© National Strength & Conditioning Association
Volume 21, Number 4, pages 67–71
The Application of Critical Thinking
to Strength and Conditioning
William P. Ebben, MS, MSSW, CSCS
Marquette University
Keywords: reasoning; strength and conditioning; evidence;
quality
CRITICAL THINKING (CT) DOES
not imply negative thinking but
rather the careful analysis and
evaluation of ideas. Several hun-
dred sources have attempted to
characterize CT (1). Consequently,
defining CT is no simple task.
Table 1 offers a variety of concep-
tual definitions of CT (1). Table 2
outlines the attributes of a critical
thinker. For the purpose of this ar-
ticle, CT is defined as objectively
examining information in an at-
tempt to reduce errors in reason-
ing and consequently improve
one’s methods and profession.
Strength and conditioning coach-
es are frequently confronted with
multiple complex problems. Criti-
cal thinking is a useful tool for ad-
dressing problems, improving
strength and conditioning prac-
tices, and ensuring the quality of
work within our profession.
The roots of critical thought
may have begun with Socrates
more than 2,500 years ago. He es-
tablished the importance of seek-
ing evidence and of the examina-
tion of reasoning and developed
what is currently known as So-
cratic questioning. John Dewey
August 1999
coined the term “critical thinking”
in 1933 (2). In the 20th Century,
CT has experienced tremendous
growth as a discipline. For exam-
ple, Cassel and Congleton (1) de-
scribe 930 selected periodicals,
articles, monographs, essays, con-
ference papers, and chapters from
anthologies that examine CT or
closely allied topics.
“The goals of CT are to
avoid errors in think-
ing and to detect errors
in your own reasoning
and the reasoning of
others.”
CT has been applied to a vari-
ety of professions (i.e., the devel-
opment of problem-solving skills
for counselors, practical thinking
for business executives, lawyers,
and police officers, and CT to en-
hance the quality of education)(1).
Recently, CT has been used to ex-
amine technical and ethical as-
pects of applied medicine (1, 9).
Strength and Conditioning Journal
CT has also been applied to
recreation, physical education,
athletic training, and physical
therapy, albeit in a limited fash-
ion. For example, Fox (3) suggests
that recreation professionals must
be open to a variety of opinions
and must possess the ability to de-
termine which facts are important
for decision making. Fox (3) sug-
gests the recreation professionals
must separate personal interests
from a sense of what is right and
wrong, especially when consider-
ing recreation and athletic pro-
gram funding, program develop-
ment, and the needs of diverse
groups of recreational partici-
pants. Zeigler (11) recommends
methods for developing arguments
and challenging fallacies and in-
adequate reasoning for allied pro-
fessionals within the context of the
American Alliance for Health,
Physical Education, Recreation,
and Dance. Hinson (6) discusses
the importance of fostering CT in
students via physical education.
McBride (7} suggests the expan-
sion of CT from classroom settings
to physical education and pre-
sents a model of CT in the psy-
67
chomotor domain. Gabbard and
McBride (5) draw upon motor
learning theory and describe how
CT skills may be fostered in the
psychomotor domain. Finally,
Fuller (4) and Slaughter et al. (10)
examine how well undergraduate
athletic training and physical
therapy programs foster CT. CT
has been considered in a variety of
professions, including recreation,
physical education, physical ther-
apy, athletic training, and in a lim-
ited fashion, in athletics. CT has
yet to be formally applied to
strength and conditioning.
Despite increased strength
and conditioning research efforts
over the past 2 decades, much re-
mains uncertain. In the absence of
“tried and true” research and ap-
plied methods in many areas of
our profession, it is necessary for
strength and conditioning profes-
sionals to possess keen skills to
evaluate complex information and
situations. These skills include the
ability to question one’s own as-
sumptions as well as those of oth-
ers and the ability to make in-
formed decisions that are free of
errors in reasoning and that are
based on careful analysis of infor-
mation.
■ Errors in Reasoning
According to Paul (8), reasoning is
simply the ability to draw conclu-
sions based on reasons. Zeigler
(11) suggests that most discus-
sions of CT include consideration
of fallacies or errors in reasoning.
Zeigler lists 4 causes of errors in
reasoning. These include errors
that are related to a) inadequate
fact gathering; b) incorrect logic of
an argument; c) “stretched” mean-
ings of words and phrases; and d)
incorporation of value judgements
in situations where facts are
needed. The goals of CT are to
avoid errors in thinking and to de-
tect errors in your own reasoning
68
Table 1
Conceptual Definitions of Critical Thinking
• A predisposition to question any major conclusion about
the effectiveness of our methods or what is said to be
generally true about our profession.
• Knowing how to seek answers to questions in a logical,
data-based, open-minded way about day-to-day prac-
tice.
• Characterized by some kind of reasoned or reasonable
evaluation.
• Reasoned, evaluative, and self-reflective.
• Reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused on decid-
ing what to believe or do.
• Reflective skepticism.
• The ability to assess the authenticity, accuracy, or worth
of knowledge, claims, and arguments.
and the reasoning of others. A training by an individual or
number of errors in reasoning group of individuals. Testimo-
negatively affect critical thinking nials often come from authori-
(6, 8, 11). These errors are out- ty figures such as successful
lined below. athletes, coaches, and sport
• Fallacy of vagueness—Terms, scientists. Testimonials also
definitions, or concepts are not come from those who appear
clearly described or defined physically fit. In these cases,
and, consequently, are mis- the implied message is that
leading or unable to be logical- the messenger is the embodi-
ly understood. ment of the message.
• Testimonial—Testimonials in- • Arguments from authority—
clude endorsements of a prod- Errors in reasoning occur when
uct, concept, or method of arguments of “authorities” are
Table 2
Attributes of a Critical Thinker
• Asks, “does the method work?’’
• Tries to be objective.
• Distinguishes between questions of fact and questions
of value.
• States problems and goals in measurable terms.
• Uses caution when inferring what caused improvement.
• Is cautious when making generalizations.
• Is aware of probability in decision-making.
• Finds alternatives.
• Asks specific questions.
• Uses reasoning in decision-making.
• Seriously considers points of view other than one’s own.
• Is open-minded.
Strength and Conditioning Journal August 1999
 • Lack of objectivity—Evidence
Table 3 regarding strength and condi-
Sample Scenarios tioning practice is not viewed
in a dispassionate way. In
order to find the best ideas, all
Scenario 1 • “Did you notice on the Internet that coach Al said evidence and arguments must
teams using high-intensity training (HIT) won 75% be objectively examined. Lack
of their games against non-HIT teams? I think it’s of objectivity is often the result
time we consider switching to HIT.’’
of personal bias and frequent-
Scenario 2 • “Did you hear Dr. Knowledge at the state clinic last ly is the result of ignorance of
month? He’s done it all. Man, he was interesting. If better evidence or of beliefs
he tells me ballistic proprioceptive neuromuscular based on the individual’s vest-
facilitation is where it’s at, then I believe him.’’ ed interest (8).
Scenario 3 • “Sally has been working out with the Power Maker • Fallacy of manner—This falla-
and has increased her bench press by 50 lb. I think cy assumes that the persua-
I will give it a try.’’ sive manner in which a person
presents an argument assures
Scenario 4 • “I need to look better for competition and hate how I
the argument’s validity. Argu-
look. I have tried everything to lose weight. I heard
those new Miracle nutrition bars help you lose ments directed toward emo-
weight, so I am going to try them.’’ tional appeal and arguments
from authorities frequently
Scenario 5 • “I have found the program that works for my ath- contain the fallacy of manner.
letes. I have been training this way for 3 years and I Conversely, a persuasive man-
have seen excellent gains.’’
ner is not evidence of a lack of
Scenario 6 • “I think medicine balls cause too many hand and validity of an argument.
wrist injuries. I’m not going to use them anymore.’’ • Arguments against the person
(Ad hominem)—Ad hominem
Scenario 7 • “I would not believe a word coach Ivan says. He never
played the sport and only has a job because of his arguments represent an at-
connections.’’ tack against some aspect of
the person making a claim
(e.g., physical appearance, de-
gree of education, status of
believed to always be correct. • Ignorance of better evidence— professional position, etc.) and
This error of reasoning is Errors in reasoning occur are not directed toward the
closely aligned to the testimo- when rigid beliefs are formed specifics of what the person
nial error of reasoning (11). despite the availability of sci- says, writes, believes, etc. (11).
• Case example fallacy—Case entifically superior evidence or • Beliefs based on a vested in-
examples include the use of a when scientific evidence does terest—This error in reasoning
nonrepresentative example or not suggest strong conclu- is often a result of conscious
examples that are incorrectly sions. Many other errors of and unconscious egocentrism.
generalized to be true in most reasoning may be inherent in Reasoning is based on “what I
or all cases. The fallacy of this type of ignorance (8). want” or “what I need” and
vagueness is often inherent in • Emotional appeal (people want may or may not be consistent
the case example fallacy. to believe it’s true)—Reasoning with that which is supported
• Appeal to numbers/group is clouded by arguments or by evidence (8).
think fallacy—Numbers are concepts that appeal to emo-
used as “data,” with the impli- tion rather than logic. Appeals ■ Examples of Non-CT in
cation that if many believe in a to emotion that are consistent Strength and Conditioning
certain concept, program, etc., with what the individual wants Table 3 describes scenarios de-
then it must be correct. The to believe often lead to errors in signed to allow you to evaluate ex-
fallacy of vagueness is typical- reasoning. Testimonials often amples of errors in reasoning that
ly present with the appeal to are constructed as a form of may occur in strength and condi-
numbers (11). emotional appeal (8, 11). tioning practices. Analyze each

August 1999 Strength and Conditioning Journal 69

 Table 4
Evaluation of Sample Scenarios

Scenario 1 contains a number of errors in reasoning. For example, the fallacy of vagueness is present since
much more information would be required to demonstrate a cause-and-effect relationship between training
method and game outcome. In fact, it may be impossible to objectively determine the role of training method
on game outcome for complex sports such as football, since a number of factors influence game outcome
(e.g., talent level, team motivation, technical preparation, coaching, home field advantage, injuries, etc.).
Additional errors in reasoning include the case example fallacy, since the scenario does not specify how
many HIT teams won. If it were possible to show a correlation between training method and game outcome,
one weekend of play most likely would not be a large enough sample to draw objective conclusions. The sce-
nario also contains an appeal to numbers fallacy using the statistic of 75%. Finally, the scenario may repre-
sent a lack of objectivity and ignorance of better evidence, since conclusions are drawn about training meth-
ods that have no direct relationship to game outcome.

Scenario 2 may contain errors of reasoning such as testimonial, arguments from authority, and fallacy of
manner. In this case, the nature of the presentation does not assure the validity of the information present-
ed. The decision to use BPNF is erroneous if it is based on the nature of the presentation as opposed to the
evidence in the presentation. On the other hand, well-presented information should not be assumed to be
incorrect. Reasoning requires examination of the content and care should be taken to limit the influence of
the manner and style of how the information is presented.

Scenario 3 may be harmless enough. The implications of using the Power Maker depend upon what is at
stake. If the Power Maker fails to facilitate the implied training adaptations, the consequences are different
for a recreational weightlifter than for a college athletic team who prepare for competition with this method
of training. Errors in reasoning include the fallacy of vagueness, since much is not known about Sally’s
training status, length of her training program, training volume, etc. This scenario represents a case exam-
ple fallacy since Sally’s results are not statistically significant because of a single subject design. Decisions
to base training on case examples represents ignorance of better evidence or a lack of objectivity if better ev-
idence is known and decisions are made to train with a questionable method nonetheless.

Scenario 4 may contain the emotional appeal error of reasoning. Critical thinking is jeopardized by strong
desires to believe something is true. The strong desire to lose weight does not enhance the likelihood that a
new product will produce weight loss. The fallacy of vagueness is also present since evidence is not present-
ed as to how the Miracle nutrition bars may be helpful. This scenario may contain the error of reasoning of
beliefs based on a vested interest. The implied message in the statement is that if the program works for me,
then it should work for my teams as well. This scenario also contains the fallacy of vagueness, case example
fallacy, ignorance of better evidence, and a lack of objectivity. In sum, it is poor reasoning to conclude that
optimal training adaptations will occur for a team based on one person’s experience with a specific training
program.

Scenario 5 may contain the error of reasoning of beliefs based on my vested interest. The implied message in
this statement is that if the program works for me then it should work for my team as well. This scenario
also contains the fallacy of vagueness, case example fallacy, ignorance of better evidence, and a lack of ob-
jectivity. In sum, it is poor reasoning to conclude that optimal training adaptations will occur for a team
based on one person’s experience with a specific training program.

Scenario 6 may contain the fallacy of vagueness and possibly ignorance of better evidence. Although it is
possible that medicine ball training may result in injuries, it is necessary to examine the reasoning behind
the thought, ``medicine balls cause too many hand and wrist injuries.’’ For example, does evidence exist to
support this belief? If frequent injuries have occurred, could it be a function of user readiness, training in-
tensity, or quality of supervision?

Scenario 7 includes the error of reasoning of arguments against the person. Coach Ivan may lack knowl-
edge; however, how he got his job and his lack of playing experience is not conclusive evidence of his igno-
rance. It is possible he is an excellent coach because of educational experiences, understanding of sport bio-
mechanics and physiology, ability to understand athletes, etc.

70 Strength and Conditioning Journal August 1999

item from the standpoint of CT.
Attempt to identify the error(s) in
reasoning. Table 4 suggests possi-
ble errors in reasoning for each
scenario.
■ Summary
CT is typically defined by terms
such as reasoning, good judge-
ment, problem solving, responsi-
ble thinking, and reflective skepti-
cism, and CT has become an
increasingly common method to
use to improve the quality of prac-
tice in many disciplines. According
to Zeigler (11), CT is impaired by a
number of errors in reasoning.
Reasoning and strength and con-
ditioning decision making are po-
tentially impaired if they are based
on vague or limited information,
the uninformed opinion of others,
or personal interest. Conversely,
good strength and conditioning
decision making results from ob-
jectivity and from examination of
evidence such as research.
Paul (8) suggests that CT re-
quires the ability to reflect on one’s
thinking and to critically evaluate
the factors that cloud sound
thinking. Strength and condition-
ing professionals frequently en-
counter complex interpersonal, or-
ganizational, ethical, and pro-
grammatic problems. Develop-
ment of CT can improve the
strength and conditioning profes-
sional’s ability to respond in a rea-
soned and resourceful manner
and can enhance the quality and
status of the strength and condi-
tioning profession. ▲
■ References
1. Cassel, J.F., and R.J. Congle-
ton. Critical Thinking: An Anno-
tated Bibliography. Metuch-
en, NJ: The Scarecrow Press,
1993.
2. Dewey, J. How We Think.
Boston, MA: D. C. Health and
Co., 1933.
August 1999
3. Fox, K. Maintaining balance
in a pluralistic world: Critical
thinking and ethical leader-
ship in recreation. Recreation
Can. 51(1):39–42. 1993.
4. Fuller, D. Critical thinking in
undergraduate athletic train-
ing education. J. Athl. Train.
32(3):242–247. 1997.
5. Gabbard, C., and R. McBride.
Critical thinking in the psy-
chomotor domain. ICHPER
Winter:24–27. 1996.
6. Hinson, C. Critical thinking
in the gym. Teaching Elem.
Phys. Educ. Oct.:17. 1993.
7. McBride, R. Critical think-
ing: An overview with impli-
cations for physical educa-
tion. J. Teaching Phys. Educ.
11:112–125. 1991.
8. Paul, R. Critical Thinking
Workshop Handbook. Rohn-
ert Park, CA: Center for Crit-
ical Thinking, 1996.
9. Quinn, J.B., P. Anderson,
and S. Finkelstein. Manag-
ing professional intellect.
Harvard Bus. Rev. 74:71.
1996.
10. Slaughter, D.S., D.S. Brown,
D.L. Gardner, and L.J. Perritt.
Improving physical therapy
student’s clinical problem
solving skills: An analytical
questioning model. Phys.
Ther. 69:441–447. 1989.
11. Zeigler, E.F. Competency in
critical thinking: A require-
ment for the “allied profes-
sional.” QUEST 47:196–211.
1995.
Bill Ebben is the head strength
and conditioning coach at Mar-
quette University. He regularly
conducts research to assess the
efficacy of applied methods.
Strength and Conditioning Journal 71