Many of the reactions were about the way to approach the broad concept of the circular economy.
Design thinking was suggested, but also it was suggested that the issues in our current economy should not be thought of as problems to be solved, but should be approached as conditions to be managed as if they were a chronic disease.
First, the whole deceptive shtick concealed within the marrow of critical thinking, is the implicit premise that, because one is a critical thinker, one cannot be deceived.
Everyone else is a credulous believer, only you protect the likely superior beliefs (truth).
Any time one assumes that they are ready to start drawing likely conclusions, without any preparation, based upon current knowledge, under a presumption of invulnerability and bearing a motivation to mock and deride – they bear the highest likelihood of errors in judgement. Bear the Pollyanna delusion that teaching critical thinking will make it all go away.
History shows that this type of thinking is foolishness.
A condition wherein an arguer develops a conclusion about a matter in absence of having addressed any critical path logic or epistemology (risk incremental, dependent series and probative questions or tests) before making the conclusion.
The opposite of the condition where a person has pursued critical path logic, yet in finding insufficient evidence, refuses to tender a final conclusion or opinion (ethical skepticism).
This is the definition of critical thinking, and it has nothing to do with what you currently know, is not an armchair exercise for the intellectually lazy – or pressure you receive from your peers, to conform to ‘rationality’: /philosophy : skepticism : science/ : the ability to assemble an incremental, parsimonious and probative series of questions, in the right sequence, which can address or answer a persistent mystery – along with an aversion to wallowing in or sustaining the mystery for personal or club gain. Never fail to produce the most likely answer to a mystery. Pretend that serious investigators have genuinely wanted or sought your opinion. Find your biggest thrill in discrediting persons, based upon ‘plausibility’. Cite any form of absence of observation/research as evidence of absence.
Critical thinking is the ability to understand, along with the skill in ability to deploy for benefit (value, clarity, risk and suffering alleviation), critical path logic and methodology. Especially if you cannot even tell when you have done this. Consider a plausible explanation to be congruent with a scientific hypothesis.