critical thinking

Making illogical analogies to support the validity of a particular claim. Arguing that two children sharing the same bedroom is wrong because double-celling of criminals in a penitentiary can lead to bad behavior. Learn to recognize the faulty assumptions behind false analogies.

False Analogies

The use of language that is clear and accurate but misleading because it suggests something false. The dairy industry is very good at this...they cleverly express fat content as a percentage of weight, not of calories. Thus 2% "low" fat milk really has 31% fat when fat is measured as a percentage of calories. To alleviate false implications, try to understand not only the facts, but also their relevance and context.

False Implications

Being unaware that our memories are often "manufactured" to fill in the gaps in our recollection, or that some memories of facts, over time, can be unconsciously replaced with fantasy. Police officers should not show a photo of a possible assailant to a witness prior to a police lineup, or the actual memory of the witness may be unconsciously replaced.

False Memories and Confabulation

Seeking out the facts, information sources, and reasoning to support issues you intend to judge; examining issues from as many sides as possible; rationally looking for the good and bad points of the various sides examined; accepting the fact that you may be in error yourself; and maintaining the goal of getting at the truth.

open-mindedness, healthy skepticism

Critical thinker is developing the proper attitude. Such an attitude embodies the following characteristics:

open-mindedness, healthy skepticism, intellectual humility, free thinking, and high motivation.

A logical fallacy claiming something is true because it has not been proven false. Believing that there must be life on Mars because no one has proved that there is not life on Mars. Do not believe a proposition simply because it cannot be proven false.

Argument from Ignorance

Are those that disarm you from questioning the validity of an argument. Expressions such as "As everyone knows...", and "Common sense tells us that..." are examples of assuring expressions. Disregard assuring expressions and instead focus on facts & reasoning that support arguments.

Assuring Expressions

Arguing something is true because "it works," even though the causality between this something and the outcome are not demonstrated. After using a magnetic belt for awhile, a woman notices her back pain is less, even though there may be a dozen other reasons for the reduced back pain. Try to identify known or possible causal mechanisms for observed effects, starting with those that are more likely, not more emotionally appealing.

A Pragmatic Fallacy

The dispositions of mind and character essential for fair-minded rationality; or said another way, the virtues that distinguish the narrow-minded, self-serving critical thinker from the open-minded, truth-seeking critical thinker.

Essential Intellectual Traits

Psychological and sociological pitfalls include:

1. Ad hominem Fallacy 2. Ad populum, Bandwagon Fallacy 3. Emotional Appeals 4. Evading the Issue, Red Herring 5. Fallacy of False Dilemma, Either/or Fallacy 6. Poisoning the Well

Use of Language include:

1. Ambiguity 2. Assuring Expressions 3. Meaningless Comparisons 4. Doublespeak Jargon 5. Emotive Content 6. False Implications

Basic Human Limitations include:

1. Confirmation Bias and Selective Thinking 2. False Memories and Confabulation 3. Personal Biases and Prejudices 4. Physical and Emotional Hindrances 5. Testimonial Evidence

Faulty Logic or Perception include:

1. Superstition 2. Argument from Ignorance 3. False Analogies 4. Irrelevant Comparisons 5. Pragmatic Fallacy 6. Slippery Slope Fallacy

An argument that assumes an adverse chain of events will occur, but offers no proof. "Because regulators have controlled smoking in public places, their ultimate goal is to control everything else in our lives." Evaluate the logic supporting an alleged adverse chain of events.

A Slippery Slope Fallacy

Is that really true? How could we check that? How could we find out if that is true? A statement can be clear but not accurate, as in "Most dogs are over 300 pounds in weight."

Accuracy

Is criticizing the person making an argument, not the argument itself. An example would be "You should not believe a word my opponent says because he is just bitter because I am ahead in the polls." We should focus on reasons & facts that support an argument, not the person making the argument. Independently verify supporting facts if the source is in question.

Ad Hominem Fallacy

Is an appeal to the popularity of the claim as a reason for accepting the claim. Thousands of years ago the average person believed that the world was flat simply because most other people believed so. A valid claim should be based on sound arguments, not popularity.

Ad Populum, Bandwagon Fallacy

Ambiguity is a word or expression that can be understood in more than one way.. From the statement "Lying expert testified at trial"...is the expert a liar or is the person an expert on telling when someone is lying? If the intended meaning of an ambiguous word or expression cannot be determined, avoid making judgments.

Ambiguity

Making a comparison that is irrelevant or inappropriate. Making a claim that Printer A makes better copies than Printer B, while ignoring the important fact that only Printer B can also fax, copy, and scan. Be sure to compare "apples with apples."

An Irrelevant Comparison

Applies to everyone, including the most proficient critical thinkers. These limitations remind us that we are not perfect and that our understanding of facts, perceptions, memories, built-in biases, etc., preclude us from every seeing or understanding the world with total objectivity and clarity.

Basic Human Limitations

Hindrances to Critical Thinking

Basic Human Limitations Use Of Language Faulty Logic Or Perception Psychological Or Sociological Pitfalls

Do we need to consider another point of view? Is there another way to look at this question? What would this look like from a conservative standpoint? What would this look like from the point of view of...? A line of reasoning may be clear, accurate, precise, relevant, and deep, but lack breadth (as in an argument from either the conservative or liberal standpoints which gets deeply into an issue, but only recognizes the insights of one side of the question).

Breadth

Could you elaborate further on that point? Could you express that point in another way? Could you give me an illustration? Could you give me an example? It is a gateway standard. If a statement is unclear, we cannot determine whether it is accurate or relevant. In fact, we cannot tell anything about it because we don't yet know what it is saying.

Clarity

Eight universal intellectual standards

Clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logic, fairness

Confidence that, in the long run, one's own higher interests and those of humankind at large will be best served by giving the freest play to reason, by encouraging people to come to their own conclusions by developing their own rational faculties; faith that, with proper encouragement and cultivation, people can learn to think for themselves, to form rational viewpoints, draw reasonable conclusions, think coherently and logically, persuade each other by reason and become reasonable persons, despite the deep-seated obstacles in the native character of the human mind and in society as you know it.

Confidence in reason

The process whereby one tends to notice and look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs. For example, if one believes that more murders occur during a full moon, then one will tend to take notice of murders that occur during a full moon and tend not to take notice of murders that occur at other times.

Confirmation Bias and Selective Thinking

Seeing what you need to see to do your best work. Is about how one uses intelligence and knowledge to reach objective and rational viewpoints. Requires you to combine your rational logic, creativity, common sense, and intuition into structured expressions of clear solutions and ideas that are useful and relevant to the task.

Critical Thinking

Having a consciousness of the need to treat all viewpoints alike, without reference to one's own feelings or vested interests, or the feelings or vested interests of one's friends, community or nation; implies adherence to intellectual standards without reference to one's own advantage or the advantage of one's group.

Fair-mindedness

How does your answer address the complexities in the question? How are you taking into account the problems in the question? Are you dealing with the most significant factors? A statement can be clear, accurate, precise, and relevant, but superficial (that is, lack depth). For example, the statement "Just Say No", which is often used to discourage children and teens from using drugs, is clear, accurate, precise, and relevant. Nevertheless, it lacks depth because it treats an extremely complex issue, the pervasive problem of drug use among young people, superficially. It fails to deal with the complexities of the issue.

Depth

The use of technical language to make the simple seem complex, the trivial seem profound, or the insignificant seem important, all done intentionally to impress others. An example of this would be referring to a family as "a bounded plurality of role-playing individuals" or a homeless person as a "non-goal oriented member of society." Try to recognize the cognitive (factual) content of jargon words and expressions to be a better critical thinker.

Doublespeak Jargon

Making irrelevant emotional appeals to accept a claim (since emotion often influences people more effectively than logical reasoning). Advertisements that appeal to one's vanity, pity, guilt, fear, or desire for pleasure, while providing no logical reasons to support their product being better than a competitor. If an argument requires a logical reason to support its claim, do not accept emotional appeals as sufficient evidence to support it.

Emotional Appeal

The intentional use of words to arouse feelings about a subject to bias others positively or negatively, in order to gain influence or power. Naming detergents "Joy" and "Cheer" (positive), not "Dreary" and "Tedious" (negative). The military using the phrase "neutralizing the opposition" (less negative) rather than "killing" (negative). Learn to recognize and distinguish the emotive (emotional) content of language. Try to focus on reasoning and the cognitive (factual) content of language when evaluating arguments.

Emotive Content

Could happen when one has been accused of wrongdoing by diverting attention to an issue irrelevant to the one at hand. An example would be making jokes about one's own character in order to disarm critics & evade having to defend policy. Learn to recognize evasion, which implies a direct attempt to avoid facing an issue.

Evading the Issue, Red Herring

Are we considering all relevant viewpoints in good faith? Are we distorting some information to maintain our biased perspective? Are we more concerned about our vested interests than the common good? We naturally think from our own perspective, from a point of view which tends to privilege our position. Fairness implies the treating of all relevant viewpoints alike without reference to one's own feelings or interests. Because we tend to be biased in favor of our own viewpoint, it is important to keep the standard of fairness at the forefront of our thinking. This is especially important when the situation may call on us to see things we don't want to see, or give something up that we want to hold onto.

Fairness

Intentionally restricting the number of alternatives, thereby omitting relevant alternatives from consideration. An example would be someone making the statement, "You are either with us, or with the terrorists!" Seek opposing arguments on the subject which may reveal the existence of other viable alternatives.

Fallacy of False Dilemma, Either/or Fallacy

Having rational control of one's beliefs, values, and inferences. The ideal of critical thinking is to learn to think for oneself, to gain command over one's thought processes.

Intellectual autonomy

Ideas considered dangerous or absurd are sometimes rationally justified (in whole or in part) and that conclusions and beliefs inculcated (instilled) in you are sometimes false or misleading. Be true to your own thinking.

Intellectual courage

Having a consciousness of the need to imaginatively put oneself in the place of others in order to genuinely understand them, which requires the consciousness of your egocentric tendency to identify truth with your immediate perceptions of long-standing thought or belief.

Intellectual empathy

One should not claim more than one actually knows.

Intellectual humility

Essential Intellectual Traits to be a critical thinker. The eight intellectual traits are:

Intellectual humility, Intellectual courage, Intellectual empathy, Intellectual autonomy, Intellectual integrity, Intellectual perseverance, Confidence in reason, and Fair-mindedness.

The recognition of the need to be true to one's own thinking; to be consistent in the intellectual standards one applies; to hold one's self to the same rigorous standards of evidence and proof to which one holds one's antagonists; to practice what one advocates for others; and to honestly admit discrepancies and inconsistencies in one's own thought and action.

Intellectual integrity

Having a consciousness of the need to use intellectual insights and truths in spite of difficulties, obstacles, and frustrations; firm adherence to rational principles despite the irrational opposition of others; a sense of the need to struggle with confusion and unsettled questions over an extended period of time to achieve deeper understanding or insight.

Intellectual perseverance

Does this really make sense? Does that follow from what you said? How does that follow? Before you implied this and now you are saying that, I don't see how both can be true. When we think, we bring a variety of thoughts together into some order. When the combination of thoughts are mutually supporting and make sense in combination, the thinking is "logical." When the combination is not mutually supporting, is contradictory in some sense, or does not "make sense," the combination is "not logical."

Logic

Include language that implies that something is superior but retreats from that view. An ad that claims a battery lasts "up to" 30% longer, but does not say it will last 30% longer, and if it did, longer than what. Avoid making judgments if it is not exactly clear what is being compared.

Meaningless Comparisons

We each have _____, resulting from our own unique life experiences and worldview, which make it difficult to remain objective and think critically. Some people are biased against claims made by scientists because their worldview appears too cold and impersonal. You must resist your own biases by focusing on the facts, their sources, and the reasoning in support of arguments.

Personal Biases and Prejudices

Can severely affect our ability to think clearly and critically. These include stress, fatigue, drugs, and related hindrances. An example would be, "Air traffic controllers often have difficulty making good judgments after long hours on duty." We should restrain from making critical decisions when extremely exhausted or stressed.

Physical and Emotional Hindrances

Creating a prejudicial atmosphere against the opposition, making it difficult for the opponent to be received fairly. An example would be someone making the statement, "Anyone who supports removing troops from Iraq is a traitor!" When evaluating an argument, focus on the argument, not prejudicial remarks.

Poisoning the Well

Could you give me more details? Could you be more specific? A statement can be both clear and accurate, but not precise, as in "Jack is overweight." (We don't know how overweight Jack is, one pound or 500 pounds.)

Precision

How is that connected to the question? How does that bear on the issue? A statement can be clear, accurate, and precise, but not relevant to the question at issue. For example, students often think that the amount of effort they put into a course should be used in raising their grade in a course. Often, however, "effort" does not measure the quality of student learning, and when that is so, effort is irrelevant to their appropriate grade.

Relevance

Decision Analysis Prepare a statement which acts as a starting point and sets limits for any choices to be made while reaching the decision.

STEP 1: Decision Statement

Decision Analysis In this step, you decide on the criteria you'll use to make the decision. Simplest way to determine criteria is to conduct a brainstorming session with those affected by the decision. After compiling a list of criteria, the next part of this step is to place each item in either a MUST or WANT category. BEFORE doing anything else, you must assign a weight (importance) to each WANT.

STEP 2: Decision Criteria

Decision Analysis After determining MUSTs and WANTs, and assigning weights to the WANTs, it is time to find potential alternatives. Alternatives can come from many sources. For example, when buying a car, you could look online, check out newspaper ads, and shop several car dealerships. Locating Alternatives, Comparing Alternatives to MUSTs, Selecting the BEST Alternative, Step 4 Risk Analysis

STEP 3: Alternatives

The erroneous perception of the connections between unrelated events. An example would be irrationally believing that how one wears their hat while watching a football game can influence the score. We must recognize the difference between cause & effect versus unrelated coincidence.

Superstition

Involves deciding first, reacting and then trying to make sense out of all of it! Many of the judgments that you make every day are automatic or reactive, rather than reflective. Good decisions emerging from system-1 thinking often feel intuitive.

System 1 (Reactive Thinking) Reactive Thinking (System-1)

Is broad and informed problem-solving and deliberate decision-making. It is useful for judgments in unfamiliar situations, for processing abstract concepts, and for deliberating when there is time for planning and more comprehensive consideration. Argument making is often part of the deliberation process when making system-2 decisions. Critical thinking is considered system-2 thinking because it is often focused on resolving the problem at hand and at the same time monitoring and self-correcting the process of the situation or problem.

System 2 (Reflective Thinking) Reflective Thinking (System-2)

Evidence can also be a hindrance to critical thinking. We should not rely on the testimonies and vivid anecdotes of others to substantiate one's own beliefs, even though testimonies are inherently subjective, inaccurate, unreliable, biased, and occasionally fraudulent. Dramatic stories of Bigfoot sightings do not prove the existence of Bigfoot. So we should resist making judgments based on testimonies alone. Extraordinary claims generally require extraordinary evidence.

Testimonial

Is highly relevant to critical thinking. The choice of words themselves can conceal the truth, mislead, confuse, or deceive us. From ads which guarantee easy weight loss to politicians assuring prosperity for everyone, a critical thinker must learn to recognize when words are not intended to communicate ideas or feelings, but rather to control thought and behavior.

The Use of Language

Have an independent mind, or be a free thinker. To think freely, one must restrain one's desire to believe because of social pressures to conform. This can be quite difficult or even impossible for some. One must be willing to ask if conformity is motivating one's belief or opinion, and if so, have the strength and courage to at least temporarily abandon one's position until he or she can complete a more thorough evaluation.

free thinker

Have a natural curiosity to further one's understanding and be highly motivated to put in the necessary work sufficient to evaluate the multiple sides of an issue. The only way one can overcome the lack of essential knowledge on a subject is to do the necessary studying to reach a sufficient level of understanding before making judgments.

high motivation

Adhering tentatively to recently acquired opinions; being prepared to examine new evidence and arguments even if such examination leads one to discover flaws in one's own cherished beliefs; to stop thinking that complex issues can be reduced to matters of right and wrong or black and white, and to begin thinking in terms of degrees of certainty or shades of grey

intellectual humility