Critical-Thinking---Return-to-Learning.ppt

Editor's Notes

• #2: In 1988, a group of 46 experts came together to discuss what exactly critical thinking is. (click) They all agreed that critical thinking is in fact a set of skills we can all use to judge information that is presented to us on a daily basis. These critical thinking skills are analysis, evaluation and inference. (click) Analysis is a skill we use when we strive to understand the structure of the argument. We do this when we read a piece of text or listen to an argument in which we try to gain understanding from what is being said.(click) Evaluation is the second skill of critical thinking, which we use to decide whether or not we want to accept a certain claim based on the strength of the support provided for the claim. (click) Finally, inference is the third skill of critical thinking , in which we gather the information we have previously evaluated as strong and come up with a conclusion to the argument. We will discuss these three skills more in depth over the duration of this course.
• #3: But first, we must consider the question: why do we think? Consider the following. I think (click) In order to decide what to do (click) I think In order to decide what to believe (click) I think For fun (such as in telling stories and jokes). The great thing about stories, jokes, and other types of creative thinking is that they generally allow for the free play of imagination. Stories and jokes have a structure, naturally, but we don’t necessarily have to be very logical when telling a story or a joke (click) -- we’re not necessarily trying to convince people that what we are saying is true and reasonable. But if we’re trying to decide what do or what to believe, (click) and if we genuinely care about the outcome of our decision-making process, then a different side of our mind is activated: the careful, logical, reasonable part of our mind. In educational settings, the core of learning is an emphasis on this careful, logical, reasonable type of thinking – the kind of thinking that we use in order to decide what to believe and in order to decide what to do.
• #4: Not only scientists think carefully and logically. We all tend to think carefully and logically (as best we can) when we care about our decisions (click). Consider the following example: you wish to buy a dog, (click) you like dogs, but you don’t want to leap to a decision too quickly. You want to think about it for while. You want to think carefully about your decision. Three important questions for you to consider in this context: What kinds of things might you think about to persuade yourself that buying a dog is a good idea? For example (click), I should buy a dog because I’ve always had dogs and I love them (click) I should buy a dog because dogs are peoples’ best friend (click) I should buy a dog because I can go out walking every evening, keep fit and meet other people with dogs Now, what kinds of things might you think about to dissuade yourself: buying a dog is not a good idea right now? (click) I should buy a dog, but walking my dog every evening will mean I cannot pursue my new hobby (click) I should buy a dog but I’ll feel guilty if I’m forced to leave my dog alone in the house all day (click) I should buy a dog, but a new dog would be expensive and I’m really short of money right now. (Click) 3) How do we arrive at our final decision in this context? The third and final question is critical. We will return to it again later. The simple answer for now is that we arrive at our final decision by reference to the way we weight each of the reasons and objections. Which is more important to you: having your best friend by your side or money in your pocket? We weigh up our own arguments and we make a decision one way or the other.
• #5: We also think in order to decide what to believe. Our ultimate decision about what to do very often hinges upon our decision about what we believe. For example, what would make you believe the statement: Dogs are peoples’ best friend? (click) Please consider a short list of reasons for a moment. (PAUSE FOR 10 SECONDS).
• #6: READ THE SLIDE . (CLICK) How do we ultimately decide what to believe in this context? This involves much the same process as before: we weigh up the arguments. We consider each of the reasons and decide if they point to the core belief that Dogs are peoples’ best friend. These are our own arguments, so we simply weigh up our own arguments and make a decision one way or the other. However, what do you notice about the structure of our argument above? (PAUSE 5 seconds) Yes, unlike our previous example where we were thinking through whether or not to buy a dog, in this example there are no buts, only becauses. (click) No objections are raised in relation to the core belief (Dogs are peoples’ best friend) or in relation to any of the specific reasons provided (Dogs aid people's mental wellbeing).
• #7: When deciding what to believe, we need to be careful not to focus only on reasons for accepting our beliefs. (CLICK) We should avoid simply working to confirm our beliefs, which leads to what we call confirmation bias). (CLICK) We need to question our beliefs, for example, are dogs really people’s best friend? We also need to question the reasons we provide as a basis for our beliefs, such as do dogs really aid people's mental wellbeing? (click) We need to be sceptical. (click) Are dogs really peoples’ best friend. What would make you disbelieve?
• #8: This is an argument map. We will see more of them as we move forward. Please, note its structure. At the top of the argument there is a central claim. In this context, the claim is that Dogs are people’s best friend. Underneath are two reasons for this claim and one objection to this claim. Starting from the left, we can see that the green box denotes a support or reason for the central claim. This support states that dogs are loyal. This statement directly supports the claim that dogs are people’s best friend. However there is an objection to this support, as seen below it in the red box. This objection states... From this argument map, we can see that any number of supports or objections can be added to an argument. In this example, the topic is presented via an argument map. In the argument map, a claim is presented at the top, such as “Dog’s are people’s best friend”. Directly underneath are either supportive reasons for this claim, or an objection for this claim. Each reason or objection also possesses ANOTHER reason or an objection below. We can see that this argument map organises the information for us so that we may structure our own thinking. To reiterate, we have (click) A core belief expressed in a simple proposition, (click) A set of propositions that either support or refute the core belief, and, as we saw in the previous class, we can add additional levels if we like, meaning (click) we can add another set of propositions that either support or refute the first set of propositions above.
• #9: Now consider a different belief, that people should only work a 35-hour week. Students, in today’s first exercise, you are asked to please add reasons for the claim above in the green boxes (marked because). Also, please add objections to the claims above in the red box. For example, in the red box all the way to the left, you will want to add an objection to the claim that working longer hours causes stress.
• #10: Arguments are hierarchical structures. We can continue to add more levels if we like. For example, (click) we can offer a rebuttal to a but and construct a 4-level propositional structure. (Just read down the left)... Now we can see that the left branch of the argument becomes...
• #11: Today we have two exercises. In this exercise, you are asked to add two objections to the two supporting propositions, that is the becauses presented in the green boxes. You can do this by filling the objections into the red boxes.
• #12: In this exercise, add rebuttals (which are objections to objections) to complete this 4-level propositional structure. That is, in this exercise, please add two objections to the buts presented above. Again, you can find these exercises in the link labelled ‘Exercise’ located next to the link for this lecture. Once you have finished these exercises, please email them to me so that I may correct them and provide you with feedback on your work. Thank you again for attending today’s lecture. I look forward to evaluating your work and will present feedback to you on all your exercises thus far in the next session.
• #13: You are very welcome back to our class on critical thinking. In the last session we made the following points: When deciding what to do we must weigh up our own reasons and objections, as our decisions about what to do very often hinges upon what we believe. These beliefs have different sources, thus we must question our beliefs and the arguments that support our beliefs. This mode of thinking, that is, a skeptical mode of thinking, is a core part of what we call critical thinking. We also made the point that arguments are hierarchical structures in which we have a core idea, a set of propositions that either support or refute the core idea reasons and objections), another set of propositions that support these reasons and objections, and so on. In this session we will move on and consider the process of unpacking (analysing and evaluating) a persons’ belief. (click)We must often ‘unpack’ a person’s beliefs because people don’t always tell you the basis of their beliefs. You often have to ask people why they believe what they believe. (Click) But whenever they do provide an explanation you can unpack (analyse and evaluate) the basis of their belief. (click) How do we do this?
• #14: Today we will focus on developing four core skills: (click) Extracting the structure of arguments for analysis such as from dialogue and prose. (click) Identifying types of arguments (whenever possible) and considering the strength of each type. (click) Evaluating the overall strengths and weaknesses of an argument.
• #15: Please consider the following dialogue: (click after each) “I think emotions make thinking irrational” “Why?” “Because in order to be rational one needs to be impartial. Positive emotions make one too agreeable and inclined to making risky decisions. Negative emotions make one too sceptical and inclined to reject all forms of evidence”. “But is not scepticism a critical part of good critical thinking?” “Yes, but rejecting all forms of evidence means one must also reject every belief, and that’s not rational”.
• #16: You can see in this argument map, the dialogue from the previous slide forms a four-tiered argument structure, much like one of the arguments we considered last week. Please take a moment to analyses this argument map. Does it resemble the structure you had in your head? (Pause for 10 seconds)
• #17: To translate a prose argument into an argument map involves a similar process. Consider arguments that reject the claim that emotions make thinking irrational: (click) A commonly held belief is that emotions make thinking irrational. However, some people argue that neither emotion nor mood necessarily interfere with rational thought. For example, it has been found that low levels of positive emotion often maintain behaviour, not disrupt it. Thus, if a behaviour, such as reasoning, is associated with a pleasant, positive feeling, the behaviour is likely to continue. (click) Emotion can enhance forms of cognition other than reasoning. For example, emotion can increase expressive communication. Also, a positive mood may actually help a person on creative kinds of tasks (Isen et al., 1985). However, these forms of cognition are not necessarily forms of rationality. (click) Please note how a good piece of prose puts related arguments into the one paragraph (Click). This rule (one paragraph = one idea unit) often helps the reader to see and extract the structure of the argument (CLICK). A paragraph can be long or short, and can contain many or few propositions. The main thing is that it holds together as an idea unit.
• #18: Now consider the argument in argument map form. There are two major objections to the central claim, both of which have a separate paragraph, both of which are supported by sub-claims, and one of which has a rebuttal. (Click twice) A good piece of prose puts related arguments into the one paragraph. We should keep this rule in mind -- one paragraph = one idea unit – not only when reading and analysing the structure of an argument, but also when it comes to planning out our own writing. When writing we ask the following question of ourselves: What is the main idea/what is the central claim (The title of your essay might be “We are happy when we are good”). We might ourselves what set of arguments either support or refute the central claim/main idea? How are each of these arguments in turn supported and can any of them be refuted? Now I must write. Now I must decide what infomration from this set of arguments I have laid out above will I include in my essay.
• #19: After this session, you will have two exercises to complete. In this first exercise, much like we did during the class, you will extract the argument structure contained in the following dialogue (note that there are five propositions presented).
• #20: And then you will fill in each empty box with a proposition. Note that one box is filled in, so you will only have to fill in four propositions.
• #21: Much like people don’t always tell you the basis of their beliefs, (click) even if you get them to present an argument they won’t necessarily tell you what types of arguments they are using. (click) However, once you become familiar with the different types of arguments we can use to support our beliefs, you will come to know what types of arguments another person is using. (click) This helps you to evaluate their arguments, because not all argument types are equal – some are better than others. (click) Consider the example we used in the first session: Dogs are peoples’ best friend.
• #23: What to believe? What type of argument is this? Dogs are loyal. This is a common belief. But the problem with common sense is that it is not always correct. For example, it is also commonly believed that opposites attract, that we come to like and love people who somehow complete us, who are different/opposite in some way. But research in social psychology suggests that we tend to like people who are similar to us and dislike people who are different. In other words, scientific research findings are sometimes at odds with common sense. Also, different examples of ‘common sense’ can be at odds with one another. For example, we noted earlier another common sense position in relation to dogs: that, without sufficient training, dogs can wander off and fail to obey their owners. In this sense, they are not always loyal. (CLICK) Because Dogs aid people's mental wellbeing. Recall our earlier counterargument: there is limited research to support this claim and the design of the research studies in this area is of poor quality. It’s difficult to do good quality research. Suppose you simply compare people who have dogs with people who do not have dogs in terms of their mental well-being, and suppose you find that people with dogs report higher mental well-being. Can you conclude that Dogs aid people’s mental wellbeing? Why not? (Pause tape: Class offers up two reasons.) perhaps the people with dogs were already scoring very high on mental wellbeing before they had dogs. Perhaps it is something other than the dog that aids people’s mental wellbeing in this context, for example, caring for another living thing and the nurturing emotions this fosters. Thus the same effect on mental wellbeing may be observed in people who care for cats, plants, other people’s dogs, other people’s children, and so on. (CLICK) If an expert tells us that dogs have evolved to have strong hierarchical social instincts, we might be inclined to believe them, especially if they have a doctorate and work in a university. But people with doctorate often argue with one another over these issues and they don’t necessarily agree when it comes to evaluating the scientific evidence. Sometimes an expert makes a bold statement that lacks credibility because it lacks supportive evidence, like when Freud argued in the absence of scientific evidence that everything we do is motivated by sexual desire. You often see experts disagree in the law courts, for example, when arguing over whether or not someone they have assessed was likely to be clinically insane and thus incapable of clear thought when committing a crime. (CLICK) The problem with personal experience is that all it amounts to is anecdotal evidence. An anecdote is a story. We often tell people a story, describe a personal experience, when trying to convince them of some position. These anecdotes can be a very power tool of persuasion, but anecdotal evidence is not necessarily reliable (I could be lying about my dogs having always been faithful. Maybe one of dogs was a chaotic terror and that’s why I sent him off to live on granny’s farm. But you don’t hear that story, you only hear the story that supports the argument I’m trying to convince you about. The other problem with anecdotes is that we can’t generalize my experience to the population at large. Other people may have had very different experiences with dogs. Their dogs may have been terribly unfaithful. What we need is some quality research that surveys a representative sample of the population. Ask 1000 people who’ve had dogs to tell you about their experience. This way we might be able to make some gross generalizations about the population. (CLICK) Statistics are one of the kind of output we get from doing research. Again, the problem with a statistic like “87% of dogs owners had lower than average cholesterol” is that it might not actually support the claim that “Dogs decrease their owners’ cholesterol”. Questions we might wish to ask are: How was the average cholesterol level of the population calculated? Were the dog owners representative of the population at large (or where they much younger or older, richer or poorer, etc., than the population used to calculate average cholesterol)? Without measuring cholesterol levels in a sample of non-dog owners who are similar in every important other respect to dog owners (other than the fact they don’t own a dog) it is difficult to know what this statistic means. And it is difficult to do a study that actually measures two groups who are very similar to one other, other than the fact that in one group everyone owns a dog and in the other group no one owns a dog. (CLICK)
• #24: We can begin evaluating the overall strengths and weaknesses of an argument by asking three questions: (click) The first questions asks: What types of arguments are presented? Such types of arguments that may be presented are Anecdotes or stories of personal experience, an argument based on authority or expert opinion, arguments based on theoretical position, or arguments based on research findings such as case studies, survey research, correlational research or experimental research). (click) The second question we must ask is how relevant and logical are the arguments? Some arguments may not be relevant or logically connected to the central claim. If they’re irrelevant or illogical, we need to exclude them. For example, a paragraph on ‘How I know Billy likes ice-cream’ reads: “Billy likes ice-cream. Every night after dinner he has it for dessert. Whenever he goes grocery shopping with his mom he begs her to buy more. Billy likes to go to the park with his mom, too. One time, when Billy dropped his ice-cream on the ground, he started to cry because he did not get to enjoy his treat.” It is obvious from the excerpt that the irrelevant proposition is that ‘Billy likes going to the park with his mom’ as it does not reveal a link between ‘Billy’ and ‘liking ice-cream’. As a result, this proposition must be excluded from the argument. (click) The final question we must ask is whther or not the overall argument imbalanced in any way. For example, does it exclude important arguments? Is it biased? Are there hidden assumptions that need to be made more explicit? What was the author’s purpose for writing thing argument?
• #25: In this session, we have two exercises. In this first exercise, all of the buts presented in this argument map are arguments against the claim that we are happy when drunk. However, each of the arguments is different and some of the arguments might persuade you more than others. Consider what type of argument each is (ie. Personal experience, expert opinion, statistics, common belief or data) and also write a rebuttal in the box beneath. In this sense, you are doing more than simply identifying what types of arguments you are dealing with, you are doing something more important: you are thinking about how each argument type might influence your ultimate conclusion: We are happy when drunk.
• #26: Evaluate (read each) Consider the first statement: (CLICK) Human beings are inherently good. This is a moral evaluation, an emotional evaluation, that cannot be verified as either true or false. What some people see as good, others may interpret as bad. Science cannot truly resolve this problem, because it is not the kind of problem that can be resolved by collected data. Nevertheless, philosophers and psychologists have argued and continue to argue about human nature. Are we inherently good or inherently bad? Which one (the good or the bad) is more prominent than is the other in our human nature? It is important that we use critical thinking to analyse and evaluate the arguments that people present when they argue one way or the other, and we are perfectly entitled to voice our own opinion and present our own argument – we are perfectly entitled to hold one belief or another, but we should keep in mind that a belief without a supporting argument is open to being shot down by someone who possesses an opposing belief with a strong argument base. Furthermore, although science cannot resolve moral disputes, if we make specific assertions about specific behavioural tendencies, it is possible to look at examples of what some people might describe as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ behaviour. For example, although we have to avoid labelling behaviour as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ whenever we observe and measure behaviour in the scientific laboratory, we might be able to evaluate the claim that people are basically selfish, because, presumably, acting with self-interest is somehow different from acting for the benefit of others, and we can measure these behaviours and decide whether or not we act more often with self-interest or more often with others in mind. We’ll return to this debate later and consider some arguments. 2. The second belief can be empirically tested (CLICK). In other words, we can evaluate whether or not it is true: we can observe the brain development of infants both in the womb and we can compare the pattern of brain development observed in the children of mothers who drink alcohol during pregnancy with the pattern of brain development observed in the children of mothers who do not drink alcohol during pregnancy. In fact, this belief, that alcohol consumption during pregnancy disrupts brain development, is now well-established as a true belief. The only issue in the scientific literature right now is how much alcohol needs to be consumed to cause the brain damage and what are the critical times during pregnancy when alcohol causes the greatest amount of brain damage. 3. In relation to the third proposition (CLICK), we might believe that humans will eventually live on mars, but we cannot verify this belief as true. This kind of belief represents a possibility, something that may happen in the future, but that has not yet happened. We don’t yet know for sure if Mars can support human life. We don’t yet know all the technical issues involved in both transporting and maintaining a human colony on mars. We don’t yet know what might go wrong, either in terms of our physical or mental well-being during the transport to mars, or whether or not we could stay there long enough to reproduce and build a sustainable community. 4. The fourth belief (CLICK) is still debated in the psychology literature. We can establish the truth of this belief. For example, research studies that compare the intelligence levels of identical twins (twins who share an identical gene profile) with non-identical twins (who share, on average, 50% of their genes with their siblings) suggests that some of the variation in intelligence is accounted for by variation in genetic profile. In other words, the identical twins are more similar to one another in terms of intelligence than are non-identical twins. Some people suggest that comparing identical and non-identical twins in this way is problematic and that we cannot easily conclude from these studies that genetic similarities account for similarities in intelligence test performance. For example, identical twins are treated as similar, whereas non-identical twins are treated as different. In other words, the learning environment of identical twins is more similar to that of non-identical twins and this might explain why they perform in similar ways when asked to do intelligence tests. The second question on the overhead is even much more difficult to answer: How do we explain how genetic differences influence performance on intelligence tests? How do genes influence patterns of brain growth? How do genes influence neurochemical differences in the brain? And how do these basic neural differences influence levels of intelligence? There is still a huge amount of debate in the scientific literature.
• #27: You’re very welcome back to our lecture series on critical thinking. In the last session we began evaluating the quality of arguments (click) In this session we wiil complete more focused evaluation exercises, in which we will: (click) (1) assess the credibility of arguments (click) (2) assess the relevance of arguments (click) (3) assess the logical strength of an argument structure and (click) (4) assess the balance of evidence within the argument (click) Our objective is to arrive at some conclusions about the overall strengths and weakness of an argument.
• #28: It’s not easy to construct a credible argument. Notably, every link in the chain of your argument needs to be strong. One weak link and people quickly begin to doubt your argument. Let’s suppose you’re arguing with a friend about the causes of aggression. Your friend believes that aggression is biologically caused – people are more or less aggressive by nature he says -- but you believe that life experiences and the kinds of environments that people are placed into are far more important predictors of aggressive behaviour. Thus, you want to present some strong objections to the claim that aggression is biologically caused. You want to convince your friend that your belief is true. But you also know that there are some compelling reasons to believe that aggression may have a biological basis. So maybe you want to weigh up some of the evidence for the biological basis of aggression against arguments that suggest otherwise. (Click). Your working argument may look like this. But how credible is each argument. In order to really consider this issue deeply, we first have to figure out what type of argument we are dealing with. Consider each of the arguments above. Each argument is derived from a different source (click): either - Data from research or an experiment Population Statistics Common sense belief Personal experience We have dealth with identifying the sources of arguments in the past, but we must also focus on the strength or weakness of each source. That is, what type of source would make you more likely to believe the statement? I will now give you a minute to consider the strengths and weaknesses of these propositions. Let’s suppose that in the heat of the debate on the biological basis of aggression a person says to you: “Well, you mentioned that men and women have different levels of testosterone – men have more testosterone and this is why men are more aggressive. But did you know that testosterone has also been implicated in the structural brain differences that underpin gender differences in language ability and spatial ability”. The argument itself might well be vigorously disputed and it might well foster a new debate that sends people off on a different tangent, but is this argument about gender differences in language ability and spatial ability truly relevant here? Is it related to the central claim – aggression is biologically caused?
• #29: But first, in review of the exercise from the last session, we can see the argument map that we evaluated in terms of credibility. (Read argument and comments one by one slowly and carefully.)
• #30: In order to evaluate an argument, we must assess the relevance of the propositions included within. Consider this argument structure (CLICK): Are all reasons and objections relevant to the central claim? Do the propositions below relate to the claim above? Which proposition is irrelevant? READ Click. Alcoholism may well be associated with increased levels of marital violence in some instances, but in the absence of any direct link to pornography, this proposition is simply irrelevant here.
• #31: In our assessment of arguments to date we have focused a fair bit of attention on individual propositions. However, the overall structure of an argument – the relationship between the propositions - is really important, and individual propositions need to be logically interconnected in order for the argument structure to be convincing. Sometimes we can improve upon the structure of an argument and help demonstrate its logical strength. Consider the following argument on aggression. Three propositions support the central claim: Alterations in human biochemistry have an effect on aggression. There are three supporting propositions alright, but two of the proposition belows, when considered together, support the third proposition, and we could do a better job of revealing the overall logical structure at the base of this argument by placing two of the proposition beneath the third. (Click). Specifically, at the base of this argument we are really trying to explain an intermediate conclusion – we’re trying to explain ‘how’ lead poisoning increases levels of aggression, and we can make this explanation explicit if we focus on the logical relationship between the three propositions at the base of this argument. Importantly, we say two things that might make us believe that “People suffering from lead poisoning display increased levels of aggression”. First, we say that “lead reduces the levels of serotonin in the brain”, (serotonin is a neurotransmitter that is related to emotion). Second, we say “People with reduced serotonin display increased levels of aggression.” From these two propositions we might reasonably deduce that “People suffering from lead poisoning display increased levels of aggression”. This may be an established finding in the scientific literature, but what we’re doing here is explaining the relationship between lead poisoning and aggression by reference to the effect of lead on serotonin and the effect of serotonin on emotions (Click). Now, we might then use this intermediate conclusion as one amongst, perhaps, many others to argue that “Alterations in human biochemistry have an effect on aggression”.
• #32: In order to evaluate an argument, we must also assess the logical strength of the argument structure. Are the propositions that support a conclusion logically related. Do the propositions allow us to infer the conclusion? Read the argument. Click: In the example we have two propostions which together address the two core elements in the conclusion (the youth of today …..and …..aggression). We mark these here in red (Click). Notably, the conclusion states that the youth of today are aggressive, and there is a common element linking the two supporting statements below that make us believe this conclusion to be true – the common element is violent T.V. We mark this here in blue (Click). The youth of today watch too much violent T.V. and watching violent T.V. makes one aggressive. Thus, we might infer that the youth of today are very aggressive.
• #33: In today’s second exercise, you will correctly place each proposition in its correct place. The author states a central claim, or an overall conclusion, which tells us that Genes and hormones dictate sexual orientation. There are two core argument structures (each containing 3 propositions) that support the central claim. However, in each set of three, two of the three propositions support the third. We have grouped these two sets of three propositions together for you. The first set of three we’ve labelled 1a, 2a, and 3a. The second set we’ve labelled 1b, 2b, and 3b. What I’d like you to do is to decide how best to arrange the arguments in the argument structure above. Which two propositions support the third in each case. Which propositions support the base of this argument and which are intermediate propositions that support the main conclusion. Simply arrange the propositions labels 1a, 2a, etc. in the structure. When you have finished your two exercises, please email them on to me so that I may provide you with feedback.
• #34: Another feature of our overall argument evaluation is the extent to which there is a balance of evidence in an argument structure. An argument may be biased in the sense that a person has a belief or prejudgement that makes them focus only on arguments that support their belief. (click) There are two extremes of bias and many shades of difference between these two extremes (CLICK). The first extreme is where a person wholeheartedly agrees with a claim and offers only supporting arguments, no objections. (click) The second extreme is where a person vehemently opposes a claim and offers only objections, no supports (CLICK). PAUSE (click) In both cases, the person may be overlooking some important arguments. AND in both cases, we need to question their intentions.
• #35: Arguments can be imbalanced in many different ways. Another situation where an argument might be judged imbalanced if it deliberately pits weak arguments on one side against strong arguments on the other. Consider the example on the overhead: (read): By placing a string of anecdotes on one side of the debate (CLICK) against a good quality experimental study on the other side (CLICK), we may well wonder if the author is not deliberately pitting the strong against the weak to make us rethink our overall conclusion. Perhaps television violence has no effect on aggression in the viewer. We would need other good quality experimental evidence that suggests otherwise if we are to counter-argue the conclusions drawn by Feshbach and Singer. Anecdotes are insufficient. We need better reasons if we are to believe the central claim that Television violence increases aggression in the viewer.
• #38: We mentioned in the previous slide that good inference depends on good evaluation. However, it is also important to note that they differ. (click) Inference differs from evaluation in the sense that the process of inference involves generating a conclusion from propositions. Being an autonomous thinker means that you draw your own conclusions. You don’t spend your life simply evaluating other people’s thinking. You generate your own conclusions. But naturally, we evaluate our own thinking much the same way as we evaluate the thinking of others. Click After inferring (or generating) a conclusion we evaluate the argument again and perhaps infer that our original conclusion is false. We might then alter our argument or alter our conclusions, or both. (Click) In other words, we normally go from evaluation to inference, back to evaluation and again to inference, again and again. As we do so, our thinking becomes more orderly, more complex, more logical, and better…..so we hope!
• #39: People constantly draw conclusions from statements. We constantly infer from basic arguments to basic conclusions. Syllogistic reasoning is the classic form of argument analysis skill that philosophers traditionally studied as part of their basic training to hone their argumentation skills. You might have noted when evaluating the argument on attraction last week that it lacked essential logic and coherence in places. It’s not unusual to discover that arguments lack essential logic and coherence – you often see this quite clearly after you do a thorough evaluation of an argument. In conversation and in writing we often make bold statements and imply logical connections between statements. Sadly, the logical connections that we assume to exist are not always there. Syllogisms are a truly great place to start thinking about inference because thinking about these 3 propositions structures really helps us to see clearly many of the common fallacies (or errors) in our reasoning….and in the reasoning of others. For example, consider the following statements and conclusions. Click….and read….
• #40: In todays exercise, you will be presented with a set of 10 syllogisms. Read them slowly and carefully and think about each one for a while. The question in each case is the same: is the conclusion valid? Given the logical relationship between the two propositions provided, does the author of the argument infer a logical conclusion. Simply mark whether or not each syllogism is valid or invalid based on today’s lesson. Read Conclusions…
• #41: In todays exercise, you will be presented with a set of 10 syllogisms. Read them slowly and carefully and think about each one for a while. The question in each case is the same: is the conclusion valid? Given the logical relationship between the two propositions provided, does the author of the argument infer a logical conclusion. Simply mark whether or not each syllogism is valid or invalid based on today’s lesson. Read Conclusions…
• #42: When you have finished this exercise, please email it on to me so that I mail evaluate your work and provide you with feedback.
• #44: Scientific understanding is derived from reading many individual research studies. Each study finding should allow us to argue for the existence of some observed relation. (click) For many scientific questions, there will be several lines of reasoning – many observed relations -- that lead to an overall conclusion. A valid argument, with a valid conclusion, will arrange these lines of reasoning such that: (click) Related arguments are grouped together (click) Groups of related arguments are used to derive intermediate conclusions (click) Intermediate conclusions are used to derive higher-level conclusions (click) …and so on, until an overall conclusion is derived. (click) Nevertheless, when we study arguments and examine how intermediate conclusions and high-level conclusions are derived, we often see limited logic and coherence in the overall argument structure. Consider the argument on attraction….
• #45: READ: (click) Can the arguments underlined in red be readily inferred from the arguments below. You will have considered this issue last week when you evaluated the arguments for logical strength. Do these arguments have good logical strength? The real test of this is whether or not, in the absence of the conclusions provided, you would actually spontaneously derive these conclusions yourself if only given the propositions beneath. What conclusions would you infer from the propositions beneath? Please read this argument map and have a think about this for a few minutes.
• #46: Today you will have 2 exercises. In the first exercise you will be provided this argument map and will be asked to infer the intermediate conclusions from the proporitions presented below. These intermediate conclsuions must also infer the central claim above that ‘smokers should be given more freedom to smoke and more personal responsibility for the choices they make. Essentially, you must infer 3 intermediate conclusions based on each set of two propositions below and make sure that the intermiedate consluions that you inferred can in turn infer the central claim.
• #47: In today’s second exercise, you will be asked to infer (from the bottom of the argument map up) the intermediate conclsuions (i.e. the empty boxes), all the way up to the central claim. When you have finished your exercises, please email them to me so that I may provide you with feedback. Before the next class, I will have provided you with feedback on the exercises from your past 2 classes.
• #48: During analysis, we read the argument to comprehend what is being said, we extract the structure of argument, we identify the sources of propositions and we identify the author’s purpose for constructing the argument. For example, (READ) (click) In evaluation, we must gather the information we have analysed from the last step and we must assess the credibility of each proposition, based on the source we identified, we must assess the relevance of each proposition based on its connection to the claim it is trying to infer as well as other supporting or objecting propositions and we must assess the logical stength of the propositions by determining what specific function each proposition is serving and the logical strength each porposition possesses. For example, (READ) (click) The third skill, inference, allows us to confidently draw a conclusion about the argument we are thinking about. When we infer a conclusiuon, we gather the infomration we want to keep based on previous analysis and evaluation and use those propositions to infer whether or not we agree with the author’s original claim or to infer an entirely new conclusion. For example, (READ) (click) These three core critical thinking skills are all encompassed by another critical thinking skill that is just as important as the rest, known as reflective judgment. (click)Reflective judgment is the manner in which we think about our own thinking in order to decide what to believe about an argument in comparison to our preexisting knowledge about the topic. What is important when dealing with an argument by using reflective judgment is not the answer that you produce, but the logic you used to develop your answer or conclusion. We reflectively judge problems in two steps. First, we analyse and evaluate the information we are given. Second, we analyse and evaluate what we previously knew about similar problems or events. Based on the addition of this secondary information, that is our own knowledge, we can begin to infer a conclusion. This is much the same as the process of critical thinking that we have been learning throughout this course. Essentially, in using reflective judgment, we must think about our thinking, in that we must judge our own knowledge of the topic as well as the claims made by the author.
• #50: As critical thinkers, we must be motivated to go beyond merely applying the critical thinking skills we have learned to actually thinking about our thinking. How do we we think about thinking you may ask. (click) We do so by reflecting upon (click) what we have just read and (click) by reflecting on the knowledge we already possess. (click) We do this so that we may come to a logical conclusion. However, we will only perform our critical thinking skills to the best of our ability if we are motivated to do so. (click) Thus, our disposition towards thinking is a critical factor associated with reflective judgment that impacts our ability to think critically.
• #51: More specifically, our disposition towards thinking (click) actually affects the quality of our thinking skills. Disposition towards critical thinking refer to the motivation, prevailing tendency, or inclination to believe or act in a certain manner towards thinking under given circumstances. (click) A person with strong disposition toward critical thinking has the consistent internal motivation to engage problems and make decisions by using critical thinking, meaning: (Click)the person consistently values critical thinking; (click) believes that using critical thinking skills offers the greatest promise for reaching good judgments, (click)and intends to approach problems and decisions by applying critical thinking skills as best as he/she can.
• #53: You may have come up with any number of alternative reasons of objections to each claim. As opposed to “Aggression is biologically caused”, we said that (click) Aggression is in fact caused by one’s environment, which is an equally acceptable argument. In terms of the second example, “Global warming is a scare-mongering tactic made by environmentalists”, you may have agreed and replied (click) that there is no such thing as global warming because patterns of weather have been shown to change over long periods of time and that this has been occurring over centuries. Finally, you may have disagreed with the statement that “The film Dawn of the Dead is actually a commentary on American capitalism” and instead replied that Dawn of the Dead (click) is a one dimensional horror movie that aims at nothing more than scaring the viewer. Any one of these alternatives may be acceptable provided they are presented with sufficient support to justify their case. The point to take away from this example is simply that uncertainty exists in terms some issues.
• #54: For example, I have never seen Dawn of the Dead, yet I have been asked to judge whether or not it is a social commentary on American capitalism. All I know about the film is that It is a zombie movie (click), It takes place in America, specifically in a shopping mall (click), some people help one another(click), and some people purposefully sabotage others, in order to stay alive (click). I realise, based on this, that I have little knowledge of the film, so therefore I cannot elaborate in depth. However, what I do know is that capitalism ensures private enterprise. As a result, I am able to immediately make my (click) first connection because Shopping malls are filled with private enterprises.
• #55: I also know that some people view American capitalism as ‘every man for them self’ type of mantra. I also know that in the film, some people purposefully sabotage others, in order to stay alive. I now see another connection between what I know about capitalism and the little information I have about the film. At this point, I have two connections: (click) “Capitalism ensures private enterprise.” (click) Shopping malls, like the one in the film, are filled with private enterprises. (click) Thus, the location of the film alludes to capitalism. The next connection is (click) Capitalism has been viewed as possessing an “Everyman for them self” type of mantra (click) Some people in the film purposefully sabotage others, in order to stay alive. (Click) Thus, some characters fit the mould of what some call the capitalist stereotype. As a result, I am able based on relatively sound logic that Dawn of the Dead is a social commentary on American capitalism. However, we must also be aware that another person could in fact argue against our judgment in an equally logical fashion, or may possibly further justify our position by using different examples or logic. However, what is important to take from this example is we see that though I had little knowledge of the film, the knoweldge of capitalism I had already possessed helped me reach a judgment about the film. Now, please consider if there was anything that would have made my judgment stronger?
• #56: If I wanted to persuade people to follow my line of thinking, I would need to present my judgment in an organised fashion. Though I alluded to reasons why I believed the film was a commentary on American capitalism, my thoughts were not as structured as they could have been. As a result, you, reading along, may have felt confusion over the point I was trying to make.
• #57: Had I presented my judgment as: “Dawn of the Dead is a commentary on American capitalism as the ‘everyman for him self’ attitude portrayed by so many of the characters directly reflects the policies of American capitalism. Similarly, the setting of the film is a direct reference to free and private enterprise, the backbone of capitalist society.” - you would have understood my point far easier and with more confidence. Even though I did not elaborate anymore than I did in the first example, because I presented my judgment in a more structured manner, meaning is easier deciphered and more credence is given to it.
• #58: In today’s exercise, you are asked to create 2 ill-structured problems (i.e., statements that cannot be verified as absolutely correct) , in which you offer a claim, provide 2 alternative statements or solutions to each problem, much like the examples used earlier in this lesson. Also provide a support to each claim and provide a further two reasons for each support that would make another reader believe your claim.