critical thinking

-When do we accept a claim as true? What conditions need to be met? It is specific to disciplines and the claim itself (what it is about and the best methods for approaching that 'what'); other disciplines should be focusing on what makes true claims true regarding their object of analysis; critical thinking is more interested in reasoning in general (as a feature of being a psychological and sociological human in this world) and the proper form of argumentation (logic).

-Add these basic principles/rules to the list:

1.) If a claim conflicts with other claims we already have good reason to believe, then we have one good reason to doubt or reject that initial claim.

2.) If a claim conflicts with our background information, then we have one good reason to doubt or reject that initial claim.

3.) Personal/Direct experience can reasonably stand as evidence, but only if there is no good reason to doubt its accuracy or legitimacy.

4.) If a claim conflicts with expert claims, then we have one good reason to doubt that initial claim.

-We can say some general things about reasons to believe, regardless of the 'what'. From the most basic vantage point, there are some common sources of justification worth brining up: personal/direct experience, memory, and others.

-Personal/Direct experience involves sensation, memory, and judgments. Each of these are completely flawed, so experience can only go so far as a source of justification. First, our experiences--even if accurate--are terribly limited, so there is a pretty small range of justification from this source. Second, our personal experiences aren't immediate sources of objectivity. Third, our intuitions, gut reactions, and common sense are not only fallible, but incredibly complex products of centuries or more of tradition. We experience things more simply than they are.

-Sensation and perception are themselves limited and imperfect. Perception requires the proper conditions, requiring a kind of Goldilocks zone of input. It is also easily

swayed by our ideas (in interpretation) and the power of suggestion. Sensation is unreliable as a source of knowledge when the following impairments are in place: illness, fatigue, injury, stress, excitement, distraction, disorientation.

-Our minds, in interpreting sensations, easily make mistakes based on our expectations, innumeracy, and biases to resist contrary evidence, look for confirming evidence, and prefer available evidence. Recall all the the problems referred to in our discussions of barriers to critical thinking.

-Memory itself is based on imperfect experiences, and can only intensify those imperfections rather than improve on them. Memory is not a replica of an objective sensation, but an imperfect copy (a construction, even) of an imperfect interpretation of a maybe legitimate sensation of some thing out there in the word. There's a great deal that can go wrong here; assuming otherwise is not critical thinking. False memory syndrome is prevalent and studies increasingly show its regular effect in normal life. We can fall to false memory syndrome by our own lack of self-analysis, our biases, language and tradition (car crash words), and the suggestion of others (the hammer suggestion). Memories change.

-Other people are obviously a major source of information to us. It is essential that we have some tools to tell when that information is reliable and when it isn't without guessing or resting on biases. Hearsay and anecdotal evidence are to be disregarded generally. Neither has a history of success. Hearsay degrades with each repetition, and is based on an already unreliable personal experience. Anecdotal evidence has all of the problems referred to above. Studies show that eyewitness testimony of identifications of suspects are correct about 50% of the time.

-The safest way to deal with claims that come from other people is to determine who is an expert and who is not. For any given claim, there should be a group of experts regarding the type of thinking, observing, and understanding that the claim operates in. Define expertise broadly: an expert is one who is more knowledgeable in a given field than the average person. This low bar importantly disqualifies below average and average from consideration. From here, it is a matter of determining the kind of expert one would require in order to confirm/disconfirm the given claim, which will vary based

on the specifics of the claim. Experts have an advantage over others for two reasons: they have access to more information and they know how to judge that information better than others. Experts are an essential feature of human civilization. The division of labor allows us to make advancements we otherwise would not have been able to make. Specialized knowledge disseminates to average understanding with time, which benefits all.

-Making sure we don't fall for appeal to authority fallacies is crucial. Don't take people who occupy positions of power to be experts for that reason. Don't allow experts in one field to be taken as experts in other fields. This is very difficult, since we are in a naturally vulnerable position regarding experts: we need them, but cannot easily determine whether their claims are true or false in the way they can. Since we cannot simply verify their claims in a straightforward way, and we should not be satisfied with guessing or going off of intuitions, we need criteria to determine an expert from a non-expert in a non-arbitrary way, but also a way that everyone can use regardless of their expertise.

-Experts are experts because they meet the following four criteria of expertise in satisfying ways. Generally, more is better on these criteria. The more fully a person meets

these criteria in a given field, the more of an expert they are. Context matters here.

1.) Education or training from a reputable, relevant institution.

2.) Experience in making reliable judgments in their field.

3.) Positive reputation among peers (other experts in that field).

4.) Professional accomplishments in the field.

Since we don't have the specialized knowledge and skills required to tell if an expert is a proper expert or not, we must use these criteria as evidence of expertise itself. When determining whether we should accept the claim of a person, the question is whether they are an expert in that field or not. The first reason to accept the claim is that they are an expert. The second reason that justifies the first is the evidence that they meet these criteria. If I ask, "Why are you taking that supposed expert's claims to be true?" the only acceptable answer is providing evidence of their meeting these four criteria as much as possible. This is a non-expert's argument for using the claims of expertise, without appealing to biases, fallacies, or intuitions.

-When it comes to expert claims, proportion belief to the evidence. If experts disagree regarding a claim, proportion belief accordingly. If the disagreement is proportionally equal, remain skeptical and take no hard stance until the matter is resolved.