Message 1: From Wang Chien Ming

Dear Mohanan,

The examples of activities that are associated with critical thinking listed on the website are very good as they help to define what critical thinking is all about.

I notice that you have differentiated two types of thinking: critical thinking and creative thinking. It is important to identify as many types of thinking as possible, spell them out clearly and to show how these different types of thinking overlapped and are independent of one another, preferably presented in the form of a figure.

I would like to propose to you another form of thinking – constructive thinking. How does this form of thinking differ from critical thinking and creative thinking? To me, critical thinking seems to be associated more with finding faults, weaknesses and deficiencies in present and proposed systems, policies, documents, products, etc. On the other hand, constructive thinking may be thought of as been associated with finding merits and exploit present and proposed systems, policies, inventions, etc for adaptation and applications in other areas/environment.

Creative thinking seems to be associated with the creation/production of new paradigms, systems, policies, products, etc.

CM

Message 2: From K. P. Mohanan

Dear Chien Ming,

Critical thinking is not the thinking directed at the identification of flaws and weaknesses. (It is not ‘thinking involved in criticizing’) It is evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of something, to make a judgment on its credibility./quality/significance/... So what you refer to as constructive thinking is partly critical thinking (identifying the good parts) and partly creative thinking (improving things).

I might think of diagrams for different kinds of thinking when I have a better understanding of the terrain. For now, I stick to words.

Mohanan

Message 3: From Wang Chien Ming

Dear Mohanan,

Do you think that we should tie the outcome of the mental activity to the type of thinking? For example, if the mental activity leads to a novel discovery, we can say that the person is indulging in creative thinking. If the mental activity leads to a senseless, irrational and stupid action, that mental activity may be labeled as senseless/irrational thinking. If the mental activity leads to works that lift the spirits of a depressed society (as an example), then that thinking may be regarded as positive thinking. If the mental activity results in a good evaluation of the report, then we classify the thinking as critical thinking. If the evaluation of the report is weak or wishy-washy, then we say that the evaluator is displaying superficial thinking and not thinking critically even though he is doing the act of evaluation, etc.

In other words, we classify the thinking according to the fruits/outcomes of the mental activity and not to the intended outcomes.

What do you think of the above suggestion to tie the outcome of the mental activity to the type of thinking?

CM

Message 4: From K.P. Mohanan

Dear Chien Ming,

You raise an interesting and important question. Let me draw attention to the descriptive and prescriptive parts we need to separate:

1. Descriptive: In the pedagogical context, people use the terms “critical thinking” and “creative thinking” when stating their intended learning outcomes. What are the concepts these words refer to?
   
2. Prescriptive: Should we distinguish between these two kinds of thinking? How legitimate is the distinction?

I was trying to address (1), while the question you are asking is (2). The only sense I can make of the term ‘critical thinking’ is in terms of its function/purpose. When an academic writes a research paper, (s)he functions as a creator, and the collection of various mental operations (s)he uses can be called creative thinking . When (she) reads a research paper, she functions as a critical evaluator, and the collection of various mental operations (s)he uses can be called critical thinking.

To address question (2), let me offer a few tentative remarks. Take Norbert Wiener’s Invention: The Care and Feeding of Ideas, David Bohm On Creativity, and Jacques Hadamard’s The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field (which draws upon Henri Poincare’s earlier work). These books discuss the creative processes in the thinking of mathematicians, physicists, and engineers (The discovery part). George Polya’s two volume book Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning is also about the creative aspect: it discusses the strategies that mathematicians use in mathematical discovery. Assuming that Poincare, Hadamard and Polya are on the right track, the creative thinking needed for the discovery of mathematical theorems involves many more things than deductive reasoning, but the justification and critical evaluation of mathematical theorems and their proofs involve only deductive reasoning. If we agree that proposing a new theorem in a journal paper involves discovery and justification, while reviewing the article involves evaluating the justification proposed, then it follows that creative thinking in mathematics needs types of thinking which are included in critical thinking.

The question is: does critical thinking employ types of thinking that are not found in creative thinking? Take Ramanujam. G. H. Hardy’s A Mathematician’s Apology tells us that Ramanujam had an extraordinary ability to come up with extremely interesting and important conjectures some of which have been subsequently proved to be true, but he had very little ability to prove his conjectures. If you wish to describe Ramanujam’s ability as outstanding creative thinking without sufficient critical thinking, then the distinction between the two kinds of thinking is legitimate. If, on the other hand, you describe it outstanding creative thinking in discovery but very little creative thinking in justification, then you are pointing to defective creative thinking (one part missing). Take your pick.

Mohanan

Message 5: From Wang Chien Ming

Dear Mohanan,

Mental activities include:

1. Recall/Remembering (no new discovery, no assessment/evaluation)
   
2. Applying well-known principles and concepts to solve standard problems – Standard Solutions
   
3. Sudden new enlightenment of a subject, Conjuring New Conjectures/Hypothesis – New Problems never thought of before – eg Ramanujam
   
4. Constructing new knowledge/processes/methods based on existing information – Discovering new methods and solutions – eg. Polya
   
5. Processing Information, Assessment/Evaluation – for making decisions

Although many people use the word “thinking” for “recalling”, I would rather like to reserve the word “thinking” for mental activities #2-#5.

Perhaps for mental activity #2, we could label it as “normal” thinking. For mental activity #3, I would refer to it as “creative” thinking. For mental activity #4, I would call it as “constructive” thinking. For mental activity #5, I believe you have termed it as “critical” thinking.

What do you think?

CM

Message 6: From: K. P. Mohanan

I agree with you that (1) does not deserve to be called thinking. However, reflection on what you have recalled from memory, making connections on the basis of your reflection of prior knowledge (memory) is a form of thinking.

I agree with you on (2) when you talk about the application of scientific theories/laws, but what about the application of the modes of scientific inquiry themselves (e.g. Applying the criteria of evaluation in the choice between competing theories)

As for (5) being critical thinking, isn’t it sufficient to specify evaluation? Processing information is a necessary component of assessment/evaluation. And decision making comes after the critical evaluation that results from critical thinking.

Mohanan