A.I. Philosophy Podcast Ep. 1: Critical Thinking

So I'm going to try something new for you philosophy students out there. There is now an Artificial Intelligence app that can turn any kind of document like a book, or a PDF, or even a video into a podcast. So I thought it might be interesting to use the free, academic articles on philosophical subjects found online at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, to create A.I. generated podcasts.

So, what you're about to see is a podcast generated by A.I. which introduces you to the subject of critical thinking as it is discussed in two encyclopedic articles online. I just uploaded the articles and voila, a podcast was created explaining the topic to you in an easy-to-understand way. 

I can make these podcasts in less than an hour so I can post these pretty frequently (my other episodes on the tablets can take me 5 or 6 hours). 

Let me hear from you and tell me if you want more of this. 

P.S. I did not edit the on-screen captions so some of them may be incorrect. 

Briefing Document: Critical Thinking

I. Introduction

This document provides a comprehensive overview of critical thinking based on two sources: an entry from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy ("Critical Thinking by IEP.pdf") and an entry from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ("Critical Thinking by SEP.pdf"). The goal is to summarize the key themes, concepts, and debates surrounding critical thinking, including its definition, its methods, its importance, and its limitations.

II. Core Concepts and Definition

• General Definition: Both sources agree that critical thinking is, broadly, "careful thinking directed to a goal" (SEP). The IEP source defines critical thinking as "the process of using and assessing reasons to evaluate statements, assumptions, and arguments in ordinary situations" with the aim of forming good beliefs that meet goals like truth, usefulness, or rationality.
• Goal-Oriented: Critical thinking is not aimless pondering; it has a specific purpose, whether evaluating a claim, making a decision, or solving a problem.
• Active and Persistent: The SEP source, drawing on Dewey, defines it as "active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends."
• Scope: Critical thinking can apply to various areas, encompassing both constructing arguments and appraising existing ones (IEP, SEP). The SEP also notes that critical thinking is understood differently across different conceptions, with varying scopes, goals, standards of carefulness, and specific components focused on.
• Not Just Formal Logic: While formal logic plays a role, critical thinking employs a range of reasoning methods, including informal logic, linguistic analysis, scientific and historical methods, and philosophical techniques like Socratic questioning (IEP). IEP emphasizes that critical thinking is broader than formal reasoning, which is primarily concerned with deductive validity and truth, and may assess truth, usefulness, religious, aesthetic, or rhetorical value.
• Clarity is Essential: Before any evaluation can happen, statements must be clear. The IEP notes a statement expresses a proposition (the meaning intended by the author), including definitions, referents of terms, and indexicals. Clarity is often impeded by the ambiguity and vagueness inherent in natural language.
• Not Critical Theory: The IEP is careful to distinguish between "critical thinking" and "critical theory," stating the latter is a "moral critique of culture."

III. The Process of Critical Thinking

Both sources identify different but similar components of the process of critical thinking.

• IEP's Framework: The IEP document provides a more process-oriented framework, noting that evaluating statements involves several steps:
• Clarity: Ensuring the statement is clearly understood, free of ambiguity and vagueness.
• Argument and Evaluation: Evaluating statements for truth, usefulness, or rationality.
• Identifying premises (evidence) that support a conclusion.
• Distinguishing between formal (deductive) and informal (inductive) arguments.
• Evaluating arguments for validity (formal) and strength (informal).
• Formal Reasoning: Using systems like categorical, propositional, modal, and predicate logic to analyze arguments for validity and truth-preservation. These are truth-preserving, but not truth-detecting.
• Informal Reasoning: Utilizing methods like generalization, analogy, causal reasoning, and abduction to make inferences about the world that are not guaranteed by logic.
• Detecting Poor Reasoning: Recognizing and avoiding formal fallacies (errors in argument form), informal fallacies (errors in argument content), and cognitive biases (heuristics and biases).
• IEP notes heuristics and biases are “unconscious reasoning processes that may have been helpful in our evolutionary history, but do not function reliably in higher order reasoning.”
• Scope and Virtues of Good Reasoning: Considerations of context, caution, and the limits of rationality.
• Approaches to Improving Reasoning: Classical, Paul/Elder Model, Rationality, and Pragma-dialectics.
• SEP's Framework: The SEP, drawing on Dewey, frames the process as an iterative cycle:

1. Experiencing a "perplexed, troubled or confused situation
2. Identifying the problem
3. Forming a hypothesis
4. Reasoning out implications
5. Testing the hypothesis
6. Arriving at a "cleared-up, unified, resolved situation"

• The SEP highlights that this process is not necessarily linear and may involve revisiting and redefining problems.
• SEP also notes the importance of suspending judgment and systematically gathering evidence to avoid confirmation bias.
• SEP's components of the Critical Thinking Process
• Observing: Noticing details in one's environment or from an experiment.
• Feeling: Experiencing puzzle, uncertainty or a desire to resolve a dilemma
• Wondering: Formulating questions.
• Imagining: Considering possible solutions or answers.
• Inferring: Working out implications or drawing conclusions.
• Knowledge: Using stored information.
• Experimenting: Testing hypotheses through observation and experiment.
• Consulting: Gathering information from external sources.
• Identifying and Analyzing Arguments
• Judging: Making assessments based on evidence.
• Deciding: Taking action or establishing policy.
• Common Elements: Both sources emphasize the importance of:
• Identifying assumptions and biases
• Gathering and evaluating evidence
• Considering alternative perspectives
• Drawing well-supported conclusions

IV. Key Reasoning Methods (IEP)

• Formal Reasoning: Focuses on deductive validity and truth-preservation using specific logical systems.
• Categorical Logic: Reasoning about categories using quantifiers like "all," "some," and "none."
• Propositional Logic: Reasoning about complex propositions using operators like "not," "and," "or," "if...then," and "if and only if."
• Modal Logic: Dealing with concepts of necessity and possibility using operators like □ (necessary) and ◊ (possible).
• Predicate Logic: Quantifying over subjects of propositions, using "All..." (∀) and "There is at least one..." (∃).
• Non-Classical Logics: Systems that do not presuppose bivalence (true or false), like Tense Logic, Many-valued logic, and Fuzzy logic.
• Informal Reasoning: Drawing conclusions based on patterns in the world, with varying degrees of likelihood.
• Generalization: Inferring a conclusion about a population from a sample, or about future instances from past ones.
• Analogy: Drawing a comparison between objects or events to infer shared characteristics.
• Causal Reasoning: Inferring relationships between causes and effects based on patterns or experiments.
• Abduction (Inference to the Best Explanation): Choosing the best explanation for an event based on theoretical virtues like simplicity, conservatism, independent testability, fecundity, explanatory depth, and explanatory breadth.

V. Detecting Poor Reasoning (IEP)

• Formal Fallacies: Errors in the form of an argument (e.g., affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent).
• Informal Fallacies: Errors in the meaning or content of an argument (e.g., equivocation, ad hominem, appeal to the people, tu quoque, base rate neglect).
• Heuristics and Biases: Systematic errors in thinking due to unconscious cognitive processes (e.g., framing bias, availability heuristic, confirmation bias).

VI. The Importance of Dispositions (SEP)

• Dispositions as Habits of Mind: The SEP emphasizes dispositions, or intellectual virtues, as crucial contributors to critical thinking. These are the habits of mind and attitudes that contribute to willingness to engage in critical thinking.
• Initiating Dispositions: Factors that encourage one to begin critical thinking (e.g., attentiveness, habit of inquiry, self-confidence, intellectual courage, open-mindedness, willingness to suspend judgment, trust in reason, valuing evidence, truth-seeking).
• Internal Dispositions: Factors that support good critical thinking once started (e.g., clarity of focus, persistence, self-correction).
• Motivation: Critical thinkers must value and enjoy using their reasoning abilities; this requires a love of inquiry.

VII. Critical Thinking Abilities (SEP)

• Abilities as Competencies: The SEP focuses on abilities (sometimes called "skills" or "competencies") that are necessary for effective critical thinking.
• General Abilities:Observational abilities: Noticing relevant details.
• Emotional abilities: Recognizing one's own and others' emotional reactions
• Questioning abilities: Formulating clear and precise questions.
• Imaginative abilities: Generating possible solutions or explanations.
• Inferential abilities: Drawing conclusions and recognizing degrees of certainty.
• Experimenting abilities: Designing and executing tests.
• Consulting abilities: Finding and evaluating credible sources of information.
• Argument analysis abilities: Identifying and evaluating arguments.
• Judging and deciding abilities: Making assessments based on evidence.
• Acquired Abilities: These are developed through practice and education and often require domain-specific knowledge.

VIII. Controversies (SEP)

• Generalizability: There is debate over whether critical thinking abilities are generalizable across different domains (McPeck's view is against generalizability) or whether they are largely domain-specific. Most critical thinking theorists believe that they are generalizable to some extent, but that domain-specific knowledge is needed as well.
• Bias: Some have alleged that critical thinking theories and instruction are biased, sometimes based on a gendered perspective.
• Relationship to Other Types of Thinking: The relationship to problem-solving, decision-making, higher-order thinking, and creative thinking is not settled. Critical thinking is thought to be closely related to these types of thinking, overlapping with them, rather than being entirely distinct.

IX. Approaches to Improving Reasoning (IEP)

The IEP identifies several approaches:

• Classical Approach: Emphasizes formal logic, informal logic, and recognition of fallacies.
• Paul/Elder Model: Focuses on elements of thought (purpose, question, information, interpretation, etc.), intellectual standards (clarity, accuracy, relevance, etc.), and intellectual traits (humility, perseverance, empathy, etc.).
• Rationality Approach: Addresses empirical evidence that many reasoning errors are due to subconscious dispositions, biases, and heuristics. This involves recognizing these common errors and developing ways to avoid their influence on reasoning.
• Pragma-Dialectics: Sees argument as a form of reasonable discourse that involves public, social, and rhetorical dimensions, in addition to logical structure.

X. Conclusion

Critical thinking is a complex, multifaceted process that involves skills, dispositions, knowledge, and reasoning methods. It is a valuable tool for problem-solving, decision-making, and forming sound beliefs. While the definition of critical thinking is contested and its implementation is subject to various challenges, its adoption as an educational goal remains highly regarded for empowering individuals and fostering democratic citizenship. Both sources emphasize the importance of education and practice in cultivating critical thinking. This document should act as a helpful starting point for understanding this important and complex topic.