That’s patently false. There are many schools and teaching methods that teach critical thinking. Attending higher education usually does the trick IF the student is actually motivated in the slightest.
Massive part of YouTube is about teaching critical thinking for those who can’t attend for many reasons.
Still doesn’t work because of the many roadblocks and mostly laziness in general.
This won't do. If we were to go 400 years into the past to Western Europe, you would see that about 15 percent of the population knew how to read. And I suspect that if you asked someone who did know how to read, say a member of the clergy, 'What percentage of the population do you think is even capable of reading?' They might say, 'Well, with a great education system, maybe 20 or 30 percent.' But if you fast forward to today, we know that that prediction would have been wildly pessimistic, that pretty close to 100 percent of the population is capable of reading.
Even if you did. It’s very likely that I or someone else wouldn’t a agree with your reasoning and argument. In fact the more time you spent developing your reasoning and arguments the more stuff there would be for us to disagree on.
Which is the problem. You can’t just impose your understanding of “critical thinking” (based on your personal context, experience, ethical/moral/social views, prejudices and biases) on everyone and expect it to solve anything. In fact if you did it would likely lead to something truly terrible..
This is because you assume I mean something else than teaching the population to be critical of all propagated information. I'm not claiming to have privy too truth.
No. I assume exactly that. There is no objective and unbiased definition of “critical thinking” (unless you think it can be “taught” to someone in less than 60 minutes) let alone of specific teaching methods
How are you supposed to manufacture consent if it works?