Sponging
Takes into account all of the information presented to you. It puts an emphasis on knowledge acquisition instead of knowledge quality.
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.
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.
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.
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 abou
Fast Thinking (System 1)
Snap judgments based on what little information is available, without any deep thought. (too much room for error)
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?".
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.
Egocentrism
The central role we assign to our world, as opposed to the experiences and opinions of others.
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.
Issue
A question or controversy responsible for the conversation or discussion. It is the stimulus for what is being said.
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.
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.
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.
Reasoning
The use of one or more ideas to support another idea.
Argument
A combination of two forms of a statement: a conclusion and the reasons that allegedly support it
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 visibl
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?)
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)
Backwards Thinking (Reverse Logic)
Reasons are an afterthought, following the selection of the conclusion. Created only because they defend a previously held opinion.
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.
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
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.
Kinds of Reasons
Descriptive issues: evidence
Prescriptive issues: general, prescriptive statements or descriptive beliefs or principles
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.
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.
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 conclus
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 th
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.
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.
Denotative Meaning
The agreed-upon explicit descriptive referents or use of the word;
dictionary definition
Connotative Meaning
The
emotional associations
that we have to a term or phrase
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.
Assumptions
A belief,
usually unstated
and potentially deceptive, that is taken for granted and supports the explicit reasoning.
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)
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
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 positi
Descriptive Assumption
An unstated belief about
how the world was, is, or will become
.
Definitional Assumption
A type of descriptive assumption;
taking for granted of one meaning
for a term that has multiple possible meanings.
Common Descriptive Assumptions
�
The events that happen to people are primarily the result of personal choices
s*. 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
n*. When someone makes th
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, wh
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)
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
Ad Hominem
An
attack on the person
, rather than directly addressing the person's reasons.
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.
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
.
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
.
Appeal to Questionable Authority
Supporting a conclusion by
citing an authority who lacks special expertise
on the issue at hand
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.
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.
False Dilemma
Assuming only two alternatives
when there are more than two. Oversimplifies an issue by stating only two choices.
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.
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.
Glittering Generalities
The use of
vague, emotionally appealing virtue words
that dispose us to approve something without closely examining the 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
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
.
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.
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".
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?
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
.
Major Kinds of Evidence
Intuition
Personal experiences
Case examples
Testimonials
Appeals to authorities or experts
Personal observations
Research studies
Analogies
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 beli
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.
Hasty Generalization
A person draws a
conclusion about a large group based on experiences with only a few members
of the group.
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 distra
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 yo
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 influen
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 relia
Research Studies
Systematically collect observations
by people trained to do scientific research using the
scientific method
.
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
- trie
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*.
Res
Impossible Certainty
Assuming that a research conclusion should be rejected if it is not absolutely certain.
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 sampl
Over-generalizing
Stating a generalization that is much broader
than warranted by the research findings.
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,
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. Ques
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)
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
(o
Faulty Analogy
Occurs when an analogy is proposed in which there are important relevant dissimilarities
Rival cause
A plausible alternative explanation that can explain why a certain outcome occured
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
inter
Experts
The _____ may claim to have the answer, but they are not likely to know it.
Contributory causes
Cause that help to create a total set of conditions necessary for the event to occur
Together
The best casual explanation is often one that combines many causes that only _____ are sufficient to bring about the event
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
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
Casual Conclusions
Should include sufficient causal factors to convince you that they are not too greatly oversimplified
Perspectives
The more _____ with which we are familiar, the more creative we can be in generating possible rival causes
Compare groups
The most common way for researchers to try to find a cause for some event
Differ
Research groups almost always ____ in more than one way. many factors can make research groups _____.
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
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.
Causation
Association or correlation does not prove _____!
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
Neglect of a Common Cause fallacy
Failure to recognize that two events may be related because of the effects of a
common third factor
After this, therefore because of this
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc means
Post Hoc fallacy
Assuming that a particular event, b, is caused by another event, a, simply because b follows a
Coincidence
The finding that one event follows another in time does not by itself prove causation, it may only be a ____
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
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
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