A guide to critical thinking

I do believe the value of asking questions, actually that applies to all kinds of critics, art critics, film critics, etc. the critical thinking is not only applied to evaluate the quality of other studies (literature critics), but also valuable for my own work. The main way is to identify the questions, evidence and conclusions, then question over the reasoning links that connect them into a logical and consistent text.

I. First, we need to identify the core questions and conclusions

Issues (core questions): 

a) Descriptive issues are those that raise questions about the accuracy of descriptions of the past, present, or future.

b) Prescriptive issues are those that raise questions about what we should do or what is right or wrong, good or bad. (normative/judgment)

II. Between the issue and conclusion lies the evidence and reasons which constitute the argument/reasoning.

III. Thus, we need first look at the question and conclusion itself: the ambiguity of the key terms used.

Define the main concepts: synonyms, examples, and what we will call "definition by specific criteria." synonyms and examples are inadequate.

IV. Evidence

The main difference between claims that are opinions/assertions and those are facts is the present state of the relevant evidence.

Sources:

a) intuition

b) personal experience

c) testimonials

d) appeals to authorities  

e) personal observations: The most reliable reports will be based on recent observations made by several people observing under optimal conditions who have no apparent, strong expectations or biases related to the event being observed.

f) case examples: We can generalize only to people and events that are like those that we have studied in the research!

g) research studies

h) analogies: The important analogies are the framing ons, which are used to not only explain a point, but also to influence the direction a discussion will take. Strong analogies will be ones in which the two things we compare possess relevant similarities and lack relevant differences. All analogies try to illustrate underlying principles. Relevant similarities and differences are ones that directly relate to the underlying principle illustrated by the analogy. even the best analogies are only suggestive. Thus can not directly support the conclusion.

PS: Statistics Traps

V. Reasoning

VI. Assumption

In all arguments, there will be certain ideas taken for granted as assumptions. Assumptions are needed for the reason to support the conclusion (as the base for logical reasoning), or just make the reason to be true.

Descriptive assumption: In the first case, we recall the typical model for scientific reasoning which needs a general theory, the specific description, the former is the assumption sometimes unstated, the second constitute the evidence. based on the assumption, we can make deductive reasoning from the evidence to the conclusion. Thus, we can identify the assumption and question its validity.

Prescriptive assumption: For some normative (prescriptive) conclusion, there exists also value assumptions, which indicates a value priority within typical value conflicts: Loyalty-honesty; competition-cooperation; freedom of press-national security; equality-individualism; order-freedom of speech; security-excitement; generosity-material success; rationality-spontaneity; tradition-novelty.

VII. Reasoning fallacies

a) Ad Hominem: against the person instead of his reasons.

b) Slippery Slope: Making the assumption that a proposed step will set off an uncontrollable chain of undesirable events, when procedures exist to prevent such a chain of events.

c) Searching for Perfect Solution: Falsely assuming that because part of a problem (which may not be the main objective of the solution) would remain after a solution is tried, the solution should not be adopted.

d) Equivocation: A key word is used with two or more meanings in an argument such that the argument fails to make sense once the shifts in meaning are recognized.

e) Appeal to Popularity (Ad populum): An attempt to justify a claim by appealing to sentiments that large groups of people have in common; falsely assumes that anything favored by a large group is desirable.

f) Appeal to questionable authority: Supporting a conclusion by citing an authority who lacks special expertise on the issue at hand. 

g) Appeals to Emotions: The use of emotionally charged language to distract readers and listeners from relevant reasons and evidence.

h) Straw Person: Distorting our opponent's point of view so that it is easy to attack; thus we attack a point of view that does not truly exist. 

i) Either-Or (Or False Dilemma): Assuming only two alternatives when there are more than two.

j) Wishful Thinking: Making the faulty assumption that because we wish X were true or false, then X is indeed true or false.

k) Explaining by Naming: Falsely assuming that because you have provided a name for some event or behavior that you have also adequately explained the event.

 l) Glittering Generality: The use of vague emotionally appealing virtue words that dispose us to approve something without closely examining the reasons.

m) Red Herring: An irrelevant topic is presented to divert attention from the original issue and help to "win" an argument by shifting attention away from the argument and to another issue.

n) Begging the Question: An argument in which the conclusion is assumed in the reasoning. (cyclic reasoning)

o) Hasty Generalization Fallacy: A person draws a conclusion about a large group based on experiences with only a few members of the group.

p) Faulty Analogy: Occurs when an analogy is proposed in which there are important relevant dissimilarities. 

q) Causal Oversimplification: Explaining an event by relying on causal factors that are insufficient to account for the event or by overemphasizing the role of one or more of these factors.

r) Confusion of Cause and Effect: Confusing the cause with the effect of an event or failing to recognize that the two events may be influencing each other.

s) Neglect of a Common Cause: Failure to recognize that two events may be related because of the effects of a common third factor.

t) Post hoc Fallacy: Assuming that a particular event, B, is caused by another event, A, simply because B follows A in time. 

PS: If the conclusion supports an action, determine whether the reason states a specific and/or concrete advantage or a disadvantage; if not, be wary!