A thinking map

1
A thinking map

• We have looked at a large number of pieces of
  reasoning types, and now we need a thinking map
  of how to best analyse, understand, and evaluate
  them.
• The thinking map, below, is a list of key
  questions you should ask when evaluating all
  sorts of arguments whether someone elses or
  your own.
• We separate these Right Questions into
  Clarification, Analysis and Evaluation, Judging
  Credibility, Causal explanation.

2
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 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.

3
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.

4
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?

5
Analysis of arguments

1. 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).
2. What are the Reasons (data, evidence) and their
   Structure?
3. What is the Assumed (that is, implicit or taken
   from granted, perhaps in the Context)?
4. Clarify the Meaning (by the terms, claims or
   arguments) which need it.

6
Evaluation of arguments

1. 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)?
2. Does the reasoning Support its conclusion(s) (is
   the support strong, for example beyond
   reasonable doubt, or weak?)
3. Are there Other Relevant Considerations/Arguments
   which strengthen or weaken the case? (You may
   already know these or may have to construct
   them.)
4. What is your Overall Evaluation (in the light of
   1 through 7)?

7
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?

8
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?

9
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?

10
Causal explanation - issues

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

11
Causal explanation lessons 1

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

12
Causal explanation lessons 2

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

13
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?

14
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