Socratic questioning (Socratic dialogue) and macroprocesses of thinking / Critical thinking

Continuing the topic of questions as the most important tools of skillful thinking (see also Taxonomy of Socrates Issues):

In R. W. Fields, Critical Thinking: What Everyone Needs for Survival in a Rapidly Changing World (Paul, Richard W. Critical Thinking: Changing World. Rohnert Park, CA: Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique, Sonoma State Univ., 1990) articulated 5 macroprocesses of skilled (critical thinking) from a philosophical point of view:

1. Socratic inquiry (Socratic dialogue): inquiry of themselves or others in order to make the important points of our thinking fully expressed and obvious:

a) What exactly is the problem? Is this really the best way to pose a problem?

b) From what point of view do we proceed? Are there alternative points of view from which one could approach the problem or task?

c) What assumptions are we making? Are they justified? What alternative assumptions could we make instead of them?

d) What concepts (concepts) do we use? Are we aware (understand) if we have them? Their relevance? Their meanings and subtexts?

e) What evidence have we found or should we find? How reliable is our source of information?

f) What conclusions do we draw? Are these findings well supported?

g) What consequences (meanings, subtexts) follow from our reasoning (explanation)?

h) How does our reasoning (explanation) replace (outperform) competing or alternative reasoning (explanation)?

i) Are there any objections to our reasoning (explanation) that we should consider?

2. Conceptual analysis (concept analysis): any problematic concepts (or concepts related to the problem? In the original — problematic concepts) or ways of using terms should be analyzed, and their basic logic presented and evaluated. Have we done this?

3. Analysis of the controversial issue: whenever someone argues, this someone tries to settle some controversial issue. But in order to settle a question, you need to understand the type of question. Different issues require different ways of settlement. Do we take into account the exact requirements of the controversial issue?

4. Reconstruction of alternative points of view in their most powerful forms: because whenever someone reasons, that person reasons from the point of view or within the conceptual framework, he must identify and reconstruct these alternative points of view. Have we empatically reconstructed these relevant points of view?

5. The reasoning is dialogic and dialectic: since there are almost always alternative lines of reasoning about a given question or problem, and since a reasonable person views them sympathetically, he must be included in the dialectical reasoning. Have we discussed from different points of view (when appropriate) and have we rationally identified and considered the strengths and weaknesses of these points of view as a result of this process?