It comes from the ancient Greek verb "krínein" (to separate, judge, decide) — so "critique" originally means the art of judging and distinguishing well, not the act of badmouthing something.

In everyday speech "to criticise" carries a negative charge: to find fault, to complain. Budelacci argues that this is a corruption of the term. The Greek krínein means to sift — to separate the true from the false, the important from the unimportant, the worthwhile from the worthless. So critical thinking is not a sour disposition that rejects things; it is a disciplined skill of good judgement: deciding whether a statement is true or false, relevant or trivial, worth pursuing or worth avoiding.

Tip: The same root sits inside "criterion" and "to discern" — all about distinguishing, not disparaging. If your "critique" only tears down and never sorts true from false, it isn't critique in this sense.

Go deeper:

• Wikipedia — Critical thinking — the discipline this word names: analysing evidence and arguments to reach sound judgements.

Dogmatic and ideological thinking — holding beliefs as fixed and beyond questioning.

Critical thinking is defined partly by its contrast. Its opposite is not "positive" or "trusting" thinking; it is dogmatism (treating a doctrine as settled truth no evidence could revise) and ideology (a closed system of belief that explains everything in advance). Both share one feature: they place certain claims outside the reach of examination. Critical thinking, by contrast, keeps claims open to being tested, and — crucially — a critical thinker can change their mind when the reasons demand it. That willingness to revise is intellectual openness, and it is exactly what dogma forbids.

Go deeper:

• Wikipedia — Dogma — a belief held "without the possibility of reform."
• Wikipedia — Ideology — a coherent belief-system that interprets the world in advance.