BLOG 3 (Week 2): Intro to Critical Thinking

Rachel Maddow and John Stweart can be considered critical thinkers because they analyze information in a sarcastic, comedic way. Although they may not appear to be critical thinkers like more prestigious, serious commentators, they are doing the same exact thing: critically thinking. They are just doing it in a different method that is not familiar, or “normal”, to many people which in itself proves that they are critical thinkers because their particular approach is unique. The article "The Rage is Not About Healthcare" serves as a different style of critical thinking that satirizes political issues, but also takes a more serious tone towards current issues. In any case, all three commentators are critically thinking in different approaches that aim to reach certain audiences. The fact that all three instances do not necessarily reach out to every single audience out there does not in any way discount their credibility as critical thinkers. They just happen to represent different perspectives and approaches to critical thinking. Some modes of critical thinking that all three examples utilize are judging the credibility and acceptability of claims, and evaluating arguments of different kinds to produce their own arguments.

According to Fischer, critical thinking is essentially reflective thinking. One should not accept everything presented to them without thinking about them first, because they could be deceived. Critical thinking is a skillful activity, and those skills can only improve by practicing; it is best to develop critical thinking skills with other people. There is no one, correct way to think critically, and it is not the main goal to establish such a thing. It is more important that we simply improve our actual thinking skills, because we all can surely improve our default, poor quality way of thinking; different methods of successful critical thinking can be applied to any one problem.