| |
| |
| |
| Purposeful, Reflective Judgment | |
| |
| |
| Risk and Uncertainty Abound | |
| |
| |
| Critical Thinking and a Free Society | |
| |
| |
| The One and the Many | |
| |
| |
| What Do We Mean by "Critical Thinking"? | |
| |
| |
| Expert Consensus Conceptualization | |
| |
| |
| "Critical Thinking" Does Not Mean "Negative Thinking" | |
| |
| |
| How to Get the Most Out of This Book | |
| |
| |
| Evaluating Critical Thinking | |
| |
| |
| The Students' Assignment | |
| |
| |
| The Students' Statements | |
| |
| |
| The Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric | |
| |
| |
| |
| The "Able" in "Willing and Able" to Think Critically | |
| |
| |
| Core Critical Thinking Skills | |
| |
| |
| Interpreting and Analyzing the Consensus Statement | |
| |
| |
| The Jury Is Deliberating | |
| |
| |
| Critical Thinking Skills Fire In Many Combinations | |
| |
| |
| Strengthening Our Core Critical Thinking Skills | |
| |
| |
| The Art of the Good Question | |
| |
| |
| Skills and Subskills Defined | |
| |
| |
| Inductive and Deductive Reasoning | |
| |
| |
| Nurses' Health Study - Decades of Data | |
| |
| |
| Inductive Reasoning | |
| |
| |
| Cosmos vs. Chaos | |
| |
| |
| Deductive Reasoning | |
| |
| |
| |
| The "Willing" in "Willing and Able" to Think Critically | |
| |
| |
| A Group Engaged in Crisis-Level Critical Thinking | |
| |
| |
| The Spirit of a Strong Critical Thinker | |
| |
| |
| Positive and Negative Habits of Mind | |
| |
| |
| Preliminary Self-Assessment | |
| |
| |
| Research on the Disposition toward Critical Thinking | |
| |
| |
| Seven Positive Critical Thinking Habits of Mind | |
| |
| |
| Negative Habits of Mind | |
| |
| |
| Is a Good Critical Thinker Automatically a Good Person? | |
| |
| |
| Building Positive Habits of Mind | |
| |
| |
| Reconnecting Skills and Dispositions | |
| |
| |
| |
| Clarifying Ideas | |
| |
| |
| Interpretation, Context, and Purpose | |
| |
| |
| How Precise Is Precise Enough? | |
| |
| |
| Language and Thought | |
| |
| |
| Vagueness: "Does the Term Include This Case or Not?" | |
| |
| |
| Problematic Vagueness | |
| |
| |
| Ambiguity: "Does the Term Mean This, or Does It Mean That?" | |
| |
| |
| Problematic Ambiguity | |
| |
| |
| Resolving Problematic Vagueness and Ambiguity | |
| |
| |
| Contextualizing | |
| |
| |
| Clarifying Original Intent | |
| |
| |
| Negotiating the Meaning | |
| |
| |
| Using Qualifications, Exceptions, or Exclusions | |
| |
| |
| Stipulating the Meaning | |
| |
| |
| Your Language Communities | |
| |
| |
| National and Global Language Communities | |
| |
| |
| Language Communities Formed of People with Like Interests | |
| |
| |
| Academic Disciplines as Language Communities | |
| |
| |
| Critical Thinking and College Introductory Courses | |
| |
| |
| |
| Using Maps to Analyze Arguments and Decisions | |
| |
| |
| Analyzing and Mapping Arguments | |
| |
| |
| "Argument = (Reason + Claim)" | |
| |
| |
| Two Reasons, Two Arguments | |
| |
| |
| Two Confusions to Avoid | |
| |
| |
| "Reason" and "Premise" | |
| |
| |
| Distinguishing Reasons from Conclusion | |
| |
| |
| Mapping Claims and Reasons | |
| |
| |
| Mapping a Line of Reasoning | |
| |
| |
| Mapping Implicit Ideas | |
| |
| |
| Interpreting Unspoken Reasons and Claims in Context | |
| |
| |
| Interpreting the Use of Irony, Humor, Sarcasm, and More | |
| |
| |
| Giving Reasons and Making Arguments in Real Life | |
| |
| |
| The El Train Argument from Twelve Angry Men | |
| |
| |
| Huckabee and Stewart Discuss "The Pro-Life Issue Abortion" | |
| |
| |
| Analyzing and Mapping Decisions | |
| |
| |
| "We Should Cancel the Spring Trip" #1 | |
| |
| |
| "We Should Cancel the Spring Trip" #2 | |
| |
| |
| |
| Evaluating Claims | |
| |
| |
| Assessing the Source Whom Should I Trust? | |
| |
| |
| Claims Without Reasons | |
| |
| |
| Cognitive Development and Healthy Skepticism | |
| |
| |
| Authority and Expertise | |
| |
| |
| Learned and Experienced | |
| |
| |
| On-Topic, Up-to-Date, and Capable of Explaining | |
| |
| |
| Unbiased and Truthful | |
| |
| |
| Free of Conflicts of Interest, and Acting in the Client's Interest | |
| |
| |
| Unconstrained, Informed, and Mentally Stable | |
| |
| |
| Assessing the Substance What Should I Believe? | |
| |
| |
| Donkey Dung Detector | |
| |
| |
| Marketing, Spin, Disinformation, and Propaganda | |
| |
| |
| Slanted Language and Loaded Expressions | |
| |
| |
| Independent Verification | |
| |
| |
| Can the Claim Be Confirmed? | |
| |
| |
| Can the Claim Be Disconfirmed? | |
| |
| |
| Independent Investigation and the Q-Ray Bracelet Case | |
| |
| |
| Suspending Judgment | |
| |
| |
| |
| Evaluating Arguments | |
| |
| |
| Giving Reasons and Making Arguments | |
| |
| |
| Truthfulness | |
| |
| |
| Logical Strength | |
| |
| |
| Relevance | |
| |
| |
| Non-Circularity | |
| |
| |
| The Four Tests for Evaluating Arguments | |
| |
| |
| Test #1: Truthfulness of the Premises | |
| |
| |
| Test #2: Logical Strength | |
| |
| |
| Test #3: Relevance | |
| |
| |
| Test #4: Non-Circularity | |
| |
| |
| Contexts for Argument Making and Evaluative Terms | |
| |
| |
| Common Reasoning Errors | |
| |
| |
| Fallacies of Relevance | |
| |
| |
| Appeals to Ignorance | |
| |
| |
| Appeals to the Mob | |
| |
| |
| Appeals to Emotion | |
| |
| |
| Ad Hominem Attacks | |
| |
| |
| Straw Man Fallacy | |
| |
| |
| Playing with Words | |
| |
| |
| Misuse of Authority | |
| |
| |
| |
| Evaluating Deductive and Inductive Reasoning | |
| |
| |
| Deductive Validity and Language | |
| |
| |
| Reasoning Deductively about Declarative Statements | |
| |
| |
| Denying the Consequent | |
| |
| |
| Affirming the Antecedent | |
| |
| |
| Disjunctive Syllogism | |
| |
| |
| Reasoning Deductively about Classes of Objects | |
| |
| |
| Applying a Generalization | |
| |
| |
| Applying an Exception | |
| |
| |
| The Power of "Only" | |
| |
| |
| Reasoning Deductively about Relationships | |
| |
| |
| Transitivity, Reflexivity, and Identity | |
| |
| |
| Fallacies Masquerading as Valid Deductive Arguments | |
| |
| |
| Affirming the Consequent | |
| |
| |
| Denying the Antecedent | |
| |
| |
| False Classification | |
| |
| |
| Fallacies of Composition and Division | |
| |
| |
| False Reference | |
| |
| |
| Inductions and the Evidence at Hand | |
| |
| |
| Evaluating Generalizations | |
| |
| |
| Was the correct group sampled? | |
| |
| |
| Were the data obtained in an effective way? | |
| |
| |
| Were enough cases considered? | |
| |
| |
| Was the sample representatively structured? | |
| |
| |
| Coincidences, Correlations, and Causes | |
| |
| |
| Coincidences | |
| |
| |
| Correlations | |
| |
| |
| Causes | |
| |
| |
| Fallacies Masquerading as Strong Inductive Arguments | |
| |
| |
| Erroneous Generalization | |
| |
| |
| Playing with Numbers | |
| |
| |
| False Dilemma | |
| |
| |
| The Gambler's Fallacy | |
| |
| |
| False Cause | |
| |
| |
| Slippery Slope | |
| |
| |
| |
| Snap Judgments Heuristic Thinking | |
| |
| |
| Human Decision-Making Systems | |
| |
| |
| The "Two-Systems" Approach to Human Decision Making | |
| |
| |
| Reactive (System-1) Thinking | |
| |
| |
| Reflective (System-2) Thinking | |
| |
| |
| The Value of Each System | |
| |
| |
| Heuristics: Their Benefits and Risks | |
| |
| |
| Individual Cognitive Heuristics | |
| |
| |
| |
| Satisficing | |
| |
| |
| |
| Temporizing | |
| |
| |
| |
| Affect: "Go with your Gut" | |
| |
| |
| |
| Simulation | |
| |
| |
| |
| Availability | |
| |
| |
| |
| Representation | |
| |
| |
| |
| Association | |
| |
| |
| |
| Stereotyping | |
| |
| |
| |
| "Us vs. Them" | |
| |
| |
| |
| Power Differential | |
| |
| |
| |
| Anchoring with Adjustment | |
| |
| |
| |
| Illusion of Control | |
| |
| |
| |
| Optimistic Bias | |
| |
| |
| |
| Hindsight Bias | |
| |
| |
| |
| Elimination by Aspect: "One Strike and You're Out" | |
| |
| |
| |
| Loss and Risk Aversion | |
| |
| |
| |
| "All-or-Nothing" | |
| |
| |
| Heuristics in Action | |
| |
| |
| |
| Deciding What to Do and Doing It | |
| |
| |
| Dominance Structuring: A Fortress of Conviction | |
| |
| |
| "I Would Definitely Go to the Doctor" | |
| |
| |
| Explaining and Defending Ourselves | |
| |
| |
| A Poorly Crafted Assignment | |
| |
| |
| Moving from Decision to Action | |
| |
| |
| Phase 1: Pre-editing | |
| |
| |
| Phase 2: Identifying One Promising Option | |
| |
| |
| Phase 3: Testing the Promising Option | |
| |
| |
| Phase 4: Fortifying the To-Be-Chosen Option | |
| |
| |
| Benefits and Risks of Dominance Structuring | |
| |
| |
| O.J. Simpson's Vigorous Defense | |
| |
| |
| Self-Regulation Critical Thinking Skill Strategies | |
| |
| |
| Critical Thinking Precautions when Pre-editing | |
| |
| |
| Be Sure About "the Problem" | |
| |
| |
| Specify the Decision-Critical Attributes | |
| |
| |
| Be Clear about Why an Option Is In or Out | |
| |
| |
| Critical Thinking Precautions When Identifying the Promising Option | |
| |
| |
| Scrutinize Options with Disciplined ImPartiality | |
| |
| |
| Listen to Both Sides First | |
| |
| |
| Critical Thinking Precautions when Testing the Promising Option | |
| |
| |
| Use All the Essential Criteria | |
| |
| |
| Treat Equals as Equals | |
| |
| |
| Diligently Engage in Truth-Seeking and Remain ImPartial | |
| |
| |
| Critical Thinking Precautions when Fortifying the To-Be-Chosen Option | |
| |
| |
| Be Honest with Yourself | |
| |
| |
| Critical Thinking Strategies for Better Decision Making | |
| |
| |
| Task Independent Teams with the Same Problem | |
| |
| |
| Decide When It's Time to Decide | |
| |
| |
| Analyze Indicators and Make Mid-Course Corrections | |
| |
| |
| Create a Culture of Respect for Critical Thinking | |
| |
| |
| |
| Comparative Reasoning "This is Like That" Thinking | |
| |
| |
| Comparative, Ideological, and Empirical Inferences | |
| |
| |
| "This is Like That" Recognizing Comparative Reasoning | |
| |
| |
| Evaluating Comparative Inferences | |
| |
| |
| Do the Four Tests of Acceptability Apply? | |
| |
| |
| Five Criteria for Evaluating Comparative Reasoning | |
| |
| |
| Familiarity | |
| |
| |
| Simplicity | |
| |
| |
| Comprehensiveness | |
| |
| |
| Productivity | |
| |
| |
| Testability | |
| |
| |
| Shaping our View of the Universe for Two Thousand Years | |
| |
| |
| The Many Uses of Comparative Inferences | |
| |
| |
| |
| Ideological Reasoning "Top Down" Thinking | |
| |
| |
| "Top Down" Thinking Recognizing Ideological Reasoning | |
| |
| |
| Examples of Ideological Reasoning | |
| |
| |
| Three Features of Ideological Reasoning | |
| |
| |
| Ideological Reasoning Is Deductive in Character | |
| |
| |
| Ideological Premises Are Axiomatic | |
| |
| |
| The Argument Maker Takes the Ideological Absolutes on Faith | |
| |
| |
| Evaluating Ideological Reasoning | |
| |
| |
| Are the Ideological Premises True? | |
| |
| |
| Logical Strength and Ideological Belief Systems | |
| |
| |
| Relevancy, Non-Circularity and Ideological Reasoning | |
| |
| |
| Uses, Benefits and Risks of Ideological Reasoning | |
| |
| |
| |
| Empirical Reasoning "Bottom Up" Thinking | |
| |
| |
| Recognizing Empirical Reasoning | |
| |
| |
| Characteristics of Empirical Reasoning | |
| |
| |
| Empirical Reasoning Is Inductive | |
| |
| |
| Empirical Reasoning Is Self-Corrective | |
| |
| |
| Empirical Reasoning Is Open to Independent Verification | |
| |
| |
| Hypotheses, Conditions and Measurable Manifestations | |
| |
| |
| Conducting an Investigation Scientifically | |
| |
| |
| Perhaps the First Recorded Empirical Investigation | |
| |
| |
| Steps in the Process an Extended Example | |
| |
| |
| Evaluating Empirical Reasoning | |
| |
| |
| Benefits and Risks Associated with Empirical Reasoning | |