critical thinking

Question

how do the views of stronger, more developed critical thinkers toward authority differ from those in earlier stages of cognitive development?

Answer 1

Good Afternoon Carol,

Broadly, any comparison between the developed mind of critical thought and the less developed, will share a common overarching theme. This theme takes the form of a homeostatic balance of inner parts.

Concisely, the under-developed position is displayed as a firm resolution, on a single unshakable premise. This is because, in light of the many opposing positions at play, the individual will seek epistemic balance through adherence to one clear axiom. Conversely, the well developed position will have navigated the treacherous waters of uncertainty long enough to have reached the same homeostatic balance while yet encompassing the uncertainty of competing axioms.

Therefore, with regard to broad category of "authority," a less developed thinker many have any number of beliefs. The uniting factor then, is the fervency to which that belief is necessary for that thinker to maintain epistemic balance on this particular schema of reality. For instance, as a political example, the uncritical position may partisan either way, or even non-partisan, in as much as that position is a necessary position for that specific thinker to hold to maintain an inner balance.

However, the more wizened thinker on an issue (while thought mastery of this sort is transferrable, it is given able to be issue specific) would see that –– while singular truth does exist, its existence is often manifest in a sort of a living flux according to the season, and the particular components in play. This thinker may also therefore be characterized by any number of positions on a particular authority, political, structural, familial, or social. The uniting factor, is the underlying motivations for that external position. Critical positions serve a function in connection to a higher even more singular regard for Truth, which transcends lower abstractions to any partisan-domain of thought; it, itself, appears as a balance of parts and a security of self through an acceptance of these changes across time.

I hope this answer finds you well!

In Faith,

Jared

Answer 2

Hi Carol,

That's a big subject. Why? Because a big messy constellation of skills, attitudes, and bits of knowledge distinguishes the highly-educated and skeptical adult from the small child (or naive adult) who too readily believes what they're told.

But the key is skepticism - by which I mean: understanding that what we really want is good evidence for or against believing X and that "Hey, I'm an expert and I'm telling you X, so you'd better believe it!" is at best sometimes a good substitute for understanding the underlying evidence yourself.

Compare "Jane has a Ph.D. in epidemiology and says I should wash my hands a lot during the epidemic because soap destroys the lipid layer on viruses" with "Aunt Edith says I should face northwest a lot because someone told Uncle Ernie on Facebook that that makes you safer because it's the opposite direction from China."

The sophisticated thinker can think of several reasons why the first might not be reliable - but on balance probably is - and a truckload of reasons why only someone very very uneducated would fail to roll their eyes at the second. The sophisticated thinker knows that an "authority" can be bogus, or genuine but wrong anyway - but that every day you have to make decisions about what to count as plausible authority because you can't know everything.

One of the great ironies of our current situation is that many people love to dismiss what are in fact genuine authorities (in medicine, economics, science) ... only to depend for their view of the world on propagandists, scammers, and charlatans.

Hope that helps! (And wash your hands!)

Richard