Critical thinking

---

 Think of this as Part I.

Over the years, I have noticed that many students are facing challenges with critical thinking.  This will give you a good enough background.
Last reviewed 07 Feb 2021

Its NOT Magic

Before we start this discussion in earnest, I want to share with you a couple of ideas from the field of magic.
In their TV Show “Fool Us”, Penn and Teller have an act which demonstrates seven of the many principles of magic:  palm, simulation, steal, ditch, misdirection, load, and switch.  There are others but these seven are shown to us as entertainment.  I strongly suggest you look at this Penn and Teller skit called the “Seven Principles of Magic” from their TV show “Fool Us”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S8Peh9XH70, downloaded 06 February 2021 

I am not showing you this so you can put magic in your writing (pardon the pun... although I hope you will!)  BUT you should be aware that others will try to pull one over on you... and they will succeed if you are not watching...

As you move towards your final year in university and the workforce, and potentially to graduate school, you will be called upon to do research (undergraduate thesis, personal research paper, group research project).  Your success will be judged in part, by the methods you use to address the shortcomings in the research of others.  Your writing will be judged as well.

  
Use these critical thinking skills.  Adjust your critical thinking radar to detect both blatant and subtle efforts to misdirect.  Learn to identify good sources and bad sources, make logical conclusions, and develop new theories.  Be aware of the efforts of others to mislead you and others, particularly by employing underhanded logic tactics.

We all have a capacity to think.  However we see the world though different lenses. Why?  Because we have each lived different experiences.  Much of our thinking, if not self-regulated, is biased, and sometimes uninformed.

Definition

Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally about what to do, or what to believe.
It is a process by which we improve the quality of our thinking.

Critical thinking in action

There is often more to the story than what you can see at first glance.  

- Dig deeper.  

- Ask questions (even if you can’t get an answer.) 

- Didn’t make assumptions or jump to conclusions

- Kept an open-mind and suspend judgment

- Found out the facts and examine all the evidence

- Didn’t believe everything you hear

- Identify why the person might tell you something that is untrue or misleading or incomplete.  

- Asking "what do they have to gain by not telling the story accurately?"

Characteristics

Critical thinkers are sceptical, open-minded, objective, fair, respect evidence, look at different points of view, and are willing to change their mind if logical reasoning leads them to do so.

Recently, in the news, you may have heard the term 'alternative facts' - this is another way to say “it's not true.”  It also shows that when we read news, articles, or about scandals on the internet, we have to use critical thinking to know if we should believe them or how much of it is actually true. The same applies for daily life - when faced with problems or arguments, you will need to get to the truth and this means evaluating what others say as well as evaluating how you think about the problem.

Self-regulation is required to monitor and control your own behaviour, emotions, or thoughts.  This is where some critical thinking techniques come in:

Knowing limits

People who think critically know, accept and are not afraid of the limits of their knowledge. They accept that others may know more than they do.  Socrates was know as the smartest man around in his day.  He knew he wasn’t.  But according to the story, he asked around and learning a lot about what real knowledge was.  Here is a link to that story:  https://gohighbrow.com/socrates-knowing-and-not-knowing/

Courage and independence

Critical thinkers are courageous in the face of adverse opinion or authority. Ideas that might be considered wild or absurd can sometimes be rationally justified and the critical thinker knows how to construct an evaluation that will support the rationality of the idea. Sometimes, you'll need perseverance to continue on with your ideas in the face of adversity or other obstacles that get in the way, if you are on the path of reason.

Objectivity

Critical thinkers also put themselves in someone else’s shoes. This allows them to reconstruct viewpoints and understand other viewpoints. They treat all views in the same way, and do not rely on arbitrary references such as “he's my superior, so he must be correct". This includes setting aside your own interests and doing what’s right for the business or company. 

Perseverance

This refers to “getting to the bottom of something” even if it is difficult, rather than giving up and leaving the problem unsolved. In some cases you may face obstacles such as people who are unwilling to talk, lack of cooperation or even irrational opposition to fixing the problem.  

What does critical thinking involve?

When you are tasked with solving a problem, it doesn’t mean you need solve it immediately; in fact it’s better to defer judgement until you have all the facts.  Using critical thinking to solve problems means the ability to only refer to facts and data, without bias.

Someone with critical thinking skills is able to:

- identify, understand and categorize problems

- evaluate different arguments

- note inconsistencies

- avoid emotional reasoning

- solve problems in a systematic manner

- know the relevance of ideas

- question their own reasoning / beliefs

- avoid oversimplification

When you are investigating an issue or trying to solve a problem – if you are thinking critically then these are the actions you will likely be doing:

- asking lots of questions

- taking time to reflect

- making notes

- gathering and examining evidence

- checking facts

- looking for different viewpoints 

When to use critical thinking

Critical thinking skills can be used every day of the week at work and in our personal lives. We can use critical thinking to decide which insurance company to choose, when to go on vacation, which person to hire or which one to fire! 

Using critical thinking or how much time you spend using those skills for a problem will largely depend on the consequences of your decision. That is to say, use critical thinking when the outcome makes a significant difference in your work or personal life.

For example, you are writing an email to a colleague about the golf tournament and want to tell him that you're no longer attending - this is easy.  However, if you're writing an email to your boss to say you cannot go something they asked for, then you might consider this a little more. The consequences of that email could be more serious.

Why does it matter?

Over time, you will develop as a person and leader. The more you think critically about problems, the more you will do this automatically. Adopting critical thinking will improve your decision-making process and as we know getting ahead in business or personal affairs is about making good decisions. If your decisions are based on rational thought and facts, you will see that they are much easier to justify and easier for the higher-ups to support. 

It helps team dynamics. When you make decisions rationally and objectively, your team will trust you and support your decisions. They will know that you take time to reflect on issues and try to resolve them in a rational way. If you show fairness and ethical behaviour, then others will model this and do the same. They will not worry about unfair treatment.

It's good for business. Bad decision-making costs a lot of time and money. Thinking critically about problems increases productivity and reduces costs. It can be as simple as who to assign to a particular task? Or, a more complex decision such as revising the emergency plan.

Reasoning

The next topic in this string of thoughts is about reasoning.  

There are three types of logical reasoning. Informally, two kinds of logical reasoning can be distinguished in addition to formal deduction, which are induction and abduction.

Deduction

- Deduction is the conclusion drawn from the structure of an argument's premises, by use of rules of inference formally those of propositional calculus. For example: X is human and all humans have a face, so X has a face.

Induction

- Induction is drawing a conclusion from a pattern that is guaranteed by the strictness of the structure to which it applies. For example: The sum of even integers is even. Let **********
Must be even numbers (Two times an odd number gives an even number.  Two times an even number is always even.)

Similarly, (but not the same problem as above) ********
will give an even number.  Summing two even numbers results in an even number.

Abduction

- Abduction is drawing a conclusion using a heuristic that is likely, but not inevitable given some foreknowledge. For example: I observe sheep in a field, and they appear white from my viewing angle, so sheep are white. 

Contrast with the deductive statement: Some sheep are white on at least one side.

Summary

The list of core critical thinking skills includes observation, interpretation, analysis, inference, evaluation, explanation, and metacognition. According to Reynolds (2011), an individual or group engaged in a strong way of critical thinking gives due consideration to establish for instance:

Evidence through reality

- Context skills to isolate the problem from context

- Relevant criteria for making the judgment well

- Applicable methods or techniques for forming the judgment

- Applicable theoretical constructs for understanding the problem and the question at hand

In addition to possessing strong critical-thinking skills, one must be disposed to engage problems and decisions using those skills. Critical thinking employs not only logic but broad intellectual criteria such as clarity, credibility, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, significance, and fairness.

Critical thinking calls for the ability to:

- Recognize problems, to find workable means for meeting those problems

- Understand the importance of prioritization and order of precedence in problem-solving

- Gather and marshal pertinent (relevant) information

- Recognize unstated assumptions and values

- Comprehend and use language with accuracy, clarity, and discernment

- Interpret data, to appraise evidence and evaluate arguments

 -Recognize the existence (or non-existence) of logical relationships between propositions

 -Draw warranted conclusions and generalizations

- Put to test the conclusions and generalizations at which one arrives

- Reconstruct one's patterns of beliefs on the basis of wider experience

- Render accurate judgments about specific things and qualities in everyday life

Critical thinking skills can be used at work and in our personal lives. Using critical thinking will help you develop as a person and a leader. Adopting critical thinking will improve your decision-making process and as we know getting ahead in business or personal affairs is about making good decisions. The more you think critically about problems, the more you will do this automatically.  

The three-point summary - in day-to-day work, try to:
- avoid making assumptions or jumping to conclusions

- keep an open-mind and suspend judgment

- find out the facts and examine all the evidence

In sum:
"A persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports or refutes it and the further conclusions to which it tends.”

Sources consulted and referenced
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_facts
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-thinking/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

This is perhaps best thought of as Part 2 of the discussion on Critical Thinking.  This is heavily edited and re-structured although initially based on an article  by Grace Fleming.

You have already been introduced to the notion of critical thinking earlier in this course.  But we only brushed the surface because the point where I mentioned this concept was not the time nor the place to take a deeper dive into that particular quagmire.  However, that time has now come.

The concept of critical thinking has been defined in many complex ways, but it can best be summed up as thinking and judging for yourself.

When you develop critical thinking skills, you will learn to evaluate information that you collect while recognizing your own implicit biases. You will analyse the evidence that is presented to you in order to make sure it is sound.  You will also examine claims by others and the evidence they present in order to detect logical errors (fallacies) and biases in the authors’ statements to protect yourself against leaping to conclusions.

Characteristics of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking skills include analysis, communication, open-mindedness, problem solving, and creativity.

Analysis

Part of critical thinking is the ability to carefully examine something, whether it is a problem, a set of data, or a text. People with analytical skills can examine information, understand what it means, and properly explain to others the implications of that information.

- Asking Thoughtful Questions

- Data Analysis

- Research

- Interpretation

- Judgment

- Questioning Evidence

- Recognizing Patterns

- Skepticism

Communication

Often, you will need to share your conclusions with your employers or with a group of colleagues. You need to be able to communicate with others to share your ideas effectively. You might also need to engage critical thinking in a group. In this case, you will need to work with others and communicate effectively to figure out solutions to complex problems.

- Active Listening

- Assessment

- Collaboration

- Explanation

- Interpersonal

- Presentation

- Teamwork

- Verbal Communication

 - Written Communication

Creativity

Critical thinking often involves creativity and innovation. You might need to spot patterns in the information you are looking at or come up with a solution that no one else has thought of before. All of this involves a creative eye that can take a different approach from all other approaches.

- Conceptualization

- Curiosity

- Imagination

 - Drawing Connections

- Inferring

- Predicting

- Synthesizing

- Vision

Open-Mindedness

To think critically, you need to be able to put aside any assumptions or judgments and merely analyse the information you receive. You need to be objective, evaluating ideas without bias.

- Diversity

- Fairness

- Humility

- Inclusive

- Objectivity

- Observation

- Reflection

Problem Solving

Problem solving is another critical thinking skill that involves analysing a problem, generating and implementing a solution, and assessing the success of the plan. Employers don’t simply want employees who can think about information critically. They also need to be able to come up with practical solutions.

- Attention to Detail

- Clarification

- Decision Making

- Evaluation

- Groundedness

- Identifying Patterns

- Innovation

More Critical Thinking Skills

- Inductive Reasoning

- Deductive Rea

- Adaptability

- Emotional Intelligence

- Brainstorming

- Optimization

- Restructuring

- Integration

Strategic Planning

- Project Management

- Ongoing Improvement

- Causal analysis

- Case Analysis

- Diagnostics

- SWOT Analysis

- Business Intelligence

- Quantitative Data Management

- Qualitative Data Management

- Metrics

- Accuracy

- Risk Management

- Statistics

 - Scientific Method

- Consumer Behaviour

Some practical rules to live by

Recognize assumptions you carry with you. 

Have you ever wondered why you believe the things that you believe? Do you believe things because you’ve been told to believe them? Step outside your own beliefs to observe from a neutral viewpoint. Be aware of assumptions and learn to self-reflect.

Process information honestly. 

People sometimes pass along information that is not really true (i.e. the "fake news" crisis).

Recognize a generalization.

 
Girls don’t like bugs. Old people are wise. Cats make better pets. These are generalizations. They’re not always true, are they?

Evaluate old information and new ideas. 

There was a time when doctors thought leeches could cure us. Recognize that just because something is commonly accepted, doesn't mean it is true.

Produce new ideas based on sound evidence. 

Detectives solve crimes by collecting bits of truths and putting them all together like a puzzle. One small deceit can jeopardize an investigation. The entire truth-seeking process is destabilized by one piece of bad evidence, leading to a wrong conclusion.

Analyse a problem and recognize the complex parts. 

A mechanic must understand how an entire engine works before s/he can diagnose a problem. Sometimes it is necessary to deconstruct an engine to figure out which part isn’t working. You should approach big problems like this: break them down into smaller parts and observe carefully and deliberately.

Use precise vocabulary and communicate with clarity. 

The truth can be blurred by fuzzy language. It is important to develop your vocabulary so you can communicate truths accurately.

Manage emotions in response to a situation or problem. 

Don’t be fooled by stirred up, emotional plea or angry speech. Stay rational and keep your emotions in check as you encounter new information.

Judge your sources. 

Learn to recognize hidden agendas and bias when you collect information.

Common fallacies you encounter daily

Because fallacies are so common, you should be able to recognize the ones most often used in trying to convince you of the rightness of a flawed argument...

Fallacies are tricks of logic, and understanding common fallacies is the best way to avoid falling for them. There are many types of fallacies, and the more you think about them, the more readily you will recognize them all around you, especially in advertisements, arguments, and political discussions.

Bandwagon Appeals: 

- Bandwagon appeals argue that you should follow along with something because everyone else believes it.

Scare Tactics: 

- A scare tactic is the use of a scary story as an example to make you more likely to believe some underlying assumption.

Appeal to Emotion: 

- An appeal to emotion uses a fiery speech or a tragic story to convince someone to side with you.

False Dichotomy: 

- Often there are many sides to an argument, but a "false dichotomy" presents an issue as one side versus the other.

To better understand what is going on, let us take a moment to explore how a logical fallacy invalidates an argument.  In an article by Cline, he writes that to understand a true argument, one must understand and recognize a defective argument first.  

In Cline’s opening paragraph, he claims that;
“...(f)allacies are defects that cause an argument to be invalid, unsound, or weak.” 

Cline separates logical fallacies into two groups;
- formal, where it is a defect which can be identified merely by looking at the logical structure of an argument, rather than at any specific statements, and

- informal, which can be identified only through an analysis of the actual content of the argument.

Formal Fallacies

Formal fallacies are found only in deductive arguments with identifiable forms. One of the things which makes them appear reasonable is the fact that they look like and mimic valid logical arguments, but are in fact invalid. Here is an example:

- Premise: All humans are mammals.

- Premise: All cats are mammals.

- Conclusion: All humans are cats.

Both premises in this argument are true, but the conclusion is false. The defect is a formal fallacy, and can be demonstrated by reducing the argument to its bare structure:

        All A are C

                 All B are C

                 All A are B

It does not matter what A, B, and C stand for. We could replace them with "wines," "milk," and "beverages." The argument would still be invalid for the exact same reason. It can be helpful to reduce an argument to its structure and ignore content in order to see if it is valid.

Informal Fallacies

Informal fallacies are defects which can be identified only through an analysis of the actual content of the argument, rather than through its structure. Here is an example:

- Premise: Geological events produce rock.

- Premise: Rock is a type of music.

- Conclusion: Geological events produce music.

Here is an example of a semantic map:

The premises in this argument are true but clearly, the conclusion is false. Is the defect a formal fallacy or an informal fallacy?  To see if this is actually a formal fallacy, we have to break it down to its basic structure:
A = B

        B = C

        A = C

This structure is valid. Therefore, the defect cannot be a formal fallacy and must instead be an informal fallacy that is identifiable from the content.  When we examine the content, we find that a key term ("rock") is being used with two different definitions.

Informal fallacies can work in several ways. Some distract the reader from what is really going on. Some, like in the above example, make use of ambiguity to cause confusion.

Defective Arguments

There are many ways to categorize fallacies. Aristotle was the first to try to systematically describe and categorize them, identifying 13 fallacies divided into two groups. Since then, many more have been described and the categorization has become more complicated. The categorization used here should prove useful, but it is not the only valid way of organizing fallacies.

Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy

Arguments with this defect have a structure that is grammatically close to arguments which are valid and make no fallacies. Because of this close similarity, a reader can be distracted into thinking that a bad argument is actually valid.

Fallacies of Ambiguity

With these fallacies, some sort of ambiguity is introduced either in the premises or in the conclusion itself. This way, an apparently false idea can be made to appear true so long as the reader does not notice the problematic definitions.

Equivocation Fallacy

No True Scotsman Fallacy

This fallacy is commonly used in debating or concluding a particular point that attempts to compare the actions, words, or beliefs of one person to all Scotsmen. This common logical fallacy is inherently false due to its generalization and vagueness.

The word "Scotsman" can be replaced with any other word to describe a person or group. It can refer to any number of things as well.  It works (on the uninformed) because it is a perfect example of a fallacy of ambiguity as well as a fallacy of presumption.  Since it rests ultimately on shifting the meaning of terms (a form of equivocation) and begging the question, it receives special attention.  The name "No True Scotsman" comes from an example such as the following:

- Suppose I assert that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. 

- You counter this by pointing out that your friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge. 

- I then say "Ah, yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

Obviously, the original assertion about Scotsmen has been challenged quite well. In attempting to shore it up, the speaker uses an ad hoc change combined with a shifted meaning of the words from the original.  Did you see the way that worked?

Fallacy of Accent

The fallacy of quoting something out of context (next section) is often included in the Fallacy of Accent, and it is true that there are strong parallels. Aristotle's original Fallacy of Accent referred solely to shifting the accent on syllables within words, and it is already stretched in modern discussions of fallacies to include shifting the accent between words within a sentence. To expand it further to include shifting emphasis on entire passages in a text is, perhaps, going a bit far. 

Quoting out of Context

What does it mean to quote someone out of context? After all, every quotation necessarily excludes large sections of the original material and is thus an "out of context" quotation. What makes this a fallacy is to take a selective quotation which distorts, alters, or even reverses the originally intended meaning. This can be done accidentally or deliberately.

A good example is irony. A statement meant ironically can be taken wrong when in written form because much irony is communicated through the emphasis when spoken. Sometimes, however, that irony is communicated more clearly through the addition of more material. For example:

“This has been the best play I've seen all year! Of course, it is the only play I've seen all year.”
“This was a fantastic movie, as long as you aren't looking for plot or character development.” 

In both of these reviews, you start out with an ironic observation which is followed by an explanation that communicates that the foregoing was meant to be taken ironically rather than literally. This can be a dangerous tactic for reviewers to employ because unscrupulous promoters can do this:

John Smith calls this "the best play I've seen all year!"
“...a fantastic movie..." - Sandy Jones, Daily Herald.

In both cases, passage of the original material has been taken out of context and thereby given a meaning that is exactly the opposite of what was intended.  Because these passages are being used in the implicit argument that others should come to see the play or movie, they qualify as fallacies, in addition to just being unethical.

Appeal to Authority

What you just saw in “Quoting out of Context”, is also part of another fallacy, the Appeal to Authority, which attempts to convince you of the truth of the proposition by appealing to the opinion of some authority figure.  Interestingly enough, the appeal to authority usually appeals to their actual opinion rather than a distorted version of it.  It is not uncommon for the Quoting Out Of Context fallacy to be combined with an Appeal to Authority, and it is frequently found in creationist arguments.

For example, here is a passage from Charles Darwin, often quoted by creationists:

“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”

Obviously, the implication here is that Darwin doubted his own theory and had encountered a problem he could not solve. But let's look at the quote in the context of the two sentences following it:

“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.

       “The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. In the first place, it should always be borne in mind what sort of intermediate forms must, on the theory, have formerly existed...”

It is now obvious that instead of raising doubts, Darwin was simply using a rhetorical device to introduce his own explanations. The exact same tactic has been used with quotations from Darwin about the development of the eye.

Such methods are not limited to just creationists. Here is a quote from Thomas Henry Huxley used on alt.atheism by Rooster, a.k.a. Skeptic (this reference is not included in the sources to this article):

"This is ... all that is essential to Agnosticism. That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported propositions.

“The justification of the Agnostic principle lies in the success which follows upon its application, whether in the field of natural, or in that of civil, history; and in the fact that, so far as these topics are concerned, no sane man thinks of denying its validity."

The point of this quote is to try and argue that, according to Huxley, all that is "essential" to agnosticism is to deny that there are propositions which we should believe even though we do not have logically satisfactory evidence. However, this quote misrepresents the original passage:

“I further say that Agnosticism is not properly described as a "negative" creed, nor indeed as a creed of any kind, except in so far as it expresses absolute faith in the validity of a principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.

“This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism. That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported propositions.

“The justification of the Agnostic principle lies in the success which follows upon its application, whether in the field of natural, or in that of civil, history; and in the fact that, so far as these topics are concerned, no sane man thinks of denying its validity.”

If you notice, the phrase "it is all that is essential to Agnosticism" actually refers to the preceding passage. Thus, what is "essential" to Huxley's agnosticism is that people should not claim to be certain of ideas when they do not have the evidence which "logically justifies" such certainty. The consequence of adopting this essential principle, then, leads agnostics to repudiate the idea that we ought to believe things when we lack satisfactory evidence.

Combining the “Out of Context” Fallacy with Other Fallacies

Straw Man argument

Another common way to use the fallacy of quoting out of context is to combine with a Straw Man argument. In this, someone is quoted out of context so that their position appears weaker or more extreme than it is. When this false position is refuted, the author pretends that they have refuted the real position of the original person.

Most of the examples above are do not by themselves qualify as arguments. But it would not be unusual to see them as premises in arguments, either explicit or implicit. When this happens, then a fallacy has been committed. Until then, all we have is simply an error.

Fallacies of Relevance

These fallacies all make use of premises which are logically irrelevant to the final conclusion.
Examples:

Ad Hominem
Appeals to Authority
Appeals to Emotion and Desire
Fallacies of Presumption
Logical fallacies of presumption arise because the premises already assume what they are supposed to prove. This is invalid because there is no point in trying to prove something you already assume to be true. No one who needs to have something proven to them will accept a premise which already assumes the truth of that idea.
Examples:
Begging the Question
Complex Question
False Dilemma
Fallacies of Weak Induction

With this type of fallacy, there may be an apparent logical connection between the premises and the conclusion. However, if that connection is real, then it is too weak to support the conclusion.
Examples:
Ad Hoc Rationalization
Oversimplification & Exaggeration

How we sometimes trip ourselves up...

This section is gathered mostly from quotes (it would fail as an example of good writing...).  These writers are experts in their field and I could not have improved on their writing if I tried.  However, because it is mostly quotes, you may find this jumps from idea to idea a bit.  Hold tight... I think the ride is worth it.
Recalling the definition of a logical fallacy, Nordquist states;

“A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid. It is also called a fallacy, an informal logical fallacy, and an informal fallacy. All logical fallacies are non sequiturs - arguments in which a conclusion doesn't follow logically from what preceded it.”

Clinical psychologist Rian McMullin expands this definition:

"Logical fallacies are unsubstantiated assertions that are often delivered with a conviction that makes them sound as though they are proven facts. ...Whatever their origins, fallacies can take on a special life of their own when they are popularized in the media and become part of a national credo"

Kemper further simplifies the definition of a logical fallacy with this short quote;

"A logical fallacy is a false statement that weakens an argument by distorting an issue, drawing false conclusions, misusing evidence, or misusing language."

As we discussed above, a logical fallacy is one of the things verbal magicians use to misdirect their reader from the truth.  Because logical fallacies are underhanded, when we write, we should try to avoid using this tactic for the following reasons;

Smalzer writes,

"There are three good reasons to avoid logical fallacies in your writing. First, logical fallacies are wrong and, simply put, dishonest if you use them knowingly. Second, they take away from the strength of your argument. Finally, the use of logical fallacies can make your readers feel that you do not consider them to be very intelligent."

Wink adds,

"Whether examining or writing arguments, make sure you detect logical fallacies that weaken arguments. Use evidence to support claims and validate information—this will make you appear credible and create trust in the minds of your audience."

Baum  gives the following caution about informal fallacies;

"Although some arguments are so blatantly fallacious that at most they can be used to amuse us, many are more subtle and can be difficult to recognize. A conclusion often appears to follow logically and non-trivially from true premises, and only careful examination can reveal the fallaciousness of the argument.

"Such deceptively fallacious arguments, which can be recognized as such with little or no reliance on the methods of formal logic, are known as informal fallacies."

Recall there are two main categories of logical errors.  Shabo writes this about formal fallacies and informal fallacies.

"The term 'formal' refers to the structure of an argument and the branch of logic that is most concerned with structure - deductive reasoning. All formal fallacies are errors in deductive reasoning that render an argument invalid. The term 'informal' refers to the non-structural aspects of arguments, usually emphasized in inductive reasoning. Most informal fallacies are errors of induction, but some of these fallacies can apply to deductive arguments as well.

Soles challenges us to put political considerations on hold while we evaluate proposals:  

"You oppose a senator's proposal to extend government-funded health care to poor minority children because that senator is a liberal Democrat. This is a common logical fallacy known as ad hominem, which is Latin for 'against the man.' Instead of dealing with the argument you preempt any discussion by basically saying, 'I cannot listen to anyone who does not share my social and political values.' You indeed may decide that you don't like the argument the senator is making, but it is your job to poke holes in the argument, not to engage in a personal attack."

Soles gives us a second proposal based on the one above.  Notice how our willingness to accept the premise changes as we perceive different motives;

"Suppose that each November, a witch doctor performs a voodoo dance designed to summon the gods of winter and that soon after the dance is performed, the weather, in fact, begins to turn cold. The witch doctor's dance is associated with the arrival of winter, meaning that the two events appear to have happened in conjunction with one another. But is this really evidence that the witch doctor's dance actually caused the arrival of winter? Most of us would answer no, even though the two events seem to happen in conjunction with one another.

Gwartney et al., in their "Economics: Private and Public Choice," (2013) write;

"Those who argue that a causal relationship exists simply because of the presence of statistical association are committing a logical fallacy known as the post hoc propter ergo hoc fallacy. Sound economics warns against this potential source of error."

Murphy takes an approach on what the Americans call civic; 

"The arguments in support of civic education are often seductive....

"Although we might emphasize different civic virtues, don't we all honor a love for our country [and] a respect for human rights and the rule of law.... Since no one is born with an innate understanding of these virtues, they must be learned, and schools are our most visible institutions for learning.

"But this argument suffers from a logical fallacy: Just because civic virtues must be learned, does not mean they can be easily taught—and still less that they can be taught in schools. Nearly every political scientist who studies how people acquire knowledge and ideas about good citizenship agrees that schools and, in particular, civics courses have no significant effect on civic attitudes and very little if any, effect on civic knowledge."

Evaluating the information supplied by sources

All of the above is helpful in evaluating the writing of others.  At some point, you will need to come to a conclusion about how highly you rate the accuracy of the content of a source’s work.  The Intelligence Community rates human intelligence sources on their past record and the ability to confirm their current offerings. 

Reliability and credibility

Just as intelligence analysts evaluate their sources, so should you evaluate your sources.  Yet another tool you might find useful is the “5W’s” approach below.  This tool is different in that it provides two scales for evaluating the reliability and credibility “open sources”.  In a simple table here is one method;

***********  re-insert the table here ***********









Another expression of this table that uses “word pictures”;

Words of Estimative Probability

In 1964 Sherman Kent, one of the first contributors to a formal discipline of intelligence analysis addressed the problem of misleading expressions of (statistical) odds that a source would be found accurate, given in (American) National Intelligence Estimates (NIE).  In “Words of Estimative Probability”, Kent distinguished between ‘poets’ (those preferring wordy probabilistic statements) from ‘mathematicians’ (those preferring quantitative odds).  To bridge the gap between them and decision makers, Kent developed a paradigm relating estimative terms to the odds. His goal was to "... set forth the community's findings in such a way as to make clear to the reader what is certain knowledge and what is reasoned judgment, and within this large realm of judgment what varying degrees of certitude lie behind each key judgment."  Kent’s initiative was not adopted although the idea was well received and remains compelling today.

Table: Kent’s Words of Estimative Probability

Word                             Odds Error

Certain               100% Give or take 0%

Almost Certain        93% Give or take about 6%

Probable                        75% Give or take about 12%

Chances About Even 50% Give or take about 10%

Probably Not        30% Give or take about 10%

Almost Certainly Not  7% Give or take about 5%

Impossible                          0        Give or take 0%

Summary

What is critical thinking? Critical thinking refers to the ability to analyse information objectively and make a reasoned judgment. It involves the evaluation of sources, such as data, facts, observable phenomena, and research findings.

Good critical thinkers can draw reasonable conclusions from a set of information, and discriminate between useful and less useful details to solve problems or make decisions.

Why should care?  Employers want job candidates who can evaluate a situation using logical thought and offer the best solution.  Someone with critical thinking skills can be trusted to make decisions independently, and will not need constant hand holding.  Critical thinking abilities are among the most sought-after skills in almost every industry and workplace.

Recalling, 

- Critical thinking is a skill that students develop gradually as they progress in school. While the skill becomes more important in higher grades, some students find it difficult to understand the concept of critical thinking.

- The reason critical thinking can be difficult to grasp is because it requires students to set aside assumptions and beliefs to learn to think without bias or judgment.

- Critical thinking involves suspending your beliefs to explore and question topics from a "blank page" point of view. It also involves the ability to distinguish fact from opinion when exploring a topic.

And further recalling, to become a critical thinker, you must develop a few skills;

Recognize assumptions you carry with you. Have you ever wondered why you believe the things that you believe? Do you believe things because you’ve been told to believe them? Step outside your own beliefs to observe from a neutral viewpoint. Be aware of assumptions and learn to self-reflect.

Process information honestly. People sometimes pass along information that is not really true (i.e. the "fake news" crisis).

Recognize a generalization. Girls don’t like bugs. Old people are wise. Cats make better pets. These are generalizations. They’re not always true, are they?

Evaluate old information and new ideas. There was a time when doctors thought leeches could cure us. Recognize that just because something is commonly accepted, doesn't mean it is true.

Produce new ideas based on sound evidence. Detectives solve crimes by collecting bits of truths and putting them all together like a puzzle. One small deceit can jeopardize an investigation. The entire truth-seeking process is destabilized by one piece of bad evidence, leading to a wrong conclusion.

Analyse a problem and recognize the complex parts. A mechanic must understand how an entire engine works before s/he can diagnose a problem. Sometimes it is necessary to deconstruct an engine to figure out which part isn’t working. You should approach big problems like this: break them down into smaller parts and observe carefully and deliberately.

Use precise vocabulary and communicate with clarity. The truth can be blurred by fuzzy language. It is important to develop your vocabulary so you can communicate truths accurately.

Manage emotions in response to a situation or problem. Don’t be fooled by stirred up, emotional plea or angry speech. Stay rational and keep your emotions in check as you encounter new information.

Judge your sources. Learn to recognize hidden agendas and bias when you collect information.



Sources used:

Fleming, Grace. "Introduction to Critical Thinking." ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/introduction-to-critical-thinking-1857079 (accessed February 6, 2021)

Fleming, Grace. "Critical Thinking Exercises." ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/critical-thinking-exercises-1857246 (accessed February 6, 2021).

Doyle, Alison. "Critical Thinking Definition, Skills, and Examples." ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/critical-thinking-definition-with-examples-2063745 (accessed February 6, 2021)

University of Louisville. "What is Critical Thinking," Accessed Oct. 5, 2019.

American Management Association. "AMA Critical Skills Survey: Workers Need Higher Level Skills to Succeed in the 21st Century," Accessed Oct. 6, 2019.

CSIS

Nordquist, Richard. "What is a Logical Fallacy?" ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-logical-fallacy-1691259 (accessed February 6, 2021).

McMullin, Rian, The New Handbook of Cognitive Therapy Techniques, 2000

Kemper, Dave et al, Fusion: Integrated Reading and Writing. Cengage, 2015

Penn and Teller skit “Seven Principles of Magic” from their TV show “Fool Us”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S8Peh9XH70, downloaded 06 February 2021

Cline, Austin. "How Logical Fallacy Invalidates Any Argument." ThoughtCo. 

https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-logical-fallacy-250341 (accessed February 6, 2021).

Cline, Austin. "Quoting Out of Context Fallacy." ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/quoting-out-of-context-fallacy-250332 (accessed February 6, 2021)

Barker, Stephen F. "Elements of Logic." Hardcover — 1675, McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.

Curti, Gary N. "Weblog." Fallacy Files, March 31, 2019. 

Edwards, Paul (Editor). "The Encyclopedia of Philosophy." Hardcover, 1st edition, Macmillan/Collier, 1972.

Engel, S. Morris. "With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies." Sixth Edition, Bedford/St. Martin's, March 21, 2014.

Hurley, Patrick J. "A Concise Introduction to Logic." 12 Edition, Cengage Learning, January 1, 2014.

Salmon, Merrilee H. "Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking." 6th Edition, Cengage Learning, January 1, 2012.

Vos Savant, Marilyn. "The Power of Logical Thinking: Easy Lessons in the Art of Reasoning...and Hard Facts About Its Absence in Our Lives." Hardcover, 1st edition, St Martins Press, March 1, 1996.

Darwin, Charles, The Origin of Species (1859), Chapter 10

Shabo, Magedah, "Rhetoric, Logic, and Argumentation: A Guide for Student Writers." Prestwick House, 2010

Soles, Derek, "The Essentials of Academic Writing, 2nd ed." Wadsworth, 2010

Gwartney, James D. et al., "Economics: Private and Public Choice," 15th ed. Cengage, 2013

Murphy, J. B. Murphy, The New York Times, September 15, 2002

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary

Sources consulted and referenced

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_facts

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-thinking/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method 

 The source of these questions is from "The Ultimate Cheat sheet for Critical", ThinkingSource: www.globaldigitalcitizen.org

Want to exercise critical thinking skills?  Ask these questions whenever you discover or discuss new information. These are broad and versatile questions that have limitless applications!

Who

- benefits from this?

- is this harmful to?

- who have you heard discuss this?

- would be the best person to consult?

- makes decisions about this?

- will be the key people in this?

- is most directly affected?

- deserves recognition for this?

What

- is most important?

- are the strengths/weaknesses?

- is another perspective?

- is another alternative?

- would be a counter-argument?

- is the best/worst case scenario? 

- can we do to make a positive change?

- is getting in the way of our action?

Where

- would we see this in the real world?

- are there similar concepts/situations?

- is there the most need for this?

- in the world would this be a problem?

- can we get more information>

- do we go for help with this?

- will this idea take us?

- are the areas for improvement?

When

- is this acceptable/unacceptable?

- would this cause a problem?

- would this benefit our society?

- is the best time to take action?

- will we know we've succeeded?

-  has this played a part in our history?

- can we expect this to change?

- should we ask for help with this?

Why

- is this a problem/challenge?

- is it relevant to me/others?

- is this the best/worst scenario?

- are people influenced by this?

- should people know about this?

- has it been this way for so long

- have we allowed this to happen?

- is there a need for this today?

How

- is this similar to _____? (i.e.what the leading competitor in the space is doing?)

- does this disrupt things?

- do we know the truth about this?

- will we approach this safely?

- does this benefit us/others?

- does this harm us/others?

- do we see this in the future?

- can we change this for our good?  

 This section will help you practice critical thinking.  These exercises are based on an article Grace Fleming.

The circumstances that demand critical thinking vary from industry to industry. Some examples include:

- A triage nurse analyses the cases at hand and decides the order in which the patients should be treated, based on information gathered and using techniques to verify and validate that information.  

- A plumber evaluates the materials that would best suit a particular job, based on the circumstances, conditions of intended use, and availability.

- An lawyer reviews evidence and devises a strategy to win a case or to decide whether to settle out of court.

- A manager analyses customer feedback forms and uses this information to develop a customer service training session for employees.

PRACTICE EXERCISES 

The following are exercises designed to help you apply the above through practice.

 Critical Thinking Exercise 1: Tour Guide for an Alien

This exercise provides an opportunity to think outside your normal way of thinking.

Pretend that you have been assigned the task of conducting a tour for aliens who are visiting the earth and observing human life. You are riding along in a blimp, viewing the landscape below, and you float over a professional baseball stadium. One of the aliens looks down and is very confused by what he sees. You explain that there is a game going on and he asks several important questions.  

- What is a game?

- Why are there no female players?

- Why do people get so excited about watching other people play games?

- What is a team?

- Why can't the people in the seats go down on the field and join in?

If you try to answer these questions fully, it will quickly become apparent that we carry around certain assumptions and values. We support a certain team, for instance, because it makes us feel like we are a part of a community. This sense of community is a value that matters to some people more than others. Furthermore, when trying to explain team sports to an alien, you have to explain the value we place on winning and losing.

When you think like an alien tour guide, you are forced to take a deeper look at the things we do and things we value. Sometimes they don't sound logical from the outside looking in.

Critical Thinking Exercise 2: Fact or Opinion

Do you think you know the difference between fact and opinion? It is not always easy to discern. When you visit websites, do you believe everything you read? The abundance of available information makes it more important than ever for students to develop critical thinking skills. Additionally, it's an important reminder that you must use trustworthy sources in your school work.  If you don't learn the difference between fact and opinion, you may end up reading and watching things that continue to reinforce beliefs and assumptions you already own.  

For this exercise, read each statement and try to determine whether it sounds like a fact or an opinion. This can be completed alone or with a study partner.

- My mom is the best mom on earth.

- My dad is taller than your dad.

- My telephone number is difficult to memorize.

- The deepest part of the ocean is 35,813 feet deep.  

- Dogs make better pets than turtles.

- Smoking is bad for your health.

- Eighty-five percent of all cases of lung cancer in the U.S. are caused by smoking.

- If you flatten and stretch out a Slinky toy it will be 87 feet long.

- Slinky toys are fun.

- One out of every one hundred American citizens is color blind.

- Two out of ten American citizens are boring.

You will probably find some of the statements easy to judge but other statements difficult. If you can effectively debate the truthfulness of a statement with your partner without fact checking, then it's most likely just an opinion. 

Have you opened a new location, redesigned your shop, or added a new product or service? Don't keep it to yourself, let folks know.

Customers have questions, you have answers. Display the most frequently asked questions, so everybody benefits.