C168 Critical Thinking and Logic

appeal to experience

Claiming to speak with the "voice of experience" in support of an argument (even when that experience may not be relevant).

Nine Fundamental Intellectual Standards

Clarity Accuracy Precision Relevance Depth Breadth Logic Significance Fairness

appeal to authority

To justify support for a position by citing an esteemed or well-known figure who supports it. An appeal to authority does not address the merit of the position.

5 key factos in establishing the accuracy and validity of information

Authority point of view transparency Scope and Depth Accuracy

depth

directs us to delve deeper into an issue

all reasoning is based on

information

thinking

creates meaning, sort events in our lives into categories.

slippery slope

suggests that one step will inevitably lead to more, eventually negative steps

information

takes many forms;statistical data, our observations, others' testimonies, etc. In thinking critically about an issue, we must determine what information is relevant to it. We rely on information to direct us to a supportable conclusion.

sophistry

the ability to win an argument regardless of flaws in its reasoning

two components to strategic thinking

-Identification. Recognizing when your thinking is irrational or flawed. -Intellectual action. Engaging and challenging your own thinking.

breadth

-considers the issue at hand from every relevant viewpoint -directs us to look around us, at alternative or opposing perspectives

relevant

-pertains to the problem we seek to solve -focuses on what is important—on what matters—in understanding or deciding the issue at hand

critical thinking tools to take charge of your life

-use "wasted" time -handle one problem per day -internalize intellectual standards -clarity -accuracy -precision -relevance -depth -breadth -logic -significance -fairness -keep an intellecutal journal -descirbe events you care deeply about -describe one event or situation at a time -describe you behavior with respect to the situation. -analyze exactly what was occuring. plumb beneath surface -assess the implications of your analysis -practice intellectual strategies -Reshape your character -deal with your ego -did I behave irrationally in order to get my way? -did I try to impose my will on others -did small things make me irritable -redefine the way you see things -get in touch with your emotions -analyze group influences in your life

Dimensions of Decision-Making (9)

1. Figure out and rearticulate fundamental goals purposes and needs 2. Take problems and decisions one by one 3. Figure out implications of alternatives 4. Figure out needed information and seek it out 5. Draw reasonable Inferences 6. Figure out long term and short term options and limitations 7. Consider pros and cons of options 8. Be strategic in your decision making 9. Monitor the implications of your actions and shift strategy if need be

Dimensions of Problem Solving (7)

1. Figure out and regularly reevaluate your goals, purposes, and needs. 2. Identify your problems explicitly, then analyze them. 3. Figure out the information you need, and actively seek that information. 4. Carefully analyze, interpret, and evaluate the information you collect. 5. Figure out your options for action and evaluate them. 6. Adopt a strategic approach to the problem, and follow through on that strategy. 7. When you act, monitor the implications of your action as they begin to emerge.

Elements of reasoning

1. Purposes 2. Questions 3. Assumptions 4. Implications 5. Information 6. Concepts 7. Inferences 8. Points of View

elements of reasoning

1. Purposes 2. Questions 3. Assumptions 4. Implications 5. Information 6. Concepts 7. Inferences 8. Points of View

question of preference

A question with many possible subjective answers

socratic questioning

A systematic, disciplined approach to asking questions aimed at assessing truth

second-order thinking

Another term for critical thinking. It is first-order thinking (or ordinary thinking) that is consciously realized (i.e., analyzed, assessed, and improved). Term used by Paul and Elder.

Thinking to Some Purpose

As a critical thinker, never assume that: your purposes are consistent with one another; or your announced purposes are your actual purposes

begging the question

Asserting a conclusion that is assumed in the reasoning. The reason given to support the conclusion restates the conclusion.

search for perfect solution

Asserting that a solution is not worth adopting because it does not fix the problem completely.

either-or

Assuming only two alternatives when, in reality, there are more than two. It implies that one of two outcomes is inevitable—either x or y.

evading questions

Avoiding direct and truthful answers to difficult questions through diversionary tactics, vagueness, or deliberately confusing or complex responses.

distinguishing between inferences and assumptions

Awareness of the inferences we make and the assumptions on which they are based allows us to begin to take command of our thinking. We make countless assumptions without thinking about it. Most are sound and justifiable. Some are not. Our assumptions—good or bad—are the basis for our inferences. The goal for the critical thinker is to be able to distinguish the warranted assumptions from the unwarranted ones.

appeal to fear

Citing a threat or possibility of a frightening outcome as the reason for supporting an argument. This threat can be physical or emotional: the idea is to invoke fear. This is sometimes termed "scare tactics."

treating abstracts as reality

Citing abstract concepts (freedom, justice, science) to support an argument or to call for action.

Appeal to Popularity

Citing majority sentiment or popular opinion as the reason for supporting a claim.

two wrongs make a right

Defending or justifying our wrong position or conduct by pointing to a similar wrong done by someone else.

straw man

Distorting or exaggerating an opponent's argument so that it might be more easily attacked.

faulty analogy

Drawing an invalid comparison between things for the purpose of either supporting or refuting some position.

intellectual unfairness

Feel no responsibility to represent viewpoints with which they disagree fairly and accurately

fallacies

Flaws or errors in reasoning which, when found in the premise of an argument, invalidate its conclusion.

concepts

General categories or ideas by which we interpret or classify information used in our thinking

points of view

critical thinking must be able to identify within which point of view reasoning occurs

intellectual integrity

Holding oneself to the same rigorous intellectual standards that one expects others to meet opposite is inteelectual dishonesty

single difference

In analyzing causation, looking for a causal factor that is present in one situation but absent in another similar situation

concomitant variation

In analyzing causation, looking for a pattern of variation between a possible cause and a possible effect

common factor

In analyzing causation, looking for a single shared factor

process of elimination

In analyzing causation, successively ruling out non-causal factors until one correct causal factor remains

inferences

In thinking critically about an issue, we must determine what information is relevant to it. We rely on information to direct us to a supportable conclusion.

intellectual empathy

Inhabiting the perspectives of others in order to genuinely understand them opposite is intellectual self-centeredness

uncritical persons

Intellectually unskilled thinkers Socially conditioned beliefs Personal beliefs often grounded in prejudice Motivated by irrationality, personal vanity, intellectual arrogance Prone to emotional counter-attacks when thinking is questioned See themselves as "good" and opponents as "evil"

hard-cruel-world argument

Justifying illegal or unethical practices by arguing that they are necessary to confront a greater evil or threat.

formulation that expresses interrelationship among the parts of thought

Our purpose affects how we ask questions → How we ask questions affects the information we gather → The information we gather affects the inferences we make from it → What we infer from the information affects how we conceptualize it → How we conceptualize the information affects the assumptions we make → The assumptions we make affect the implications that follow from our thinking → The implications affect how we see things—i.e., our point of view

significance

Our reasoning should concentrate on the most important information relevant to the issue at hand Our thinking falters when we fail to recognize that not all information which happens to be pertinent to an issue is equally important

Clarity

Our thinking is clear when it is easily understood. We must be clear in our own mind about what we mean We must express what we mean clearly so others understand us Clarity of thought enables us to see where our thinking is leading us We can't determine either the accuracy or relevance of a statement if it is unclear

confidence in reason

Proceeds from the belief that both the individual's and society's higher interests are best served by unfettered reason, encourages people to arrive at their own powers of rational thinking opposite is intellectual distrust of reason

implications and consequences

Reasoning delivers us to a position or viewpoint about something. The implications of our reasoning are what extend beyond the position we reach. They form the answer to the question, "What follows from our reasoning?"

assessing information

Reasoning requires some information as part of one's thinking. As critical thinkers, we must: Seek trustworthy information sources Be vigilant about information sources we use Be alert to the use we make of our own experience, which could be biased, distorted, or self-deluded. (As Paul and Elder point out, biased experience supports bias, distorted experience supports distortion, and self-deluded experience supports self-delusion)

denying inconsistencies

Refusing to admit contradictions or inconsistencies when making an argument or defending a position.

Fair-Minded Critical Persons

Strong-sense critical thinkers Reject manipulation and controlling others Combine critical thinking skills with desire to serve public good Want all points of view expressed Want manipulative persuasion exposed

sociocentrism

The assumption that one's own social group is inherently superior to all others.

Fair-mindedness

The commitment to consider all relevant opinions equally without regard to one's own sentiments or selfish interests.

thrown-in statistics

The use of irrelevant, misleading, or questionable statistics to support an argument or defend a position.

intellectual autonomy

Thinking for oneself while adhering to standards of rationality opposite is intellectual conformity

Weak-sense critical thinking

Thinking that does not consider counter viewpoints, that lacks fair-mindedness and that uses critical thinking skills simply to defend current beliefs.

fairness

Thinking that satisfies all other fundamental intellectual standards satisfies the standard of justifiability

Strong-Sense Critical Thinking

Thinking that uses critical thinking skills to evaluate all beliefs, especially one's own, and that pursues what is intellectually fair and just.

attacking evidence

This approach focuses on discrediting the underlying evidence for an argument and thereby questioning its validity.

Taking Command of Concepts

To take command of your thinking, you must: become master of your own conceptualizations; and not become trapped in one set of concepts One must also achieve a true command of the use of words, of the distinctions between words and turns of phrase (e.g., needing vs. wanting, stubbornness vs. courage of one's convictions), before one can properly conceptualize things.

activated knowledge

We bring significant ideas and knowledge into the mind and are able to apply them, systematically, to new situations.

activated ignorance

We mislearn or partially learn information or accept illogical beliefs and then act on them.

Thinking through implications

We must understand the logic of what's happening in a situation in order to recognize its implications and make sound inferences about them. We should think through all implications (possible, probable, and necessary) of a potential decision before making it and acting on it. Implications also follow from the words we use. Our words always carry implications. Therefore, as thinkers, we want to: be aware of exactly what we imply when we say something consider the reasonability (or lack thereof) of what we imply Put another way, we should say what we mean and mean what we say.

inert information

We think we understand this information, but we don't and can't use it.

skilled manipulators

Weak-sense critical thinkers Skilled in manipulation Pursue self-interest Employ manipulation, domination, demagoguery Try to keep other points of view from being heard

Intellectual Perseverance

Working one's way through intellectual complexities despite frustrations inherent in doing so; not giving up when confronted by complicated problems that don't lend themselves to easy solutions opposite is intellectual laziness

stereotype

a fixed or oversimplified conception of a person, group, or idea

Question

all reasoning is directed some question. As an aspiring critical thinker, you need to learn how to clearly frame the question, problem, or issue at which your reasoning is directed.

wanting

allocated energy into action, continually tells us what is(or is not) worth seeking or getting

all reasoning is based on

assumptions

Intellectual Humility

being aware of the limits of your knowledge and realizing that the mind can be self-deceptive opposite is Intellectual arrogance

intellectual courage

being willing to consider and examine fairly your own beliefs and the views of others opposite intellectual cowardice

all reasoning is shaped by, and expressed through

concepts

ad hominem

dismissing an argument by attacking the person who offered it rathan than refuting its reasoning

question of fact

evidence and reasoning within a single system. SErve as basis of knowledge only 1 correct answer

questions of judgement

evidence and reasoning within multiple systems -competing answers -more than one answer with some answers better than others.

purpose

goal or objective of reasoning. It describes the desired outcome or intent. the critical thinker always asks what function reasoning serves and in what direction it is moving.

hasty generalization

inferring a general proposition about something based on too small a sample or an inrepresentative sample

red herring

introduces an irrelevant point to distract the audience from the main or current argument

Thinking across points of view

many sources Point-of-view source Example Point in time 18th century, 1960s, yesterday Culture Western, Eastern, youth Religion Christian, Jewish, Muslim Gender/Sexual Orientation male, female, straight, gay Profession lawyer, teacher, soldier Academic discipline biology, history, sociology Peer group jock, theater/drama, overachiever Economic interest landlord, renter, business owner, rank-and-file employee Emotional state outraged, resentful, euphoric Age group adolescence, twenty-something, elderly

feeling

monitors the meanings created by thinking.

All reasoning has a

purpose

assumptions

reasoning has to begin somewhere. these encompass everything we take for granted as true in order to figure out something else.

accuracy

represent something as it actually is We think accurately when our reasoning expresses how things actually are Common barriers to accurate reasoning: presuming one's own thoughts are automatically accurate presuming others' thoughts are inaccurate when they disagree with us failing to question statements that validate what we already believe

all reasoning occurs from

some point of view

precision

specific, exact, and sufficiently detailed

egocentrism

the tendency to view everything in relationship to oneself and to regard one's owns opinions, values, interests as most important

critical thinking

thinking that does not blindly accept arguments and conclusions. Rather, it examines assumptions, discerns hidden values, evaluates evidence, and assesses conclusions.

three functions of the mind

thinking, feeling, wanting

logic

thoughts and the order in which they are organized are mutually supportive and make sense in combination

all reasoning seeks...

to settle some question