Critical Thinking in Action

Mer som dette

Baloney detection kit

Ved meena ishak

Chapter 11~12

Ved 성은 남

Argument

Ved Makayla Keelin

WHAT IS A SYNTHESIS?

Ved Andrea Arcega

TESTS for good inductive reasoning

TEST FOR ALL ANALOGIES: Are the things in an analogy that are being compared similar in important ways?

TEST: is the relationship being expressed one of correlation or causation?

TEST: is the major premise sound?

Argumentation: Critical Thinking in Action. David Lapakko Ph.D. “Argumentation: Critical Thinking In Action.” iUniverse, 2009-10-29. iBooks.

Use of Language in Argument

8. Metaphors raise some of the most interesting issues and the affect the way we think.

a simile is a direct comparison using like or as; a metaphor is an implied comparison.

7. Language can be more concrete or more abstract; arguers and critical thinkers must be mindful of the difference.

the best answer is that you use a judicious blend of the two, providing concrete words for clarity and abstract words to provide that sense of perspective.

Abstract words

in a sense they are very unclear, but they can bring a lot of concrete things into meaningful perspective. A word that reflects an overall theme that transcends the particular concrete examples.

Concrete words

very narrow and specific, because they are specific the don't allow us to see the bigger picture.

6. There are a variety of types of language that can be regarded as misleading or loaded.

Persuasive definitions and labels

relative terms - words used in relation to something else; intelligent, expensive, safer.

labels- estate tax/death tax, no child left behind, the patriot act.

persuasive definitions - are loaded definitions that are obviously not neutral.

God and Devil terms

words that evoke strong emotions and often go unchallenged. freedom, good, independence, scientific studies, fact, family values, communism, cancer...

weasel words

words that fudge the truth. eg virtually, helpful, practically, up to, possibly, potentially.

Hyperbole

extreme exaggeration

Dysphemisms

word substitute that has a negative effect

Euphemisms

a polite way of taking the sting out of a word. word substitute that has a positive effect.

5. Sometimes arguers use words that are designed to get us emotionally worked up. Sometimes they will use words designed to calm us down.

4. Sometimes arguers will try to be clear about their use of words; but sometimes they will intentionally be vague or unclear.

people use their words strategically, and one strategy is to intentionally use words that are unclear.

3. Language is not static. the meaning of words changes over time.

eg- gay, liberal, sustainable

2. There is more than one way to define a word and the "dictionary definition" isn't always the best way"

providing an operational definition

defining by comparison and contrast

defining by etymology

defining by function

defining by example

defining by authority

definition by negation- what something is not.

the dictionary, but which one? for law words, a law dictionary may be best. For medical words, a medical dictionary.

1. Words have no intrinsic meaning. They only mean what people think they mean. That makes communication more difficult.

words can create as many questions as they answer.words are by nature ambiguous.

A Dramatic Perspective on Argument

Constructing a Case for Change

The Need to Structure the Solution

Organizational Formats

The "Motivated Sequence"

Criteria-Based

Method of Residue

Comparative Advantage Organization

Causal Organization

Problem-Solution Organization

topical Organization

The Issue of "should" vs. "would"

realism vs. idealism

be mindful of which side you are on. if you are hopelessly idealistic you need to convince others you are not pie the sky. If you are more realistic, you may need to demonstrate you are not a cynical, contrary person, but want a better world as well.

Advantages of Opposing Change

It's easier to demonstrate there are problems than to demonstrate there are workable desirable solutions.

there are often good reasons for doing what we currently do.

have the advantage of presumption

don't let go of what you have until you get something better to replace it.

advantages of advocating change

someone proposing change may be perceived as trying to make the world a better place.

we usually don't debate issues when things are just great.

there are indeed lots of perceived problems in the world.

Issues in the use of statistical evidence.

There are three different ways to define average.

Outliers are numbers that are not representative, they pull the average out of whack.

Median

big outliers won't affect it

the middle number, half of the numbers are above it and half of the numbers are below it.

Mode

Subtopic

The most common number in the numbers list

Mean

expresses central tendency

add up the numbers and divide by how many numbers there are.

3.Survey results must be truly representative

a large sample does not compensate for an unrepresentative sample

Are the samples skewed? If so the data maybe unreliable.

2. A more precise number is not necessarily a better number.

precise numbers maybe seductive, but question them

1. Not all concepts can be readily quantified.

VALIDITY

are you measuring what you claim to be measuring?

Categories and Types of Evidence

General tests for all types of evidence

10. Cumulativeness

Does all the evidence add up to support the claim or conclusion?

9. Internal consistency

Is the evidence consistent with itself or does it contradict itself?

8. External consistency

Is the evidence consistent with other available evidence?

We are interested in finding where the preponderance of evidence resides - where most sources see this issue.

It can be a red flag... but sometimes a source in the minority can be correct and the majority at times can be wrong.

7. Recency/timeliness

Warnings

2. There may be times when an "older" source could be more appropriate or better.

1. More recent evidence is not automatically better.Don't worship recency.

recent up-to-date evidence can be important, often vital.

6. Expertise

A person with wide and deep and specific awareness of the subject. A more complete understanding than your ordinary mortal.

True expertise is hard to come by.

5. Acess

Does the source have first hand knowledge of the subject?

book knowledge will not do. Direct personal experience with the subject.

4. Reliability

Addresses the question: "Has the source been consistently correct in the past?"

The reality is that one's credibility is dynamic, determined by one's audience (not by the source) and often fragile

3. Objectivity

Evidence which seems to be based on an objective analysyis is normally better than evidence which comes from a biased source.

2. Specificity

evidence must be reasonable specific, not vague.

ferreting out "they say", "Studies show", "Experts believe"

Response should be "name one"

1. Relevance

saying that the opponent's evidence is true, but irrelevant, is one of the strongest forms of refutation

Is the evidence relevant to the claim?

Specific Types of Evidence

Objects or artifacts

Key test for objects is: Has the object been rigged or distorted in any way?

Rather than quotes someone, often it is better to present an object that says it more convincingly. i.e. throwing dirt on a rug and then vacuuming it up rather that telling about or quoting someone on the vacuum.

Testimony

Key tests for testimonial evidence

2. Is the source unbiased?

1. Is the source really an expert?

another support for claims is to quote someone.someone is using another person or organization for support.

2. How are the data presented or conveyed?

Choices to make

In both cases, people will use whichever figure sounds more impressive for their case.

2. What time frame the data cover

people will tend to choose the time frame that best suits their rhetorical purposes

1. whether to present the statistic as a raw number or a percentage.

1. How were the data gathered? How did they arrive at these numbers in the first place?

Numbers can be misleading.

For surveys, did they use a random sample - a sample where every American had an absolutely equal chance of being surveyed?

Examples or specific instances

Key issues involving the use of examples

2. Even if there are a sufficient number, are they representative?

1. Are there a sufficient number of examples?

Usually , examples have the tendency to be dramatic or emotional

General Categories of Evidence

Willing or Reluctant Evidence

Reluctant evidence is when a source presents a point of view or position that would not seem to be in their best interest.

we might be inclined to give it more credence

Willing evidence is given willinglyIs what someone wants you to believesome people have a vested interest associated with the subject

Positive or Negative Evidence

negative evidence - the lack of evidence used as evidence

Positive evidence is the presence of evidence

Direct or Circumstantial Evidence

circumstantial evidence tends to show existence of a fact in question by proving other related facts

direct evidence relates directly to the claim

Primary or Secondary Evidence

secondary would be someone else quoting the original source

primary is the original source

Fundamental Concepts of Argument

Toulmin's Model of argument

components

Reservations

Qualifier

Backing

Warrant

Claim

Some interpretation on the part of the critic may be involved.

Not all six elements of the model are necessary or even relevant.

Components of the model will appear in deferent sequences.

It describes, it does not evaluate.

it's very flexible.

Stock Issues

Stock issues for Factual propositions

Is there sufficient evidence to support the proposition?

What does the proposition mean?

Stock Issues for value propositions

2. Do the value criteria truly support the claim being made?

1. By what set of criteria is the object of the proposition best evaluated?

stock issues for policy propositions

Cost or Desirability

Is it worth the trade off?

At what price?

Cure or Solvency

will the proposed solution actually work

Blame or Inherency

attitudinal barriers

etc...

human nature

the law of supply and demand

competition

Profit motive

structural barriers

something in the status quo (law,regulation,policy) prevents the status quo from dealing with the problem

one must demonstrate that the problem is inherent to the status quo

Ill or Significance

if it ain't broke don't fix it

is there even a problem in the first place

can be used in any situation against any controversy

are not unique, but, generic

Issues

are specific to a particular topic

burden of proof

prima facie case - on first hearing is strong enough to require a response

refers to one wanting to change the status quo needing to make a convincing case

to overcome presumption one must meet a burden of proof

presumption

not everyone agrees on where presumption lies - that too can become a focal point for argument

means we should keep what we have for now until someone clearly states otherwise

natural

a commonsensical idea

artificial

still a good idea

a made-up rule

innocent til proven guilty

applicable in 3 different situations

3. There is a presumption in favor of existing institutions

2. There is a presumption in favor of majority opinion

1. There is a presumption in favor of traditional values and beliefs

Status Quo

current situation

starting point

Other Fallacies

Red herring

involves bringing in a clearly irrelevant point to distract people from the real issue.

Gambler's fallacy

if a coin is flipped 5 times and it comes up heads every time, they might bet the farm that the 6th time it will come up tails.

Historian's Fallacy

occurs when it is assumed that decision makers in the past could see things from the same perspective and with the same information when later discussing the decisions.

hindsight is 20/20

Perfect solution fallacy

occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.

two wrongs make a right fallacytu quoque "you also"

someone defends a wrong by pointing out that others or an opponent, have acted in the same (equally bad) way.

Slippery slope argument

one undesirable action will lead to a worse action, then a worse one still, all the way down the slippery slope.

The line drawing fallacy or argument of the beard

involves the notion that if it is difficult to draw a line between two things, then one simply shouldn't draw a line.

Equivocation

using the same word in two different ways so as to mislead.

"Straw man" argument

an arguer misrepresents an opponent's position to make it easier to attack.

Reductio ad absurdum

involves taking an opponents idea to an extreme, to an absurd level in a way that is inappropriate or misleading.

Argumentum ad lazarum

assuming that something is necessarily a better value because it cost less.

Argumentum ad crumenum

falsely assures that there is a direct relationship between cost and quality.

Argumentum ad baculum

inappropriate appeals to force or the threat of force

Argumentum ad misericordiam

involves an inappropriate appeal to pity

Argumentum ad verecundiam

b. inappropriate appeal to authority

a. inappropriate appeal to tradition

Argumentum ad populum

to the peoplejust because the majority believes or does something, that doesn't make it right or true.

Argumentum ad hominem

to the personyou hope to discredit a person's idea by throwing rhetorical mud at them.

non sequitur

does not followthe data and the claim just don't seem to connect

Fallacies involving Burden of Proof

begging the question

At the heart of Begging the Question is "proving" an assertion by simply repeating it or rephrasing it.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam

ignoring Burden of Proof in one of two ways

b. assuming that something is FALSE because it has not been proven TRUE.

a. assuming something is TRUE because it has not been proven FALSE.

Fallacies in Deductive reasoning

False Dilemma

involves presenting two possible alternatives in a way that is inappropriate or misleading.

there are often more than two alternatives

Fallacy of Division

the opposite of fallacy of composition.falsely assuming what is true of the whole is true of the individual parts.

Fallacies in Inductive reasoning

Fallacy of Composition

involves how we move from specific to general.we falsely assume what is true for each part is true for the whole.

Hasty Generalization

fallacy of converse accidentan inductive generalization made on basis of of too few cases.

Fallacies in Causal reasoning

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

after this, therefore because of thisOne falsely assumes that if B follows A, then B was caused by A.

Critical Thinking

Ethical Issues

Authorship Issues

“Although there are cultural differences with respect to what constitutes “plagiarism,” you should be aware that in U.S. culture, “stealing” words, phrases, or ideas from other sources without proper attribution is a “big no-no”

Obligation to be Knowledgable

“that may not mean that it’s ethical for any person to try to influence others without some understanding of the issue.”

Free Speech Issues

“people are still responsible for the consequences of their words.”

Use of Ambiguity

“arguers will often be intentionally ambiguous for strategic reasons—that is, they know that if they are “too clear,” people might find their ideas or their proposal to be a little too controversial.”

One sided messages

“dealing with competing views to yours, because not talking about them won’t make them magically go away.”

Emotional appeals

scare tactics play off of people's irrational fears

“arguments can play into a variety of human needs, drives, and emotions—for example, our desires for physical safety, emotional security, social approval, self-esteem, and achievement.”

Obstacles

Unconscious Assumptions and Biases

this is why opposing POVs are important

fish discover water last

Either Or Thinking

can lead to the fallacy of false dilemma

ignores the many complexities of an issue

dualistic thinking black and white orientation

Wishful Thinking

our personal wishes and desires can cloud our judgement

people see what they want to see

Giving Meaning to Unrelated Events

two things happening in time does not mean they are related

Confusing Labels with Reality

labels may not describe accurately

Traits

Fairmindedness vs. Intellectual Unfairness

keep our reactions in check to opposing ideas

consider alternate POV

be aware of our biases

Intellectual Perseverance vs. Intellectual Laziness

carefully reading and thinking

careful and extensive research vs. short cuts

Intellectual Courage vs. Intellectual Cowardice

call it like you see it vs. fitting in

have the courage of our convictions

Intellectual Humility vs. Intellectual Arrogance

no one likes a know-it-all

other points of view have merit

we don't have all the answers

Blooms taxonomy

6 skills

evaluation

to render a judgement the reflects good awareness of the issues involved.

involves some sort of judgement. What is the best model, the most sensible conclusion?

synthesis

creative process that allows a critical thinker to pull various ideas together into a new formulation

involves how you put things together to make a new whole or to develop new insights.

analysis

being able to take a complex problem and break it down to its component parts.

application

being able to take ideas and plug them in to a situation

being able to use the information you have in someway

comprehension

showing you have a grasp of what they mean

being able to explain things

understanding things

knowledge

regurgitation

the ability to know facts, definitions, and other basic types of information.

“the careful, deliberate determination of whether we should accept, reject, or suspend judgment about the truth of a claim or a recommendation to act in a certain way” (Reichenbach, 2001, 19).”

“critical thinking as “a set of conceptual tools with associated intellectual skills and strategies useful for making reasonable decisions about what to do or believe” “(Rudinow and Barry, 2008, 11)”

3 Elements always present in Argument

Assumptions or a reasoning process

five types of reasoning

casual reasoning

sign reasoning

analogy

deductive

inductive

every claim is based on evidence and reasoning /assumptions are made

Data

the evidence supporting the claim

four types of evidence

objects

testimony

Statistics

examples

Claims

policy

“Policy issues are actually made up of a variety of “sub-issues” that relate to facts and values”

policy claims are by nature broader than factual and value claims

often has the word 'should' in it, but not always.

“The issue always is, what is the purpose or function of the claim?)”

deal with the question " What should we do?"

value

it helps to develop criteria or standards to evaluate a value claim

also value claims connected to ethics or morals

cannot be objectively verified

deal with the issue "Is it good or bad, right or wrong?"

Factual

some factual claims are predictive in nature. though they can't be verified now, they can be in the future.

May not be true.

Is it true or false?

can be verified