Critical Thought

Contents:

1. →Terms
   
2. →Logical Fallacies
   

Critical Thinking is the process of evaluating the truthfulness and value of information and opinions in a systematic, purposeful and efficient manner. The attempt is to eliminate untruths, misrepresentations, fallacies and biases and get to the logical heart of a matter, best one can. It is an essential skill in debate and controversy, medical and legal trades, education, writing, science, politics, philosophy and apologetics etc... any area where thoughtful discourse, discernment and an attempt toward persuasion is required.

Critical Thinking involves two distinct processes:

1. Finding/developing credible sources of information.
   
2. Analysis of information determining whether it is clear, accurate, precise, consistent, relevant, reasonable, fair.
   

The initial characteristics employed most by the critical thinker are:

• inquisitive, open-minded with critical eye, willingness to consider other approaches/opinions, discern fact from mere assumption.
  
• honesty and willingness to admit when yours is weak or wrong
  
• courage to take initiative
  
• willingness to confront problems and meet challenges
  
• be aware of own biases
  
• take constructive criticism
  
• be willing to disagree and argue your conclusions with logical reasoning and facts
  

Questions to ask:

• Why does someone want me to believe this?
  
• What are the potential problems of what is being said?
  
• How do I evaluate this information?
  
• Is the information reasonable enough to form an opinion with?
  

Evaluating any argument:

1. (Assume premises are true for the moment) Do the assumed premises provide good reasons for believing conclusion?
   
• If not = poor inference
  
• If yes = inference is good
  


2. Are the premises true/reasonable/well supported?
   

Evaluating Logical Consistency:

1. Assume 1st statement is true (regardless)?
   
2. ask could other statements also be true?
   
3. yes=consistent, no=inconsistent
   
• All men have blonde hair. I am a man. I have brown hair. = inconsistent
  
• I am a man. I have brown hair. You have blond hair. = consistent
  

Terms

Inductive Reasoning - Using specific observations to reach a broad conclusion (ex=Law Enforcement). Requires paying attention to detail, recognizing patterns, making projections, committing information to memory, using emotional intelligence.

Deductive Reasoning - Using general ideas to reach a specific conclusion (ex=Scientist). Requires clarifying the issue, examining related data, formulating a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis, evaluating results.

Premise - "things mentioned before". The thing or things that came before—lead (or fail to lead) to a logical resolution in an argument or story. Indicators: for, since, as, because, in as much, follows from, after all, inlight of the fact, assuming, seeing that, granted that, in view of, as shown by, as indicated by, given that, inferred from, concluded from, deduced from, due to the fact, for the reason.

Conclusion - Indicators: therefore, thus, consequently, hence, so, it follows that, proves that, indicates that, accordingly, implies that, follows that, this means, we may infer, suggests that, results in, demonstrates that, for this/that reason.

Conjunctives - equal status indicators: or, and, in addition, although, despite, in spite of, besides, though, but, yet, however, moreover, nevertheless, not only, but also, (also a written semicolon ";").

Claim - A persuasive claim is an opinion, idea, or assertion meant to persuade, argue, convince, prove, or provocatively suggest; expresses a specific position on some doubtful or controversial issue. Claims of fact assert that something is true or not true. Claims of value assert that something is good or bad, more or less desirable, Claims of policy assert that one course of action is superior to another.

Argument - Claims backed by reasons that are supported by evidence. Complex args are easier to analyze by identifying the conclusion first and work way back.The conclusion of one argument can become a premise for another argument.

Valid Argument - the reasoning process behind the inferences is correct and there are no fallacies.

Sound Argument - not only are all the inferences true, but the premises are also true.

A Priori Knowledge - Knowable without experience (epistemological analysis). (triangle=3 sides, all crows are birds, green is a color)

A Posteriori Knowledge - Knowledge requires experience (epistemological analysis). (this triangle is blue, all crows are black, grass is green)

Analytic Compositions - true by word definition (language analysis), predicate is contained in subject. (circles are shapes) Not always A Priori (by epistomology (on what basis can we believe) vs - lingual) philosophically.

Synthetic Compositions - true by experience (language analysis), predicate is not contained in subject. (The president is tall)

Necessary (cannot be false;denial leads to contradiction (the desk is either black or not)) vs Contingent (can be false;contradiction is possible (Prostate cancer is killing more people than ten years ago)) - Metaphysical Analyzis

Falsifiability - it can be imagined that a claim could by one means or another be proven false (there is a planet between Earth and Mercury, how? by long term telescopic observance or flight), being able to imagine what could falsify the claim can give strength to the claim once it is proved (Venus). Ask what would make this claim false? If there is nothing you can think of that would, suspect your claim is invalid. If there are means to test, test them to strengthen your valid claim. (Newton's laws are falsifiable, have been tested, have held strong)

→(TOP>)

Logical Fallacies

Ad Hominem - "against the man". To discredit the position by discrediting its supporter.

Ad Misericordiam - an appeal to sympathy or pity is highly exaggerated or irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Amphiboly - Relies on an ambiguous word or grammatical structure to confuse or mislead.

Appeal to Authority - ipse dixit and ad verecundiam, which means "he himself said it". Appealing to the respect people have for the famous, not direct evidence. Also appeal to dubious/inappropriate authority.

Appeal to Force - argumentum ad baculum "argument to the cudgel". Attempt to force or intimidate to persuade.

Appeal to Humor - argumentum ad festivitatem and reductio ad absurdum. Use of humor to direct attention away from the issue at hand.

Appeal to Ignorance - argumentum ad ignorantiam "the argument from ignorance". The assumption that a statement must be true if it cannot be proven false — or false if it cannot be proven true.

Appeal to nature -

Appeal to the People - argumentum ad populum "to the majority". Claim that the number of people in agreement is a valid reason or argument. Bandwagon

Begging the Question - petitio principii "seeking the beginning". The premise of an argument presupposes the truth of its conclusion.

Circular Argument - uses its own conclusion as one of its stated or unstated premises.

Complex Question - a loaded question, answering commits one to a false presumption not asked, question that can't be answered without self-incrimination.

Contradictory Premises - draws a conclusion from inconsistent or incompatible premises.

Dicto Simpliciter - ad dictum secundum quid, and fallacy of the accident (fallacia accidentis). Sweeping generalization, unqualified generalization, treated as universally true regardless of the circumstances or the individuals concern.

Equivocation - word or phrase in an argument is used with more than one meaning; semantic equivocation.

False Analogy - an argument based on misleading, superficial, or implausible comparisons.

False Dilemma - oversimplification that offers a limited number of options when in reality more options are available. Also either-or fallacy, the fallacy of the excluded middle, and the black and white fallacy.

Gambler's Fallacy - inference is drawn on the assumption that a series of chance events will determine the outcome of a subsequent event.

Genetic fallacy - argument is dismissed because of it's origin or history.

Hasty Generalization - jumping to a conclusion not logically justified by sufficient or unbiased evidence.

Name-Calling - attaching to a person, group, institution, or concept a label with a heavily derogatory connotation.

Non Sequitur - a conclusion does not follow logically from what preceded it.

Paralepsis - para- "beside" + leipein "to leave". Emphasizing a point by seeming to pass over it. "Item... ITEM....All these things I do not mention now/time does not allow us."

Poisoning the Well - attempt to place an opponent in a position from which he or she is unable to reply.

Post Hoc - one event is said to be the cause of a later event simply because it occurred earlier, assuming that the one would not have occurred without the other.

Red Herring - draws attention away from the central issue "throw them off the scent".

Slippery Slope - a course of action is objected to on the grounds that once taken it will lead to additional actions until some undesirable consequence results.

Stacking the Deck - ignoring the counterevidence, slanting, or one-sided assessment.

Straw Man - misrepresenting opponents view into something it is not in order to be more easily attacked or refuted.

Tu Quoque - "you too" or "you're another". A type of ad hominem argument in which an accused person turns an allegation back on his or her accuser.

→(TOP>)

Further Resources:
http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/ Critical Thinking Web - 100's of free online tutorials
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/howtouff.html Collections of examples by fallacy type.
http://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-critical-thinking-1689811
John Locke - "Essay Concerning Human Understanding"
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/diagram.html - Diagramming resources.
http://austhink.com/critical/ - directory of top online resources.

Follow Up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAnw168huqA - Think Fast, Talk Smart: Communication Techniques
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwbmMn-Z7a8 Study Skills Workshop 05 Critical Thinking Skills - Birkbeck, University of London
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUO2asxV-J0 22 Philosophical Fallacies teachphilosophy (see also:http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFGHE1xQFhhxVI2LmT2yhT_huBZQqsXUA for entire logic playlisthttp://lucidphilosophy.com/ )

Child Threads: