A thinking map

1. A thinking map • We have looked at a large number of pieces of reasoning types, and now we need a thinkingmap 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 else’s or your own. • We separate these ‘Right Questions’ into Clarification, Analysis and Evaluation, JudgingCredibility, 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 sufficientclarification 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 • 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.

6. 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 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 • What are the causalpossibilities 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?)

11. 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 rivalcauses

12. 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 rivalcauses for their findings • The certainty of a particular causal chain is inverselyrelatedto 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 doesn’t 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