Definition of Critical
Thinking: Critical Thinking is a cognitive activity associated with
using the mind. Critical Thinking involves a wide range of skills and attitudes
that includes
·
Being able to read between the
lines, seeing beneath the surface, and recognizing false or unfair assumptions.
·
Identifying other people’s
positions, arguments and conclusions.
·
Drawing conclusions about whether
arguments are valid and justifiable, based on good evidence and sensible
assumptions.
·
Presenting a point of view in a
structured, clear, and reasonable way that
convinces
others.
Benefits of Critical
Thinking:
1. Improved attention and observations.
2. More focused reading
3. Improved ability to identify the key
points in a text or other message rather than becoming distracted by less
important materials.
4. Improved ability to respond to the
appropriate points in a message.
5. Knowledge of how to get your point
across more easily.
6.
Skills
of analysis that you can choose to apply in a variety in situations.
Barriers to critical
thinking:
1.
Misunderstanding of what is meant by criticism: some people assume that criticism means making
negative comments. Actually critical thinking means identifying
both negative and positive aspects.
2.
Over-estimating our own reasoning abilities: Most of us think of ourselves as rational
beings. We always tend to believe that our belief systems and reasoning systems
are the best.
3.
Lack of methods, strategies and practice: some people don’t know which steps to take to
improve their critical thinking skills and some others are unaware of the
strategies of critical thinking.
4.
The emotional attitude: it is important to acknowledge that there is
more than one way of looking at an issue; sometimes you feel distressed
emotionally because of challenging arguments so you refuse to listen to and
understand the other’s point of view.
5.
Insufficient focus and attention to details: critical thinking requires good attention to
detail, more than just a general overview of subject matter.
6.Egocentric thinking: thinking
only of things in relation to yourself.
Egocentric
thinking is viewing everything in relation to oneself. This hinders critical thinking, which requires
open-mindednes.
7. Social Conditioning: the effect of our society on our way of thinking
critically.Each of us is unique. Age, IQ, race, genes, gender, culture, family, friends, and a wide array of other factors have a dramatic effect on how we view the world and the people we interact with.
What is a fallacy? A fallacy is an argument that uses poor reasoning. An argument
can be fallacious whether or not its conclusion is true. A fallacy can be either formal or informal.
1. Personalization of the argument : attempts to counter another’s claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself. True believers will often commit this fallacy by countering the arguments of skeptics by stating that skeptics are close-minded. Skeptics, on the other hand, may fall into the trap of dismissing the claims of UFO believers, for example, by stating that people who believe in UFO's are crazy or stupid.
2. Ignorance: a specific belief is true because we don't know that it isn't true. Defenders of extrasensory perception, for example, will often overemphasize how much we do not know about the human brain. UFO proponents will often argue that an object sighted in the sky is unknown, and therefore it is an alien spacecraft.
3. Argument from authority: stating that a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. It is reasonable to give more credence to the claims of those with the proper background, education, and credentials, or to be suspicious of the claims of someone making authoritative statements in an area for which they cannot demonstrate expertise. But the truth of a claim should ultimately rest on logic and evidence, not the authority of the person promoting it.
4. Argument from personal inability: I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true. Creationists are fond of arguing that they cannot imagine the complexity of life resulting from blind evolution, but that does not mean life did not evolve.
6. Confusing association with cause: like stating that the increase of the use of drugs among young people is due to unemployment or poverty. Drug use is a result of many social, psychological and economic factors.
7. Inconsistency applying criteria or rules to one belief: for example, some consumer advocates argue that we need stronger regulation of prescription drugs to ensure their safety and effectiveness, but at the same time argue that medicinal herbs should be sold with no regulation for either safety or effectiveness.
8. No connection between the argument and the conclusion: this refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists.
9. Assuming a cause and effect relation between two events because they happen at the same time or follow each other: A preceded B, therefore A caused B, and therefore assumes cause and effect for two events just because they are temporally related .
10. Reduction of legitimacy of the argument by stretching the logic in order to force an absurd conclusion. For example a UFO enthusiast once argued that if I am skeptical about the existence of alien visitors, I must also be skeptical of the existence of the Great Wall of China, since I have not personally seen either.
1. Personalization of the argument : attempts to counter another’s claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself. True believers will often commit this fallacy by countering the arguments of skeptics by stating that skeptics are close-minded. Skeptics, on the other hand, may fall into the trap of dismissing the claims of UFO believers, for example, by stating that people who believe in UFO's are crazy or stupid.
2. Ignorance: a specific belief is true because we don't know that it isn't true. Defenders of extrasensory perception, for example, will often overemphasize how much we do not know about the human brain. UFO proponents will often argue that an object sighted in the sky is unknown, and therefore it is an alien spacecraft.
3. Argument from authority: stating that a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. It is reasonable to give more credence to the claims of those with the proper background, education, and credentials, or to be suspicious of the claims of someone making authoritative statements in an area for which they cannot demonstrate expertise. But the truth of a claim should ultimately rest on logic and evidence, not the authority of the person promoting it.
4. Argument from personal inability: I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true. Creationists are fond of arguing that they cannot imagine the complexity of life resulting from blind evolution, but that does not mean life did not evolve.
6. Confusing association with cause: like stating that the increase of the use of drugs among young people is due to unemployment or poverty. Drug use is a result of many social, psychological and economic factors.
7. Inconsistency applying criteria or rules to one belief: for example, some consumer advocates argue that we need stronger regulation of prescription drugs to ensure their safety and effectiveness, but at the same time argue that medicinal herbs should be sold with no regulation for either safety or effectiveness.
8. No connection between the argument and the conclusion: this refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists.
9. Assuming a cause and effect relation between two events because they happen at the same time or follow each other: A preceded B, therefore A caused B, and therefore assumes cause and effect for two events just because they are temporally related .
10. Reduction of legitimacy of the argument by stretching the logic in order to force an absurd conclusion. For example a UFO enthusiast once argued that if I am skeptical about the existence of alien visitors, I must also be skeptical of the existence of the Great Wall of China, since I have not personally seen either.
.
10. ‘You too’ theory: This is an attempt to justify wrong action because someone else also does it. "My evidence may be invalid, but so is yours."
(http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp)
10. ‘You too’ theory: This is an attempt to justify wrong action because someone else also does it. "My evidence may be invalid, but so is yours."
(http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp)
No comments:
Post a Comment