WGU - CRITICAL THINKING & LOGIC ALREADY GRADED A

WGU - CRITICAL THINKING & LOGIC ALREADY GRADED A IMPEDIMENTS/BAD HABITS TO SOUND THINKING: - Making generalizations unsupported by evidence - Letting stereotypes shape our thinking - Viewing the world from one fixed vantage point - Forming false beliefs - Dismissing or attacking viewpoints that conflict with our own - Thinking deceptively about our own experiences EGOCENTRISM: the tendency to view everything in relationship to oneself. SOCIOCENTRISM: the assumption that one's own social group is inherently superior to all others. CRITICAL THINKING IS CHARACTERISTICALLY: self-directed; self-disciplined; self-monitored; self-corrective; requires practicing good intellectual habits; "thinking about thinking". FIRST-ORDER THINKING (ORDINARY THINKING): spontaneous and non-reflective; contains insight, prejudice, good and bad reasoning indiscriminately combined SECOND-ORDER THINKING (CRITICAL THINKING): first-order thinking that is consciously realized (i.e., analyzed, assessed, and reconstructed). FAIR-MINDEDNESS: to consider all relevant opinions equally without regard to one's own sentiments or selfish interests; to bring an unbiased and unprejudiced perspective to all viewpoints relevant to a situation. Involves adherence to Intellectual Standards along with requiring the critical thinker to simultaneously embody certain key Intellectual Traits. INTELLECTUAL UNFAIRNESS (opposite of fair-mindedness): to always see yourself as right and just; nearly always involves an element of self-deception. TRAITS/VIRTUES of a CRITICAL THINKER: *terms used by Paul & Elder (all relate fundamentally to fair-mindedness) -INTELLECTUAL AUTONOMY=thinking for oneself while adhering to standards of rationality. -INTELLECTUAL COURAGE=to develop the courage to challenge popular beliefs; confronting ideas, views, beliefs with fairness, even when painful; examine beliefs that one has negative feelings toward and has been dismissive of. -INTELLECTUAL EMPATHY=to routinely inhabit the perspectives of others in order to genuinely understand them. -INTELLECTUAL HUMILITY=commitment to discovering the extent of one's own ignorance. Recognition that one does not/cannot know everything. To be conscious of one's biases and prejudices. -INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY=striving to be true to one's own disciplined thinking and holding oneself to the same standards that one expects others to meet. -INTELLECTUAL PERSEVERANCE= the act of working one's way through intellectual complexities despite frustrations inherent in doing so. -CONFIDENCE IN REASON=encourages people to come to their own conclusions through the use of their own rational faculties; to use good reasoning as the fundamental criterion by which to judge whether to accept or reject any belief or position. STRONG-SENSE CRITICAL THINKERS: to behave in ways that do not exploit or otherwise harm others; work to empathize with the viewpoints of others; consistent pursuit of fair and just; willing to listen to arguments they do not necessarily hold; change their views when faced with better reasoning. Rather than using their thinking to manipulate others and to hide from the truth (in a weak-sense way), they use thinking in an ethical, reasonable manner. WEAK-SENSE CRITICAL THINKERS: fail to consider, in good faith, viewpoints that contradict its own viewpoint; lacks fair-mindedness. Sophistry The art of winning arguments regardless of whether there are problems in the thinking being used, regardless of whether relevant viewpoints are being ignored. Sophistic thinkers Use lower-level skills of rhetoric, or argumentation, by which they make unreasonable thinking look reasonable and reasonable thinking look unreasonable Reasoning; key question to ask Whenever someone is reasoning, it makes sense to ask, "Upon what facts or information are you basing your reasoning?" Element: ASSUMPTIONS/PRESUPPOSED Reasoning begins with our assumptions. These encompass everything we take for granted as true in order to figure out something else. Being able to identify assumptions (others' and our own) is essential to critical thinking. Element: CONCEPTS Reasoning takes form in concepts. Most of us take our concepts for granted. Critical thinking requires us to be aware of the concepts we hold and consider how they drive our reasoning. Element: IMPLICATIONS/CONSEQUENCES Element: INFERENCES Element: INFORMATION Element: POINT of VIEW Element: PURPOSE Element: QUESTIONS Intellectual Standard: Accuracy Questions focusing on making thinking more accurate include: - Is that really true? - How could we check to see if that is accurate? - How could we find out if that is true? Intellectual Standard: Precision Questions focusing on making thinking more precise include: - Could you give me more details? - Could you be more specific? Intellectual Standard: Relevance Questions focusing on relevance include: - How is this idea connected to the question? - How does that bear on the issue? - How does this idea relate to this other idea? - How does your question relate to the issue we are dealing with? Intellectual Standard: Clarity Questions that focus on clarity include: - Could you elaborate on that point? - Could you express that point in another way? - Could you give me an illustration? - Could you give me an example? - Let me state in my own words what I think you just said. Tell me if I am clear about your meaning. Intellectual Standard: Depth Questions focusing on depth of thought include: - How does your answer address the complexities in the question? - How are you taking into account the problems in the question? - How are you dealing with the most significant factors in the problem? Intellectual Standard: Breadth Questions focusing on making thinking broader include: - Do we need to consider another point of view? - Is there another way to look at this question? - What would this look like from a conservative standpoint? - What would this look like from the point of view of ...? Intellectual Standard: Logic Questions that focus on making thinking more logical include: - Does all of this fit together logically? - Does this really make sense? - Does that follow from what you said? - How does that follow from the evidence? - Before, you implied this, and now you are saying that. I don't see how both can be true. Intellectual Standard: Significance Questions that focus on making thinking more significant include: - What is the most significant information we need to address this issue? - How is that fact important in context? - Which of these questions is the most significant? - Which of these ideas or concepts is the most important? Intellectual Standard: Fairness Questions that focus on ensuring that thinking is fair include: - Is my thinking justified given the evidence? - Am I taking into account the weight of the evidence that others might advance in the situation? - Are these assumptions justified? - Is my purpose fair given the implications of my behavior? - Is the manner in which I am addressing the problem fair—or is my vested interest keeping me from considering the problem from alternative viewpoints? - Am I using concepts justifiably, or am I using them unfairly to manipulate someone (to selfishly get what I want)? Source of Evidence: Personal Experience Can lead to hasty generalizations based on only one or a couple of experiences (i.e., too few to be a representative example). Source of Evidence: Case Example It personalizes an issue through colorful examples and dramatic anecdotes but is suspect as evidence. Drawbacks: - Limited reliability because it is untypical or represents the exception to the norm - Can distract attention from other relevant evidence by appealing to emotions Source of Evidence: Research Study Can provide strong evidence because it yields empirical data that may be independently verified. Relies on scientific methods to reduce errors in observation and measurement. Drawbacks: - The quality of studies varies greatly - Researchers' values, self-interest, and biases can skew the way they conduct research and interpret findings - Research findings often get distorted or oversimplified by people who speak or write about them Source of Evidence: Personal Observation Personal observation is filtered through one's values, biases, and expectations. This can lead two observers to see or perceive the same thing differently. Source of Evidence: Testimony The quality varies depending on the expertise behind it and any biases it reflects. Drawbacks: - People are selective about what they reveal and don't reveal - It may come from someone who stands to profit from the testimonial (a motive of personal gain can result in a biased account) - It often leaves out information that would modify them essage if the information were not omitted Source of Evidence: Appeal to Authority Can be valuable evidence when the authority has relevant expertise, is not biased, and has a reputation of dependability. Drawbacks: - An authority can be mistaken - An authority often has a bias or agenda - An authority may lack the expertise to make an informed judgment on an issue Source of Evidence: Survey/Questionnaire A survey that is well designed and properly conducted yields responses that may be regarded as good evidence. Drawbacks: - Survey responses don't necessarily reflect respondents' actual beliefs (i.e., people may give answers that don't represent their true attitudes) - Ambiguously worded survey questions are open to differing interpretations by survey participants - Surveys often include built-in biases Source of Evidence: Analogy Its quality hinges on 2 factors: 1) The degree to which the 2 things being compared are similar and different 2) The relevance of the similarities and differences In a strong analogy, the things being compared have relevant similarities and lack relevant differences. In a faulty analogy, the things being compared have important relevant differences. Example: The auto and steel industries are government regulated, and they are not doing well. On the other hand, the computer industry, which only has some government regulation, is doing well. That must mean government regulation is bad for industry. Source of Evidence: Intuition Its dependability is beyond objective judgment because it is a subjective, private experience. There is no reliable basis for deciding which of two differing intuitive claims is more plausible. As an unconscious process, intuition often ignores or dismisses relevant empirical evidence. Source of Evidence: Chronology Chronology is a science and can be used as strong evidence in determining the correct order of a series of events. When there is no direct evidence, thinkers look for a repeated sequence of events. If one event repeatedly precedes another event, perhaps there is some connection. This is not as solid as direct evidence, but can support a proposed cause and effect relationship. Rival cause A plausible alternative explanation for why a certain outcome happened.