During the conference, R.P., the 'father' of the wheel we use in Critical Thinking, and the rest claims that the model (critical thinking model) is so comprehensive that all other models (e.g. Scientific method) falls under a sub-branch of Critical Thinking. Now let's consider this.

To verify that Critical Thinking is all-encompassing as a thinking model, we need to think and prove that it is all-encompassing. Since Critical Thinking encompasses all other models, we can use critical thinking model to assess Critical Thinking.

BUT

If we use the same theory to verify it, the conclusion do not hold because it forms a cyclical argument/reasoning. This leads to either one of the two conclusions

1. That we need another theory/model to assess Critical Thinking that is not encompassed by Critical Thinking which will automatically proved that Critical Thinking is not all-encompassing

2. That the statement of Critical Thinking encompasses all other models cannot be falsify hence it will fail the basic test of the Scientific Method which is supposed to be part of Critical Thinking.

Does it make sense?

Honestly, I don't think so. Just like I find it hard to make sense out of the conference.And I hate it when non-science people starts to discuss what is the scientific method when they don't do science at all. Is there a wonder that we can't find a Maths or Science presenter in the fellows of Critical Thinking? The guide for scientific thinking is so badly done that the examples that they give is not science.

How can the statement that "This is hot" be accurate at all when it is a comment based on a personal perception of hotness/coldness?!

It is a good model/theory nonetheless but not as good as they claim it to be. It is good for fields where ideas diverge as compared to areas like math and science where ideas converge. Let's see if the next few days of conference will change my mind. I have yet to learn from the grandmaster himself, just his disciple and collaborator.