Non-Expert Rationality in the Post-Truth Age: Critical Thinking as Thinking of Reasonable Agreement

For most of intellectual history, the question of layman thinking strategies has not received the level of scholarly attention it commands today. In contemporary society the concept of the “layman” has undergone significant transformation: nonexperts engage with complex subjects, often requiring to form judgments on matters far beyond their everyday and professional experience. This shift underscores the growing relevance of critical thinking, conceptualized as autonomous, authority-independent reasoning capable of evaluating the truth of statements. This article examines whether autonomous reasoning is achievable within the framework of “non-expert rationality” and whether it aligns with the foundational goals of critical thinking. The study focuses on the autonomy of lay reasoning as its primary subject. The findings reveal a divergence between the conceptual and practical meanings of critical thinking. Conceptually, critical thinking positions the layman nearly on par with the expert, yet in practice, societal expectations lean toward reasonably informed agreement rather than independent expertise. In the 21st century, such “consent thinking” has evolved from a passive trust to a form of reflexive control. One of the study’s key contributions is defining critical thinking as a societal response to epistemic competition. The research shows that the discourse around critical thinking emerges where competing explanations intersect, requiring individuals to make personal, reflective choices. This perspective uncovers a novel dimension of critical thinking: it serves as a manifestation of the human desire for epistemic harmony amid increasing polarization and conflict.