Asking the Right Questions: Ch. 1-10

Slow Thinking (System 2)

A full process of thinking about what argument a person is making and their reasoning for it, can help override the quick decision made by System 1 thinking. Ask "Why am I thinking what I am thinking?".

Rival cause

A plausible alternative explanation that can explain why a certain outcome occured

Intuition

A process in which we believe we have direct insights about something without being able to consciously express our reasons (*relying on common sense, gut feelings, or hunches*). Private, *no way to judge dependability*, no basis for deciding which to believe. Relies on unconscious processing that largely *ignores relevant evidence and reflects strong biases*.

Definitional Assumption

A type of descriptive assumption; *taking for granted of one meaning* for a term that has multiple possible meanings.

Value conflict

The *differing values* that stem from different frames of reference Common value conflicts: 1. Loyalty-honesty 2. Competition-cooperation 3. Freedom of press-national security 4. Order-freedom of speech 5. Rationality-spontaneity 6. Individual-community

Connotative Meaning

The *emotional associations* that we have to a term or phrase

Experts

The _____ may claim to have the answer, but they are not likely to know it.

Denotative Meaning

The agreed-upon explicit descriptive referents or use of the word; *dictionary definition*

Loaded Terms

Terms that trigger *strong emotional reactions*. Their ability to move us outweighs their descriptive meanings. Trouble for critical thinking because they short-circuit thought and trick the mind.

Randomized Experimental Design

(aka. the gold standard) Compares how one group responds to an experimental intervention against how an identical group behaves without the intervention

False Dilemma

*Assuming only two alternatives* when there are more than two. Oversimplifies an issue by stating only two choices.

Factual Claims

*Beliefs (conclusions, reasons, assumptions) about the way the world was, is, or is going to be* that they want us to accept as facts.

Confusion of Cause and Effect fallacy

*Confusing the cause with the effect* of an event or failing to recognize that the two events may be influencing each other

Strawman

*Distorting our opponent's point of view* so that it is *easy to attack*; thus we attack a point of view that does not truly exist.

In comparing causes, apply the following criteria

- Their *logical soundness* (makes sense). - Their *consistency with other knowledge* that you have. - Their *previous success in explaining or predicting* similar events. - The extent to which the explanation is implied by a greater variety of accepted truths than other explanations. - The extent to which it has been *disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs*. - The extent to which it explains a *larger number and variety of facts* than competing explanations.

Hasty Generalization

A person draws a *conclusion about a large group based on experiences with only a few members* of the group.

Lessons Learned

1. Many kinds of events are open to *explanation by rival causes*. 2. *Experts* can examine the same evidence and *discover different causes* to explain it. 3. Most *communicators* will provide you with only their *favored causes*; the critical *reader or listener must generate rival causes*. 4. Generating rival causes is a *creative process*; usually, such *causes will not be obvious*. 5. The *certainty of a particular casual claim is inversely related to the number of plausible rival causes*.

Potential Explanations for Research Findings

1. x is a cause of y. 2. y is a cause of x. 3. x and y are associated because of some third factor, z. 4. x and y influence each other.

Logical Fallacy

A *reasoning "trick"* that an author might use while trying to persuade you to accept a conclusion. 1. Providing reasoning that requires *erroneous or incorrect assumptions,* thus making it irrelevant to the conclusion; 2. Distracting us by *making information seem relevant to the conclusion when it is not*. 3. Providing support for the conclusion that *depends on the conclusion's already being true*.

Assumptions

A belief, *usually unstated* and potentially deceptive, that is taken for granted and supports the explicit reasoning.

Argument

A combination of two forms of a statement: a conclusion and the reasons that allegedly support it

Trivial Assumption

A descriptive assumption that is *self-evident*. (assuming the reasons are true, assuming the reasons and conclusions are logically related, assuming background knowledge, etc)

Testimonials

A form of personal experience in which *someone (often a celebrity) provides a statement supporting the value of some product, event, or service*. *Rarely provide sufficient information* about the basis for the judgment. Pay little attention to them until you find out much more about the *expertise, interests, values, and biases behind them*: Selectivity, personal interest, omitted information, the human factor (trust).

Issue

A question or controversy responsible for the conversation or discussion. It is the stimulus for what is being said.

Research Measures

All research requires decisions about *how to measure the behaviors of interest*. Because concepts can be measured in many ways, the *conclusions of research are only appropriate to the measure of choice*. (questionnaires, checklists, responses to surveys, behavior observations, etc)

Ad Hominem

An *attack on the person*, rather than directly addressing the person's reasons.

Red Herring

An *irrelevant topic is presented to divert attention* from the original issue and help to win an argument by shifting attention away from the argument and to another issue. The fallacy sequence in this instance is as follows: (a) Topic A is being discussed (b) Topic B is introduced as though it is relevant to topic A, but it is not (c) Topic A is abandoned

Begging the Question

An argument in which *the conclusion is assumed in the reasoning*. The reason supporting the conclusion *restates the conclusion in different words*.

Causation

Association or correlation does not prove _____!

Post Hoc fallacy

Assuming that a particular event, b, is caused by another event, a, simply because b follows a

Impossible Certainty

Assuming that a research conclusion should be rejected if it is not absolutely certain.

Primary Values of a Critical Thinker

Autonomy: Don't just listen to those with the same views on a topic, that only ensures that no progress will be made in coming to a more refined conclusion. Ex. If you are a Democrat that don't only listen to other Democrats. Curiosity: Ask questions about the information that is presented, if it can be trusted, what they are trying to argue, and what their reasons are. This doesn't mean that one has to agree with them, but if they understand the argument. Humility: Accept that everyone has their biases and that no one knows everything, including yourself. Accept something new if it seems like the more reasonable answer, being a strong sense critical thinker. Respect for good reasoning: Don't just ignore someone's argument and reasoning because of a bias they have or a bais you have against them, examine their argument as unbiased as possible and see if they have anything meaningful to add to your knowledge.

Planning Fallacy (Optimism Bias)

The *tendency to underestimate how long one will need* to complete a task, despite numerous prior experiences of having underestimated how long something would take to finish.

Contributory causes

Cause that help to create a total set of conditions necessary for the event to occur

Kinds of Reasons

Descriptive issues: evidence Prescriptive issues: general, prescriptive statements or descriptive beliefs or principles

Scientific Method

Emphasizes: 1. *Replication* - publicly verifiable data (other qualified people can make *similar observations and get the same results*) 2. *Control* - the use of special procedures to *reduce error in observations, interpretation, and bias* 3. *Precision* - tries to be *precise and consistent in its use of language*

Using Evidence

Evidence is explicit information used to *back up or to justify the dependability of a factual claim* Prescriptive arguments: needed to *support reasons* that are factual claims. Descriptive arguments, needed to directly *support a descriptive conclusion*.

Casual Oversimplification fallacy

Explaining an event by *relying on casual factors* that are insufficient to account for the event or by *overemphasizing* the role of one or more of these factors

Wishful Thinking

Facts conform to our beliefs rather than fitting our beliefs to the facts. Because we think things should be different than what they are, we believe that they indeed they are different.

Neglect of a Common Cause fallacy

Failure to recognize that two events may be related because of the effects of a *common third factor*

Searching for the Perfect Solution

Falsely assuming that *because part of a problem remains* after a solution is tried, *the solution should not be adopted*.

Principle of Charity

If the writer or speaker believes they are providing support for the conclusion with some evidence or logic, then we should at least consider the reasoning.

Compare groups

The most common way for researchers to try to find a cause for some event

Major Kinds of Evidence

Intuition Personal experiences Case examples Testimonials Appeals to authorities or experts Personal observations Research studies Analogies

Descriptive Issues

Issues that raise questions about the accuracy of the past, present, or future.

Prescriptive Issues

Issues that raise questions about what we should do or what is right or wrong, good or bad.

Absolute vs. Dependable

It is extremely difficult, if not *impossible, to establish the absolute truth* or falsity of most claims. *The greater the quality and quantity of evidence supporting a claim, the more we can depend on it*, and the more we can call the claim a "fact".

Slippery Slope

Making the assumption that a proposed step will *set off an uncontrollable chain of undesirable events*, when procedures exist to prevent such a chain of events.

Faulty Analogy

Occurs when an analogy is proposed in which there are important relevant dissimilarities

Halo Effect

Over exaggerating someone's abilities (knowledge about a topic) because they are good at something else. Ex. assuming a celebrity good at singing and donates to charity could never be a drug addict when they actually are.

Backwards Thinking (Reverse Logic)

Reasons are an afterthought, following the selection of the conclusion. Created only because they defend a previously held opinion.

Differ

Research groups almost always ____ in more than one way. many factors can make research groups _____.

Casual Conclusions

Should include sufficient causal factors to convince you that they are not too greatly oversimplified

Fast Thinking (System 1)

Snap judgments based on what little information is available, without any deep thought. (too much room for error)

Evidence

Specific information that someone uses to furnish proof for something she is trying to claim is true. (Facts, research findings, examples from real life, statistics, appeals to experts and authorities, personal testimonials, and analogies)

Over-generalizing

Stating a generalization that is much broader than warranted by the research findings.

Possible Meanings of Words

Synonyms and examples: Inadequate - Fail to tell you the specific properties crucial for an unambiguous understanding of the term. Definition by specific criteria: Useful - Specify criteria for usage—*the more specific, the better.*

Sponging

Takes into account all of the information presented to you. It puts an emphasis on knowledge acquisition instead of knowledge quality.

Strong Sense Critical Thinking

Taking into account all baises (your own and the writers) and coming to a new conclusion or opinion based on the information presented, or reinforcing your current belief with new information.

Key Terms

Terms that *may have more than one plausible meaning* within the context of the issue, must be clarified before you can decide to agree or disagree.

Research Sample

The process of selecting events or persons to study. 1. *Number* - Must be *large enough* to justify the generalization or conclusion. In most cases, *the more events or people researchers observe, the more dependable their conclusion*. 2. *Breadth* - The sample must possess *as much breadth, or diversity, as the types of events* about which conclusions are to be drawn. 3. *Randomness* - *The more random the sample, the better*. *Avoids bias* in sample characteristics.

Appeal to Emotions

The use of *emotionally charged language to distract readers* and listeners from relevant reasons and evidence. Common emotions appealed to are fear, hope, patriotism, pity, and sympathy.

Glittering Generalities

The use of *vague, emotionally appealing virtue words* that dispose us to approve something without closely examining the reasons.

Case Example

The use of a *detailed catchy description of, or story about, one or several individuals* or events to support a conclusion. Usually *based on observations or interviews* and vary from being in-depth to being superficial. Can *appeal to our emotions and distract us* from paying close attention to their value as evidence and from seeking other more relevant research evidence.

Reasoning

The use of one or more ideas to support another idea.

Evaluating Analogies

To evaluate the quality of an analogy, focus on: 1. The *ways* the two things being compared are similar and different. 2. The *relevance* of the similarities and the differences. Strong analogies *possess relevant similarities and lack relevant differences* (ones that directly relate to the underlying principle illustrated by the analogy).

Surveys and Questionnaires

Used to measure people's behavior, attitudes, and beliefs. *Subject to many influences* (be very cautious in interpreting their meaning): - Often *not answered honestly*. Cannot assume responses accurately reflect true attitudes. - *Ambiguous* in wording. Questions are subject to multiple interpretations. - *Biased wording*. A small change in how a question is asked can have a major effect on how it's answered. - *Biased context*. Even answers to identical questions can vary from poll to poll, depending on how it's is presented and embedded in the survey. - *Length*. In long surveys, people may respond differently to later items than to earlier items simply because they get tired.

Personal Experiences

Very vivid in memories; can demonstrate that certain outcomes are possible, however *cannot demonstrate that such outcomes are typical or probable*. Can lead to hasty generalization.

Fundamental Attribution Error

We typically overestimate the importance of personal tendencies relative to situational factors in interpreting the behavior of others. We tend to see the cause of others' behavior as coming from within (personal characteristics) rather than from without (situational forces)

Personal Observations

What we "see" and report are *filtered through a set of values, biases, attitudes, and expectations*. *Tend to see or hear what we wish to see or hear*, selecting and remembering those *most consistent with our prior experience* and background. The most reliable reports will be based on: - Recent observations made by *several people* - Observing under *optimal conditions* - Have *no apparent, strong expectations or biases* related to the event.

Weak Sense Critical Thinking

When one only tries to reinforce their current beliefs based on the new information presented and rejects or doesn't look at any information that goes against their beliefs.

Single

When we are searching for rival causes, we need to remember that any ____ cause that we identify is much more likely to be a *contributory* cause than *the* cause

Different

____ people have ____ causes for the same behavior

Together

The best casual explanation is often one that combines many causes that only _____ are sufficient to bring about the event

Clues for Locating Descriptive Assumptions

**Reconstruct the reasoning by filling in the missing links**: 1, Keep thinking about the *gap between the conclusion and reasons*. What would the writer have have had to take for granted to link the reasons with the conclusion? ("If the reason is true, what else must be true for the conclusion to follow?") 2. Look for *unstated ideas* that support reasons. Sometimes a reason is presented with no explicit support; yet the plausibility of the reason depends on the acceptability of ideas that have been taken for granted. 3. *Identify with the writer* or speaker. Locating someone's assumptions is often made easier by imagining that you were asked to defend the conclusion. 4. *Identify with the opposition*. If you are unable to locate assumptions by taking the role of the speaker or writer, try to reverse roles. Ask yourself why anyone might disagree with the conclusion. 5. *Avoid stating incompletely established reasons as assumptions*. An reason has not been sufficiently established by evidence is not an assumption.

Explaining by Naming (Nominal Fallacy)

*Falsely assuming that because you have provided a name* for some event or behavior, you have *also adequately explained* the event or cause.

Pros and Cons of Research Studies

*PROS* Scientific research is *subject to public verifiability*. Research uses *control to minimize extraneous factors*. Scientific research is *precise and consistent* in the use of language. *CONS* Research varies greatly in *quality and artificiality*. Research findings *often contradict* one another and *facts can change over time*. Research findings can only support conclusions. Scientific research is a human activity; it can be distorted and is *not free of subjectivity*.

Research Studies

*Systematically collect observations* by people trained to do scientific research using the *scientific method*.

Checking for Ambiguity

1. "*What do you mean* by that?" - Don't assume you and the author mean the same thing. 2. "Could any of the words or phrases *have a different meaning*?" - Don't assume terms have a single, obvious definition. 3. *Substitute the alternative meanings* into the reasoning structure and see whether changing the meaning makes a difference in how well a reason supports the conclusion.

Types of Factual Claims

1. *Descriptive conclusions* (supported by research evidence): "Is that conclusion—a factual claim—justified by the evidence?" 2. *Reasons* (used to support descriptive or prescriptive conclusions): "Is that reason—a factual claim—justified by the evidence?" 3. *Descriptive assumptions* (links the reason to the conclusion): "How well does evidence support the assumption?"

Clues for Identifying Value Assumptions

1. Investigate the *author's background*. 2. Ask "Why do the *consequences* of the author's position seem so important to him or her?" 3. Search for *similar social controversies* to find analogous value assumptions. 4. Use *reverse role-playing*. Take a position opposite the author's position and identify which values are important to that opposite position. 5. Look for *common value conflicts*, such as individual responsibility versus community responsibility.

Clues for Locating Key Terms

1. Review the issue for *possible key terms* and how the author defines them. 2. Look for words or phrases in the reasons and conclusions that a) are *crucial to determining how well reasons support* the conclusion and b) affect whether you accept the conclusion. 2. Keep an eye out for *abstract words* and phrases (refers less and less to particular, specific instances) 3. Use *reverse role-playing* ( adopt a position contrary to the author's) to determine how someone might define certain words and phrases differently.

Context

1. The writer's or speaker's *background*, 2. *traditional uses* of the term within the particular controversy, and 3. *the words and statements preceding* and following the possible ambiguity. Provides clues to the meaning of a potential key term or phrase.

Characteristics of an Argument

1. They have intent. Those who provide arguments hope to convince us to believe certain things or act certain ways. 2. Their quality varies. Critical thinking is required to determine the extent of quality in an argument. 3. They have two essential visible components -- a conclusion and reasons. Failure to identify either destroys the opportunity to evaluate the argument.

Analogy

An argument that uses a *well-known similarity between two things* as the basis for a conclusion about a relatively unknown characteristic of one of those things (assumes if one trait is shared, another is)

Ad Populum (Appeal to Popularity)

An attempt to justify a claim by appealing to sentiments that large groups of people have in common; falsely assumes that *anything favored by a large group is desirable*.

Blueprint

An outline or sketch of what is to come. Concisely introduces reasons early in the writing. Helps reader identify reasoning and what to expect.

Value assumption

An unstatd belief about *how the world should be*. An *implicit preference for one value over another* in a particular context. (aka. prescriptive assumption, value judgement/priority/preference)

Descriptive Assumption

An unstated belief about *how the world was, is, or will become*.

Appeals to Authority

Appealing to *people in a position to have access to certain facts and to have special qualifications* for drawing conclusions from the facts. An authority should: - Have especially good *access to pertinent facts*. - Be relatively *free of distorting influences*.

Reasons

Beliefs, evidence, metaphors, analogies, and other statements offered to support, justify, and create credibility for conclusions. Provide answers for our human curiosity about why someone makes a particular decision or holds a particular opinion.

Finding rival causes

Can I think of any *other way to interpret the evidence*? What *else might have caused this* act or these findings? If I looked at this from *another point of view*, what might I see as *important causes*? If this *interpretation is incorrect*, what other *interpretation might make sense*?

After this, therefore because of this

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc means

Words that Identify Reasons

Structure of reasoning: "this, because of that." because, as a result of, for the reason that, because of the fact that, in the view of, is supported by, because the evidence is, studies show, first... second... third

Appeal to Questionable Authority

Supporting a conclusion by *citing an authority who lacks special expertise* on the issue at hand

Egocentrism

The central role we assign to our world, as opposed to the experiences and opinions of others.

Panning for Gold

The evaluation of the of the information that one's takes in to make sure that it is relevant to the topic and that it is reliable. Quality versus quantity.

Ambiguity

The existence of *multiple possible meanings* for a word or phrase. A term or phrase is ambiguous when its meaning is so uncertain in the context of the argument that we need further clarification before we can judge the adequacy of the reasoning.

Coincidence

The finding that one event follows another in time does not by itself prove causation, it may only be a ____

The Questioning Process

The first step in identifying reasons is to approach the argument with a questioning attitude. 1. Find the conclusion. 2. Ask the "why" question (Why does the writer or speaker believe that?)

Conclusion

The message that the speaker or writer wishes one to accept. They are inferred from the text and are ideas that require other ideas (reasons, evidence) to support them.

Perspectives

The more _____ with which we are familiar, the more creative we can be in generating possible rival causes

Common Descriptive Assumptions

• *The events that happen to people are primarily the result of personal choices*. This assumption is the elephant behind the curtain shaping when and whom we blame and give credit to. • *The speaker or writer is a typical person*. When someone makes this assumption, she reasons explicitly based on her own experience or tastes. • *The world is just*. This assumption is in the background, holding up reasoning of the form: That something should be true means that it will be true. Often called the romantic fallacy. • *Because something happened in the past, it will happen in the future*. This assumption represents an uncritical and overly simplified reaction to the history of a person or even a country. • *My world is the center of the universe*. This assumption makes it difficult for us to support laws or policies that primarily benefit others; that is, it inhibits empathy for the vulnerable. This assumption also makes it difficult for us to appreciate cultural diversity. *Each of these assumptions is debatable*, meaning that reasonable people disagree about the accuracy of the assumption.