If by “philosophical toolsets” you include philosophical paradigms and more broadly theories, there are a few more.
Positivism was a force of critical thinking in the last centuries. It lead to the conclusion that much of the mysticism of the past was invalid.
Postmodernism lead to the systematic questioning of discourses and practices that lead to power imbalances.
Critical realism showed the tensions between our beliefs and the world outside. It mitigates the impulse to explain reality only by the world outside or inside (in our heads).
What’s important is to be able to look at an explanation, a theory of the world, and find alternative theories. When that happens, you’re forced to reinterpret facts. That, to me, is critical thinking.
If that is my definition, then even having an LSD trip could count as critical thinking. I would agree with that if it leads to the reinterpretation of facts. But if we want to be exhaustive, we could include something else in our definition: the reinterpretation of facts must have less validity threats than before.
This means that, while LSD trips and religious experiences may lead to a reinterpretation of facts, regression to the mean, attribution bias, placebo, and other cognitive biases make them potentially invalid. I think positivism and critical realism are better suited to address validity threats than other paradigms.
If by “philosophical toolsets” you include philosophical paradigms and more broadly theories, there are a few more.
Positivism was a force of critical thinking in the last centuries. It lead to the conclusion that much of the mysticism of the past was invalid.
Postmodernism lead to the systematic questioning of discourses and practices that lead to power imbalances.
Critical realism showed the tensions between our beliefs and the world outside. It mitigates the impulse to explain reality only by the world outside or inside (in our heads).
What’s important is to be able to look at an explanation, a theory of the world, and find alternative theories. When that happens, you’re forced to reinterpret facts. That, to me, is critical thinking.
If that is my definition, then even having an LSD trip could count as critical thinking. I would agree with that if it leads to the reinterpretation of facts. But if we want to be exhaustive, we could include something else in our definition: the reinterpretation of facts must have less validity threats than before.
This means that, while LSD trips and religious experiences may lead to a reinterpretation of facts, regression to the mean, attribution bias, placebo, and other cognitive biases make them potentially invalid. I think positivism and critical realism are better suited to address validity threats than other paradigms.