Why Should We Think Critically?

1. We think critically to know what is true. The objective of critical thinking is to make a

decision about what to believe or what to do based on the objective analysis of evidence for a

claim. To wit, our epistemic duty is not to accept a statement as true unless we have

adequate evidence to support it. Making criticisms is not necessarily the meaning of

critical thinking. Rather, critical thinking means to evaluate evidence as efficiently as

possible so as not to fall victim to false claims, fallacies, quack science. There are also

other sources that produce knowledge that are not necessarily true, such as personal

experience and common sense, experts and authorities, popular and media messages, and

ideological beliefs and values. Everyday perceptions and reasoning are prone to error that can

go easily unnoticed. Personal experience, where seeing is believing, is a powerful type of

knowledge because of direct personal contact. However, these can also be misleading, as in

the case of optical illusions or mirages. Even eye witness testimonies of a crime have been

found to be highly inaccurate. Similarly, common sense may lead one to believe that

imposing harsh punishment (ex. death penalty) would decrease violent crimes. However,

various studies suggest the opposite. Knowledge from personal experience and common

sense can lead us to commit errors in everyday judgment, such as overgeneralization,

selective observation, and halo and horns effect. First, in overgeneralization, we believe that

some evidence applies over many other situations or beyond what is reasonable given our

limited evidence. For example, a person overgeneralizes when they assume that all girls from

private schools are kind, based on their personal experience with six girls from private

schools. Second, in selective observation, we examine certain cases or situations in a way that

fits our pre-existing ideas or seek evidence that verifies what we already believe. For

instance, one with a preconceived notion that UP students are cocky would pay more
attention to students who are loud and swagger or strut into a room. Lastly, in halo effect, we

give a highly positive reputationa haloto things or people rather than viewing them in

neutral light. The converse of the halo effect is the horn effect. For instance, people assume

that a research by someone from UP highly credible, while the same is not assumed for a

study done by someone from a less known university. As for knowledge from experts and

authorities, while relying on evidence provided by a person who has spent a much time

gaining expertise in a certain field can be beneficial, it is easy to overestimate their expertise.

Through halo effect, an authority or expert in one area may be accepted as an expert in fields

they know little about. President Rodrigo Duterte, for example, holds that there are about 4

million drug addicts in the Philippines. When he was just a presidential candidate, his

estimate was 3 million. However, the most recent report by the Dangerous Drugs Board

reveals that as of 2015, there are 1.8 drug users in the Philippinesan estimate far from 3 or

4 million. Similarly, relying on mass media (i.e. film, television, newspapers, magazines, and

Internet sources) for evidence has its limitations, as the media can report statements lacking

in sound research. Getting knowledge from others also has restrictions, since popular belief is

not necessarily true. Lastly, political, religious, or ideological beliefs can easily prevent one

from knowing the truth. For instance, Catholics would argue distributing free condoms in

high schools would motivate teenagers to engage in sexual activity. However, research

suggests that promoting and distributing condoms most likely does not increase sexual

activity among adolescents. Overall, critical thinking is needed so all evidence is subject to

scrutiny, as we are not supposed to accept the truth of statements in a carefree manner. We

have to be careful to accept evidence from trustworthy sources and evaluate these objectively

to arrive at the truth, while reducing the bias and distortion that often comes with personal

experience and reasoning from authorities, media, and ideologies.

2. We think critically to make decisions. As stated earlier, it is our epistemic duty to not

accept the truth of a statement unless there is adequate evidence for it. This implies that when

we do not have enough evidence, it is logical that we do not form beliefs yet nor make any

judgments. Critical thinking is concerned with finding enough good, adequate reasons upon

which we build our beliefs and act on. Of course, emotional reasons have a primary role in

forming and maintaining what we believe to be true, especially religious or moral beliefs. For

instance, we might believe that while one cannot physically sense God, he exists because of

our strong faith and because believing in his existence gives us peace, comfort, and relief. We

can also believe something because of its emotional ties to ones culture, community, or

heritage. A strong sense of community and tradition influences our beliefs. We believe in the

existence of God partly because the Catholic community and religion is very prominent in

Filipino culture and denying Gods existence could cause significant emotional pain or even

doubt in ones identity. However, critical thinking as the process of assessing evidence

should be free of emotions and biases, as these can make evidence collection and evaluation

challenging if we identify too much with the evidence. For example, in determining whether

the defendant is guilty, the jury bases its decision on adequate evidence, not just some

evidence of guilt. If the jury were to assign before enough facts are given or if they base their

decision on their emotions, it could lead to the wrong verdict. Moreover, critical thinking

involves assessing evidence based on the trustworthiness of the source, which is why caution

must be taken when evaluating evidence from personal experience and common sense,

experts and authorities, popular and media messages, and ideologies. For instance, when

deciding whether or not to try smoking, one might reflect on evidence drawn from personal

experience (ex. behavior of a smoking relative versus a non-smoking relative), experts (ex. do

not smoke due to its addictive properties), and media messages (ex. smoke because it will
make you popular, as seen on TV shows), and ideology (ex. do not smoke because religion

condemns smoking for being a vice). Nonetheless, it is best to still research about smoking

before deciding to go through with it so one can evaluate which evidence is the strongest to

base their decision upon. It is crucial that we think critically to discern strong from weak

evidence so we can make our own decisions and, in doing so, be autonomous, which is key in

human nature and development. Being autonomous implies we can think criticallywe can

reason and reflect, determine the validity and soundness of our own reasoning (or that of

others)and make the best decision. Thus, we do not just always follow the reasoning of

authorities, for instance, which is inconsistent with the principles of a free, democratic

society.

3. We think critically to solve problems. In practically any discipline, there are problems that

can be answered through critical thinking. Everyday, we encounter problems wherein we do

not have the luxury of research, we could draw evidence that could be easier to access from

sources such as personal experience, common sense, authorities, media, and ideology. In

these instances, one could still apply critical thinking by using reflection, cost-benefit

analysis, and analyzing the situation without emotional attachment and as logically as

possible. In mathematics, for instance, there are four basic operations (i.e. addition,

subtraction, multiplication, and division) for problem solving. The problems get more

complex with the different branches of mathematicsalgebra, geometry, trigonometry,

calculus, and the like. One must apply critical thinking to figure out the most efficient, logical

way to solve these problems without going through unnecessary steps. In the corporate world,

employers hire an effective team of individuals who can think critically, creatively, use good

judgment, and offer new ways to solve problems, especially in the face of the rigorous,

fast-paced, competitive business environment. In science, researchers use the scientific

method to solve a relevant problem, devise a methodology that is best suited for answering

their research question, interpret their data and link it with related literature, and produce

recommendations that could benefit as many people as possible. This, of course, requires

screening the strength of prior evidence to support new findings and to compare with

contradictory evidence. Ideally, applied research offers practical solutions to a real problem

or address immediate and specific needs of a target demographic. Research findings go

through further organized skepticism from the scientific community. In all these instances,

we apply good critical thinking by identifying arguments, evaluating evidence from

trustworthy sources, comparing contradicting evidence, detecting fallacies, reflecting on the

issue and errors while reducing the effects of our own assumptions, preexisting ideas, biases,

dislikes, and the like, and drawing a logical conclusion from adequate evidence.

Ana Michaela J. Panaguiton, WFW1, WF 1-2:30 PM