CHAPTER 1

Critical thinking systematic evaluation and formulation of beliefs/statements by rational standards

Belief is worth having most likely true good reasons to accept it ? think critically = Who we are determined by actions/choices determined by

thoughts/beliefs

Assertion (Statement): declarative sentence that something is or is not the case Premise: statement that offers support to conclusion Conclusion: Statement that is supported by the premise(s) Argument: Set of statements, one off which (the conclusion) is taken to be supported by

the remaining statements (premises) Inference: Move from premise to conclusion

Indicator WordsConclusion thus, therefore, hence, so Premise since, because, for, as

Deductively-valid: Truth of premises GUARANTEES conclusionInductive-strong: Conclusion is PROBABLY true

CHAPTER 2

Category 1 Impediments: How we think

a. Self-Interested thinking : accepting a claim because it advances/coincides with our interests

b. Group Thinking : Peer pressure, Stereotyping ( drawing conclusions about people without sufficient reasons)

Types of Knowledge 1) K by acquaintance 2) K-how3) Propositional K (K-that)

Ingredients : Belief, Truth, Justification

Category 2 Impediments: What we think

a. Relativism: view that statements have a truth-value but that what this is depends on the person or society

b. Subjective Relativism: Truth value depends on what some subject believes (my truth) c. Social Relativism: Truth value depends on societies d. Skepticism: View that propositions have truth values but we know very few/none of

them

CHAPTER 3

Deductive Arguments:

Conclusive reasons for accepting the conclusion If premises are true, conclusion must be true Is truth preserving Deductive reasoning = General Specific

Valid: deductive argument in which the conclusion must be true

Invalid: deductive argument in which the conclusion doesn’t follow the premises

Sound: Valid AND premises are true

Unsound: Valid BUT one or more premises are false

Inductive Arguments:

Probable support Not truth preserving

Strong: premises are true, conclusion is probably true Cogent: Inductively strong & true premises

CHAPTER 4

Types of Conflict:

Statements can be INCONSISTENT- both can’t be true, but both could be false

Statements can be CONTRADICTORIES- both can’t be true, both can’t be false

Conflict with BACKGROUND INFORMATION- large collection of well supported beliefs that we rely on to inform our actions/choices includes, basic facts, common knowledge, justified claims

More evidence in favour of a claim= stronger belief

Experts: someone more knowledgeable in a particular area then most people

- They have access to info, better at judging info

Doubt expert if… their claim/opinion conflicts with another experts’ opinion, when experts disagree

Appeal to Authority: expert in one field, doesn’t mean they are an expert in another OR may regard non-expert as an expert

Factors to consider someone an expert : amount and quality of education/training, experience in making judgments, reputation among peers, professional accomplishment

Factors to doubt reliability of personal experience:

a) Impairment – too dark, too hazy, sick, tired b) Expectation – we see what we expect c) Innumeracy – being bad at numbers

Linda problem- Probability of A+B is never greater than just the probability of A

Monty Hall problem- misjudging of coincidences

Gamblers Fallacy- thinking that unrelated previous events will affect the probability at hand We tend to …

Ignore evidence Deny evidence Manipulate Evidence Distort Evidence

Common Mistakes= Resisting contrary evidence

Looking only for confirming evidencePreferring available evidence

CHAPTER 5

Fallacies- argument form that is common and defective

Irrelevant premises: premises that are irrelevant to conclusion

Genetic Fallacy= claim is true/false based on origin

Composition= what is true of the parts is true of the whole

Division= what is true of the whole is true of the parts

Appeal to the person- Rejecting claim by criticizing the person

Tu quoque- hypocrite

Equivocation= use of a word with two different meanings in an argument

Appeal to Popularity= claim must be true because a substantial # of people believe it

Appeal to Common Practice= appeals to what people do

Appeal to Tradition= claim must be true because its tradition

Appeal to Ignorance= lack of evidence proves something

(Person with Burden of Proof (placed on person who makes a +ve claim) must provide greater weight of evidence

Appeal to Emotion= uses emotions as premises

Red Herring= deliberate raising of an irrelevant issue

Straw Man= distorting, weakening, oversimplifying someone’s position

Unacceptable premises: relevant premises but not enough support for the conclusion

Begging the question= using conclusion as a premise

False Dilemma= asserting there are only two alternatives when there could be more

Slippery Slope= arguing without good reason, taking a step will lead to further undesirable steps

Hasty Generalization= conclusion make about a whole group based on a too small sample size Faulty Analogy= when items being compared are not sufficiently similar in relevant ways

CHAPTER 8

Inductive reasoning

Probable support Weak/Strong and cogent Very common

Sample Size: Larger sample= likely to reliably reflect the nature of the larger group

“The more homogenous a target group is, the smaller the sample can be; the less homogenous, the larger the sample should be.

Representativeness= represent and be similar to the target group

Beware of selective attention

Random Selection- every member of the target group must have an equal chance of being selected for the sample

Margin of Error- The variation between the values derived from a sample and the true values of the whole target group

Confidence Level- the probability that the sample will accurately represent the target group within the margin of error

Types of Inductive reasoning

Enumerative:

- Observation about some group members, end with generalization about all of them

Statistical Syllogisms

- Generalization of a whole group to a conclusion about a member of the group

- Need to identify the individual, group, characteristic, and proportion that has said characteristic.

Analogical Induction

-Comparison of two or more things that are alike in specific ways

Causal Arguments

-Answers questions involving making causal claims

Mixed Arguments

OTHER

Diagramming

Premise= Conclusion= Connect =

Identify the premises and conclusion Generate the standardization or numbered list Diagram to show intended logical relations between them.

Conditional Statement= If, then

Antecedent- before Consequent= after

AA= Valid

DC= Valid