critical-thinking.md

# Critical Thinking

**Critical thinking** is the disciplined process of actively questioning assumptions, rigorously evaluating evidence, detecting biases (both cognitive and systemic), and forming well-reasoned judgments. It is the antidote to lazy reasoning, groupthink, and persuasion by rhetoric alone.

---

Analyze the following problem using rigorous **critical thinking**. Follow every step below — do not skip any.

**Problem / Topic:**
$ARGUMENTS

---

## Step 1: Identify and Question Assumptions

- What assumptions are embedded in this problem statement or the conventional view?
- Which of these assumptions are **explicit** (stated) vs. **implicit** (unstated but taken for granted)?
- For each key assumption, ask: *What evidence supports this? Could this be wrong? Under what conditions would it fail?*

## Step 2: Evaluate the Evidence

- What evidence or data is available to support the main claims?
- Assess each piece of evidence on:
  - **Source credibility** — Who produced this? Do they have expertise? Conflicts of interest?
  - **Methodology** — How was this evidence gathered? Is the method sound? Sample size? Controls?
  - **Recency and relevance** — Is this evidence current? Does it directly apply to this context?
  - **Replicability** — Has this been independently verified?
- What evidence is **missing** that would be needed to reach a confident conclusion?

## Step 3: Detect Biases and Logical Fallacies

- Scan for common cognitive biases that might distort reasoning here:
  - **Confirmation bias** — Are we only seeing evidence that supports a preferred conclusion?
  - **Anchoring** — Is an initial number or frame unduly influencing the analysis?
  - **Survivorship bias** — Are we only looking at successes and ignoring failures?
  - **Authority bias** — Are we accepting something because of *who* said it rather than *what* was said?
  - **Sunk cost fallacy** — Are past investments distorting current decisions?
- Identify any **logical fallacies** in the arguments (ad hominem, straw man, false dichotomy, slippery slope, etc.)

## Step 4: Consider Alternative Explanations

- What are at least **3 alternative explanations** for the observations or claims?
- Which alternatives have been prematurely dismissed, and why?
- Apply the **principle of parsimony** (Occam's Razor): which explanation requires the fewest unsupported assumptions?

## Step 5: Assess the Strength of the Conclusion

- Given the above analysis, how strong is the main conclusion on a scale of:
  - **Strong** — Well-supported by multiple independent lines of quality evidence
  - **Moderate** — Supported but with notable gaps or caveats
  - **Weak** — Relies heavily on assumptions, poor evidence, or fallacious reasoning
  - **Indeterminate** — Insufficient evidence to judge
- What would **change your mind**? (If nothing could, that's a red flag.)

## Step 6: Synthesize

- Provide a clear, honest assessment: What can we confidently say? What remains uncertain?
- Recommend concrete next steps to resolve remaining uncertainties.

---

Be intellectually honest throughout. If the conventional wisdom turns out to be well-supported, say so. Critical thinking is not contrarianism — it is disciplined inquiry.