The ability of reasoning..?

Critical thinking deals more with written material and verbal comment.

For example, critical thinking helps one clearly define accusations and clever phrases that really say nothing..I read a newspaper article that stated prolonged drinking of soda pop may lead to cancer.

Well, the accusation is that soda=cancer, but the article only suggets it’s possible. One could argue that anything is possible, so the article is really moot and has an intention of causing concern merely by suggesting the possiblity.

Logic courses deal with the “process” of reasoning and focus on set rules.

Example…algebra is the study of solving mathmatical logic problems by applying predetermined steps…

anyway, the critical thinking thing is good if you’re in to politics, but otherwise, stick with the logic if you want to train your brain.

If you are being drawn into a discussion, or being asked to make a choice, you have to know if this is the kind of decision or world of choices where feelings or measurable results are more important.

To know which to apply: how you and others feel or how you and others will benefit, I think it’s best to indulge in and study Critical Thinking. In critical thinking you start with Why and you work toward benefits, which may include “I’ll feel better; We’ll get along better; Somebody will be richer; Doubts will be reduced; etc.”

If you or the situation have decided that you need to analyze measurable things, and produce measurable results, and there’s some agreement on the goals (it’s more objective than a personal thing), then it should be an application of logic that is the greatest assist you need in deciding. The rules of logic will help decide what factors are irrelevant and what factors unquestionably contribute to the identified desired result. In applying logic, the decisionmakers (if they are a few) will generally agree on each step and its importance.

Political (group choice) questions probably need to be addressed in a group setting by each person applying personal standards (criticism) to the matters at hand. Along the way they may discover that personal solutions are appropriate because people don’t always agree on means to an end or the particular features of a final result.

Scientific questions, where the factors can ALL be measured on an objective scale, and the end result(s) can be measured against goals or ideals, and the people working toward the ends know they can agree on those goals, are probably best addressed (and can usually be solved) by the application of logic. Hard measurements will, in these cases, often tell you if an intermediate result will or will not be acceptable and will get you to a final result without catastrophic failure along the way; none of the steps in the middle are subject to opinion.

After a serious group problem solving session, it may be discovered that the big problem breaks down into smaller ones, some of which need to be attacked with the applicaton of personal values (acceptable/unacceptable), and some of which can be attacked by strict win/lose succeed/fail rules of logic.

A group of diverse people, brought together to solve a group problem may discover that a nebulous problem seeming to have a need for a group solution, in fact, looks to some in the group as a situation requiring the application of “critical thinking”: a process where every step “feels” right, and some in the group think is a situation where it’s only okay if each step (or intermediate phase) is “demonstrably or measurably” moving the situation in the right direction: a consistent, perhaps stepwise, application of logic.

You could say that the class-name is not only appropriate for different kinds of situations, but the process described is going to appeal to different kinds of people (left-brain vs right-brain).

In the real world I think that many problems for which group solutions are attempted, are revealed during discussion to some of the group to be suitable to the application of personal standards and frequent subjective review, and to others in the group to be appropriate for logical analysis and frequent review for measurable progress, and so the group that came together for common cause is torn apart.

An example might be helpful:

A group addressing how to provide excellent health care to all may say that an infrastructure and a provider-training program must precede actual provision of care. This may be agreed upon. A subgroup wanting to refrain from hurting individuals may say that the necessary taxation hurts too many for too long, so, applying ciritical thinking, decides this necessary intermediate step violates the principle of helping all, and is unacceptable. A subgroup applying logic may see that there is no other way to provide the end-service, so, following that logic and the science of project management, may say the distasteful imposition of taxes is unavoidable.

So a group problem-solving attempt falls apart.

The more complex the problems taken up, the more opportunities to find that Critical Thinking and Applied Logic can be an either-or choice.