Critique - The Strength and Weakness of A Critique

The Strength and Weakness of A Critique

Formal and casual criticisms of a work (a poem, an article, a book, a painting, or a play, for example) often use the term 'critique' to refer to any somewhat loosely-applied argument about the quality of the work, typically when used in reference to popular (loose) expectations, or conventionality, of a genre or class. Such idea of 'quality' is measured against varying standards which may not be equivalents. It is very difficult to establish a measure of 'quality.' Hewing to a measure of 'quality' requires standardization, which eclipses tendentious conditions such as tradition, nuanced, subcultural, or analogous usages. 'Quality' is no longer thought of as being a necessarily valid marker signifying importance in some circles, and very much a signifier of such importance in other circles. Critique, when applied, analyzes very narrow qualitative assemblies of thought.

Many practitioners prefer to distinguish "weak" critiques (supported by arguments from induction, testimony, appeals to authority or to emotion, consensus, chain of improbabilities (e.g., butterfly effect), or appeals to analogy) from "strong critiques" that rely only on deduction, mathematical proof, and formal logic.

Both types of critique find expression in academic essays, policy position papers, trade journals, periodicals, political and religious leaflets, civic testimony, and judicial cross examination. The "stronger critique" is generally accepted as "more" valid, while the "weak" critique is generally accepted as preferential rather than conclusive, or leading to conclusive, result. "Weak" critique is greatly cautioned against in formal education.