What degree promotes critical thinking the best?

[Metamorphosis]

The one you are interested in the most.

It's perfectly possible to get a degree without doing much critical thinking.

 

[nozflubber]

I want to say philosophy, but it's entirely possible to get a philosophy degree without thinking for yourself while just commenting on the greats. I'd say physics promotes the best critical thinking because you need a firm grasp of the abstractions involved. In any other subject you can slide on by.

 

[Provoker]

Actually, I think your analysis is pretty "rediculous," in part because of the weakness of your arguments, and in part because you acknowledge their weakness, but present them anyway. Lets take a look.

Edahn,

I am not suggesting their is no merit in teaching and social work, but that while there may be critical thinkers in such fields it is not a requirement for the job. From a pragmatic point of view we can claim the following. A good knife is one that cuts well. A good teacher is one that teaches well. Can a teacher lack critical thinking skills and still teach well? Yes. Can a good social worker lack critical thinking and still work well? Yes. But can a good philosopher lack critical thinking and still philosophize well? No. Because critical thinking is essential to the field of philosophy. Thus, while any field can have critical thinkers (one can be a genius working in a factory) there are some fields that demand critical thinking more than others, such as philosophy. Moreover, if we were to take a survey at universities and ask which field is better for honing critical thinking skills: philosophy or social work? Most would say philosophy. In fact, it's already the majority on this thread. And furthermore, philosophy wins by default because social work isn't even offered at most universities it's offered at colleges because it tends to be more hands on than intellectual.

 

[dnivera]

Most sciences. I don't mean passively learning and memorizing basic concepts of biology, chemistry, and physics, which any high school student can do, but, at a higher level, critically thinking about research questions, designing research, and finding holes in other people's work. (Basically what phD students are supposed to be doing...)

 

[pure_mercury]

I would think that Philosophy or Intellectual History would be amongst the best. UPenn has a major called PPE (Philosophy, Politics, and Economics) that is pretty popular and has more of the Intellectual History bent than Poli Sci (and is more international), and is less econometrics/numbers heavy than Econ. Probably pretty good in this context, as well.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Edahn,

I am not suggesting their is no merit in teaching and social work, but that while there may be critical thinkers in such fields it is not a requirement for the job.

But not being a requirement doesn't mean "social work...isn't very critical at all." Social work is a wide field that can certainly cater to critical thinkers. I've personally come across many critical thinkers in the field.

A good teacher is one that teaches well. Can a teacher lack critical thinking skills and still teach well? Yes. Can a good social worker lack critical thinking and still work well? Yes. But can a good philosopher lack critical thinking and still philosophize well? No. Because critical thinking is essential to the field of philosophy.

I wasn't contesting which field promotes MORE critical thinking, but your statement that "social work isn't very critical at all."

Moreover, if we were to take a survey at universities and ask which field is better for honing critical thinking skills: philosophy or social work? Most would say philosophy. In fact, it's already the majority on this thread.

Argument ad numerum

And furthermore, philosophy wins by default because social work isn't even offered at most universities it's offered at colleges because it tends to be more hands on than intellectual.

You're confusing availability with quality, and the second part (italicized) is speculative and circular. Second, graduate schools offer degrees in social work. Third, I was contesting your statement that "social work isn't very critical at all," not whether it is less or more critical than philosophy.

 

[Grayscale]

i think the problem here is the question: essentially, what subject promotes critical thinking the most?

ive always considered the most elaborate use of critical thinking to be in practical application, that is to say, in any given situation the "discernment, analysis and evaluation" consists of a multitude of factors.

what this means is that, regardless of what subject you pick, you should try to develop your critical thinking skills through intellectual resourcefulness of the subject matter. im fairly sure you could do decently enough in any of the subjects through absorb and regurgitate... to truly understand, and at the graduate level, apply your knowledge to advance the field are much better examples of critical thinking than simply what subject one chooses.

i say, pick a subject you enjoy doing, that will give you a motivation to spend time thinking about it, among other things. although you may find certain fields more challenging, if you dont really care for them then you'll have a hard time doing well in the long run.

 

[ygolo]

Yes. As the person who posed the question, I know it to be ill-formed.

I thought it would lead to people doing what they are doing now.

Few people actually stopped to ask what is critical thinking, anr question whether the implicit premise in the question is valid at all.

Both important elements of critical thinking.

 

[Provoker]

Third, I was contesting your statement that "social work isn't very critical at all," not whether it is less or more critical than philosophy.

In this quote you've presented only half of my argument: social work isn't very critical at all (now plugging the other half in) compared to other fields, like philosophy for example.

I have stayed in line with the question at hand which implies a wider scope. I can outline all the details of how a fighter pilot uses critical thinking but again - trying to formulate an answer to the question of this thread - how does it compare to other fields? One must remember that the question is asking "which degree promotes critical thinking the best?" and the most appropriate method for answering this is a comparative approach not a case study.

Let me further illustrate my point. Suppose the question is: Which country has the best democracy? If I only get into the details of Canadian democracy is that going to be a good way for solving this question? No. Because although Canadian democracy is good perhaps the quality of democracy in Sweden is better. This parallels to the question at hand. My point that social work isn't very critical should not be measured in an of itself. It is a statement about social work in relation (or in comparison) to other fields. Thus, if you want to debunk my argument, you must prove how social work exhibits more critical thinking than other things, like philosophy.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

In this quote you've presented only half of my argument: social work isn't very critical at all (now plugging the other half in) compared to other fields, like philosophy for example.

True, but the even greater context surrounding your statement suggested that there is no critical thinking AT ALL. For example, in that same paragraph, with respect to teaching below university-level, you say: "But if one is teaching elementary or high school and just reiterating information from a text, essentially a mouthpiece of the textbook, this isn't critical thinking at all," and you bridge education to social work in that both, in your view, demand regurgitation only.

 

[Zergling]

The Edahn/provoker argument seems to be drifting into nitpick territory, so i suggest the members slowly back out of it a bit.

(Without much experience with multiple degrees, I don't really have anything to say about the subject.)

 

[wedekit]

While I agree that a career in something you are interested in will probably allow the opportunity for the most critical thinking, I think that Philosophy is the subject that requires the most critical thinking. It makes sense since it is the "love of knowledge". Your points in Philosophy have to be able to answer all counterpoints, or you're argument is automatically nulled. My metaphysics class is the class that has required me to use the most critical thinking that I have ever used in my life. The sad part is that there is no way I can ever talk about the things I learned in that class with anyone except those who have taken it, since to talk about one thing I have to talk about a billion other little things. Philosophy requires rigorous logic and the ability to work the nothing but abstract ideas; there is simply nothing tangible about it.

 

[Totenkindly]

Can a teacher lack critical thinking skills and still teach well? Yes. Can a good social worker lack critical thinking and still work well? Yes. But can a good philosopher lack critical thinking and still philosophize well? No.

I'm not sure I agree with this.

I consider teachers and social workers who can't think critically to be at best marginal teachers and social workers. A warm body does not a "good teacher" make, especially as the students mature.

You also seem to think that critical thinking only applies to evaluations of the ideas themselves. Social workers apply critical thinking in their evaluation of people and situations; it's extremely extremely important that their choices of how to approach each situation be appropriate suited for the people involved.

(The whole "sexual abuse" scare that left hundreds of United States citizens illegitimately in jail in the late 70's and early/mid-80's resulted from social workers AND forensic doctors who did not have good critical thinking skills. If the goal of these people was to be effective at their job and prevent abuse and properly punish offenders, then they failed miserably. They were POOR social workers and forensic doctors.)

There are many different angles in how critical thinking can be applied, aside from the most obvious and simplistic areas of theory and abstracted knowledge that seems more apparent to you based on your background.

 

[Provoker]

I'm not sure I agree with this..

You're evading the difference between critical and most critical. Remember, this thread is driven by the question "what degree promotes critical thinking the best?". You can make excuses for social work and teachers and astrophysicists and chess players and, hey, let's through in CIA intelligence analysts, metaphysicians and frog specialists. An answer that assimilates everything doesn't answer the question.

A warm body does not a "good teacher" make, especially as the students mature...

Syntax error?

You also seem to think that critical thinking only applies to evaluations of the ideas themselves. Social workers apply critical thinking in their evaluation of people and situations; it's extremely extremely important that their choices of how to approach each situation be appropriate suited for the people involved.

What you've described here are 'social skills', not 'critical thinking skills'. There is a fundamental difference and fusing them together will result in an unedifying analysis. Everyone knows this. That's why people know it is wise to slip in 'interpersonal communication skills' somewhere on their resume, because workplaces want you to be astute in social and situational matters. Ironically, the fact that you, (and a few others) are trying to fuse all these distinct things into the same stuff demonstrates a lack of critical thinking in itself.

 

[Totenkindly]

You're evading the difference between critical and most critical. Remember, this thread is driven by the question "what degree promotes critical thinking the best?". You can make excuses for social work and teachers and astrophysicists and chess players and, hey, let's through in CIA intelligence analysts, metaphysicians and frog specialists. An answer that assimilates everything doesn't answer the question.

Hmm, perhaps you're right that I'm answering a slightly different question than you were. I was focusing more on use of critical thinking in occupation rather than which degree most directly/best teaches critical thinking skills.

My bad.

What you've described here are 'social skills', not 'critical thinking skills'. There is a fundamental difference and fusing them together will result in an unedifying analysis. Everyone knows this. That's why people know it is wise to slip in 'interpersonal communication skills' somewhere on their resume, because workplaces want you to be astute in social and situational matters. Ironically, the fact that you, (and a few others) are trying to fuse all these distinct things into the same stuff demonstrates a lack of critical thinking in itself.

No, I think you're the one viewing social work through merely a social lens. One can be a critical thinker and approach the field from that angle, to their benefit.

I'm explicitly not describing "people skills," and in fact if you go on to my example of the false memory syndrome (just one recent pox upon the system), which you seemed to not have responded to at all, you would see that it was basically the social workers with excellent social skills and no critical thinking capability that created the problem. I think in my description of the situation I was very clear that the traits that were desirable were critical thinking skills, NOT social skills.

Therefore there has to be more to helping people through social work than mere social skills. Because merely possessing excellent social skills still results in horribly negative and/or erroneous outcomes. in fact, excellent social skills often masks the fatal flaw of faulty thinking, making things worse.

 

[Nocapszy]

Something you won't be able to look up if you have a question.

A degree what requires pioneering ideas.

Psychology has the potential for this, but most of psychology (even the classes... it's sad) have a new-agey tint.

Or product invention. Also I'm thinking essential physics would be one. As long as you don't try to just memorize it all, and instead try and actually comprehend (a rarity among college students) the concepts. There's still a lot of work to be done there. Actually, just trying to understand what we do already know requires some amount of critical thinking.

Maybe not. I don't really know.

I don't have even one degree let alone many to compare.

 

[Rajah]

Philosophy. And oddly, law. Because the study of law (at least in the U.S.) is based on Socratic method.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Philosophy?
Psychology?
A "hard" science?
Mathematics?
A general liberal arts degree?

I think it depends on the type of critical thinking to which you are referring. If you want to talk about reading a paper, essay or listening to a speech, then I'd say Philosophy, since it teaches you to look at ideas and presentations logically in an essay format.

If you want to talk about analyzing data, impersonal facts, theoretical models, graphs, and the like, then I'd say Mathematics since it teaches you to look at these things at their most fundamental level, and it also makes you focus on the process of reaching a conclusion.

If you want to talk about bridging the relationship between an abstract theoretical view and the real world application, then again I'd say Mathematics (assuming a person also studies how to do proofs), since Mathematics starts at the most basic theoretical foundation and takes you all the way to how these ideas can be applied in a more concrete way.

If you want to talk about critical thinking about events in the world around you, then I'd say forget school and try starting your own business. You'll learn the hard way what works and what doesn't, and you have to make these decions in a wide variety of ways: financing, customer relations, time management, etc....

So overall I'd say in a essay context Philosophy prepares you the most, in an analytical or problem solving context Mathematics is king, and in a purely real world context running a business prepares you the most. Other than that I think you can learn a lot from the school of hard knocks.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I would say that my choice is hard science + math.

It is my choice because modern hard science leads in direction where you become extremely critical just about everything but the concept is stil constructive and very progressive.

Whit that combination you can shake just about everything from politics and public laws to religion and personal development of other people.
By shake I mean shake in practical and theoretical ways and by doing that you are stil making science/knowledge more complete.
What can create even more critical thinking and circel is closed so whit time you overwhelm other options in political sense.

 

[Samuel De Mazarin]

I would say that my choice is hard science + math.

It is my choice because modern hard science leads in direction where you become extremely critical just about everything but the concept is stil constructive and very
progressive.

Also you can shake just about everything from politics and public laws to religion and personal development of other people.
By shake I mean shake in practical and theoretical ways and by doing that you are stil making science/knowledge more complete.

you can do that with philosophy.

and you'd be hard-pressed to find a biologist who could use his/her training in biology to dissect the omniscient third-person-first-person narrative of Joyce in "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man"...

In my opinion, one just has to work REALLY REALLY had at whatever subject it is one is doing and one's brainpower will be focused enough to tackle most subjects... all that is required is that one stays in touch with the basics of other disciplines... so a chemist shouldn't stop reading fiction entirely, or visiting art museums, or he'll be a doofus when it comes to talking about human emotion in an intellectual or hyperanalytical setting (unless he makes up for it somewhere else, which won't be in chemistry)... and a literature major should try to keep him/herself abreast of developments in AI and physics, or he/she'll look like a dope for assuming atoms are the be-all and end-all of existence and relying on lame analogies to Lucretius when people are busy talking about multiple dimensions and quarks.