No, it doesn't or all you've done is make the word impartiality meaningless and transfered the value to some other word or process. Rather, it posits that we should subject any posit to rigorous examination. Before we arrive at that examination we should have given the same consideration to our bias and expectation. It's the sort of process that can allow you to understand atheism has intellectual integrity even while you cannot see any real value as a matter of faith.
That looked like English from afar. Up close it's missing something: coherency. You might consider breaking that down into parts so we can see and understand what you've left out of your....whatever that was meant to constitute.
A similar problem. Either break your thoughts with punctuation or into independent, relating sentences. As you set it out it literally reads that CT is "actually human" requiring your reader to reconfigure after the fact to glean your intended meaning. A better treatment?
In theory, critical thinking is concerned with truth; but, in actuality, critical thinking is used as a tool to justify preconceptions.
That still would have had weaknesses, but it's closer to what you appear to mean to say. Optimally, I'd have put it like this: while in theory critical thinking is meant to advance objective truth, to the degree that advancement is humanly possible, in practice its process is distorted by the very bias it attempts to eliminate. It suffers from a larger metamethodological deficiency that requires a near infinite regress of consideration to apprehend. The practical impossibility of that process leaves us with an invariably contaminated approach at best. At worst, the appearance of that process is cobbled onto a foregone conclusion to lend an authority absent in fact.
See? Part of what rigorous academic life provides is the ability to encompass and argue from another perspective. More, it requires it as part of the process. On occasion that ability will lead to a changing of the possessor's opinion if that opinion is less rooted in reason than desire. It may be far from perfect, but its the best means we have to arrive at the truth of a matter.
Then you'd do better to distinguish any claim by saying it isn't reflective of or evidences poor critical thinking than this creation of yours...of course, the downside to doing that is that you'll then have to actually make the case and defend against a reasoned counter.
I'm betting you keep on with the incantations.
The great thing about an honest and finely tuned process is that it tends to expose the weakness in everything. Utilize it and you may not end up with the results you wanted, but you'll end up with as honest an understanding of why as can be had.
Now that sounds like your educational envy/issue rearing its unlettered head again. A waste of time.
Then it isn't critical thinking at all (supra).
And you know how we know that...
lain: Artificial? In the same sense that sugar and butter are artificially divided by a dictionary.
:e4e:
