background preloader

Critical thinking

Facebook Twitter

Clearer Thinking. Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies. Standards of Critical Thinking. What is critical thinking? According to my favorite critical thinking text , it is This involves identifying and analyzing arguments and truth claims, discovering and overcoming prejudices and biases , developing your own reasons and arguments in favor of what you believe, considering objections to your beliefs, and making rational choices about what to do based on your beliefs. is an important standard of critical thought. Clarity of communication is one aspect of this.We must be clear in how we communicate our thoughts, beliefs, and reasons for those beliefs. Careful attention to language is essential here. Involves working hard at getting the issue under consideration before our minds in a particular way.

Is unquestionably essential to critical thinking. Means that the information and ideas discussed must be logically relevant to the issue being discussed. Is a key aspect of critical thinking. The last 3 standards are logical correctness, completeness, and fairness. Fukushima’s doses tallied. YOSHIKAZU TSUNO/epa/Corbis Around 170 of Fukushima’s workers have a slightly elevated risk of cancer due to their radiation exposure.

Few people will develop cancer as a consequence of being exposed to the radioactive material that spewed from Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant last year — and those who do will never know for sure what caused their disease. These conclusions are based on two comprehensive, independent assessments of the radiation doses received by Japanese citizens, as well as by the thousands of workers who battled to bring the shattered nuclear reactors under control. The first report, seen exclusively by Nature, was produced by a subcommittee of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) in Vienna, and covers a wide swathe of issues related to all aspects of the accident.

The UNSCEAR committee’s analyses show that 167 workers at the plant received radiation doses that slightly raise their risk of developing cancer. Double X Science: Science, health, medical news freaking you out? Do the Double X Double-Take first. Red meat & mortality & the usual bad science. The media lit up on the evening of Monday March 12th as a press release was issued about an article in the Archives of Internal Medicine published that day. The BBC were among the first to pick up the story and the story was featured extensively on BBC Breakfast TV and Radio 4 on Tuesday 13th March. Interestingly, John Humphries asked the pertinent question of science reporter Tom Feilden “We’re all going to die – let’s accept that. So what does this lower risk mean?” Tom couldn’t answer the question. He replied “It’s very difficult to unpick these statistics – these numbers are used as bald headlines.”

So let us try to unpick the data and see what this article is all about: At the outset we must highlight the error that this, and every similar study, makes. The studies used in this article There have been two large studies in America where people have been asked to record dietary intake, smoking, activity, weight and many other factors over a long period of time.

The Data – Table 1. RhetoricalFallacy_SameSexMarriage.png (1952×4178) Rhetological Fallacies. A brain-blending categorisation and visualisation of errors and manipulations of rhetoric and logical thinking. How many do you use? The word ‘rhetological’ is made up. Just so I can munge two types of entity: rhetorical techniques and logical fallacies. Both are used heavily by institutional powers – governments, religions, political parties, across the entire spectrum to sway opinion, confuse and obfuscate. And, unfortunately, we internalise them, like bad habits, into our own decision-making and mental processes. How many you recognise? UPDATE 11th April: We now have a French version – and printable French PDF to download. This is an attempt to elucidate and name a few of the most common fallacies. Quite a few suffer from being over-abstract and heavily philosophical.

So I’ve condensed all the definitions and tried to write them in the plainest of plain English. In philosophy, there are some formal ways of categorising fallacies. I think it works though. Informal Logic. First published Mon Nov 25, 1996; substantive revision Mon Nov 28, 2011 Informal logic is an attempt to develop a logic that can assess and analyze the arguments that occur in natural language (“everyday,” “ordinary language”) discourse. Discussions in the field may address instances of scientific, legal, and other technical forms of reasoning (and notions like the distinction between science and pseudo-science), but the overriding aim has been a comprehensive account of argument that can explain and evaluate the arguments found in discussion, debate and disagreement as they manifest themselves in daily life — in social and political commentary; in news reports and editorials in the mass media (in newspapers, magazines, television, the World Wide Web, twitter, etc.); in advertising and corporate and governmental communications; and in personal exchange.

Especially in its early formulations, informal logic was sometimes understood as a theoretical alternative to formal logic. 1. History. A Workbook For Arguments: A Complete Course In Critical Thinking - Books on Google Play. A Workbook for Arguments, A Complete Course in Critical Thinking - Google Books. Understanding Misunderstandings: How to do a rhetorical analysis | Trish Roberts-Miller. A Rulebook for Arguments. ENG 1001: Effective Arguments with Claims, Evidence, and Warrants. There are three major elements to persuasive writing and argumentation: claims, evidence, and warrants. Each is explained below. Claims In a work of persuasive writing, the writer presents "claims," which are propositions that convey the writer's interpretations of or beliefs about something.

Claims are not facts but rather conclusions that the writer draws from facts. Thoreau believed that preoccupation with insignificant events caused nineteenth-century Americans to overlook what is important in life.Thoreau felt that technology was the primary cause of distress for nineteenth-century Americans.Thoreau thought that we should follow the ways of nature to lead more fulfilling lives.Thoreau felt that each individual has the responsibility to understand and reject the "shams and delusions" that are too often accepted as truths.Thoreau demonstrated his misanthropy (hatred of human beings) in his essay and saw no choice but to abandon civilization. Evidence Warrants. Argument.

Www.dougwalton.ca/papers in pdf/10EmotRevista.pdf. Critical Thinking Worksite: Argument Evaluation. I. Introduction When presented with an argument, we often rush to judgment, evaluating it before we fully appreciate it. One important lesson to take from the preceding sections is that it's best to be sure that you understand the argument before commenting on it. This can be done through careful identification and reconstruction, the units you have just worked through. In this unit, we will discuss how to evaluate argument once we have reconstructed them. One evaluates arguments by assessing their quality, i.e., how good they are as arguments. They might be eloquent as speeches or spine tingling as theater, but that won't make them good arguments. In this final section, we consider techniques for determining the quality of an argument.

Form: Its reasons and conclusion will be related in such a way that if the reasons are true, the conclusion will likely be true. A thorough evaluation should subject an argument to scrutiny along each of these dimensions. II. Consider argument (I): III. The Logical Fallacies: Table of Contents. UCB Rhetoric - UCB Rhetoric Department Undergraduate Student Learning Goals. The Department of Rhetoric at Berkeley offers a major and a minor. It trains majors in the history of rhetorical practice and theory, grounded in argumentation and interpretation and in analysis of symbolic and institutional dimensions of discourse.

The department offers a pragmatic understanding of the elements of rhetorical analysis - with attention to logic, style, tropes, figures, images - and a grounding in the historical development of these elements in rhetorical theory, making possible a disciplined grasp of the contemporary character of language and rhetoric. Through emphasis on the history and theory of rhetoric, the department provides an understanding of the format of contemporary theories of argument and interpretation and an opportunity to explore the role of persuasion in pragmatic and aesthetic contexts. Majors are trained in the theory and history of rhetorical practice (103A and 103B). Learning Goals A student completing the rhetoric major should be able to: Straw Vulcan. Critical Thinking, the Series: Learning to ask “Why?” again.

If intentional collaboration is the productive exchange of big ideas, then philosophy is an important foundation. From Socrates to Aristotle to Kant to Kuhn to Senge (and a host of others in between) there is a rich heritage of thought on the pursuit of understanding, with a host of cognitive models to help us work on the hardest problems. For those willing to do the work – and it truly is work, no silver bullets to be found here – improving how we search for knowledge is central to all manners of collaborative solutions, framed alternatively as innovation (in the commercial context), or emergent outcomes (in the context of complexity). That puts intentional collaboration on the critical path to solving virtually all critical social, commercial and public sector issues. The stakes are high. Ultimately it comes down to a decision: are we willing to embrace and foster the hard work of critical thinking? I’m neither philosopher, nor academic. Let me offer a working definition: Like this:

Start [Araucaria@ARG:dundee] SMART 5 - Evaluating Sources. Evaluating Arguments Part One - Marianne Talbot. Evaluating arguments. Evaluating Logic and Validity--Guide to Critical Thinking. Many articles and essays are not written to present information clearly and directly; instead they may be written to persuade you to accept a particular viewpoint, to offer an, opinion, to argue for one side of a controversial issue.

Consequently, one must recognize and separate factual information from subjective content. Subjective content is any material that involves judgment, feeling, opinion, intuition, or emotion rather than factual information. Recognizing and evaluating subjective content involves distinguishing between facts and opinions, identifying generalizations, evaluating viewpoints, understanding theories and hypotheses, weighing data and evidence, and being alert to bias. Evaluating Various Types of Statements Distinguishing between Facts and Opinions Facts are statements that can be verified or proven to be true or false.

Factual statements from reliable sources can be accepted and used in drawing conclusions, building arguments, and supporting ideas. Testing Hypotheses: Evaluating Arguments. Monty Python - Argument Clinic. The Nature of Arguments. Critical Thinking. In a model developed by Stephen Toulmin, arguments have three basic building blocks—claims, evidence and warrants. Claims are statements writers or speakers would like audiences (one or more people) to accept as true. Claims may be limited by qualifying statements (e.g., “Honesty is the best policy, most of the time.”) or by explanations of exceptions (e.g., “Honesty is the best policy, except when others’ feelings will be needlessly hurt.”). Often an argument will advance a main claim, which in turn may be supported by subclaims.

Evidence consists of facts, statistics, examples, expert opinions, and previously established claims (including premises already accepted by the audience). Warrants provide reasoning that justifies the movement from evidence to claims. Sometimes warrants themselves require backing by evidence and reasoning. The simplest arguments present only a main claim, which is directly backed with evidence: “George must be a vegetarian. Analyzing the purpose of the argument. Critical Thinking Home Page. Critical thinking. Critical thinking is a type of clear, reasoned thinking. According to Beyer (1995) Critical thinking means making clear, reasoned judgements. While in the process of critical thinking, ideas should be reasoned and well thought out/judged.[1] The National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking defines critical thinking as the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.'[2] Etymology[edit] In the term critical thinking, the word critical, (Grk. κριτικός = kritikos = "critic") derives from the word critic, and identifies the intellectual capacity and the means "of judging", "of judgement", "for judging", and of being "able to discern".[3] Definitions[edit] According to the field of inquiry [weasel words], critical thinking is defined as: Skills[edit] In sum:

Critical Thinking On The Web. Top Ten Argument Mapping Tutorials. Six online tutorials in argument mapping, a core requirement for advanced critical thinking.The Skeptic's Dictionary - over 400 definitions and essays. The Fallacy Files by Gary Curtis. Best website on fallacies. Butterflies and Wheels. Excellent reading - news, articles, and much more. Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts by Peter Facione. What is critical thinking? Nobody said it better than Francis Bacon, back in 1605: A shorter version is the art of being right. Or, more prosaically: critical thinking is the skillful application of a repertoire of validated general techniques for deciding the level of confidence you should have in a proposition in the light of the available evidence. More definitions... Program for Critical Thinking Program for better decision making Our umbrella site.

Latest additions 6 Dec The Idea Emporium Zany. 21 May in Vendors Thinkshop New Zealand-based online store selling thinking skills resources of various kinds. Exploratree - Exploratree by FutureLab. Argument analysis. Rhetorical analysis views texts from within their particular situation. In academic research, for example, the authors usually place their work in relation to relevant work that has preceded them. Any particular piece of written communication is part of a larger conversation with a history of its own.

Writers and readers of this conversation share some common ground in their interests and assumptions. Review the and its relation to the appeals of , , and . This careful laying out of explanation and argument is called . In doing a rhetorical analysis, you pay attention to the features of the situation and the text that indicate the elements of the triangle and appeals.

Analyzing arguments primarily focuses you on the , that is, on the content, argument logic, structure, and data presented. Let's start with the Everyone should buy a computer because otherwise they'll get left behind by the technological revolution. claim: Everyone should buy a computer Everyone should buy a compute r. Argument Analysis: The Basic Method. Contact: Dr. Jan GarrettLast revised date: February 16, 2004Basic Terms Let's get clear on some basic terms regarding reasoning. Truth values: true, false. Statement: a unambiguous declarative sentence (more technically: what is expressed by such a sentence); statements have truth-value (they are true or false), although, for a given statement, we may not know its truth-value. Here are examples of relatively simple statements: Socrates died from drinking hemlock. Here are examples of less simple statements (technically called compound statements): If I pass this course, then I will be done with my Gen.

Important Warning to Students Doing Argument Analysis(Simple) Argument: a set of statements, one of which is the conclusion, the others of which are premises meant as support for the conclusion. The gods have all the very best qualities. Hear me now and believe me later. Analyzed form: In the formalized argument set out below, "P" designates a premise. 2. 3. 6. Fallacies. A List Of Fallacious Arguments. Top 20 Logical Fallacies - The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Atheism: Logic & Fallacies. Fallacious Argument. Carl Sagans Baloney Detection Kit. Start [Araucaria@ARG:dundee] How Theseus Works. Strategies for critical thinking in learning, Part I.

Foundation for Critical Thinking: Books, Conferences and Academic Resources for Educators and Students. Elements and Standards Learning Tool. Learn the Elements and Standards. Study of 38 Public Universities and 28 Private Universities To Determine Faculty Emphasis on Critical Thinking In Instruction. What is close reading? - a tutorial and guidance notes « Mantex. Close reading. Www.fas.harvard.edu/~wricntr/documents/CloseReading.html. Two excellent examples of close-reading « Prizing the Postcolonial Weblog.