Critical Thinking Skills

Critical Thinking SkillsSee howFacts are proven/explained rather than what the facts areArguments are shaped/formed rather than what the argument isConclusions are drawn rather than what the conclusion isREASONBase our thoughts on reason/logicDo not bring emotion into the thinking processREASONING STRATEGIESInduction: 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 drawnDeduction: show how certain conclusions follow from an observation; make clear how your conclusions follow from specific premisesReductio ad Absurdum: show that consequences are absurd if carried to the logical endREASONING STRATEGIES CONTDSyllogism: 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 othersWhat we can rely onEstablished truths: historical fact, scientific fact, geographical factPrimary source information: materials from people directly involved with the issueStatistical findings: data showing how much, how many, and/or how oftenOpinions of authorities: authorities are good only if the reader accepts them as authoritativePersonal experience: generally reinforces, but does not replace other kinds of evidence (some may not accept it at all as evidence, saying its biased)

Criteria for Evaluation of EvidenceHow 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?Critically Analyzing Information SourcesExamine the bibliographical info, and do an initial appraisalCheck 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 interestCritically Analyzing Info. Sources ContdCheck the date of the publication and edition for relevanceCheck 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-reviewedCRITICAL ANALYSIS IScan and read only parts of relevanceNote who the audience is, and see if it is relevant to youExamine the content to see if information presented is fact, opinion (interpretation of facts) or propagandaNote if the information is well-researched and supported by evidenceCRITICAL ANALYSIS IIIf the writer deviates from what other experts in the field say, pay careful attention and read more criticallyNote whether the work updates other sources, corroborates other materials, or adds new information

FALLACIES (ERRORS)Hasty generalization: conclusion is based on too little evidenceNon Sequitur (meaning is it does not follow): draws unwarranted conclusions from plenty of evidenceStereotypingCard 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 possibleBegging the Question: asserts an unproven statement as truthCircular Argument: supports a position by merely stating it (instead of proving it)

FALLACIES CONTDArguing off the point: sidetracks an issue by introducing irrelevant informationArgumentum ad hominem (to the man): attacks an individual rather than that persons opinion or qualificationsAppeal to the Crowd: arouses an emotional response by playing on the irrational fears and prejudices of the audienceGuilt by Association: points out some similarities or connection between one person/group and anotherPost 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

Self-AwarenessConsider and recognize own assumptions, prejudices, biases, or point of view

Open-mindednessevaluate 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 interpretationsOpen-mindedness ContdIf a new interpretation explains the evidence better, is simpler, or has fewer discrepancies or covers more data, accept it as the best paradigm for nowaccept new interpretation in response to a reevaluation of the evidence or reassessment of our real interestsdo not dismiss unpopular views too quickly

Disciplineprecise, meticulous, comprehensive, and exhaustiveresist manipulation and irrational appealsavoid snap judgmentsJudgmentrecognize the relevance and/or merit of alternative assumptions and perspectivesrecognize the extent and weight of evidence

Misinformation Occurs WhenExpert opinion changesA small survey/research is conductedinadequate proofFacts are OverstatedStereotyping distorts factsSOURCES

Kurland, Dan (n.d.). What is Critical Thinking? Retrieved from http://www.criticalreading.com/critical_thinking.htmOlin 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.htmOlin 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.htmlOlin 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.htmlOlin 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.htmOlin 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.htmSources ContdReinking, J.A., von der Osten, R., Cairns, S.A., & Fleming, R. (2010). Strategies for successful writing. (4th Canadian ed). Toronto: PearsonUniversity of Toronto. (n.d.). Writing. Retrieved from http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specific-types-of-writing/annotated-bibliography