1. We think critically to know what is true. The objective of critical thinking is to make a
decision about what to believe or what to do based on the objective analysis of evidence for a
claim. To wit, our epistemic duty is not to accept a statement as true unless we have
adequate evidence to support it. Making criticisms is not necessarily the meaning of
possible so as not to fall victim to false claims, fallacies, quack science. There are also
other sources that produce knowledge that are not necessarily true, such as personal
experience and common sense, experts and authorities, popular and media messages, and
ideological beliefs and values. Everyday perceptions and reasoning are prone to error that can
knowledge because of direct personal contact. However, these can also be misleading, as in
the case of optical illusions or mirages. Even eye witness testimonies of a crime have been
found to be highly inaccurate. Similarly, common sense may lead one to believe that
imposing harsh punishment (ex. death penalty) would decrease violent crimes. However,
various studies suggest the opposite. Knowledge from personal experience and common
selective observation, and halo and horns effect. First, in overgeneralization, we believe that
some evidence applies over many other situations or beyond what is reasonable given our
limited evidence. For example, a person overgeneralizes when they assume that all girls from
private schools are kind, based on their personal experience with six girls from private
schools. Second, in selective observation, we examine certain cases or situations in a way that
fits our pre-existing ideas or seek evidence that verifies what we already believe. For
instance, one with a preconceived notion that UP students are cocky would pay more
attention to students who are loud and swagger or strut into a room. Lastly, in halo effect, we
give a highly positive reputationa haloto things or people rather than viewing them in
neutral light. The converse of the halo effect is the horn effect. For instance, people assume
that a research by someone from UP highly credible, while the same is not assumed for a
study done by someone from a less known university. As for knowledge from experts and
authorities, while relying on evidence provided by a person who has spent a much time
gaining expertise in a certain field can be beneficial, it is easy to overestimate their expertise.
Through halo effect, an authority or expert in one area may be accepted as an expert in fields
they know little about. President Rodrigo Duterte, for example, holds that there are about 4
million drug addicts in the Philippines. When he was just a presidential candidate, his
estimate was 3 million. However, the most recent report by the Dangerous Drugs Board
reveals that as of 2015, there are 1.8 drug users in the Philippinesan estimate far from 3 or
4 million. Similarly, relying on mass media (i.e. film, television, newspapers, magazines, and
Internet sources) for evidence has its limitations, as the media can report statements lacking
in sound research. Getting knowledge from others also has restrictions, since popular belief is
not necessarily true. Lastly, political, religious, or ideological beliefs can easily prevent one
from knowing the truth. For instance, Catholics would argue distributing free condoms in
high schools would motivate teenagers to engage in sexual activity. However, research
suggests that promoting and distributing condoms most likely does not increase sexual
activity among adolescents. Overall, critical thinking is needed so all evidence is subject to
scrutiny, as we are not supposed to accept the truth of statements in a carefree manner. We
have to be careful to accept evidence from trustworthy sources and evaluate these objectively
to arrive at the truth, while reducing the bias and distortion that often comes with personal
accept the truth of a statement unless there is adequate evidence for it. This implies that when
we do not have enough evidence, it is logical that we do not form beliefs yet nor make any
judgments. Critical thinking is concerned with finding enough good, adequate reasons upon
which we build our beliefs and act on. Of course, emotional reasons have a primary role in
forming and maintaining what we believe to be true, especially religious or moral beliefs. For
instance, we might believe that while one cannot physically sense God, he exists because of
our strong faith and because believing in his existence gives us peace, comfort, and relief. We
can also believe something because of its emotional ties to ones culture, community, or
heritage. A strong sense of community and tradition influences our beliefs. We believe in the
existence of God partly because the Catholic community and religion is very prominent in
Filipino culture and denying Gods existence could cause significant emotional pain or even
doubt in ones identity. However, critical thinking as the process of assessing evidence
should be free of emotions and biases, as these can make evidence collection and evaluation
challenging if we identify too much with the evidence. For example, in determining whether
the defendant is guilty, the jury bases its decision on adequate evidence, not just some
evidence of guilt. If the jury were to assign before enough facts are given or if they base their
decision on their emotions, it could lead to the wrong verdict. Moreover, critical thinking
involves assessing evidence based on the trustworthiness of the source, which is why caution
must be taken when evaluating evidence from personal experience and common sense,
experts and authorities, popular and media messages, and ideologies. For instance, when
deciding whether or not to try smoking, one might reflect on evidence drawn from personal
experience (ex. behavior of a smoking relative versus a non-smoking relative), experts (ex. do
not smoke due to its addictive properties), and media messages (ex. smoke because it will
make you popular, as seen on TV shows), and ideology (ex. do not smoke because religion
condemns smoking for being a vice). Nonetheless, it is best to still research about smoking
before deciding to go through with it so one can evaluate which evidence is the strongest to
base their decision upon. It is crucial that we think critically to discern strong from weak
evidence so we can make our own decisions and, in doing so, be autonomous, which is key in
human nature and development. Being autonomous implies we can think criticallywe can
reason and reflect, determine the validity and soundness of our own reasoning (or that of
others)and make the best decision. Thus, we do not just always follow the reasoning of
authorities, for instance, which is inconsistent with the principles of a free, democratic
society.
3. We think critically to solve problems. In practically any discipline, there are problems that
not have the luxury of research, we could draw evidence that could be easier to access from
sources such as personal experience, common sense, authorities, media, and ideology. In
these instances, one could still apply critical thinking by using reflection, cost-benefit
analysis, and analyzing the situation without emotional attachment and as logically as
possible. In mathematics, for instance, there are four basic operations (i.e. addition,
subtraction, multiplication, and division) for problem solving. The problems get more
calculus, and the like. One must apply critical thinking to figure out the most efficient, logical
way to solve these problems without going through unnecessary steps. In the corporate world,
employers hire an effective team of individuals who can think critically, creatively, use good
judgment, and offer new ways to solve problems, especially in the face of the rigorous,
their research question, interpret their data and link it with related literature, and produce
recommendations that could benefit as many people as possible. This, of course, requires
screening the strength of prior evidence to support new findings and to compare with
contradictory evidence. Ideally, applied research offers practical solutions to a real problem
through further organized skepticism from the scientific community. In all these instances,
issue and errors while reducing the effects of our own assumptions, preexisting ideas, biases,
dislikes, and the like, and drawing a logical conclusion from adequate evidence.