Critical Thinking Study Question Collaboration Page

Critical Thinking Study Question Collaboration

Chapter 1: Thinking about Thinking

What are some of the opportunities and obstacles of trying to become a better critical thinking in the information age?

The information age provides many obstacles and opportunities for becoming a better critical thinker. With the information age knowledge is more readily available and ways of research (gaining knowledge) have improved. With more education and greater availability of knowledge come more knowledge workers and more data to study. Thus, many kinds of research have become less expensive and once again the "production" of information benefits. However, this "knowledge industry" is attempting to answer some very difficult questions and often falls short. This idea of fast results, due to the demand for more information, proves to be one of the downfalls with the information age. Things have become oversimplified, largely by the media, in attempts to keep up with all of the information. With this oversimplification, information has become distorted. Therefore, despite the progress of research, the accuracy and truth in information is much harder to sort out. -Allie

How has the progress of research and "knowledge work" contributed to and complicated the pursuit of truth?

Understand and explicate terms and phrases such as: the Mozart effect, birth order theories, thinking in stereo, emotional flooding, and terms related to describing reflective style and persona.

Birth order theories: the idea that the order in which siblings are born affects their personalities including school performance, intelligence, sexual orientation, allergies, and civil disobedience. For example, first borns tend to be more conservative and obedient of authority than last borns, who tend to be rebellious. - Kat

What is epistemology? What are some of the values and limitations of logic in becoming a better thinker? What is the relationship between logic and good thinking?

Epistemology: the study of the origins and grounds for knowledge - Kat

There are several values and limitations of logic in becoming a better thinker. Some values are the precision and rigor which logic allows in arguments, which are essential portions of good, truth seeking, and reflective discussion. Ultimately, this leads to better thinking. However, some limitations of logic include cultural boundaries because the definition of logic can vary. Likewise, these differences, both in culture and definition, require interpretation to understand and cannot be settled with logic alone. Thus, thinking logically, or "rationally," as well as "reasonably," leads to good thinking. -Allie

What does it mean to make your thought an object of thought?

To think "in stereo" on a meta-level by asking critical questions about what you are thinking about - Kat

Making one's thought an object of thought means to practice thinking "in stereo." That is, to include influences, explanations, motivations, and interpersonal effects in one's thinking about whatever is being discussed. -Allie

To, in simple terms, think of your thoughts and the thoughts of others on a wide scale as you create and have a functional conversation. -Rachel

What is a persona and how does your persona affect the quality of your deliberations?

A dimension of our reflective style concerns the persona we tend to adopt in reflective discussions. Some of us “hold forth” and like to be the center of attention while we elaborate lengthy positions on the topic. Others like to “hold the fort,” defending a view in spite of evident weaknesses pointed out by others. --Cierra

Perhaps your persona is listening carefully for much of the discussion but then interjecting a particularly insightful or disarming question or series of questions. You persona may be the person who tries to put pieces of others’ view together in a new view, or maybe you are “the bystander,” who primarily observes but participates through body language. Simply, persona is the role we play in discussions. Persona affects the quality of our discussions because it hopes to mask some of our true feelings and emotions in order to satisfy the demands of the situation or the environment. Thus, it does not allow us to represent our inner personality and who we really are. Think of persona like a mask one wears or façade. ---Cierra

What are the three main critical thinking virtues?

The three ideals are: "sympathetic understanding", "seeking knowledge", and "inviting appraisal." - Kat

Sympathetic Understanding- enter into empathetic understanding, asking questions, repeat the person's positions back to them to make sure they understand what they are saying, as well as yourself.

Seeking Knowledge- Stating you don't know something or questioning that something is wrong, or intruducing that you want to know something more about the topic.

Inviting Appraisal- Asking "Do you agree?" etc. -Steph

Chapter 2: Making Reflective Moves

Understand and explicate terms and phrases such as: presumption, conversational implicature, burden of proof, rationales, claims, and logic chopping

Presumption: a commonly held belief or a claim that is taken or implied to be true within the context of the deliberation; determined by the interests and sociological and historical factors of the individuals participating in the deliberation; presumptions should be questioned but not immediately (it will kill the conversation)

Conversational implicature: the idea that words alone do not determine what is actually being conveyed; we imply more than we actually say; do not assume that someone is implying something - seek clarification

Burden of proof: the obligation of a speaker (or a writer) to provide credible reasons for the claims he or she makes; it can shift like a tennis match; the shifts depend on whether the individuals accept, modify, or reject a claim

Rationales: premises or reasons that imply or explain a conclusion

Claims: statements that are either true or false

Logic chopping: when a person strips another's speech down to only the main points and ignores everything else (context, the speaker's tone/feelings/experiences) - Kat

Explain and be prepared to distinguish arguments from explanations.

Arguments: when the conclusion is in doubt; justify beliefs by asking the question "Why should I believe this?"

Explanations: when the conclusion is not in doubt; show how something came to be/the cause of something by asking the question "Why did this happen?" - Kat

Arguments: Evidences-->Belief.
Trying to establish the truth of a claim you are unsure about/you are justifying a belief and the rationale is an argument. --Cierra

Explanations: Cause-->Fact
When you explain some conclusion…you are giving an explanation, not an argument. You are trying to understand how the conclusion came about or why it is the case. Trying to understand something you already know to be the case/you are trying to understand a face and the rationale you offer is an explanation. --Cierra

Review the key features of basic reconstructions and be prepared to give a basic reconstruction of a short argument.

A reconstruction represents, in a concise fashion, the rationales in a piece of writing or a speach. (Rationales have reasons and explanations) The goal of a reconstruction is to check understanding. The Steps are as follows:

1.Identify the general conclusion

State the simple conclusion and then refine.

It is usually stated in your own words.

2.Identify and organize sub-arguments

What is a reason for what?

Everything should point to something else as a reason or explanation for that view.

3. Write up the reconstruction in a good, clear, logical prose.

Keep your personal views and opinions out of the reconstruction.

--Steph

Review the principles of fair interpretation.

Reconstructions depend on interpretation, as well as original text and key points; there is also an element of inference involved.

Principle of Charity: expresses the obligation to present the view or argument of the author in its best light; the best representation is more important than determining how well the author understood or adequately represented his or her view

Principle of Fidelity: exposes the importance of being "faithful" to the text; avoid making inferences about the author's meaning without good textual and contextual evidence

Principle of Inclusion: emphasizes that the gol of a reconstruction is to incorporate all of the relevant information into an argument; the core of an argument is based on as much information as possible

Note: Good interpretation requires various moral virtues. Also, a common interpretive problem is "logic chopping." -Allie

Understand the difference between Conversational Interpretive Strategies and Rationale Engagement Strategies and be prepared to apply them in particular cases.

Conversational Interpretive Strategies (CIS) - the dynamics of the group/people; the "moves" you need to/should make in a reflective deliberation

Rationale Engagement Strategies (RES) - concerns the actual reasoning of the deliberation; there are three ways to do this:

1. Questioning the truth of premises 2. Questioning the connection between the premises and conclusion 3. Reframing the argument

- Kat

Chapter 3: Sherlock’s Logic – Deductive and Inductive Inferences in Everyday Reflection

Understand and explicate the terms and phrases such as:

deductive argument, inductive argument, validity, the Principle of Induction, categorical logic, propositional logic, the square of opposition, truth tables

Deductive argument - used when the conclusion has absolute certainty; structure is as follows:

1. If A, then B

2. A

C. B

Inductive argument - used to show the probability/likelihood that the conclusion is true; often utilizes past experiences, memories, and patterns (ex: the sun rising every day)

- Kat

I agree with kat. great explanation, just like what we were taught in class. -Rachel

Within categorical logic, understand and apply terms such as: contradictories, contraries, subcontraries, subalterns.

Contradictories: have opposite truth values. If one is true, the other must be false Contraries: cannot both be true, but can both be false Subcontraries: cannot both be false, but can both be true. Subalterns: From a true A or E proposition, you can infer a true I or O proposition. - Erin C.

Explain the nature and structure of analogical arguments. How do they persuade?

Analogical arguments are arguments that try to convince an audience to adopt a particular viewpoint about an issue (disputed case) because it is similar to another issue that they already hold a viewpoint on, or a justified belief ("analogue")The form of an analogical argument is this: 1) Give examples that prove that the disputed case resembles the analogue 2) Justify the beliefs about the analogue C) It is justified to then hold similar beliefs about the disputed case They persuade by using 2 principles (norms of rationality) that deal with thinking about similarities. 1)Principle of Induction - nature has uniformities, 2) Claim that we should think about "like cases alike" -Katie G.

Chapter 4: Tell me Why . . .Or How . . . Explanation and Causation in Reflective Practice

What are the main features of good explanations?

The main features of good explanations are clarity, understanding, and examples to show proof of understanding. -Rachel

Chapter 5: “We Don’t Get Fooled Again” – Uses and Misuses of Numerical and Statistical Information

What is “innumeracy”?

lacking knowledge in relationship to math and numbers. -Rachel

Chapter 6 – The Way Up is the Way Down – Thinking Through Complexity.

What does “six degrees of separation” mean?

Links, nodes, “weak link” (significance of), Konigsburg Bridge Problem, Baltimore syphilis epidemic, competing theories, network theory approach, Colorado Springs epidemic, possibilities for intervention, Hush Puppies, sig. of===

Intuition, sig. and problems of.

What do researchers on socio-linguistics and conflict tell us about the role of gender in deliberative communication?