Critical Thinking Skills TEST

supergeek101

G120-Segment1.pdf

Home >Applied Sciences homework help >Critical Thinking Skills TEST

Thomas Francis University • Course G120 • Segment 1

INTRODUCTION TO CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS

—Douglas R. Kelley, PhD, CH, CSL

Updated: September 27, 2015

Upon Completion of this Segment, You Will Know:

 The definition of critical thinking.

 The attributes of a critical thinker.

 What critical thinking is not.

 Logical Fallacies and false arguments.

A man who does not think for himself does not think at all. —Oscar Wilde

have made many references in previous courses to the need to remain reasonable, rational,

and grounded when considering metaphysical topics due to the diverse nature of metaphysical

beliefs. This was just another way of saying that we must use critical thinking skills as a matter

of practice and routine in life. This segment and others will explore the nature of critical thinking as

well as show how important it is in every aspect of our lives.

We use critical thinking skills, to one degree or another, every day. Common examples include

working out a weekly schedule, reviewing a bank statement for errors, evaluating a product prior to

purchase, and even reading this course material, among others. Some things require a higher level of

critical thinking such as problem solving, while others, like choosing a TV show to watch, don’t.

Reading, writing, talking, listening, and studying can all be done critically or uncritically. Awareness

of critical thinking skills is increasing in academia as well as in public school curricula.

Critical thinking skills are actually a metaphysical topic because they involve higher thinking and

consciousness. And like other metaphysical topics, critical thinking has its share of philosophers who

find much satisfaction in probing the depths of the topic until it can be probed no further.

Many definitions of critical thinking exist each with their own shade of meaning. As always, I will

strive to cut through the clouds of ambiguity to present a clear and simple explanation that can be

easily understood and applied. First, I will offer some common definitions of critical thinking, then

the ingredients of critical thinking, and finally, show you how to employ it in your life. By the way,

the “critical” in critical thinking does not refer to the negative sense of the word such as is used

when finding fault with someone. It refers to skillful judgment when evaluating issues. The words

Segment 1: Introduction to Critical Thinking Skills

“critical” and “criticism” are actually neutral words,

even though most people think of them as negative.

Critical thinking is defined as “the mental process of

actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyz-

ing, synthesizing, and evaluating information to reach

an answer or conclusion. (Dictonary.com, “Critical

Thinking”)”

Many, many definitions of critical thinking exist de-

pending on the person (or philosopher). Here are a few

to help you get a better idea of what critical thinking

means:

 Critical thinkers distinguish between fact and

opinion; ask questions; make detailed observa-

tions; uncover assumptions and define their

terms; and make assertions based on sound logic

and solid evidence.1

 Critical thinking is the process of evaluating

propositions or hypotheses and making judg-

ments about them on the basis of well-supported

evidence.2

 Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined

process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing,

applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evalu-

ating information, gathered or generated by ob-

servation, experience, reflection, reasoning, and/or communication as a guide to belief or

action. Critical thinking is not the simple acquisition and retention [of] information; the de-

velopment of a particular set of skills, and/or the repetitive application of those skills without

the critical evaluation of their results. Critical thinking encompasses the eight elements of

reason: purpose, point of view, question at issue, information, interpretations and inference,

concepts, assumptions, implications and consequences.3

Basically, critical thinking is the ability to ask “what are the facts and what do those facts tell

us?” responsibly with no predetermined beliefs, to open-mindedly and logically evaluate and analyze

all possibilities, to draw conclusions that are consistent with reality and based on evidence, and

finally, to egolessly reassess and amend those conclusions as necessary.

Just writing that summary required critical thinking skills, and I got to create a new word to boot

(egolessly)!

1 Ellis, D. Becoming a Master Student, 1997, http://www.alamo.edu/sac/history/keller/accditg/ssct.htm. 2 Cengage Learning, http://college.cengage.com/psychology/bernstein/psychology/6e/students/key_terms/ch02.html. 3 Paul, R. (1995). What every student needs to survive in a rapidly changing world. Dillon Beach, CA: The Foundation for

Critical Thinking. 4 Ferrett, S. Peak Performance (1997), http://www.alamo.edu/sac/history/keller/accditg/ssct.htm.

ATTRIBUTES OF A CRITICAL THINKER4

 Asks pertinent questions

 Assesses statements and arguments

 Is able to admit a lack of understanding

or information

 Has a sense of curiosity

 Is interested in finding new solutions

 Is able to clearly define a set of criteria

for analyzing ideas

 Is willing to examine beliefs, assump-

tions, and opinions and weigh them

against facts

 Listens carefully to others and is able to

give feedback

 Sees that critical thinking is a lifelong

process of self-assessment

 Suspends judgment until all facts have

been gathered and considered

 Looks for evidence to support assump-

tion and beliefs

 Is able to adjust opinions when new

facts are found

 Looks for proof

 Examines problems closely

 Is able to reject information that is in-

correct or irrelevant

Segment 1: Introduction to Critical Thinking Skills

We could almost reduce the foregoing definition further by saying that critical thinking means

thinking for yourself responsibly and honestly.

WHAT CRITICAL THINKING IS NOT

Critical thinking is not passive thinking; it means thoughtfully weighing all aspects of a matter

before deciding. Unfortunately, far too many people engage in passive thinking and accept what

others say at face value. This often causes problems at some point because the passive thinker may

discover that what he or she was told is not true. This type of thing is common within religion. Many

folks have become disillusioned with religion because they discover that the beliefs they were taught

and lived their lives by were based on nothing more than somebody else’s opinion of the nature of

existence. This often leads to an existential crisis for them.

Belief is arguably one of the most potent forces in the universe. Belief has literally shaped our

lives via society, culture, religion, government, and everything in between. Belief has started and

stopped wars; it is responsible for why you are who you are, and all your successes and failures in

life. And Belief can play a huge role in our ability or inability to think critically.

Take dogmatism, for example. Dogmatic thinking generally means that one holds to specific beliefs

without proof. The dogmatic person does not suspend deep-seated beliefs as does the critical thinker.

These beliefs then filter any conclusions the dogmatic person draws. Moreover, strong emotions are

usually linked with dogmatic thinking, and no one can think clearly when he or she is emotionally

charged. We’ve heard the expression, “blinded by emotion” and this is exactly what happens with

dogmatic thinking. Critical thinking is the opposite of dogmatic thinking.

Something else that critical thinking is not is having subjective pet theories on particular topics.

By subjective pet theories, I mean theories and beliefs that lack objective and realistic evidence and

include a healthy dose of blind emotion. This mindset applies across a rather broad spectrum, most

notably, spiritual belief systems and hardcore skeptics of metaphysical and paranormal phenomena.

In Course G50: The Nature of Metaphysics, I cautioned against blindly buying into fringe meta-

physical beliefs simply because they are popular. Passive thinkers will accept without question such

concepts as “there are nine planes of existence and we are on the second level.” However, there is

not one shred of realistic and objective proof for such a belief. In fact, it is so esoteric—even eccen-

tric—that one wonders which channeled entity came up with it first. This is not to say that it isn’t

true. What I am saying is that we have nothing to indicate that such a premise is based on anything

substantive. Critical thinkers are open-minded enough to consider such a concept, but they also need

at least some firm ground to stand on if they are to put it out to the world as a viable theory.

Hardcore skeptics and debunkers are another group who have something to learn from critical

thinking. While they fancy themselves as critical thinkers, they are really nothing of the sort. They

often appear on television documentaries offering seemingly scientifically-based explanations of why

people, for example, do not really see ghosts or anomalies in the skies. The problem with these so-

called experts is that they ignore the mountains of evidence from credible sources that says some-

thing is going on. Rather than conducting honest research to discover whether that “something” is

caused by some form of supernatural or alien intelligence or whether it is purely an aspect of the

human psyche, they sweep it under the rug by disingenuously and demeaningly assigning such credible

witnesses to the ranks of nut jobs. This is not critical thinking; it is irresponsible, dishonest, and lazy.

Segment 1: Introduction to Critical Thinking Skills

Belief and disbelief are two sides of the same coin.1 You cannot be a disbeliever without also being

a believer. Hardcore skeptics and debunkers (disbelievers) are just as guilty as those who take things

on faith (true believers) for not thinking critically. Conversely, critical thinkers, while being open-

minded, ensure that what they believe is grounded in reality and reason.

Some other traits of non-critical thinkers are:2

 They see things in black and white, as either-or, rather than recognizing a variety of pos-

sible understandings.

 They see questions as yes or no with no subtleties.

 They fail to see linkages and complexities.

 They fail to recognize related elements.

 They take their facts as the only relevant ones.

 They take their own perspective as the only sensible one.

 They take their goal as the only valid one.

Critical thinking also repels false arguments, as we shall discuss in the following section.

Segment 1 Supplemental Video: Critical Thinking Skills 3

NOTE: Before proceeding to the next section, please listen to the audio above on

the Course Page for a supplemental discussion of this section. This audio is part of

the course.

LOGICAL FALLACIES / FALSE ARGUMENTS

Another form of thinking that is opposed to critical thinking is that of false arguments known as

“logical fallacies,” and there are a zillion of them (ok, that might be an exaggeration).4 Fallacies are

errors that we can make even without realizing it which then creep into our arguments thus weaken-

ing them. I will highlight some of the more common fallacies in this section.

One type of false argument is called a “False Dilemma” (also known as a “Either/Or Fallacy,” or

“Black-or-White Fallacy”) and is often used in the media. For example, the Metropolitan Community

College website5 (Kansas City, Missouri) offers this explanation:

In this fallacy, the distraction from the truth lies in the wording of the argument. The

argument is worded so that we are only given two alternative actions, one of which is

1 Cryptozoology —Science and Speculation by Chad Arment, 2004, page 29. 2 Daniel J. Kurland, 2000, What is Critical Thinking? http://www.criticalreading.com/critical_thinking.htm. 3 Video Source: youtube.com/watch?v=6OLPL5p0fMg 4 For a comprehensive list of logical fallacies, visit http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy or do an online search. 5 Metropolitan Community College, http://www.mcckc.edu/main.asp?L=FallaciesDistraction.

Segment 1: Introduction to Critical Thinking Skills

usually so outrageous as to be unacceptable. The other action or option of belief is

usually the one being argued for. This argument is deceptive because if carefully con-

structed, it has a valid form (Disjunctive Syllogism), but it ignores the possibility that

there may be more than two alternative actions. For example:

 “Either we allow abortion or we force children to be raised by parents who don't

want them.”

 “America, love it or leave it!”

 “If Guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”

 “If we restrict publication of Magazines such as the Star and the National En-

quirer, then the first Amendment will be weakened and the whole country will

be controlled by the Government.”

You can see that the above examples are inherently dishonest because options exist other than

just the two stated.

Another form of false argument is known as “circular reasoning,” also called “begging the ques-

tion” by Aristotle.1 The dictionary defines circular reasoning as “ a use of reason in which the prem-

ises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which ‘this is used to

prove that, and that is used to prove this (Dictionary.com, “circular reasoning”).’” In other words,

circular reasoning is the false argument that “A is true because B is true, and B is true because A is

true." For example, “This guy is bad because he is evil.” The words, “bad” and “evil” mean essentially

the same thing and, therefore, one cannot be used to prove the other. A loop or circle is thus born

and is illogical. Here are some additional examples of circular reasoning or logic:2

 “Only an untrustworthy person would run for office. The fact that politicians are untrustwor-

thy is proof of this.”

Such an argument is fallacious, because it relies upon its own proposition — "politicians are

untrustworthy" — in order to support its central premise. Essentially, the argument assumes

that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself. (Wikipedia.com,

“circular reasoning”)

 Bill: "God exists."

Jill: "How do you know."

Bill: "Because the Bible says so."

Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"

Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

 “The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God."

 "If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."

1 “Begging” in this sense means to evade or dodge the issue. It is not the same expression as “this begs the question” which simply means a question is raised. Context is important in understanding which meaning a particular writer intends. Some

anal-retentive proponents of the logical fallacy version of “begging the question” are quick to judgmentally point out their perceived misuse of the term. However, the second usage is very common in modern times so it is therefore proper. Gee,

was that circular reasoning?  2 Some examples were taken from http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html.

Segment 1: Introduction to Critical Thinking Skills

 Interviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference."

Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference."

Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?"

Bill: "Oh, she’s trustworthy, I can vouch for her."

Following are a few more logical fallacies of which you should be aware:

 Jumping to Conclusions or Hasty Generalization. This is a common mistake that bypasses

critical thinking and wrecks many a relationship. For example, “I saw my new boyfriend go

into a restaurant with another woman! I know he’s cheating on me!” Such a conclusion

bypasses the fact that the “other woman” was the boyfriend’s out-of-town sister who was

visiting him for the day. Giving the benefit of the doubt is part of critical thinking. Another

variation is Hasty Generalization that can include gender or racial bias. For example, as-

suming that certain professional people such as doctors, lawyers, and accountants are of

the male gender.

 Personal attacks (argumentum ad hominem, “argument toward the man”). Ad hominem

attacks occur when one person attacks the other person instead of addressing the argument

at hand. Some people will resort to this when they are losing a debate. Ad hominem attacks

are common in online forums where debating members remain behind a cloak of anonym-

ity. For example, “Only idiots would propose the idea you are!”

 Appeal to the People (argumentum ad populum “argument to the people"). These types

of arguments manifest as “everybody is doing it,” or “all the best people are doing it.”

This false argument implies that if many people are doing something or believe something,

then it must be true. Similarly, it can also imply that if a certain class of people is doing

something, it must be right. Of course the implication is that one would be among the “best

people” if he or she was to do the same thing.

 Appeal to Tradition (argumentum ad tradition, “argument to tradition”). Similar to the

fallacy above, this argument essentially says, “It’s true or valid because that’s the way

we’ve always done it.” Obviously, if we held to this false argument, we would never make

any progress whatsoever. As the old saying goes, “If we always do what we’ve always done,

we’ll always get what we’ve always got.”

 Appeal to Improper Authority or Biased Authority (argumentum ad verecundium, "argu-

ment from that which is improper"). This fallacy happens when the premise of an argument

relies on an authority or famous person to guarantee or prove the conclusion. An example

of an improper authority would be to cite a movie star in trying to prove quantum physics.

An example of biased authority would be, “You can believe God exists because the Pope

says it’s so.”

 Red Herring or Irrelevant Conclusion (ignorantio elenchi, “ignorance of refutation”). A

Red Herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument from the

real issue at hand in order to mislead the reasoner. For example, “You should be out looking

for real criminals instead of giving me a ticket for speeding.”

 Smokescreen. This fallacy simply means that one offers too many details in an effort to

cover something up.

Segment 1: Introduction to Critical Thinking Skills

 Unfalsifiability. This is a rather ambiguous term that simply means there is no way to prove

an argument true or false. For example, if someone claims to be possessed by demons,

there is no way to prove it one way or another. In science, for example, theories and

hypotheses need to be “falsifiable” in order to be valid, that is, there must exist a way to

prove them true or false such as through experiments and observation. This is a potentially

important issue in the field of metaphysics as many concepts such as survival of the con-

sciousness after death cannot yet be proven one way or another. All the evidence we have

is subjective rather than objective.

 Argument from a Negative or Lack of Evidence (argumentum ad ignorantium, "argument

from ignorance"). This false argument is similar to the Either/Or Fallacy and simply says

that since the opposition cannot disprove a claim, it must be true. For example, “UFO’s

must exist because no one has proven they don’t exist.”

 Amphiboly. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy1 defines this fallacy as “an error due

to taking a grammatically ambiguous phrase in two different ways during the reasoning.

Example: In a cartoon, two elephants are driving their car down the road in India. They

say, ‘We’d better not get out here,’ as they pass a sign saying:

ELEPHANTS

PLEASE STAY IN YOUR CAR.”

Avoid amphibolies by paying close attention to words and meanings.

Segment 1 Supplemental Videos: Logical Fallacies 1 – 3 2

NOTE: Before proceeding to the next section, please listen to the audio above on

the Course Page for a supplemental discussion of this section. This audio is part of

the course.

1 The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Amphiboly. 2 Video Sources: youtube.com/watch?v=1N3TROA8MYY, youtube.com/watch?v=Z71w-rHkeSk,

youtube.com/watch?v=nmRCpqO_1JA