Universal Intellectual Standards:
And questions that can be used to apply them
Universal intellectual standards are
standards which must be applied to thinking whenever one is interested in
checking the quality of reasoning about a problem, issue, or situation. To think critically entails having command of these standards. . .
.
Clarity:
Could you elaborate further on that point?
Could you express that point in another
way?
Could you give me an illustration? Could
you give me an example?
If a statement is unclear, we cannot
determine whether it is accurate or relevant. In fact, we cannot tell anything
about it . . . For example, the question
"What can be done about the education system in
Accuracy:
Is that really true? How could we check
that? How could we find out if that is true? A statement can be clear but not
accurate, as in "Most dogs are over 300 pounds in weight."
Precision:
Could you give me more details? Could you
be more specific? A statement can be both clear and accurate, but not precise,
as in "Jack is overweight." (We don't know how overweight Jack is. .
.)
Relevance:
How is that connected to the question? How
does that bear on the issue?
A statement can be clear, accurate, and
precise, but not relevant to the question at issue. For example, students often
think that the amount of effort they put into a course should be used in raising
their grade in a course. Often, however, "effort" does not measure
the quality of student learning, and when that is so, effort is irrelevant to
their appropriate grade.
Depth:
How does your answer address the complexities
in the question? How are you taking
into account the problems in the question? Is that dealing with the
most significant
factors?
A statement can be clear, accurate,
precise, and relevant, but superficial (that is, lack depth). For example, the
statement "Just Say No", which is often used to discourage children
and teens from using drugs, is clear, accurate, precise, and relevant.
Nevertheless, it lacks depth because it treats an extremely complex issue, the
pervasive problem of drug use among young people,
superficially It fails to deal with the complexities of the issue.
Breadth:
Do we need to consider another point of
view? Is there another way to look at this question? What would this look like
from a conservative standpoint? What would this look like from the point of
view of...?
A line of reasoning may be clear, accurate,
precise, relevant, and deep, but lack breadth (as in an argument from either
the conservative or liberal standpoints which gets deeply into an issue, but
only recognizes the insights of one side of the question).
Logic:
Does this really make sense?
Does that follow from what you said? How
does that follow?
Before you implied this and now you are
saying that, I don't see how both can be true.
When we think, we bring a variety of
thoughts together into some order. When a [number] of thoughts are mutually
supporting and make sense in combination, the thinking is "logical."
When the combination is not mutually supporting, is contradictory in some
sense, or does not "make sense," the combination is "not
logical."
From Richard Paul and Linda Elder,
The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools, pp. 10-11
2006 Foundation for Critical Thinking
www.criticalthinking.org