Critical Thinking for Students of All Ages by Will Foreman How does a person learn to think about the critical issues of her or his times? Or perhaps more importantly in this era, how does a person learn to think at several levels of reality? These are complex questions, of course. To answer them fully requires a detailed review of "growing up," i.e., of the epigenetic accumulation of all the bits and pieces of the mature cognitive process--not to mention the social and cultural context within which "thinking" occurs. Here, however, I must be brief. Thinking probably begins with our perceptions of objects and processes in the world. "Thinging" might be a more accurate word for this level of cognition. Over time we begin to perceive "actions" and causal relations in a spatial framework. Time is a particularly vexing issue as every parent knows after trying to answer the question: "Mommy, daddy, is it tomorrow now?"

Larger, more complicated systems of things, people, causes, space and time are obviously more difficult and take more time to understand. Some systems are especially trying, because we never actually get to see them. For example, it's hard to see a solar system, and no one, to my knowledge, has ever seen a "nation" or a "democracy!" As a simple illustration, consider an ordinary ball: no matter how many times you turn it, part of it is always absent from view.

To compensate for our deficiencies, we learn certain ways of getting around the "whole ball of wax" problems, so that we can carry on. We learn that there are laws of nature as well as rules of logic. We also learn that we have to rely on each other if we want to keep on learning about the world, because none of us can be everywhere or know everything. This, unfortunately, is where many of our problems begin.

To complicate matters further, as the world evolves so do our cognitive processes. As human numbers and knowledge have grown, for example, the flow of information and the complexity of human systems have also grown. Today we need, and use, cognitive tools that may not have been so necessary a few hundreds of years ago.

The "systems approach" to understanding the world was invented to help cope with modern complexities. General systems theory, cybernetics, concepts of boundaries, subsystems, flow charts, and levels of systemic organization as well as theories of evolution and revolution are all helpful tools in getting a grip on the postmodern world. I have written elsewhere about history and the quest for meaning and syntropic systems theory, both of which can help to make sense of the problems of change, meaning, and purpose in life at all of its levels.

If you're looking for values or beliefs to serve as touchstones for your thoughts, try authentic democracy, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. If any rule for behavior, a law, or a social policy is proposed, ask yourself whether it would be consistent with human needs and with the democratic principles spelled out in The Universal Model. These values are likely to be essential for human survival over the next few centuries.

Any object, process, or argument can be better understood using tools mentioned in the two paragraphs immediately preceeding. As an example, suppose someone argues that "teaching teenagers how to use contraceptives would be immoral because it would encourage them to sin against God." How should we "think" about that argument?

First, break the argument down into its several distinct assertions and analyze the connections between the assertions. In this case, (1) "teaching teenagers how to use contraceptives would be immoral" is one assertion. (2) "...it would encourage them to sin against God" is a second assertion, and (3) the word "because" connects the two assertions in an allegedly causal relationship.

Secondly, assess the truth value of each assertion. This may involve a questioning of the meaning of each word. Are you expected to believe the assertion just because some authority is quoted, or is evidence presented to back up the assertion? If evidence is presented, what is the source? If the argument might be biased by self-interests, the "Principle of Adverse Interests" may be helpful: if the consequences of an argument would be adverse to the person making the argument, the argument is more likely to be true.

Thirdly, assess the claim of a logical or causal connection between the assertions. It's surprising how often a closer look reveals no real connection at all. Demand honest simplicity. And remember, causal relations are much more difficult to establish when the elements are parts of large, complex systems.

Fourthly, what's being left out that would significantly affect your conclusions? Could there be obvious, or perhaps unforeseen, consequences of the argument that are not mentioned? Could the argument be rephrased to more accurately reflect important issues? Consider the argument and all its possible ramifications in relation to each relevant system level. Would a law based on this argument empower individuals to make decisions, or would it rigidly impose one group's values on everyone else? In the example cited above: individual, family, community, national, and global levels could all be affected by policies based on the outcome of the argument.

Fifthly and finally, how would the results of the argument, if put into action either way, realistically affect your goals and values as well as the goals and values of other people--both in the short and the long run? After you've studied the assertions or arguments, what action might you choose to take, either alone or with others, to bring about an outcome that would be desirable at the relevant levels of personal and social organization?

Addendum: In assessing the assertion used as an example in the above essay, the following information may be useful. It was excerpted from the book Where We Stand by Michael Wolff, Peter Rutten, Albert Bayers III, and the World Bank Research Team(New York: Bantam Books, 1992) and published on the Net at Comparing the U.S. and Other Rich Nations... The data sound right to me, but I cannot guarantee their accuracy:

"Sex education is more prevalent in Europe than America, where conservatives oppose it on the grounds that it condones sexual behavior. The statistics show the unintended consequences of this policy:"

Sexually active teenage population:

Norway..........66%

United States...65

United Kingdom..57

Germany.........56

Canada..........53

Italy...........34

France..........34


Percent who have not had intercourse by age 20:

................Boys...Girls

Belgium.........61.....63 

Netherlands.....58.....62 

Germany.........33.....28 

Norway..........33.....25 

United Kingdom..24.....23 

France...........9.....25 

United States...12.....16 


Percent of sexually active single 15 to 19-year olds using birth control: 

Germany.........95% 

United Kingdom..92 

Netherlands.....88 

Norway..........87 

Sweden..........79 

Denmark.........70 

United States...56 


Teen pregnancies per 1,000 teenagers:

United States...98.0 

United Kingdom..46.6 

Norway..........40.2 

Canada..........38.6 

Finland.........32.1 

Sweden..........28.3 

Denmark.........27.9 

Netherlands.....12.1 

Japan...........10.5 


Total teen abortions per 1,000 teenagers:

United States...44.4 

Norway..........21.1 

Sweden..........19.6 

Denmark.........18.2 

Finland.........17.9 

United Kingdom..16.9 

Canada..........16.2 

Japan............5.9 

Netherlands......5.5