimatesthereliabilityinrealenvironmentsofcognitiveprocessesthatproduceintellectualproducts.Ourtheoryintegrateselementsofinternalistandexternalistparadigmsinacoherentway.Criticalthinkingskillrequirescoordinationofthreedifferentperspectives:proponent,opponent,andjudge.Thetheorysynthesizesresearchinthreeareas:
(1)Cognitivetheoriesordingtowhichalternativepossibilitiesarerepresentedbymentalmodels.
(2)Normativemodelsofcriticaldiscussioninwhichaproponentdefendsaclaimagainstchallengebyacritic.
(3)Assessmentsbyajudgeaboutthereliabilityofcognitiveprocessesordialoguestrategiesforachievingreal-worldpurposesinatimelyway. 14.SUBJECTTERMS criticalthinking,decisionmaking,situationawareness,mentalmodels,dialoguetheory,informallogic,metacognition,teams 15.NUMBEROFPAGES 291 16.PRICECODE 17.SECURITYCLASSIFICATIONOFREPORT Unclassified NSN7540-01-280-5500 18.SECURITYCLASSIFICATIONOFTHISPAGE Unclassified 19.SECURITYCLASSIFICATION20.LIMITATIONOFABSTRACT OFABSTRACT Unclassified None StandardForm298(Rev.2-89) PrescribedbyANSIstd.Z39-18 298-102 i ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWewerepleasedandfortunatetoreceivetheassistanceofapaneloftendistinguishedconsultantsinfieldsrelevanttocriticalthinking.Thepanelservedasasourceofvaluableandstimulatingadviceonavarietyofissuesdiscussedinthereport(butisinnowayresponsibleforitslimitations).Thefollowingindividualsparticipated:JonathanM.Baron(DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofPennsylvania),AlanM.Dershowitz(HarvardLawSchool),RobertH.Ennis(PhilosophyofEducationEmeritus,UniversityofIllinoisatUrbana-Champaign),
K.AndersEricsson(DepartmentofPsychology,FloridaStateUniversity),DianeF.Halpern(DepartmentofPsychology,CaliforniaStateUniversity),PhilipN.Johnson-Laird(DepartmentofPsychology,PrincetonUniversity),KarenKitchener(CollegeofEducation,UniversityofDenver),BarbaraM.Koslowski(DepartmentofHumanDevelopment,CornellUniversity),LokendraShastri(InternationalComputerScienceInstitute,Berkeley),andRobertJ.Sternberg(DepartmentofPsychology,YaleUniversity).WealsothankJaredFreeman(oftheAptimaCorporation)forhishelp. iii CRITICALTHINKING:CHALLENGES,POSSIBILITIES,ANDPURPOSE EXECUTIVESUMMARY ResearchRequirement: ThereiswidespreadinterestincriticalthinkingintheArmyandelsewhere,asasetofskillsforplex,novel,andinformation-intensivetasks,especiallyinsituationsthatdemandinitiativeandindependentthought.Questionsarise,heless,aboutthepotentialusefulnessoftrainingcriticalthinkingskillsforuseonthebattlefield:Willittaketoomuchtime,underminethewilltofight,supplantexperience,stifleinnovation,ordisruptcoordination?
Unfortunately,thecurrentstateofthefieldofcriticalthinkingdoesnotprovidereadyanswerstothesequestions.Currentcriticalthinkingtextbookstendtoincludeaneclecticmixofideasandmethodsthatborrowfromformalandinformallogic,probabilitytheory,decisiontheory,cognitivepsychology,municationtheory,rhetoric,andothers.Thevarioustextbooksandapproachesdonotprovideaframeworkthatintegratespetingapproachesinatheoreticallyadequateorpracticallyusefulway.Moreover,thereisverylittleempiricalresearchoncriticalthinkingintime-sensitivedomainssuchasbattlefieldtacticaldecisionmaking.AbetterunderstandingofcriticalthinkingisneededsothattheArmycanmakewell-foundedchoicesregardingthedesignoftrainingandinstruction,identifyadditionalresearchneedsandopportunities,andrealizethepotentialbenefitsofenhancedbattlefieldcriticalthinkingskills. Procedure: Theobjectivesoftheresearchwere(i)todevelopageneralanalyticalframeworkforunderstandingcriticalthinkingandevaluatingalternativeapproaches,and(ii)tooutlineanew,integrativetheoryofcriticalthinkingbasedonthatunderstanding.TheseobjectivesarereflectedinPartsIandIIofthereport,respectively. Inpursuitofthefirstobjective,wereviewedtheliteratureincriticalthinkingandinfieldsfromwhichitdrawssuchasinformallogic,epistemology,logic,decisionmaking,andcognitivepsychology.InPartIweaddressedaseriesofissues: •Whatclaimsaremadefortheutilityofcriticalthinking?
Whatobstaclesstandinthewayofrealizingthatutility?
(Chapter1) •Whatdoesitmeantodefinecriticalthinking?
Whattypesofdefinitionarepossible?
(Chapter3) •Howhascriticalthinkinginfactbeendefined?
Whatarethesharedandnon-sharedfeaturesofcurrentdefinitions?
(Chapter4,AppendixA) •Whatarethemajordifferencesinunderlyingassumptionsinapproachestocriticalthinking?
Whatimplicationsdothesedifferenceshavefortheshapeofacriticalthinkingtheory?
(Chapter5) •Whatspecificcriticalthinkingparadigmshavebeenproposed?
Howdotheyvary?
(Chapter6)Whatarethedetailedstrengthsandweaknessesofinformallogicasponentofcriticalthinking?
(AppendixB) iv Theframeworkthatemergedfromthesequestionsguidedourworkonthesecondobjective,thedevelopmentofanintegratedtheoryofcriticalthinking.InPartII,wedothefollowing: •Layoutatheoryofcriticalthinking(Chapter7), •Makeacaseforthenewtheorybyanalyzingitsrelationshiptotraditionalandcontemporarytheoriesofknowledgeandreasoning(Chapters8,9,and10;AppendixB) •Applythenewtheorytotheproblemoftrainingandassessingcriticalthinkingskillsinteams(Chapter11) •EvaluatetheusefulnessofcriticalthinkingtrainingintheArmybattlefielddomaininlightofthenewtheory(Chapter12) Findings: InPartI,wereachthefollowingconclusions: •Itisoftenclaimedthatcriticalthinkingskillshavegrowninimportanceasaresultofincreasedplexity,decentralizationanizationalstructure,andmorefrequenthighstakesdecisions.IntheArmybattlefieldcontext,however,doubtsaboutitsusefulnessariseduetopotentialdemandsontimeandtrainingresources,andthepossibilitythatitwillstifleinnovationordilutetheeffectsofleadershipandexperience.(Chapter1) •Thereareplementarylevelsatwhichcriticalthinkingcanbestudiedanddefined:normative,cognitive,andapplied.Thecognitivelevelcanbedividedintoprocesses,mechanisms,andtheirinteractionviacognitivefaculties.Eachoftheselevelsaffectstheothersinimportantways(Chapter3) •Definitionsofcriticalthinkingintheliteraturevaryinpartbecauseoftheirvaryingemphasisonnormative,cognitiveprocess,cognitivemechanism,andappliedlevels.moncoreofcurrentdefinitionsmightbethatcriticalthinkingisthedeliberateevaluationofintellectualproductsintermsofastandard.Definitionsvarywithrespecttotheproductstobeevaluated,thestandardstobeused,andtheprocessesandmechanismsthatcarrytheevaluationout.(Chapter4) •Thesedifferencescanlargelybeountedforintermsofpetitionbetweentwohigh-levelparadigms.Criticalthinkinghastraditionallybeenconceptualizedfromaninternalistpointofview,whichseesitastakingplacewithintheconsciousnessofanindividual.Rationaljustificationconsistsintheevaluationofastaticsetofbeliefsthroughtheapplicationofuniversal(e.g.,logical)standards.Cognitiveprocessesandstrategiesareunimportantsinceonlytheinformationpresentinthemindatonetimeisrelevant.Fromtheexternalistpointofview,bycontrast,evaluationisamatterofestimatingthereliabilityinarealenvironmentofthecognitiveprocessesthatproducedanintellectualproduct.Externalistevaluationishighlycontext-dependent,therelevantprocessesmaybedomain-specific,andintellectualproductsotherthanbeliefsmayalsobecriticallyevaluated.Cognitiveprocessesthatidentifybiasesandfallacies,exposeviewstochallenge,andactivelyseekinformationmayincreaseoverallreliabilityin v particularcircumstances.,Butcriticalthinkingisnotnecessaryforrationality:Insomecircumstances,intuitiveorrecognitionalprocessesmaybemorereliable.Fromtheexternalistpointofview,criticalthinkingskillincludesnotonlycognitiveprocesses,butalsoenduringtraitsordispositionstoadaptivelyselectstrategiesthathaveprovenreliable.(Chapter5) •Mid-levelparadigmsforcriticalthinkingincludeapproacheslikeoperationsresearch,decisiontheory,formallogic,informallogic,dialoguetheory,boundedrationality,naturalisticdecisionmaking,andrhetoric.Differencesamongthesecanbeunderstoodalongtwodimensions:whethertheyadmittherelevanceofhowpeopleactuallymakedecisionstojudgmentsofhowtheyoughttomakedecisions,andwhethertheyadoptanexternalistorinternaliststancetowardthegroundsforanevaluativejudgment.(Chapter6) InPartII,wereachtheseconclusions: •Weproposeatheoryofcriticalthinkingthatintegrateselementsofinternalistandexternalistparadigmsinaconsistentway.Criticalthinkingskillrequirescoordinationofthreedifferentperspectives:proponent,opponent,andjudge.Tounderstandthesethreedifferentroles,thetheorydrawsonandsynthesizesresearchinthreeareas:
(1)Cognitivetheoriesordingtowhichalternativepossibilitiesarerepresentedbymentalmodelsandreasoningisplishedbymanipulatingmentalmodels.
(2)Normativemodelsofcriticaldiscussioninwhichaproponentmustdefendaclaimagainstchallengebyanopponentorcritic.
(3)Assessmentsbyajudgeaboutthereliabilityofcognitiveprocessesforachievingexternalpurposes.Dialoguetheoryprovidesabridgebetweeninternalandexternalpointsofview,sincecriticalthinkingdialoguestakeplacewithinanindividualoramongdifferentindividuals.(Chapter7) •Standardapproachestocriticalthinkingareheavilyinfluencedbyclassicalandcontemporaryfoundationalism,theviewthatknowledgeisbuiltupcumulativelyonestepatatimefromsolidfoundations.Fromthepointofviewofourtheory,thisapproachplacesconstraintsoncriticaldialoguethatarenotalwaysappropriate.Traditionalviewsundulyconstraincriticalthinkingdialogue.(Chapter8)Adetailedexaminationofinformallogicprovidessupportforthisconclusion.(AppendixB) •Mentalmodels,orstories,aswellworkmodelsofunderlyingknowledge,arecentraltoamorerealisticunderstandingofcriticalthinking.Storiesandmentalmodelsareevaluatedinpartintermsofcoherence.Ultimatelycoherencecanbeanalyzedintermsofthenumberandnatureofthequestionsastoryanswers.Coherentmodelsmustbebuiltandmaintainedbyhighlyflexiblequestionandanswerstrategiesincriticaldialogue.(Chapter9) •Ultimately,thevalueofacriticalthinkingstrategyisdeterminedbyitsessinachievingreal-worldgoalsundertherelevantconditions.Insteadofviewingtheprocess“fromtheinside”(e.g.,whatreasonsdoIhaveforthisconclusion?
CanIanswerthisobjection?
),theexternalpointofviewlooksmoregenerallyattherecordofessofthistypeofstrategyinsimilarcircumstancesinthepast.Bothpointsofviewarenecessary,andplementoneanother.Theexternal vi pointofviewdetermineswhatcognitivestrategyordialoguetypeisappropriateandwhenandhowitshouldbeterminatedandadecisionreached.Problemswiththeexternalistframeworkcanbehandledbyacknowledgingthatitreflectsataskrelativepointofview.(Chapter10)•Teamdecisionmakingdependsonsharedmentalmodelsofthetask,thesituation,andmunicativeprocesseswithintheteamthatcreateandmaintainsuchsharedknowledge.Akeypracticalapplicationofthecriticalthinkingtheory,therefore,istoteamdecisionmaking.Rulesfortheconductofeachstageofcriticaldiscussion,takentogether,provideanormativemodelforteamproblemsolving.Thetheorycanbeusedtodeveloptrainingobjectives,trainingcontent,andassessmentmeasures.(Chapter11)•ThecriticalthinkingtheoryprovidespreliminaryanswerstochallengesraisedinChapter1.Thetheoryprovidestwocrucialtypesofflexibility:(i)Thereisanarrayofdialoguetypesthatdifferintheintensitywithwhichunderlyingassumptionsareprobedandwhicharesuitedtodifferentcontexts.(ii)Thejudge,adoptinganexternalpointofview,determineswhatstrategywillmostreliablyachievethereal-worldobjective,includingamongtheoptionsnon-deliberativeprocessessuchasrecognition-baseddecisionmaking. UtilizationofFindings:Anadequatetheoryofcriticalthinking,withboththeoreticalandapplieddimensions,isa keyconditionofprogressinthedevelopmentofcriticalthinkingtrainingandsupport.SuchatheoryisneededtoguidetheapplicationofcriticalthinkingprinciplestoArmybattlefieldcontextsaswellastoavarietyofotherdomains. Thenewtheoryofcriticalbinestheoreticalsoundnesswithpracticalutility.Atthepracticallevel,itlendsitselfdirectlytooperationalization:concretespecificationofthepracticesthatmakeupessfulcriticalthinkingindifferentcontexts.Thesespecificationsinturnserveastheobjectivesofcriticalthinkingtrainingordecisionsupport.Eachoftheponentsbringswithitcriteriaforessandmethodsfortheidentificationoferrors.Thetheoryshouldhelpusspecifycriticalthinkingobjectives,developtrainingmaterial,andmeasureess.Theultimateresultshouldbebetterdecisionmakingbybothindividualsandteams. vii viii TABLEOFCONTENTS Acknowledgments

........................................................................................................................

iiiExecutiveSummary......................................................................................................................iv
TableofContents..........................................................................................................................ix
TableofFigures...........................................................................................................................xii PART
I:THEPROBLEM...................................................................................1
1.ThePurposeofCriticalThinking.............................................................................................2
WhyStudyCriticalThinking?
.................................................................................................2
WhenIsCriticalThinkingUseful?
..........................................................................................4
DoTheseConditionsApplyintheArmy?
..............................................................................6
2.AnExerciseinEvaluation.........................................................................................................8
DoIKnowItWhenISeeIt?
...................................................................................................8
Segment1................................................................................................................................8
Segment2................................................................................................................................9
Segment3................................................................................................................................9
CanContextBe

Ignored?
.......................................................................................................10
3.

ScopingtheTerrain.................................................................................................................12
WhatDisciplineDoesCriticalThinkingBelongto?
.............................................................12HowAretheTop-LevelQuestionsConnected?
....................................................................12WhatDoesItMeantoDefineCriticalThinking?
..................................................................16HowAreNormativeandCognitiveDefinitionsRelated?
.....................................................19
4.PositionsoftheOpposingForces............................................................................................26
HowIsCriticalThinkingDefinedintheLiterature?
.............................................................26NormativeDefinitions...........................................................................................................26
CognitiveDefinitions.............................................................................................................32
WhatAretheMostSignificantVariationsinCurrentUsage?
..............................................36
5.StrategicChoices:InsideVersusOutside..............................................................................38AreCriteriaNeededforCriticalThinking?
...........................................................................38WhatIstheAssessor’sPointofView?
..................................................................................41WhereDidtheIdeaofCriticalThinkingComeFrom?
.........................................................44WhatAssumptionsDoestheTraditionalViewMake?
.........................................................45WhatDoestheInternalistParadigmLookLike?
...................................................................51WhatIstheViewFromtheOutside?
.....................................................................................53
WhatDoestheExternalistParadigmLookLike?
.................................................................58 ix HowDoViewsFromInsideandOutsideDiffer?
.................................................................656.Tactics:AMenuofMid-LevelParadigms............................................................................68 WhatFeaturesDistinguishMid-LevelParadigms?
...............................................................68WhatIstheRoleofArguments?
............................................................................................75
WhatIstheRoleofOtherPersons?
.......................................................................................80
HowCanWeDecideAmongParadigms?
.............................................................................82 PART
II:ASOLUTION....................................................................................85
7.ACriticalThinkingTheory....................................................................................................86 Mental
Models,Dialogue,andReliability.............................................................................86MentalModels.......................................................................................................................88
Dialogues...............................................................................................................................92
MentalModelsandDialogues.............................................................................................102
TheRoleofReliability........................................................................................................118

8.FromArgumenttoDialogueandStory...............................................................................122 Dialogue
andtheArchitectureofBelief..............................................................................122IsCriticalThinkingRigorouslyBasedonSolidFoundations?
...........................................124IsCriticalThinkingLooselyBasedonSoftFoundations?
..................................................127FoundationalismInhibitsCriticalDialogue.........................................................................1329.WhenisaStoryCoherent?
...................................................................................................150 Is
CoherentismComputationallyFeasible?
.........................................................................154ArgumentsLargeandSmall................................................................................................161
WhatQuestionsDoesaStoryAnswer?
...............................................................................165HowDoWeKnowaHypothesisIsCorrect?
......................................................................175WhyIsPerceptionSpecial?
.................................................................................................181
10.ReliabilityfromaThird-PersonPerspective.....................................................................186 Complications
......................................................................................................................188
PointsofView.....................................................................................................................189
ReliabilityinCriticalThinking............................................................................................191
11.EvaluationofDialoguesinTeams......................................................................................193 Communication
andSharedMentalModels.......................................................................193TheRelevanceofDialogueTheory.....................................................................................194
TeamDecisionMaking........................................................................................................195
ProcessofCriticalDiscussion.............................................................................................198
AModel...............................................................................................................................200
ProcessandeEvaluation........................................................................................203
AdditionalResearchQuestions:...........................................................................................209
ordingtovanEemerenetal...........................................................................................211 x ording
toWalton............................................................................................................223
12.ChallengesandPossibilitiesforTrainingCriticalThinking

...........................................225 APPENDICES...................................................................................................228
A.

GoalsforaCriticalThinkingCurriculum–AndforGuidingitsAssessment..............229Dispositions.........................................................................................................................229

Abilities................................................................................................................................230
B.

AssumptionsandProblemsinMainstreamInformalLogic.............................................233WhatIsInformalLogic?
......................................................................................................233
WhatIstheStructureofanArgument?
...............................................................................235WhatAretheCriteriaofaGoodArgument?
.......................................................................242DotheCriteriaApplytoProcessInsteadofProduct?
.........................................................245WilltheCriteriaWork?
.......................................................................................................247
DoWeEvaluatePremisesandInferencesSeparately?
.......................................................248DoWeEvaluateBeliefsOneArgumentataTime?
............................................................252DoWeEvaluateMentalModels?
........................................................................................257
WhyepttheConclusionofaLongArgument?
.............................................................260 REFERENCES.................................................................................................263 xi TABLE
OFFIGURES Figure1.Threemajorcategoriesofissuesaboutthecriticalthinking.Arrowsrepresentthestandardviewofhowthethreekindsofissuesarerelated....................................................13 Figure2.Arrowsrepresenthypothesizedinteractionsamong-levelissuesregardingcriticalthinking......................................................................................................................14 Figure

3.Fivedifferentanswerstothequestion,Whatiscriticalthinking?
.................................18 Figure4.Aschematiccognitiveframeworkshowingrelationshipsamongcognitiveprocessesandmechanisms.Timespanisrepresentedfromlefttoright,andinternality/externalitytobottom.................................................................................................................22 Figure

5.Threepointsofviewincriticaldiscussion:Firstperson,secondperson,andthirdperson.....................................................................................................................................43 Figure

6.Pointsatwhichtheexternalreliabilityofcognitiveprocessescanbeassessed,theirdemandsonresources,andtheirtemporalspan....................................................................63 Figure7.Criticalthinkingasareflectiveargumentaboutanintellectualproduct,fromtheinternalistperspective)andexternalistperspective(bottom).........................................69 Figure8.Tradeoffsinintegratingdifferentviewsofcriticalthinking..........................................84 Figure9.Amodelofcriticalthinkingwiththreeembeddedlayers:mentalmodels,criticaldialogue,andcontrolbasedonreliability..............................................................................87 Figure10.Threestancesaparticipantinadialoguemighttaketowardaproposition,illustratedbypropositionsp,q,andr,respectively..............................................................................103 Figure11.Howspeechactsinasimpledialoguechangemitmentstatusofpropositionsforthatspeaker.....................................................................................................................104 Figure
12.Anillustrativecriticaldialogue,withMAJSudplayingtheroleofproponent(prop)andMAJNordtheroleofopponent(op).Demandingareasonforanassertion(e.g.,askingWhy?
)isageneralTypeAchallenge.ChallengingtheinferencefromreasontoconclusionwithadefeaterisaspecificTypeBchallenge.Readclockwiseleft.....................107 Figure13.Theformeropponent(MAJNord)assertsthecontradictorythesis,ageneralType3challenge.MAJSudissuesageneralTypeBchallengebyquestioningtherelevanceoftheevidence.Readclockwiseleft...............................................................................112 Figure14.Threepartmodelofcriticalthinkingintermsofstagesandrolesinacriticaldialogue..............................................................................................................................................120 Figure
15.Acognitivemodelofcriticalthinkingmechanisms,processes,andenvironmentalfactorsoperatingoverdifferenttimespans..........................................................................121 Figure16.Foundationalistparadigmforeptabilityofbeliefs:apyramid.Arrowsrepresentarguments.Everychainofargumentmustbetraceablebacktobasicbeliefs(shadedboxes)atthebottomofthepyramid................................................................................................124 Figure
17.Modularityofabeliefsystemduetopresenceofbasicbeliefs,whereestoanend....................................................................................................................126 xii Figure
18.Evaluativecriteriaappliedtoanargument,ordingtotheclassicalfoundationalistparadigm..............................................................................................................................127 Figure
19.Defeasibleinferenceanddefeasiblebasicbeliefsincontemporaryfoundationalismandinformallogic................................................................................................................131 Figure
20.Twoargumentssupportconflictingconclusions.(Adottedlinebetweenderivedbeliefsshowsthattruthofbothtogetheriseitherlogicallyimpossibleorhighlyimprobable.).............................................................................................................................................143 Figure
21.Onceaconclusion(p)iseptedonthebasisofargumentontheleft,itcanbeusedasevidenceagainstconclusion(not-p)ofargumentontheright.Falsityofthatconclusioncanbeusedasevidencethatadefeateristhecase..............................................................148 Figure22.Theentireprocessshownabovecanbereversed,usingtheconclusion(not-p)oftheargumentontherightasareasonagainsttheconclusion(p)ontheleft,thenusingthenegationoftheconclusionassupportforadifferentdefeater.............................................148 Figure23.Coherentistparadigmforeptabilityofbeliefs:work.Thesystemofbeliefsisjustifiedasawholebytheinferentiallinksamongponentsanditsoverallsimplicityprehensiveness.Beliefsarenotclassifiedintotypeswithdifferentepistemologicalstatus,suchasbasicornotbasic..........................................................................................151 Figure
24.,constraintsamongeventsarerepresentedbyassociativelinks.Atbottom,thesameeventsandconstraintsarerepresentedmoreeconomicallywithinacausalstructure.Directedarrowsrepresentasymmetriccause-effectrelations.Bluenodes(1,2,and3)areconsciouslyattended.Goldandbluenodesareactivated....................................................159 Figure25.Simplicityprehensivenessascriteriaofthecoherenceofanexplanation....165 Figure26.Simplicitytradesoffprehensivenessincurvefitting..................................167 Figure27.Thesamedatapoints(y)arefitbyasimplecurveontheleft(y1,alinearfunctionwithtwoparameters)andbyplexcurveontheright(y5,afifth-orderpolynomialwithsixparameters).Althoughy5fitstheobserveddatabetter,y1willusuallybepreferred...168 Figure28.Amodelwithtwoadjustableparametersusesuptwodatapointstoestimatetheparameters.Thus,itpredictsonlythreeoutthefiveobservations......................................170 Figure29.WhenthetwocurvesinFigure27areusedtopredictnewdatageneratedbythesameprocess,theresultsarereversed:Thesimpler,linearcurve(y1,ontheleft)fitsthenewdatabetterthanplexhigher-orderpolynomial(y5,ontheright)...................................171 Figure30.Reliabilistparadigmforeptabilityofbeliefs:aseriesofinput/outputprocesses.Intheversionshownhere,inputstoperceptualefromtheenvironment,whileinputstomemoryandinferentialfacultiesincludetheoutputsofotherbelief-generationprocesses..............................................................................................................................187 Figure
31.Areliabilistframeworkthatintegratesafoundationalisttheoryofperceptualevidence,acoherencetheoryofinference,andacriticalthinkingmodelofreflectivereasoning......192 Figure32.Pointsforenhancingsharedmentalmodels...............................................................194 Figure33.Stagesofcriticaldiscussion.......................................................................................199 xiii Figure
34.ThreetypesofargumentstructureidentifiedbyBeardsley.Numbersrefertostatements.Arrowsrepresentrelationshipsofevidentialsupport.......................................236 Figure35.Thomasdistinguishedlinkedfromconvergentarguments,andsuggestedthatmissingpremisesinlinkedargumentsbesupplied...........................................................................237 Figure36.ThreekindsofnegativereasonsdistinguishedbyThomas........................................238Figure37.DiagramofB’sdeductiveargumentthattheenemywillattackthroughthenorth(ifit attacks),asaserialargumentwithtwoponentsandonemissingpremise........239Figure38.DiagramofA’sargumentthattheenemywillnotattackinthenorth,withB’s objectionshownasadefeater..............................................................................................240
Figure39.Diagramshowingbothlinesofreasoninginasingleargument................................241Figure40.Informationthattheenemyhasattackedthroughthesouthisrepresentedbythedotted branchontheright,indicatingevidencethatconflictswiththeconclusion........................249Figure41.B’soriginalargumentthattheenemywouldnotattackinthesouth,afterbeing expandedtomakeotherpremisesandinferencesexplicit...................................................253Figure42.B’snewargumentthattheG-2staff’sreportwasunreliable.....................................254Figure43.C’sfurtherexpansionofB’soriginalargument,tomakeadditionalpremisesand inferencesexplicit................................................................................................................255
Figure44.C’snewargumentthattheengineeringstaffreportwasnotreliable.........................256 xiv PARTI:THEPROBLEM
1 1.THEPURPOSEOFCRITICALTHINKING WhyStudyCriticalThinking?
ThepresentresearcharisesoutoftheexpectationthatimprovedunderstandingofcriticalthinkingskillsandtrainingtoimprovethoseskillswillresultinbetterdecisionmakingbyArmymandteams.Incriticalthinkingacognizer’sbeliefs,plans,inventions,practices,orothercreationsarechallenged,defended,replaced,and/ormodifiedinordertoachievesomeobjective.Wethinkcriticallywhenweaskourselvesorothersquestions,suchas:HowdoIknowthis?
WhydidIdecidetodothis?
Arethereasonsforthisbeliefadequate?
Willthisactionordesignachieveitsintendedeffect?
WhatsituationscanIimagineinwhichthisbeliefisfalse,orthisplanfails?
IstheresomethingelseIneedtoknoworthinkabout?
Whatargumentsarethereagainstthisconclusionorcourseofaction?
Isthereabetterhypothesisorplan?
Whatismyrealpurpose,andamIaddressingtheissuesthatreallyconcernme?
Thisreportdescribesprogressontwoobjectives:First,todrawamapthatdisplayskeyfeaturesofthecriticalthinkingterrain,includingthepositionspetingpointsofviewonwhatcriticalthinkingis,howtheyviewoneanother,theirconcealedassumptions,obstaclestoprogress,andpromisingavenuesofapproach.Second,tousethatmaptoadvancetowardanewtheorywhichcountersweaknessesinotherapproacheswhilesystematicallyintegratingtheirinsights.Theresultingtheoryisaperspectiveoncriticalthinkingasadialoguethatexploresalternativepossibilitiesbyaskingandansweringquestions,andwhichtakesplaceundertheconstraintsofcontext-specificgoals.TomaximizerelevancetoArmyconcerns,ourfocuswillbeontheuseofsuchdialogueskillsfortheachievementofpracticalobjectivesinatimelyway. Boththemapandthetheoryshould: (i)HelptheArmyandothersmakewell-foundedchoicesinthedesignoftrainingandinstruction.Suchtrainingandinstructionshouldimproveperformanceonthebattlefieldandelsewherethroughbettercriticalthinking. (ii)HelptheArmyandothersidentifyadditionalresearchneedsandopportunitiesthatpromisesignificantpayoffsincriticalthinkingtrainingand,ultimately,inreal-worldes. (iii)Provideageneralwayanizingafieldthatisbothrelativelynewandmultidisciplinary.Theframeworkandtheoryprovideascaffoldingwithinwhichboththeoreticalideasandappliedproposalsaboutcriticalthinkingcanparedandbetterunderstood.Hopefully,itwillproveusefulasastimulusforotherresearchers. Thecriticalthinkingfieldiscurrentlyfragmentedatboththestrategicandthetacticallevels.Criticalthinkinginvolvesthewillingnessandabilitytoquestionunreflectivebeliefsandeptedpractices.Buttheoriesdivergeabouttheoverallstrategythatsuchquestioningserves.Criticalthinkingstartedoutasaweaponagainstsuperstitionanddogma,butquestionsandanswerswerealsoexpectedtoleadstepbysteptocertaintyabouttherealworld.Inmoderntimes,ontheotherhand,thebedrockunderthesestepsofreasoningseemslesssolid,andthegoalofabsolutecertaintyhasbeendiscreditedeveninphysicalscienceandlogic.Asaresult,someoftoday’stheoristshavemovedtotheotherextreme,concludingthattruthisinternaltoabeliefsystemandthateverysuchsystemrestsonarbitraryassumptions.Theroleofcriticalthinkingistoquestionbutnottoprovidefirmanswers,todispelcertaintybutnottorestore
2 justifiedconfidence.Theimplicitassumptionisthatnopositionisbetterorworsethananyother;eachcanbejudgedonlywithrespecttoitsown,internalstandards.Thatconclusionisaneptablestrategicbasisforapplyingcriticalthinkingtorealtasksinrealisticcontexts. Theanswertothestrategicproblem,wesuggest,dependsonseeingcriticalthinkingfrombothaninsideandanoutsideperspective.Theoutsideperspectiveliesinthetreatmentofcriticalthinkingstrategiesasadaptationstorealenvironments,selectedandshapedbytheirlikelihoodofproducingessfulesunderprevailingconditions.Theinsideperspectiveliesinthedecision-guidingrulesthatcriticalthinkersfollowinordertoenvisionandevaluatealternativepossibilitiesandtoconstructinternallycoherentmentalmodelsofthesituation.Fromtheinternalpointofview,criticalthinkingisarule-governedquestion-and-answerdialogueaboutalternativepossibilities.Butcriticalthinkingisaninternalprocesscarriedouttoachieveanexternalresult.Criticalthinkingbyitsverynaturedemandsabalancebetweenskepticismandconfidence. Onthetacticallevel,currentcriticalthinkingtextbookstendtoincludeaneclecticmixofideasandmethodsthatborrowfromformalandinformallogic,rhetoric,probabilitytheory,decisiontheory,cognitivepsychology,municationtheory,andothers.Insomeobvioussense,alloftheseserveastoolsofcriticalthinking.Butthevarioustextbooksandapproachesdonotprovideaframeworkthatintegratespetingapproachesatameaningfullevelofdetail.Thetheorywepropose,ontheotherhand,bringstogether-levelelements: •challengethroughquestionandanswerdialogue, •alternativepossibilitiesofvarioustypeswhoseexplorationandevaluationistheproximalgoalofthatdialogue,and •apurposewhosereliableachievementistheultimatemeasureofessofthedialogue. Atthetacticallevel,therefore,thetheorydrawsonandintegratesthreebroadresearchareas.Thefirstisworkincognitivepsychologyonreasoning,decisionmaking,andproblem-solving.Thecentrallessonweextractfromthisworkisthatsignificanterrorsinlogic,probability,problem-solving,orcreativethinkingurwhencognizersdonotadequatelyexplorerelevantalternativepossibilities(e.g.,Hastie&Dawes,2001;Dawes,2001).Thesealternativepossibilitiescanberepresentedasmentalmodels(Johnson-Laird&Byrne,1991).Thetheoryproposesdialogueasaframeworkforunderstandingthestrategiespeopleuseforconstructingandevaluatingsuchmodels.Inawiderangeoftasks,alternativementalmodelsareexploredbyaskingandansweringquestionswithinaspecifiableframeworkofrulesandexpectations,i.e.,byexercisingskillsofdialogue.Thus,thesecondkeyareaisworkondialoguetheorybyinformallogicians(e.g.,vanEemeren&Grootendorst,1992,andWalton,1998).Adialogueisdefinedasaverbalinteractionofaspecifictypeconductedbypartieswhoplaydifferentrolesandgovernedbyrulesthatareappropriateforachievingtheproximateobjectiveofthattypeofdialogue,e.g.,persuadinganotherperson(oroneself)ofapointofview,choosingacourseofaction,ornegotiatingaresolutionpetinginterests(Walton,1998).Errorsorlackofskillintheexecutionofadialoguecausesimportantalternativepossibilitiestobeoverlooked.Reasoningisadialoguewithoneself,andconversely,adialogueisacollaborativeprocessofreasoning. Sincetherearealternativetypesofdialoguetochoosefrom,sincetheprocessofchallengingmentalmodelsandgeneratingalternativepossibilitiescouldinprinciplegoonforever,andsincecriticalthinkingissometimesnotpragmaticallyappropriateatall,critical
3 dialoguemustbeplacedinalarger,externalcontext.Adialoguethatachievesitsproximalobjective(e.g.,resolvingadifferenceofviews,selectinganaction,orreachinganeptablebalancepetinggoals)mightneverthelessfailtocontributetotheultimatepurposeofthetaskoractivitywithinwhichitisembedded.Decisionsaboutwhethertoconductacriticalthinkingdialogue,whatkindofdialoguetoconduct,whethertheruleshavebeenviolated,andwhentobringthedialoguetoanendarebasedonthereliabilityofdifferentdialoguetypesorstrategiesforachievingthereal-worldobjectivesoftheparticipantsunderthecurrentconditionsandwithinthetimeavailable.Thethirdkeyareaofresearch,then,isempiricalandtheoreticalworkonadaptivecognitivestrategiesthatarereliablyassociatedwithexpertiseoressfulperformance(e.g.,Ericsson&Smith,1991;Payne,Bettman,&Johnson,1993).Thethreekeyconceptsinthetheory–dialogue,mentalmodels,andreliability–thusprovidethefoundationforadeepandbroadtheoreticalsynthesis. Thisviewofcriticalthinking,asreliablyeffectivedialogueaboutalternativepossibilities,aimsbinetheoreticalsoundnesswithpracticalutility.Atapracticallevel,itlendsitselfdirectlytooperationalization,i.e.,concretespecificationofthepracticesthatmakeupessfulcriticalthinkingindifferentcontexts.Thesespecificationsinturnserveastheobjectivesofcriticalthinkingtrainingordecisionsupport.Eachoftheponentsbringswithitasetofinter-relatedcriteriaforessandamethodfortheidentificationoferrors.Thetheoryshouldhelpusspecifycriticalthinkingobjectives,developtrainingmaterial,andmeasureess. Criticalthinkingisnotasubstituteforknowledgeandexperienceinaparticularfield,suchasmedicine,law,business,ormilitarytactics.Foronething,suchknowledgeisrequiredinordertogenerateandevaluatealternativepossibilities.Butcriticalthinkingcanbeapowerfulknowledge-amplifierandacrucialelementoflearninginanyfield.Acriticalthinkingdialoguechallengeshabitsandsettledbeliefs,exposeshiddenassumptions,helpsidentifyandfillgapsinknowledge,bringsoutalternativeapproachesthatmightneverhavebeenconsidered,speedsuplearning,andkeepsusontracktowardachievingourgoals.Criticalthinkingskilliscreative:Itrequirestheabilitytoknowwhentofollowagutfeelingandwhentoputitonhold,whentofashionnewsolutionsandwhentoadaptoldones,andingeneraltouseourknowledgeeffectivelywhileenlargingit.Itistheultimategoalofacriticalthinkingtheorytoilluminatebothhowtheseskillsoperateandhowtheymaybeimproved. WhenIsCriticalThinkingUseful?
WillcriticalthinkingbeusefulinArmydecisionmaking?
Theanswereviaexperimentalteststowardtheendofthisresearchratherthanatitsbeginning.Itmakessense,however,tostartbylookingatwhatproponentsofcriticalthinkinghaveclaimedaboutitsusefulness.Itturnsoutthatasmallsetofthemesappearsoverandoverintheprefacesandintroductionsofthedozensofcriticalthinkingtextbooksinprint.Criticalthinkingisingmoreimportantbecauseof:
A.Growingproblemdifficulty 1.plexityofproblems
2.Changingnatureofproblems
3.Informationoverload
B.Decentralizationofsocialanizationalstructure
4 4.Increasingresponsibility,hencetheneedforinitiative5.Increasingneedtoparticipateinteamswithdiversemembership6.IncreasingneedforindependentthinkingC.Morehighstakesdecisions7.Increasinglyimportantpublicpolicyissues8.PersonaldecisionsinanpetitivecareerenvironmentManyauthorscitetrendsinsomeorallofthesecategories.1 1Herearesomebriefsforcriticalthinkingwhichgiveaflavoroftextbookrhetoric.Numberingisoursandcorrespondstothelistintext: …inaworldof(2)eleratingchangeand(1)plexity,anewformofthinkingandlearningisrequired….Theeconomicwell-beingofthefuturewillrequirethe(4)intellectualempowermentandfreedomofordinary,notjustextraordinarypeople.(Paul,1993,p.v) Weliveinwhathasbeencalledthe
(3)InformationAgebecauseofthemanymessagesthatwereceivedailyfromnewspapers,magazines,radio,television,books,andthe….in