Critical Thinking Skills

1. Critical Thinking Skills

2. See how… • Facts are proven/explained rather than what the facts are • Arguments are shaped/formed rather than what the argument is • Conclusions are drawn rather than what the conclusion is

3. REASON • Base our thoughts on reason/logic • Do not bring emotion into the thinking process

4. REASONING STRATEGIES • Induction: specific evidence (direct observations, statistical data, and/or scientific studies) supports a claim/argument, but the evidence has to pass the credibility test and has to fit the conclusion being drawn • Deduction: show how certain conclusions follow from an observation; make clear how your conclusions follow from specific premises • Reductio ad Absurdum: show that consequences are absurd if carried to the logical end

5. REASONING STRATEGIES CONT’D • Syllogism: a set of three statements that follow a fixed pattern to ensure sound reasoning (if one of three is false, then all is false) • Analogy in Argument: need to have significant similarities between two situations/things being compared •  (Emotional Appeal: identify the stories, scenes and/or events that arouse the strongest emotional response from within, and then draw the kind of emotional conclusion that helps your argument) • Ethical Appeal: you have to appear genuinely concerned about the topic, strongly committed to the truth, and sincere in your respect for others

6. What we can rely on… • Established truths: historical fact, scientific fact, geographical fact • Primary source information: materials from people directly involved with the issue • Statistical findings: data showing how much, how many, and/or how often • Opinions of authorities: authorities are good only if the reader accepts them as authoritative • Personal experience: generally reinforces, but does not replace other kinds of evidence (some may not accept it at all as evidence, saying it’s biased)

7. Criteria for Evaluation of Evidence • How trustworthy are the sources? • How much evidence is there to support the argument? (more is better) • Is there any contradictory evidence? • How well is the evidence presented? • How well does the evidence support the claim? • What conclusion does the evidence allow us to make?

8. Critically Analyzing Information Sources • Examine the bibliographical info, and do an initial appraisal • Check the credentials of the author(s)—has expertise on the subject, with whom s/he is affiliated and whether this affiliation poses a conflict of interest…

9. Critically Analyzing Info. Sources Cont’d • Check the date of the publication and edition for relevance • Check the publisher information to see if it is scholarly (a university press does not guarantee quality, but is a good source) • Note: a scholarly work will always have been peer-reviewed

10. CRITICAL ANALYSIS I • Scan and read only parts of relevance • Note who the audience is, and see if it is relevant to you • Examine the content to see if information presented is fact, opinion (interpretation of facts) or “propaganda” • Note if the information is well-researched and supported by evidence

11. CRITICAL ANALYSIS II • If the writer deviates from what other experts in the field say, pay careful attention and read more critically • Note whether the work updates other sources, corroborates other materials, or adds new information

12. FALLACIES (ERRORS) • Hasty generalization: conclusion is based on too little evidence • Non Sequitur (meaning is “it does not follow”): draws unwarranted conclusions from plenty of evidence • Stereotyping • Card Stacking: deliberately presents only a part of the evidence on a topic (and hides the rest) • Either/Or Fallacy: offers only two choices, when several options are possible • Begging the Question: asserts an unproven statement as truth • Circular Argument: supports a position by merely stating it (instead of proving it)

13. FALLACIES CONT’D • Arguing off the point: sidetracks an issue by introducing irrelevant information • Argumentum ad hominem (“to the man”): attacks an individual rather than that person’s opinion or qualifications • Appeal to the Crowd: arouses an emotional response by playing on the irrational fears and prejudices of the audience • Guilt by Association: points out some similarities or connection between one person/group and another • Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (“after this, therefore because of this”): assumes that because one event follows another, the first caused the second (e.g., superstition) • Faulty Analogy: assumes that two circumstances or things are similar in all important aspects, even though they are not

14. Self-Awareness • Consider and recognize own assumptions, prejudices, biases, or point of view

15. Open-mindedness • evaluate all reasonable inferences (but know that inferences are assumptions, which are yet unproven) • consider a number of possible viewpoints or perspectives and remain open to other interpretations

16. Open-mindedness Cont’d • If a new interpretation explains the evidence better, is simpler, or has fewer discrepancies or covers more data, accept it as the best paradigm for now • accept new interpretation in response to a reevaluation of the evidence or reassessment of our real interests • do not dismiss unpopular views too quickly

17. Discipline • precise, meticulous, comprehensive, and exhaustive • resist manipulation and irrational appeals • avoid snap judgments

18. Judgment • recognize the relevance and/or merit of alternative assumptions and perspectives • recognize the extent and weight of evidence

19. Misinformation Occurs When… • Expert opinion changes • A small survey/research is conducted—inadequate proof • Facts are Overstated • Stereotyping distorts facts

20. SOURCES • Kurland, Dan (n.d.). What is Critical Thinking? Retrieved from http://www.criticalreading.com/critical_thinking.htm • Olin Library Reference Research & Learning Services, Cornell University Library (n.d.). Critically Analyzing Information Sources. Retrieved from http://www.library.cornell.edu/olinuris/ref/research/skill26.htm • Olin Library Reference Research & Learning Services, Cornell University Library (n.d.). Distinguishing Scholarly Journals from Non-Scholarly Periodicals. Retrieved from http://www.library.cornell.edu/olinuris/ref/research/skill20.html • Olin Library Reference Research & Learning Services, Cornell University Library (n.d.). Guide to Library Research at Cornell. Retrieved from http://www.library.cornell.edu/olinuris/ref/research/tutorial.html • Olin Library Reference Research & Learning Services, Cornell University Library (n.d.). How to Prepare an Annotated Bibliography. Retieved from http://www.library.cornell.edu/olinuris/ref/research/skill28.htm • Olin Library Reference Research & Learning Services, Cornell University Library (n.d.). The Seven Steps of the Research Process. Retrieved from http://www.library.cornell.edu/olinuris/ref/research/skill1.htm

21. Sources Cont’d • Reinking, J.A., von der Osten, R., Cairns, S.A., & Fleming, R. (2010). Strategies for successful writing. (4th Canadian ed). Toronto: Pearson • University of Toronto. (n.d.). Writing. Retrieved from http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specific-types-of-writing/annotated-bibliography