How to Think Critically (and Why it is a Constant Struggle)

Think critically, always, everywhere! We can’t really do without this imperative today. Critical thinking is our guide to navigate a world where we are bombarded by information, opinions, and advertisements. Being able to search the internet and get the information you’re looking for instead of the information algorithms or fake news distributors want to feed you, for example, can be a challenge. Fortunately, we can cultivate and use our critical mind.

Beyond a necessary skill, critical thinking is also a social norm. It is a sign of a strong personality. The opinionated individual that distinguishes herself from the flock by using her own critical mind is something we’re all expected to be. It is no surprise then, that most people will consider themselves to be critical thinkers. Maybe when you were reading this, you thought that, yes, other people get tricked into believing false information or following mainstream opinions without thinking them through, but not you. You are a critical thinker. 

If you’ve had this thought, you’re right there with that guy in school who always needs to see scientific evidence before believing anything anyone says. Of course, this guy is a militant atheist. You’re in the camp of that girl who always disagrees and tries to see things from an opposite perspective. You’re aligned with that friend who denounces all politicians, for he sees the lust for power and money behind their lies. You’re on the same team as that neighbour who thinks covid-19 vaccines are unsafe and forced upon us by big pharma.  Finally, you’re in line with conspiracy theorists, who consider themselves the most critical people of all. 

Does this make you somewhat uncomfortable? Surely, all of these people consider themselves critical thinkers, the ones not tricked by the false information that traps so many others. But how do we distinguish successful critical thinking from mere attempts? Some of these examples might raise eyebrows, and rightfully so. They also raise questions: what is critical thinking? What does it take?

© Monty Python

What Does Critical Thinking (Attempt to) Achieve?

What do we mean by critical thinking? The answer is quite intuitive. When we think critically about something, we do not take it at face value but try to look past its facade. We take a closer look, analyse and interpret, and evaluate what we find there. Critical thinking means questioning the supposedly self-evident nature of information presented to us. For critical thought, that self-evident character is somehow lost. What we are looking at has instead become unclear, strange, maybe uncanny. We can even see it as dogmatic or dangerous in ways that we would want to resist.

There is no better example today than that of the neighbour who questions the safety of the covid-19 vaccines. Despite the resistance of anti-vaxxers, mass vaccination is common practice. Most of us have had at least some vaccinations as kids, and vaccination has successfully eradicated diseases like polio in many parts of the world. In the case of covid-19, vaccination seems the self-evident solution that will allow us to return to a more pleasant way of living. Yet our neighbour raises his eyebrows and wonders whether getting vaccinated should be this self-evident. Can we trust that it is safe? What do we know about the vaccine, its development, and the people behind all this? For him, vaccination is not self-evident but uncanny, so he stops, raises questions and might be tempted to refuse getting the shot. Behind his questions can be many things: an emotional reaction to the idea of being injected with an unknown substance, lack of sufficient knowledge, mistrust of scientists who might be biased or pressured by the circumstances, or distrust of the organising politicians. In short: there might be something behind this, and our neighbour feels the need to uncover it. 

The same is true for all the other examples. Our slightly science-obsessed atheist attempts to uncover what evidence lies - or doesn’t lie - behind everything that reaches his ears. The girl who opposes everything in fact refuses the self-evident character of all she is confronted with, and therefore resists. Our friend questions the legitimacy of ruling politicians, convinced that their true motives are masked by lies. As for conspiracy theorists, they believe by definition that large parts of our self-evident society is a facade for large-scale conspiracies.

The goal of critical thinking is clear: finding out what these supposedly self-evident things are actually about. Critical thinking attempts to make visible possible intentions, dogmas, biases, or even lies and falsities. This brings us closer to the truth, to the objective reality behind the facades. After all, if vaccines were unsafe, the self-evident character of mass vaccination would indeed be illegitimate. If politicians are biased, dogmatic, or untrustworthy, we would indeed be stupid to give them power. If there is no evidence for the existence of God, it is legitimate to ask why we would believe it.

What Incites Critical Thinking?

What is the impulse behind our inclination not to take something at face value? It should be noted that we do not always have this inclination. I do not know how my computer works, but this does not bother me at all. I am not constantly wondering whether it is safe to touch it and assume it will not combust in my hands. Nor do I worry that somebody uses it to spy on me through the webcam. So that sparks a question, what makes us stop?

18th Century philosopher David Hume gives a compelling answer by saying that ‘reason is a slave to the passions’. By this famous saying, he does not mean that human beings are irrational – although that may be true as well. He actually says that thinking is always triggered by an experience laden with emotion.

David Hume by Allan Ramsey 1766

Hume might not have been right about all thought. Yet when it comes to pursuing a deeper truth behind something supposedly self-evident, his analysis hits the mark. We need to care, we need to be bothered, for critical thinking to start. I can ask myself whether my computer will combust – I just did – but I do not pursue this thought. I cannot be bothered, really. Yet it clearly bothers our neighbour that he does not know all about vaccination, and he cannot just let this go. Politicians, governments, and laws are denounced because of experiences of exclusion, injustice, or oppression. Sometimes things are questioned based on a hunch that someone cannot be trusted, that something is not right, or on an undefined experience of uncanniness. These emotionally-laden experiences provide both the spark and the fuel for critical thought.

The Danger of Running in Circles

The emotionally-laden experience has an ambiguous value. On the one hand, it is indispensable as the kickstarter and fuel for our questioning of the supposedly self-evident. On the other hand, there is no guarantee that it will lead us to the real truth that critical thinking aims for. Often it doesn’t.

The experiences and emotions on the basis of which we question something are themselves often based on traditions, dogmas, or personal sensitivities. Our life experiences have unavoidably given us multiple sensitivities, emotional inclinations, and biases. We all identify with certain values, social groups, or even movements, political leaders, or religions. These life experiences and identifications make us who we are. They also determine what will make us stop and critically question, and what won’t. For example, if you were taught from a young age that others can never be trusted, there’s a greater chance that you will distrust politicians, or maybe even scientists and vaccinologists. 

Critical thinking cannot be a matter of experiencing that something supposedly self-evident accidently contradicts what is self-evident for us. It cannot be a means to defend or legitimise one’s own ideas without thoroughly questioning them. The danger of moving in a circle always looms: away from something supposedly self-evident towards something purportedly self-evident. From one uncovered bias, intention, or dogma to another, the second one stemming from our own unquestioned experiences and values.

This is what happens if the science-guy in school never stops to consider the limits of scientific knowledge. Instead of thinking critically, he falls into the trap of scientism: an unwarranted and exaggerated trust in the method of natural science. If the girl opposes views just because of who she is, she becomes a contrarian instead of a critical thinker. Neither is our friend effectively critical if he opposes one political movement because he is indoctrinated by another. The same goes for the neighbour if he gets his vaccine-scepticism from shady websites he trusts blindly: he is being credulous rather than critical. This is where we lose most conspiracy theorists, who typically don’t subject their own ideas to the same scrutiny they reserve for the phenomena they distrust. It is clear, now, that pseudo-critical thinking can take many different forms.

Self-Criticism: Why Critical Thinking is a Constant Struggle

We can now identify the decisive factor for true critical thinking: self-criticism, constant reflection on the origin and basis of our own experiences and ideas. As we have seen, critical thought aims to move away from biases, intentions or dogmas. It is therefore indispensable to scrutinise our own position. This should be taken as seriously and done as thoroughly as the original questioning. The only way for critical thought to be successful, to get us closer to the truth of the matter, is to question the experience that incited it.

This is by no means an easy task. It is a never-ending struggle, a sometimes painful confrontation with our own limitations, blind spots, and deficiencies. As critical thinking was part of being a strong, independent individual, it now makes this strong individuality erode. It undercuts this individuality by questioning the validity of our ideas, by showing that our values are the product of experiences and identifications. We are made wary of them. Critical thinking now takes away the foundation which allowed us to somewhat confidently raise our questions in the first place. It forces us into humility instead.

To some extent it is even self-undermining. We cannot count on our emotional experiences to incite our critical inquiry this time, since they are now under scrutiny. This indispensable step in critical thought can only be a rational decision we must make every time. It will not come automatically, we must learn ourselves not to forget it. Again, this makes critical thinking a struggle: it costs mental energy and delivers self-doubt and forced humility.

On a more positive note, we are now equipped to distinguish successful critical thinking from mere attempts, or pseudo-critical thinking. The main question to ask is: is the self-criticism, the reflective struggle, there? Has our guy thought of the limits of scientific knowledge? Did he reflect on why he is so prone to see evidence before believing anything? Has our girl considered if she is just a contrary person? Has she asked herself why she always opposes? Our friend and our neighbour, have they thoroughly evaluated their sources? Are they aware of every reason for their distrust, even the personal ones?

And you, our critical reader, have you experienced this struggle? Have you found yourself confronted with your irrational sensitivities, your biases, your blind spots? Did you at some point realise that you miss the experience to truly understand certain things? Have you had the painful experience of having presuppositions which you didn’t even know you had - because they were so self-evident - being relativised and taken away from you? Have you had to give up ideas and values you once held strongly? 

It is unpleasant to say the least, but a vital part of being a critical thinker instead of a pseudo-critical one. It is the only way to see the difference between questioning the safety of vaccines - in itself not an illegitimate question - and refusing vaccination based on an unwarranted belief. It clarifies the problem of denouncing political views without scrutinising one’s own to the same extent. It is precisely this struggle that allows us to distinguish a search for truth from blind defensiveness.

---