Uncertain Composition of Critical Thinking Abilities

There is no reason to believe critical thinking is a narrow enough quality or a set of qualities which can be defined or circumscribed. Therefore, an appropriate “definition” of critical thinking is the one given by Facione (1998); according to whom  “The behaviors or habits of mind associated with critical thinking include asking questions, defining a problem, examining evidence, analyzing assumptions and biases,  avoiding over-simplification, reflecting on other interpretations, and tolerating ambiguity” (as cited in Visser, Visser, & Schlosser, 2003, p. 401). Consequently, there is no reason to believe that any particular sets of skills, characteristics, or practices, which can be associated with critical thinking, can be said to be more or less beneficial or important than others. This can even be seen from the influential models of critical thinking described by Kelly (2014).

Thus, for example, Kitchener and King's (1981) model of critical thinking is focused on measuring the ability of individuals to solve “well-structured” and “ill-structured” problems; where it appears that well-structured problems are those in which the solution almost inevitably follows from the facts of the case (which are fixed); while the ill-structured problems are those in which multiple probable solutions are possible, and the facts of the case are not fixed (as cited in Kelly, 2014). Hence, it seems safe to conclude that the “well-structured” problems of this model are those that can largely be solved through simple deductive reasoning; while coming up with possible solutions to “ill-structured” problems commonly requires several lines of complex inductive reasoning. Thus, it appears that Kitchener and King (1981) view critical thinking as a progressive ability to engage in ever more complex use of standard logic (from simple deductive to complex inductive logic). And it seems clear that such a view of critical thinking is extremely limited.

After all, the often complex “reasoning” performed by computers is based exclusively on formal logic. However, few, if any, people would say that computers are capable of critical thought. On the other hand, the first three levels of Kitchener and King's (1981) model involve the reasoning abilities of supposed people who are only capable of two-valued reasoning, in which all propositions are seen as either true or false. Consequently, the supposed individuals falling into the first three levels of Kitchener and King's (1981) model are unable to distinguish between “well-structured” and “ill-structured” problems; since they view both as equally well defined and either true or false (as cited in Kelly, 2014).

Hence, Kitchener and King's (1981) model looks rather strange. After all, many computer programs use non-classical logics, which classify propositions into multiple categories (not just true and false).  Moreover, computers are incapable of complex inductive reasoning (especially when the set of premises is not fixed). And, therefore, would immediately give out upon encountering an “ill-structured” problem; thus, illustrating their ability to “distinguish” between “well-structured” and “ill-structured” problems; something that some people, according Kitchener and King's (1981) model, supposedly lack. 

Thus, the fact that computers “possess” critical thinking skills, which some people, according to Kitchener and King (1981), apparently lack, illustrates the great vagueness and breadth of the critical thinking concept and the consequent impossibility of deciding which possible aspects of critical thinking can be said to be more or less beneficial or important than others.

References

Facione, P. (1998). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Santa Clara, CA: California Academic Press.

Kitchener, K. S., & King, P. M. (1981). Reflective judgment: Concepts of justification and their relationship to age and education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2, 89-116.

Kelly, S. (2014). Critical thinking: The means to inquire. In A. DiVincenzo (Ed.), Find Your Purpose: The Path to a Successful Doctoral Experience. Phoenix, AZ: Grand Canyon University.

Visser, L., Visser, Y. L., & Schlosser, C. (2003). Critical thinking distance education and traditional education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(4), 401-407.