Dialectic Reasoning Vs Critical Thinking Analysis

The paper compares and contrasts the differences involving critical thinking, reasoned dialogue, and dialectic reasoning. All the above mentioned processes aim at solving particular relevant issues in the society. When incorporated in the people’s activities and lifestyles, they are able to change one’s way of reasoning and their attitude toward particular issues in society. Despite their differences, critical thinking, reasoned dialogue, and dialectic reasoning are all important aspects in personal development.
Critical thinking is the capability of an individual think to clearly and wisely. The ability to think in a critical manner solely depends on one’s ability to engage in unbiased, free thinking. Critical thinking is a time-consuming

It is important in many aspects of problem solving and developing an individual’s character (Walton, 2007). The process of critical thinking is not an easy task and its significance goes beyond determining the answers required in solving a particular problem. For instance, the public education system in itself is based on critical thinking. Determining how schools are going to be managed and receive funding requires good critical thinking skills. This is the reason why almost every aspect in the society must face criticism of some sort. The enhancement of an individual’s career is also dependent on critical thinking. In summary, critical thinking is based on the ability a person to think clearly to solve certain problems (Horvath, 2011). Some problems require more than an individual’s ability to think critically, as they require a team to be solved. This is where individuals have to resort to reasonable

They all involve a few stages of critical thinking. The only difference is the nature of the parties involved in each process (Nelson, Palonsky, & McCarthy, 2010). Critical thinking as a distinct method can be done at an individual level, bringing out one’s ability to be creative. On the other hand, reasoned dialogue involves critical thinking, but is done between two participants. Like critical thinking, the conclusion arrived at in reasoned dialogue also remains open-ended. These two processes are different from dialectic reasoning (Horvath, 2011). In dialectic thinking, a conclusion must be reached, which entails the truth. However, dialectic reasoning shares an attribute with critical thinking, which is the ability to analyze issues from multiple perspectives before arriving at a particular conclusion
Many scholars are unable to tell the difference between Critical thinking, reasoned dialogue, and dialectic reasoning. It is clear that the three aspects relate closely because they all require a certain degree of brain activity. However, the three aspects are distinct and vary, albeit in an unclear manner. This paper seeks to compare and contrast the differences between critical thinking, reasoned dialogue, and dialectic