Varieties of criticism
In a logical criticism, an objection is raised about an idea, argument, action or situation on the ground that it does not make rational sense (there is something wrong with it because it is illogical, it does not follow, or it violates basic conventions of meaning.
Logical criticism assumes that there is a definite, identifiable, discoverable meaning, or at least that something can be proved meaningless (because it lacks any predictable or knowable pattern).
In a factual (empirical) criticism, an objection is raised about an idea, argument, action or situation on the ground that there is something wrong with the evidence of the known experience relevant to it.
Typically, Logical and factual criticism is generally considered important to ensure the consistency, authenticity and predictability of behavior of any kind.
Negative criticism means voicing an objection to something, only with the purpose of showing that it is wrong, false, mistaken, nonsensical, objectionable, or disreputable.
In this case, making the criticism is not necessarily deemed wrong, and its purpose is respected; rather, it is claimed that the same goal could be better achieved via a different route.
Destructive criticism from parents and other authority figures causes psychological harm to children that results in lower levels of self-esteem, social acceptance, scholastic competence, behavioral conduct, global self-worth, and generally poorer self-perception.
Theoretical criticism often occurs in the context of eclecticism and intellectual opportunism, when people more or less creatively "cobble together" in one interpretation a bunch of ideas and models that draw from a variety of sources.
Thus, the degree to which a criticism is accessible may be influenced by moral considerations, fear, the human or commercial interests at stake, or authority issues.
The debate can be pursued formally (for example by lawyers, judges, religious authorities and politicians) or informally (by any citizens of a community).
It focuses on whether an idea can be proven true or false, or what the limits of its valid application are, quite irrespective of whether people like that or not, or what the moral implications are.
The question in scientific activity is usually to ascertain – with reasoning, study and experiment – whether the chosen means can or cannot, as a matter of objective fact, produce the envisaged result, and why that is.
Science is above all a search for truth, and therefore if scientists are dishonest (for example, by faking the evidence), they are not being "scientific", dishonesty then is an obvious target for criticism.
Normally a religion has some sacred or holy texts, which serve as an authoritative guide to interpreting actions and ideas as either good or bad.
They try to answer these questions by reasoning based on religious principles, rules, laws, by considering what people experience, and by "divine inspiration" through prayer and meditation.
In addition, because it is a very personal matter, it may require a great deal of respectful sensitivity to approach a spiritual issue in a good way.
A scholarly critic probes deeply into a problem, looking at all relevant evidence, the quality of reasoning involved, and the uses or purposes at stake.
He tries to make sure that he cannot be accused of inconsistent reasoning, that arguments are free from factual error, and that all relevant aims, motives, and purposes are clear.
The term was made famous by a polemical text written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels entitled The Holy Family.
The radical critic aims to track down the most fundamental assumptions underlying an idea, position or situation in order to show the ultimate reason why it is true or false.
This type of criticism may only just prove, in a "devastatingly simple" or even rather innocent way, that something is true or false, contrary to the popular perceptions or cherished beliefs.
Many if not most ideas which people hold nowadays and accept as normal, originally were considered as "extremely radical", "revolutionary" or even "dangerous".
Resistance to this reality, the conservative feels, is not only useless, but also just makes people unhappy; "you can't change human nature".
Since most people have to deal with some uncertainties in their daily lives, and have to interpret things without (yet) knowing the details of the full story, they entertain speculative thoughts as a normal everyday occurrence .
Speculative criticism can be useful and credible, if people have to evaluate situations where there are unknowns, uncertainties, novelties or different possibilities (see also brainstorming).
Foolish criticism may lack any clear direction, being prompted simply by a grudge or gripe, a feeling of unease, or a sense of dissatisfaction.
Popular examples of literary criticism include biographical, comparative, ethical, expressive, historical, mimetic, pragmatic, social, and theoretical among others.
Self-criticism (or what academics sometimes call "autocritique") refers to the ability to appraise the pros and cons of one's own beliefs, thoughts, actions, behaviour or results, especially from the point of view of how others might regard them.
Self-criticism requires a certain flexibility of mind, because it assumes a person is able to call into question his own behaviour and thinking – instead of believing that he "naturally" is the way he is, or that he can "never be wrong".
If a person arrives at the conclusion that most of what he is about is wrong, he can be plunged into a disorienting chaos, where he is unable to evaluate things properly anymore.
