CRITICAL THINKING

CRITICAL THINKINGInstructor: Tran Thuy NguyenContentsChapter 1: What is Critical Thinking, Anyway?Chapter 2: Two Kinds of ReasoningChapter 3: Clear Thinking, Critical Thinking, and Clear WritingChapter 4: CredibilityChapter 5: Persuasion Through Rhetoric: Common Devices and TechniquesChapter 6: More Rhetorical Device: Psychological and Related FallaciesChapter 7: More FallaciesChapter 8: Deductive Arguments I: Categorical LogicChapter 9: Deductive Arguments II: Truth-Functional Logic Chapter 10: Thinking Critically About Inductive Reasoning Chapter 11: Casual Explanation Chapter 12: Moral, Legal, and Aesthetic ReasoningChapter 1: What is Critical Thinking 1. Critical Thinking1.1 Definition:Critical thinking is that mode of thinking - about any subject, content, orproblem - in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinkingby skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them.

1.2 Characteristics of critical thinkersStrive for understandingAre honest with themselvesBase judgment on evidenceAre interested in other peoples ideasControl their feelings/emotionsRecognize that extreme views are seldom correctKeep an open mindThey are very observantIdentify key issues and raise questionsObtain relevant factsEvaluate the findings and form judgments1.3 Someone with CT skills is able toUnderstand the logical connections between ideasDetect inconsistencies and common mistakes in reasoningSolve problems systematicallyReflect on the justification of ones own beliefs and values1.4 Phases of critical thinkingPhase 1: Trigger eventUsually unexpected event that causes some kind of inner discomfort or confusion Phase 2: Appraisal A period of reflection and the need to find another approach to deal with the issue

Phase 3: ExplorationPeople start asking questions and gathering informationPhase 4: Finding alternativesAlso called the transition when old ideas are either left behind and a new way of thinking beginsPhase 5: Integration Involve fitting new ideas and information into everyday usage

2. Objective and subjective claims2.1 ClaimsWhen a belief (judgment, opinion) is asserted in a declarative sentence, the result is a claim or statement2.2 Objective claimWhether an objective claim is true or false is independent of whether people think it is true or falseBased on facts instead of a person's opinionExample: There is life on Mars. It doesnt depend on what people think

2.3 Subjective claimWhether a subjective claim is true or false is dependent of whether people think it is true or false.Based on personal opinions or feelingsExample: Rice vinegar is too sweet. It depends on what people think

2.4 Moral subjectivismMoral subjectivism is the idea that all judgments and claims that ascribe a moral property to something are subjective.There is nothing either good or bad but that thinking makes it so

3. IssuesAn issue is simply a question, whetherThe answer of an issue can be yes or noExample: Whether tuition increase necessary Claim: The tuition increase necessaryClaim: The tuition increase NOT necessary

4. Argument4.1 DefinitionAn argument consists of two parts: one part of which (the premise or premises) is intended to provide a reason for accepting the other part (the conclusion)

4.2 PremiseA reason for accepting a claim is expressed in something called a premise4.3 ConclusionThe claim itself is call the conclusion5. Cognitive bias5.1 DefinitionA feature of human psychology that skews belief formation5.2 Belief biasEvaluating reasoning by how believable its conclusion is5.3 Negative biasAttaching more weight to negative information than to positive information5.4 In-group biasA set of cognitive biases that make us view people who belong to our group differently form people who dont

6. Truth and knowledgeTruth: A claim is true if it is free form errorKnowledge: if you believe something is so, have an argument that is beyond a reasonable doubt that it is so, and have no reason to think you are mistaken, you can claim you know it is soChapter 2: Two Kinds of Reasoning1. Conclusion and Premise indicators1.1 Conclusion indicatorsThusThereforeHenceThis shows thatThis suggests that

ConsequentlySo AccordinglyThis implies thatThis proves that

Example: Stacy drives a Porsche. This suggests that either she is rich or her parents are- The conclusion: Either she is rich or her parents are- The premise: Stacy drives a Porsche

1.2 Premise indicatorsSinceForIn view of This is implied byExample: Either Stacy is rich or her parents are, since she drives a Porsche

2. Deductive Arguments2.1 Definition- Adeductiveargument is one in which it isimpossiblefor the premises to be true but the conclusion false.The conclusion followsnecessarilyfrom the premises and inferences

2.2 Example:- All men are mortal (premise)- Socrates was a man (premise)Socrates was mortal (conclusion)If the premise is true, its impossible for the conclusion to be falseIf people have a deductive argument and accept the truth of the premises, they must accept the truth of the conclusion

3. Induction arguments3.1 DefinitionAninductiveargument is one in which the premises are supposed to support the conclusionIf the premises are true, it isimprobable that the conclusion would be falseWords which involve in inductive arguments include probably, likely, possibly and reasonably3.2 ExampleSocrates was a Greek (premise)Most Greeks eat fish (premise)Socrates ate fish (conclusion) If premises are true, it is possible for the conclusion to be false(maybe Socrates was allergic to fish)4.Deductive vs inductive arguments4.1 A deductive argument is valid if it isnt possible for the premise to be true and the conclusion falseIf the premise of a valid argument is in fact true, the argument is said to be soundThe conclusion of a sound argument has been proved or demonstrated. A deductive reasoning has a premise proving and demonstrating a conclusion4.2 An inductive argument is stronger or weaker depending on how much support the premise for the conclusion An inductive reasoning has a premise supporting a conclusion5. Unstated Premises5.1 DefinitionDeductive arguments are popular and can be rationally persuasive, but people dont always state all of the premises that their deductive arguments require. These premises can be called unstated premises, missing premises, or hidden assumptions.Inductive and deductive arguments can have unstated premisesWhether an argument is deductive or inductive may depend on what the unstated premise is said to be5.2 ExampleSocrates is a human.Therefore, Socrates is mortal.The unstated premise might seem too obvious to even mentionthatif Socrates is a human, then Socrates is mortal(or that all men are mortal)

6. Balance of consideration reasoningInvolves deductive and inductive elementsIf considerations are compared quantitatively, weighing them involves deductive reasoningPredictions as to outcomes involve inductive reasoning7. Inference to best explanation (IBE)Is a common type of inductive reasoning in which one tries to determine the best explanation for a phenomenoneChapter 3: Clear Thinking, Critical Thinking, and Clear WritingFour sources of confusion include vagueness, ambiguity, generality, and undefined terms1. Vagueness1.1 DefinitionVagueness is a matter of degree; what matters is not being too vague for the purpose at handVagueness refers to something that is unclearWhen a definition isvagueit has no specific meaning for the intended audience1.2 ExampleHappiness is a continuation of happenings which are not resisted.To think is to practice brain chemistry.A person is a pattern of behavior, of a larger awareness.None of these definitions give us any clarity as to what the defined term actually means2. Ambiguity2.1 DefinitionA statement is ambiguous when it is subject to more than one interpretation and it is not clear which interpretation is the correct one2.1 Types of ambiguitya. Semantic ambiguity: when a word can have two possiblemeanings- Example: Jessica is coldJessicas temperatureJessicas personalityb. Syntactic ambiguityWhen the sentence structure offers more than one plausible meaningExample:I tackled thethiefwith my pyjamas on- The thief was wearing my pyjamasor- I was wearing pyjamas when I tackled the thief

c. Grouping ambiguityGrouping ambiguity that results when it is not clear whether a word is being used to refer to a group collectively or to members of the group individually

49Example: Secretaries make more money than physicians doIt is true if the speaker refers to the 2 words collectively because there are many more secretaries than there are physicians. It is false if the 2 words refer to individual secretaries and physicians

d. Ambiguous pronoun referenceOccur when it is not clear to what or whom a pronoun is supposed to refer.Example: The boys chased the girls and they giggle a lot. Does not make sure who did make the giggling4. GeneralityA claim is overly general when it lacks sufficient detail to restrict its application to the immediate subjectThe less detail a claim provides, the more general it is.

5. Defining Terms5.1 Lexical DefinitionThe meaning of a word that is given in the dictionary...Lex Luther like dictionaries.5.2 Stipulative DefinitionA definition (of a word) that is specific to a particular context.

5.3 Precising DefinitionA definition whose purpose is to reduced vagueness or generality or to eliminate ambiguity.5.4 Persuasive or Rhetorical DefinitionA pseudo-definition that is designed to influence beliefs or attitudes; also called rhetorical definition.5.5 Definition by Example or Ostensive DefinitionPointing to, naming, or otherwise identifying one or more examples of the term being defined; also called ostensive definition.Example: A mouse is this thing here, the one with the buttons5.6 Definition by SynonymGiving another word or phrase that means the same thing as the term being definedExample: Fastidious means the same as fussy5.7 Analytical DefinitionSpecification of the features a thing must possess in order for the term being defined to apply to itExample: A samovar is an urn that has a spigot and is used especially in Russia to boil water for tea.6. Argumentative Essays6.1 Components of an argumentative essay: four components1. A statement of the issue2. A statement of ones position on that issue3. Arguments that support ones position4. Rebuttals of arguments that support contrary positions6.2 Hints for an argumentative essayFocus: Make clear at the outset what issue you intend to address and what your position on the issue will beStick to the issue: all points in an essay should be connected to the issue under discussionArrange the components of the essay in a logical sequenceBe complete: Accomplish what you set out to complete, support your position, and anticipate and respond to possible objections

Chapter 4: Credibility1. CredibilityWe should never take a piece of information at face value. We must ask questions about it to find out if it is credible.

1. Credibility If something is credible, it means that it can believed it is convincingClaims lack credibility to the extend they conflict with our observations, experience, or background information, or come from sources that lack credibility2. CRAVEN rules for CredibilityThere are several ways of finding out if something is credible an easy way to remember them is by using CRAVENContextReputationAbility to SeeVested interestExpertiseNeutrality

2.1 Circumstantial or ContextThis is details or the actual situation. Example: - Weather conditions, - Time of dayClues at a site Help people to work out what may have happened2.2 ReputationHow someone is thought of in terms of their character and reputation.Example: doctors, have a positive reputation for telling the truth.

2.3 Ability to SeeWere eyewitnesses to an event able to see well, or hear well?Was the person actually there (primary source)?If the person wasnt actually there, it is a secondary source.Example: does a person wear glasses or hearing aids?

2.4 Vested InterestTo stand to gain in some way if something happensExample does the person have something to gain, or lose, from telling the truth?One example is where a salesman may try to persuade you that a product is amazing. This is because he needs to sell it to make a living he has a vested interest in promoting the product

2.5 ExpertiseAn individual, group or organisation with relevant training, experience, knowledge and skillsExample: I want to find out about Black Holes. Which has the greatest expertise?A university professor who has studied astronomy for 40 years.A science teacher in a high school.A website written by a sixth former.

2.6 NeutralityImpartial does not take sidesExample does the organisation have a code of ethics which prevents them from taking sides?

3. Other keys helping credibility3.1 Plausibility does the claim seem believable? Is it ridiculous?Example: Aliens have just landed in Biddulph3.2 Corroboration is the statement or evidence supported by other pieces of evidenceExample: Several eye-witnesses also describe seeing the same thing. This means they corroborate each other3.3 Consistency does a person stick to their story or do they contradict themselves?Example: a witness may give two statements which are different and contradict each other3.4 Bias when a person or organisation favours a particular point of view. They have a one-sided view of events

Chapter 5: Persuasion Through Rhetoric1. Rhetorical ForceWorld have tremendous persuasive power, or what we have called their rhetorical force or emotive meaningThe power of rhetoric is to express and elicit images, feelings, and emotional associationsRhetoric refers to the study of persuasive writing

2. Rhetorical Device 12.1 Euphemisms and Dysphemismsa. Euphemisms: Neutral or positive expression instead of one that carries negative associationsReplacing an offensive or bad statement with one more pleasing, or vague to the readerExample: used car refer to such a car as pre-owned

b. DysphemismUsed to produce a negative effect on a listeners or readers attitude toward something or to tone down the positive association it may haveExample: Rebels refers to Freedom fighters2.2 WeaselersExpression used to protect claim from criticism by weakening it.Worlds that sometimes weasel: perhaps, possibly, maybe and may beExample: Almost everyone loves this product. (In case you are the only one who doesnt love this product.)2.3 Down playersDiminish importance of the claim being written aboutExample: there will be no raises this year you could down play the effect by saying, even though the company is experiencing financial stress, there will be no salary cuts this year

3. Rhetorical device II3.1 StereotypeOversimplified generalization about a person of a certain class.Example: Those Junior League ladies are all rich bitches.3.2 InnuendoInsinuation of something deprecatory.Example: Oh my goodness, if you eat another desert, you are going to look like a pig.

3.3 Loaded questionsQuestion that rests on one or more unwarranted or unjustified assumption.Example: Do these jeans make my butt look big?Have you stopped beating your wife

4. Rhetorical device III4.1 Ridicule/SarcasmHorse Laugh:Ridicule disguised as reasoning to reject claim.Example: You think extending the 12 year tax cuts, is an increase in government expenses? That is stupid!4.2 Hyperbole:Huge over-statement.Example: Its so hot today; I could cook dinner on the sidewalk.

5. Rhetorical Device IV5.1 Rhetorical definitions and explanationsRhetorical definitions use emotively charged language to express or elicit an attitude about somethingExample: defining abortion as the murder of an unborn childRhetorical explanations are the same kind of slanting device, this time clothed as explanationsExample: He lost the fight because hes lost his nerveIt is from that he lost because he was too cautious

Rhetorical definitions and explanations used to create favorable or unfavorable attitudes about somethingExample: - If you loved me, you would dance with me. - All old people will be murdered by Obamacare.

5.2 Rhetorical analogies and misleading comparisonsRhetorical analogy: a comparison of two things or a likening of one thing to another in order to make one of them appear better or worse than it might beThese device persuade by making inappropriate connections between terms

6. Proof surrogates and repetition6.1 Proof surrogatesAn expression used to suggest that there is evidence or authority for a claim without actually citing such evidence or authorityIts obvious that, as we know, as everybody knows6.2 RepetitionTechnique of repetition, simply making the same point over and over at every opportunityHearing or reading a claim over and over can sometimes mistakenly encourage the belief that it is true.Chapter 6: FallaciesDefinition of Fallacies are mistakes of reasoning, as opposed to making mistakes that are of a factual nature Fallacies are defects that weaken argumentsExample: If I counted eighteen people in the room when there were in fact nineteen, then I made a factual mistake.1. The Ad Hominem Fallacy1.1 Definition"Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."A theory is discarded not because of any evidence against it or lack of evidence for it, but because of the person who argues for it. ExampleThinking a persons defects refute his or her beliefs

1.2 Steps in this fallacy: 2 stepsAn attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is madeThis attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making1.3 Form of this argument- Person A makes claim X.- Person B makes an attack on person A.- Therefore A's claim is false.1.4 ExampleBill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."2. Begging the Question2.1 DefinitionIs a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true

2.2 The form of reasoning1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion2.3 ExamplesBill: "God must exist."Jill: "How do you know."Bill: "Because the Bible says so."Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."3. Red Herring3.1 Definition:A fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topicAlso Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase3.2 The form of reasoning- Topic A is under discussion.- Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).- Topic A is abandoned.

3.3 Example:Premises:- I think there is great merit in making the requirements stricter for the graduate students. - I recommend that you support it, too. Conclusion:- After all, we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected.4. Straw man argument4.1 DefinitionThis fallacy includes any lame attempt to "prove" an argument by overstating, exaggerating, or over-simplifying the arguments of the opposing side

4.2 Example:"Tennessee should increase funding to unemployed single mothers during the first year after childbirth because they need sufficient money to provide medical care for their newborn children.My opponent believes that some parasites who don't work should get a free ride from the tax money of hard-working honest citizens. 2nd speaker oversimplified form so he can more easily appear to "win." 2nd speaker is defeating a dummy-argument rather than honestly engaging in the debate.

5. Slippery slope5.1 DefinitionAn argument that says adopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken.A slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy5.2 Example"If we legalize marijuana, the next thing you know we'll legalize heroin, LSD, and crack cocaine.Tobacco and alcohol are currently legal, and yet other drugs have somehow remained illegal.6. Argument from ignorance6.1 DefinitionA logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true.6.2 The common forms of the argument: 2 formsSomething is currently unexplained or insufficiently explained, so it was not (or could not be) true.Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.6.3 ExamplesSince you cannot prove that ghosts do not exist, they must exist.Fred said that he is smarter than Jill, but he didn't prove it, so it must be false.

7. Subjectivist Fallacy7.1 DefinitionAsserting that because there are no applicable objective truths, the truthfulness of a proposition is grounded in the respective perceptions of each individual or group.7.2 The form of reasoning1. Claim X is presented.2. Person A asserts that X may be true for others but is not true for him/her.3. Therefore A is justified in rejecting X.7.3 Example- Bill: "Your position results in a contradiction, so I can't accept it. - Dave: "Contradictions may be bad on your Eurocentric, oppressive, logical world view, but I don't think they are bad. Therefore my position is just fine.

8. Appeal to pity8.1 DefinitionThe appeal to pity takes place when an arguer tries to get people to accept a conclusion by making them feel sorry for someone.8.2 ExampleI know the exam is graded based on performance, but you should give me an A. My cat has been sick, my car broke down, and Ive had a cold, so it was really hard for me to study!

9. Appeal to authority9.1 Definition- Add strength to arguments by referring to respected sources or authorities and explaining their positions on the issues discussing.- If appealing to a supposed authority who really isnt much of an expert, people commit the fallacy of appeal to authority.9.2 ExampleWe should abolish the death penalty. Many respected people, such as actor Guy Handsome, have publicly stated their opposition to it. Guy Handsome may be an authority on matters having to do with acting. 10. Appeal to popularity10.1 DefinitionArguers takes advantage of the desire most people have to be liked and to fit in with others and uses that desire to try to get the audience to accept his or her argument10.2 ExampleGay marriages are just immoral. 70% of Americans think so! While the opinion of most Americans might be relevant in determining what laws we should have, it certainly doesnt determine what is moral or immoral11. False dilemma11. 1 DefinitionArguers sets up the situation so it looks like there are only two choices. The arguer then eliminates one of the choices.It seems that we are left with only one option: the one the arguer wanted us to pick in the first place11.2 Example1. Caldwell Hall is in bad shape. Either we tear it down and put up a new building, or we continue to risk students safety. Obviously we shouldnt risk anyones safety, so we must tear the building down2. Every person is either my enemy or my friend. If he/she is my enemy I should hate him/her. If he/she is my friend I should love him/her. So I should either love him/her or hate him/her. Obviously, the conclusion is too extreme because most people are neither your enemy nor your friend.