Ins and outs of critical thinking

Critical thinking is not being “critical” in the way the latter is used in common parlance. Being “critical” of something insinuates negative connotations like censure, disapproval, sarcasm, denial and rejection. As such, “critical thinking” cannot help being unwittingly associated with some of those unwelcome implications of “critical” although the former may replace “analytical thinking” without much loss of “academic” flavour. Thus critical thinking does not necessarily result in the rejection of everything new; it may lead to acceptance, if the inquiry permits it.

By Susantha Hewa

Critical thinking has different levels of acceptance depending on the field it inhabits. Usually, it involves doubting, reasoning, analysis, verification and inference; it is a process of “thinking carefully about a subject or idea, without allowing feelings or opinions to affect you” (Cambridge dictionary). Understood as such, surely, it is persona non grata with many time-honoured creeds. Thus, it is clear that promoting critical thinking will imperil the perpetuation of any established religion. Even Buddhists who are warned against accepting anything on authority forget it in order to don the ‘religious’ hat.

There wouldn’t be very much left of religion for posterity if kids were trained to think critically before they were taught the ‘core truths’ considered nonnegotiable in religion. However, such a preemptive action is impossible as religion comes to them way before they are even ready to begin potty-training.

Considering the way children in their formative years are indoctrinated, one would not expect them to retain any critical thinking at all for future use. However, the case is not so bad. Many of our attitudes are so neatly compartmentalised that our razor sharp critical thinking in one realm never disturbs the serenity of delusion in another realm. Each of us is fitted with a personal computer where critical thinking, credulity, irrationality, superstition, sagacity, modernity, sophistication and simplicity are kept in different files to be opened whenever we need them without opening the others. Nobody has to click on the critical thinking file and the credulity file simultaneously to invite needless embarrassment. This all-under-one- roof arrangement makes our shopping much easier.

This kind of selective critical thinking is not so uncommon. In fact, many of those suave bureaucrats and executives for whom profit-oriented reasoning, analysis, evaluation etcetera is part of daily routine, scarcely feel shy to barter their business sagacity for ‘road safety’ by protecting their limousines with charmed trinkets proffered by a charlatan. In other words, critical thinking or its main ingredients like questioning, reasoning and analysis seem domain-specific. Even passionate advocates of reason in routine life may approach more personal matters in life with amazing naiveté.

Pavan K. Varma in his book Being Indian quietly laughs at the coexistence of discernment and conventionality in some educated Indians when he writes, “…but if the behaviour of the illiterate masses is understandable, the shallow modernity of the educated is less so. Those with engineering degrees wear rings on their fingers on the advice of quacks… they rely on pundits to decipher the exact time for muhurats… they demand dowry and consider women to be subordinate; they match horoscopes and propitiate evil spirits. What they don’t ever do is question…” Critical thinking doesn’t seem to be in a hurry to outpace blind adherence, be it in India or anywhere else.

Compliance or unresisting acceptance, as opposed to skepticism, is the lynchpin of all dogma. Critical thinking is not a hoe that people use in all their farms. It is more often left idle than used and you are not even aware of the fact. Thanks to our culturally inherited conformism, time-honoured narratives continue to prevail repelling all objective inquiry. We band together and promote critical thinking but avoid it at times to reinforce existing attitudes. In an article titled “Critical thinking and the ‘value’ of university education“, appearing in The Island of 3^rd August 2021, Prof. Harshana Rambukwella points to this duality when he makes a quip about the “absence of such a critical spirit” in some educators who are often effusive in its praise but shun crucial aspects of a problem being discussed by labeling them as ‘political’ or ‘ideological’ and choose to tinker around trivial issues to avoid trouble.

Critical thinking is not being “critical” in the way the latter is used in common parlance. Being “critical” of something insinuates negative connotations like censure, disapproval, sarcasm, denial and rejection. As such, “critical thinking” cannot help being unwittingly associated with some of those unwelcome implications of “critical” although the former may replace “analytical thinking” without much loss of “academic” flavour. Thus critical thinking does not necessarily result in the rejection of everything new; it may lead to acceptance, if the inquiry permits it.

Critical thinking and its cogs and wheels i.e. questioning, reasoning, analysis etc., seem to “behave” differently in different systems depending on their respective home dynamics. Let’s consider any two different systems. As we know, the more regimented a system is, the less room it allows the individual to employ his critical faculties on any given issue. Thus, in closed systems, critical thinking is little encouraged and hence deviations are rarely allowed to be impartially examined- thus, little leniency for the unfamiliar. On the other hand, more open systems, by creating more leeway for unbiased scrutiny, are likely to let the individual more freedom to admit or reject any unorthodox view depending on how it squares with evidence.

As such, the overall flexibility of any system- be it science, culture, philosophy, religion or aesthetics- may influence the individual’s orientation towards impartial reflection. Let’s, for example, consider two systems of thought, i.e. science and religion, both of which claim to seek the truth, either mundane or transcendent. The former is a veritable combat zone for nonconformist views where critical thinking reigns supreme; the latter is pathetically less so. As a result, the same person would be more open-minded about unorthodox intrusions in science than in religion. Thus, the context in which we work seems to monitor our critical faculties according to its respective ‘rules and regulations.’ That may be why we move in different fields without this inconsistency ever disturbing us.

Familiarity breeds smugness when it comes to our lifelong convictions. They remain untouched because tinkering with them can often prove unsettling. This apathy is the enemy of reasoned scrutiny. And, we often forget that some critical thinker in the past had a heavy price to pay for the complacency we feel right now about many of the established canons in arts, sciences, philosophy etc. In each instance, someone had to ask unpopular questions and earn the sobriquet “rabble-rouser” before he could bring the hitherto “authority” down a notch or two. However, history repeats itself and every generation condemns its flock of ‘black sheep’ leaving it to the future generations to give them their due, if one may say so, ‘retrospectively.’

For all those who want to avoid trouble, discretion is perhaps the better part of critical thinking.