Clarifying ideas 1

1
Clarifying ideas - 1

• The process of reasoning often encounters a need
  for clarification. Terms may be used, or claims
  be made, whose meaning is unclear, vague,
  imprecise or ambiguous.
• In order to evaluate an argument skilfully we
  must first understand it.
• We expound some right questions which help
  clarify what writers and speakers mean
  including yourself. What is needed depends on the
  audience and on the purpose of the clarification.

2
Clarifying ideas - 2

• What is the problem? Is it vagueness, ambiguity,
  a need for examples or what?
• Who is the audience? What background knowledge
  and beliefs can they be assumed to have?
• Given the audience, what will provide sufficient
  clarification for the present purposes?
• Possible sources of clarification
• A dictionary definition (reporting normal usage).
• A definition/explanation from an authority in the
  field (reporting specialized usage).
• deciding on a meaning stipulating a meaning.

3
Clarifying ideas - 3

• Ways of clarifying terms and ideas
• Giving a synonymous expression or paraphrase.
• Giving necessary and sufficient conditions (i.e.
  an if and only if definition).
• Giving clear examples (and non-examples).
• Drawing constrasts (what kind of thing and what
  differentiates it from other things).
• Explaining the history of an expression.
• How much detail is needed by this audience in
  this situation?

4
Analysis of arguments

• What is/are the main conclusion/s (may be stated
  or unstated may be recommendations,
  explanations, and so on conclusion indicator
  words, like therefore may help).
• What are the reasons (data, evidence) and their
  structure?
• What is the assumed (that is, implicit or taken
  from granted, perhaps in the context)?
• Clarify the meaning (by the terms, claims or
  arguments) which need it.

5
Evaluation of arguments

• Are the reasons acceptable (including explicit
  reasons and unstated assumptions this may
  involve evaluating factual claims, definitions
  and value judgements and judging the credibility
  of a source)?
• Does the reasoning support its conclusion(s) (is
  the support strong, for example beyond
  reasonable doubt, or weak?)
• Are there other relevant considerations/arguments
  which strengthen or weaken the case? (You may
  already know these or may have to construct
  them.)
• What is your overall evaluation (in the light of
  1 to 7)?

6
Judging Credibility - 1

• Questions about the person/source
• Do they have the relevant expertise (experience,
  knowledge, and formal qualifications)?
• Do they have the ability to observe accurately
  (eyesight, hearing, proximity to event, absence
  of distractions, appropriate instruments, skill
  in using instruments)?
• Does their reputation suggest they are reliable?
• Does the source have a vested interest or bias?

7
Judging Credibility - 2

• Questions about the circumstances/context in
  which the claim is made?
• Questions about the justification the source
  offers or can offer in support of the claim
• Did the source witness X or was told about X
  ?
• Is it based on primary and secondary sources?
• Is it based on direct or on circumstantial
  evidence?
• Is it based on direct reference to credibility
  considerations?

8
Judging Credibility - 3

• Questions about the nature of the claim which
  influence its credibility
• Is it very unlikely, given other things we know
  or is it very plausible and easy to believe?
• Is it a basic observation statement or an
  inferred judgement?
• Is there corroboration from other sources?

9
Causal Models - 1

• Agency concerns intervention in the world to
  change it, to see how things might be otherwise.
• Importantly, agency is about how we represent
  intervention, how we think about changes in the
  world. By representing it we can imagine changes
  in the world without actually changing it.
• This ability opens up the possibility of
  imagination, fantasy, thinking about the future,
  thinking about what the past might have been.

10
Causal Models - 2

• People are selective in what they attend to. They
  attend to what is is stable to invariants
  because thats where the crucial information is
  for helping them achieve goals.
• Invariants can take the form of causal relations.
  These carry the information we store, that we
  discuss, and that we use for performing everyday
  activities that change the state of the world.

11
Causal Models - 3

• The ability to remember is useless without the
  ability to pick and choose what is important and
  to put the useful pieces together in meaningful
  ways.
• We can think of selective attention as solving a
  problem to find those aspects of the environment
  that hold the solution, so that we can limit our
  attention to them.

12
Causal Models - 4

• Expertise inevitably involves the ability to
  identify invariants. The expert picks out the
  properties that explain why the system is in the
  current state and that predict its state in the
  future.
• Beyond prediction and explanation, control
  requires knowing the systematic relations between
  actions and their outcomes, so the right action
  can be chosen at the right time.

13
Causal Models - 5

• It is not the case that the world doesnt change.
  It is the physical generating process that
  produces the world that doesnt.
• So the relations of cause and effect are a good
  place to look for invariance. The mechanisms that
  govern the world are the embodiment of much that
  doesnt change.
• The physical, the biological, and the social
  worlds all are generated by mechanisms governed
  by causal principles.

14
Causal Models - 6

• Prediction does not always require appeal to
  causal mechanisms because sometimes the best
  guess about the future is simply what happened in
  the past.
• But sometimes it does, especially when there is
  no historical record to appeal to.
• Then, explanation and control depend crucially on
  causal understanding.

15
Causal explanation - issues

• What are the causal possibilities in this case?
• What evidence could you find that would count for
  or against the likelihood of these possibilities
  (if you could find it)?
• What evidence do you have already, or can gather,
  that is relevant to determining what causes what?
  
• Which possibility is rendered most likely by the
  evidence? (What best explanation fits best with
  everything else we know and believe?)

16
Causal explanation lessons 1

• Many kinds of events are open to explanation by
  rival causes
• Experts can examine the same event evidence and
  come up with different causes to explain it
• Although many explanations can fit the facts,
  some seem more plausible than others
• Most communicators will provide you with only
  their favoured causes the critical thinker must
  generate the rival causes

17
Causal explanation lessons 2

• Generating rival causes is a creative process
  usually such causes will not be obvious
• Even scientific researchers frequently fail to
  acknowledge important rival causes for their
  findings
• The certainty of a particular causal chain is
  inversely related to the number of plausible
  rival causes

18
Causal explanation strong case

• The researcher doesnt have any personal
  financial incentive in suggesting the cause
• The researcher had at least one control group,
  that did not get exposed to the cause
• Groups that were compared, differed on very few
  characteristics other than the causal factor of
  interest
• Participants were randonmly assigned to groups
• Participants were unaware of the researchers
  hypotheses
• Other researchers have replicated the findings

19
Causal explanation rival causes

• Can I think of any other way to interpret the
  evidence?
• What else might have caused this act or these
  findings?
• If I looked at this from another point of view,
  what might I see as important causes?
• If this interpretation is incorrect, what other
  interpretations might make sense?

20
Causal explanation clues 1

• Is there any evidence that the explanation has
  been critically examined?
• Is it likely that social, political, or
  psychological forces may bias the hypothesis?
• What rival causes have not been considered?
• How credible is the authors hypothesis compared
  to rival causes?

21
Causal explanation clues 2

• Is the hypothesis thorough in accounting for many
  puzzling aspects of the events in question?
• How consistent is the hypothesis with all the
  available valuable relevant evidence?
• Is the post hoc fallacy the primary reasoning
  being used to link the events?

22
Statistics - deceptive?

• Authors often provide statistics to support their
  reasoning, and the statistics appear to be hard
  evidence.
• However, there are many ways that statistics can
  be misused.
• Because problematic statistics are used
  frequently, it is important to identify any
  problems with them.

23
Statistics assessment clues 1

• Try to find out as much as you can about how the
  statistics were obtained. Ask How does the
  author know?
• Be curious about the type of average being
  described.
• Be alert to users of statistics concluding one
  thing, but proving another.
• Blind yourself to the authors statistics and
  compare the needed statistical evidence with the
  statistics actually provided.

24
Omitted information - 1

• By asking questions brought up in other sections,
  such as concerning ambiguity, assumptions, and
  evidence, we will detect much important missing
  information
• A more complete search for omitted information,
  however, is so important to critical evaluation
  that it deserves additional emphasis
• Next we further sensitise to the importance of
  what is not said and remind that we react to an
  incomplete picture of an argument when we
  evaluate only the explicit parts

25
Omitted information - 2

• Almost any information we encounter has a
  purpose. Its organization was selected and
  established by someone who hoped that it would
  affect our thinking in some designed way
• Those trying to persuade us will almost always
  try to present their position in the strongest
  possible light
• It is wise to hesitate and think about what an
  author may not have told us, something our
  critical questioning has not yet revealed

26
Omitted information - 3

• Omitted information is inevitable, for at least
  five reasons
• Time and space limitations
• Limited attention span
• Inadequacies in human knowledge
• Deception
• Existence of different perspectives

27
Clues for finding omitted information

• Common counterarguments
• What reasons would someone who disagrees offer?
• Are there research studies that contradict the
  studies presented?
• Are there missing examples, testimonials, or
  analogies that support the other side of the
  argument?
• Missing definitions How would the arguments
  differ if key terms were defined in other ways?

28
Clues for finding omitted information

• Missing value preferences or perspectives
• From what other set of values might one approach
  this issue?
• What kinds of arguments would be made by someone
  approaching the issue from a different set of
  values?
• Origins of facts alluded to in the argument
• Where do the arguments come from?
• Are the factual claims supported by competent
  research or by reliable sources?

29
Clues for finding omitted information

• Details of procedures used for gathering facts
• How many people completed the questionnaire?
• How were the survey questions worded?
• Alternative techniques for gathering or
  organizing evidence How might the results
  from an interview study differ from
  questionnaire results?