On the other hand, in critical thinking, we start with a plausible hypothesis, with minimal bias, and then use the scientific method and empiricism to test it, being aware of bias. The goal is to get to the "truth", not to "defeat" the "other side". Well, empiricism is not mutually exclusive. Of course, empiricism should be used whenever possible.
I think the world would be much better off if we focused on minimizing prejudices and starting with hypotheses/preliminary conclusions that are as unbiased as possible, and then using logical conclusions to either substantiate them or find a more plausible hypothesis in the process. This would make it more likely to get closer to the truth.
Nevertheless, I consider empiricism to be overrated.
Keep in mind that the quality of the sources is typically far from 100%, and most people themselves are full of cognitive distortions and emotional reasoning. Just because you use a number of sources, even if they come from "renowned" sources, it doesn't necessarily mean that you can
"Truth" is closer than someone who uses intuition.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.