Referring back to a previous post I noticed that many of us have different processes of thought, where some are impulsive or logical.
The answer as to why they are different is easy because each person has been taught by different methods of education, while also having different observations of what they are taught.

So this asks another question: What form of fundamental thinking/learning is best suited to solving problems?
Lets take a look at simple question and break it down philosophically because philosophy is the fundamental nature of knowledge:
1+4=
Here we have numbers and arithmetic symbols that make up this question.
When we break down numbers and arithmetic symbols, the numbers represent a value of dots or a type of entity irl, and arithmetic symbols are modifiers to the numbers. (fundamentally you could break down arithmetic symbols further here but i'd rather keep it short.)

From this observation; what creates foundation to a question is fundamental knowledge.
To visualise this method you can use a tree diagram, the main question you wish to answer being at the top of the tree diagram and the fundamental information making the question: [img]http://To visualise this method, the main question you wish to answer being at the top of the tree diagram and the fundamental information making the question:

Using logic we can answer a question by piecing together this fundamental knowledge like a puzzle to achieve an answer.
But not all answers are correct, so why is this?
For this we need an example outside of an academic setting to validate its perspective.
Say two kids learned how to ride a bike with the goal to do wheelies; kid A lost interest and rode a scooter while kid B kept practicing to do wheelies, Later kid B was able to do wheelies while kid A could not although they both had the same amount of time.

The difference being that kid B kept exploring the fundamentals of how to do a wheelie while kid A did not explore those fundamentals, so kid B was able to achieve the goal/answer of doing a wheelie while kid A lacked the fundamental knowledge to achieve the same goal/answer.

This missing or difference in fundamental knowledge can lead to different answers, which asks another question of: How else can fundamental knowledge change?

The most common issue with false information is an assumption of the observer learning a subject, the assumption that the fundamental information learned is unbiased and/or true.
In the example of:
1+4=
We could answer it correctly with 5, but if the observer solving the question were to be fed false fundamental information with no previous knowledge of math, if the numerical symbol 1 that has a value of two rather than one then the observers answer would be 6.
The reason for this false information could be a bias from the teacher, or a typo, a fallacy or any other reason for that singular perspective.
This is why taking various perspectives is important to validate an answer.

To do this would require re-approching the fundamental knowledge in question, learning from knowing the answer is false is something you can add to your fundamental knowledge of the subject itself.
Rather than assuming what fundamental knowledge is true, reapproch it by trying to come to the same conclusion. If your conclusions differ from what you are taught, then that is something to change and reapproach the main subject with this new found understanding of fundamental knowledge.

With this, it is reasonable to consider that critical thinking is essential to identifying false information, and logical thinking to solve problems be it the main subject/question or a piece of fundamental information leading to the main topic.

With this approach you can breakdown any topic academic, philosophical, activity, or anything that requires learning and study its very foundations in a way you can validate it yourself.
But given that an approach to a topic requires a different perspective we can moderate ourselves in the same way by being aware of our own biases, lack of knowledge in certain fields or what we call reflection of self.
Beyond reflection of self we can consider observation of self, where we observe our own observation of a subject as if it were a third party that is beyond bias, assumptions, fallacy and even beyond perspective.

But even if you were to philosophise like this, the perspectives of other's are still needed as their input can add to the fundamental knowledge of any topic we discuss.
So even if you follow a different method of philosophical study, you could ask the question:
Do you reach the same conclusion when you approach the fundamental method of that philosophical study?
Because on a fundamental level Philosophy is by definition: