I read recently, in my opinion, a false definition of critical thinking foisted by Greg R. Haskins and published at The SSkeptic’s Dictionary doctrine repository.  Greg continues in the paper wherein he cited the definition, with a lucidly developed set of true skeptical constructs which are by no means actually practiced by some of his fellows who are SSkeptics, and are belied and betrayed by its preamble and inappropriate definition of critical thinking:

“A process by which we use our knowledge and intelligence to effectively arrive at
the most reasonable and justifiable positions on issues, and which endeavors to
identify and overcome the numerous hindrances to rational thinking.”

So the elements of critical thinking are

I.  our knowledge/intelligence

II.  arrive at the position

III.  overcoming hindrances

Furtive assumptions enforced by the SSkeptic Cabal with this logical fallacy; implied foundations common in promotion of fatalist religious pitches:

a  Our knowledge and intelligence are independent and unconstrained sets of truth – Argument from Self Knowing Fallacy

b.  One must arrive at a position – Transactional Occam’s Razor Fallacy

c.  One must arrive at a specific position – Epistemic Commitment Fallacy/Dogma

d.  Hindrances exist when the above does not result in a specific position adoption – False Dilemma

Notice that there exists in this form of Methodical Cynicism no observation, discovery, questioning, research or creativity in this process – central tenets of science. The elements of and the framing of this definition are a priori, incompetent and patently false.  They are a framework of condemnation, deception and control.

This is Critical Thinking.

“The ability to assemble an incremental, parsimonious and probative series of questions, in the right sequence, which can address or answer a persistent mystery – along with an aversion to wallowing in or sustaining the mystery for personal or club gain. Critical thinking is the ability to understand, along with the skill in ability to deploy for benefit (value, clarity, risk and suffering alleviation), critical path logic and methodology. A process of methodically and objectively evaluating how to approach a claim to verity through scientific method, while seeking new observations/questions which can be creatively and intelligently framed to challenge elements of fiat knowledge which underpin the claim, regardless of how compulsive, reasonable, justified and accepted that knowledge might be promoted or perceived.“

SSkeptics are the defenders and champions of fiat, compliant and official explanations; and in no way practice anything akin to critical thinking.