Critical Thinking

1
Critical Thinking

• A disciplined manner of thought that a person
  uses to assess the validity of arguments

2
Critical Thinking

• CT involves analyzing a discourse for the
  components of arguments and then evaluating those
  components relative to a set of criteria
• For now we will focus on analysis and use a
  simplified method for evaluating an argument

3
I. Analysis of an Argument
4
Argument

• An argument is a series of statements used to
  persuade someone to accept something (an opinion,
  idea, etc.)
• The core of an argument consists of two parts
  claim (what the person is asked to accept) and
  its support (statements that provide a basis for
  the person to accept the claim)

5
(No Transcript)
6
(No Transcript)
7
Analysis for Components of Arguments

• In the following passage,
• Circle the main claim (what you are being asked
  to accept)
• Underline with a solid line, reasons which
  directly support the main claim
• Underline with a dashed line, evidence which
  supports a claim in a sub-argument

8
SAMPLE PASSAGE
We have tried to make our undergraduate education
second to none by asking our best researchers to
teach first year students. For example,
Professor Arnett, a member of the National
Academy of Science, has taught Chemistry 83.
9
Report Form

• Report form available on course web site as a
  MS-word-document, a pdf-document, or an
  HTML-document
• Complete the top section of the form containing
  general information

10
Analysis Section of Report Form

• Indicate the main claim, reasons directly
  supporting the main claim,and the types of
  evidence (fact, statistic, etc) supporting claims
  of sub-arguments
• Label each reason as evidence, sub-argument,
  authority, assumption, shared belief, or
  explanation

11
We have tried to make our undergraduate education
second to none by asking our best researchers to
teach first year students. For example,
Professor Arnett, a member of the National
Academy of Science, has taught Chemistry 83
CLAIM 1
SUB-ARGUMENT, CLAIM 2
EVIDENCE 2.1
12
II. Evaluation of Argument
13
Criteria for Evaluation

• Normally involves separately evaluating the
  claim, the support and the logic of the argument
  relative to standards
• For now, we will accept peer-review evaluations
  done prior to publication in a reputable journal

14
Evaluation Section of Report Form

• Fill in information about peer-review and
  citations of sources
• Classify as acceptable all arguments that have
  been published in peer-reviewed journals
• Classify as provisionally acceptable all
  arguments that utilize evidence for which
  citations of sources are provided

15
Continued..

• Classify as questionable all other arguments
• Fill in section on breadth (the extent to which
  the main argument considers differing viewpoints
  of the issue)
• Viewpoint (perspective or orientation)- a frame
  of reference which determines how a person
  interprets new information

16
Continued..

• Common past experiences which tend to shape one's
  viewpoint include race, religion, politics,
  environment, sports, employment, beliefs, and
  previous reasoned judgements
• Identify points of view that have not been
  adequately represented

17
III. Mini-Reports
18
Mini-Reports

• By January 23, select a proposed new technology
  as the topic for your final report - see list on
  web site or submit one of your own for approval
• During the period, January 23- March 6, five
  mini-reports will be due on the dates indicated
  on the course syllabus

19
Continued...

• For each report, find a substantive article on
  your topic in a printed or web format (preferred)
  that presents argument(s) for/against the
  technology that you have selected as your topic
• Critically analyze and evaluate the arguments
  contained in the article following the procedure
  given earlier

20
Continued...

• Select articles so as to maximize the number of
  different arguments so that by March 6,
  critically analyze at least 5 arguments in favor
  and 5 opposed to your selected technology
• Your mini-reports analyzing these articles will
  be used to construct a final report during the
  last half of the course

21
(No Transcript)
22
Components of an Argument Main Claim and
Qualifier

• The main claim is the claim for the main argument
  - it asserts a conclusion such as an idea, an
  opinion, a point of view, or a judgement
• A qualifier is a statement which modifies the
  main claim by reducing its scope of application-
  frequently starts with if, as long as, or
  assuming.

23
Components of an Argument Support

• Reasons -statements that directly support the
  main claim- such as other arguments, authority,
  definitions, shared beliefs, assumptions, or
  explanations
• Evidence- information that supports a reason-
  such as observations, statistical studies,
  eyewitness accounts, results of experiments, etc.
  

24
Partial Structure of a Main Argument that is
Supported by Two Sub-Arguments
25
Criteria for Evaluating the Claim

• The claim must be clear (clear implies only one
  meaning, ambiguous
  
  
  
  implies two meanings and vague implies
  more than two meanings)
• The claim must be precise (provides significant
  differentiation from all other possibilities)
• The claim must be falsifiable

http//www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.h
tml
http//www.criticalthinking.org/university/unistan
.html and
26
Criteria for Evaluating Qualifiers

• Qualifiers should make the claim more clear and
  precise
• Qualifiers cannot provide multiple outs - an
  inexhaustible series of excuses intended to
  discount evidence that would seem to falsify a
  claim

27
Criteria for Evaluating Support

• Relevant - support must be directly related to
  the claim
• Comprehensive - non-selective all available
  evidence must be considered
• Honestly interpreted - conclusion must be
  consistent with the preponderance of the evidence

http//www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.h
tml
28
Criteria for Evaluating the Support

• Sufficient time should have elapsed since the
  publication of cited evidence to allow all
  interested scientists to establish that the
  results are reproducible and to design additional
  experiments to test conclusions

29
Criteria for Evaluating Logic

• Logic must be sound - an argument is sound when
  it is valid and all its reasons are true (i.e.,
  the claim and support are not in conflict with
  what you know to be true nor do they require you
  to believe other unsupported elements that are
  in conflict with what you know to be true)

(http//www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/claims/tru
th.html
30
Format of Argumentative Essay

• Introduction (General subject area, focus,
  thesis, assumptions, definitions)
• Main Body (Main Claim 1, reasons supporting main
  claim claim 2, evidence for claim 2 claim
  3, evidence for claim 3
• Conclusion
• Recommendations

http//www.mala.bc.ca/7Ejohnstoi/arguments/argume
nt1.htm
31
(No Transcript)
32
(No Transcript)
33
Criteria for Evaluating the Sufficiency

• Sufficient support to fulfill the burden of proof
  - enough support to persuade you to accept the
  claim
• The more extreme or unusual the claim, the
  greater the amount of support that should be
  required to meet its burden of proof

http//www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.h
tml
34
Criteria for Evaluating the Sufficiency

• Depth refers to the extent to which the main
  argument deals with the complexities of the issue
• Breadth refers to the extent to which the main
  argument considers differing viewpoints of the
  issue

http//www.criticalthinking.org/university/unistan
.html
35
Criteria for Evaluating the Support

• Evidence should be accurate and documented with
  citations (references to the original sources)
• Original sources should be from peer-reviewed
  publications ,i.e., those that authorities have
  reviewed and approved the methodologies and
  conclusions of the author(s)

36
Criteria for Evaluating Logic

• Logic must be valid - in this course, the logic
  is valid if it utilizes either inductive
  reasoning or deductive reasoning
• Logic must be sound - an argument is sound when
  it is valid and all its reasons are true
• In this course logic is sound if published in a
  peer-reviewed journal

http//www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.h
tml
37
Criteria for Relative Soundness

• Strong if argument is compelling
• Weak if inductive logic could result in more than
  one generalization
• Weak if deductive logic involves a generalization
  that does not clearly parallel the argument

38
Criteria for Conclusion

• Accept as provisionally true if it meets all the
  criteria
• Reject if claim is not falsifiable or if support
  is not comprehensive, honest, replicable, and
  sufficient
• Suspend judgement if it meets all the criteria
  except soundness

39
Mini-Report Form

• Available from Chemistry 83 web site
• Evaluate claim, support, and logic of each
  argument and the breadth and depth of main
  argument, as instructed, on the form
• Attach a copy of the web article with claims,
  types of support, and types of logic labeled