Critical Thinking

Week 2: CT Standards, Barriers & Introducing

Arguments
Agenda

• Critical Thinking Standards

• Barriers to Critical Thinking

• Recognizing Arguments
Critical Thinking - Recap
Remember:
• “Critical” here does not mean “negative.”
• Critical thinking is thinking that involves/exercises skilled
judgment or observation.
• A good critical thinker has the cognitive skills and intellectual
dispositions needed to effectively identify, analyze, and evaluate
arguments* and truth claims.

*note: “Arguments,” as we shall use it in this class, do not mean “disagreements.”

1-3
Critical Thinking Standards
• Clarity: an expression that is true can be expressed clearly. Clarity in expression
is a sign of intelligence.
• Obscurity in expression is a sign that one really doesn’t understand the idea one is
expressing.

• Precision: close attention to detail. Specific definitions and specific questions.

• “Is abortion wrong?”  is vague.
• “Should abortion be legal?” “Is having an abortion ever moral?”  are more specific
questions.

1-4
Critical Thinking Standards
• Accuracy: making sure your information and beliefs are true. One can’t
reason correctly with false information.

• Relevance: statements are about the way the world is; what makes something
true is the way the world is. A relevant point restricts itself to the “piece of the
world” in question. Irrelevance can distract people from the point but never
helps to truly prove the point.

A lawyer putting on his shirt wrong does not entail that his client is guilty

1-5
Critical Thinking Standards
• Consistency: non-contradiction. Critical thinking avoids:
• Practical inconsistency/hypocrisy: saying one thing and doing another.
• Logical inconsistency/irrationality: believing two things that can’t be simultaneously
true.
Today is Monday & Today is Friday

• Logical Correctness: sound reasoning/valid inferences. Deriving

conclusions that—and only that— can be justifiably derived from
statements/premises.

1-6
Critical Thinking Standards
• Completeness: good critical thinking is never done hastily; explore the
issue.

• Fairness: open-minded, impartial, non-biased. Don’t dismiss something just

because it’s new or it’s contrary to something you already believe.

1-7
Agenda

• Critical Thinking Standards

• Barriers to Critical Thinking

• Recognizing Arguments
Barriers to Critical Thinking
Egocentrism
• The tendency to see reality as centered on oneself.
• Self-Interested Thinking: supporting conclusions because they are
in your interest/to your benefit.
Your wants and needs are not objectively more important than anyone
else's; they certainly don’t determine truth. Critical thinking is objective.
• Self-Serving Bias: the tendency to overrate oneself.
• Most people think they are above average; most people are thus wrong.
• Critical thinking requires one to be honest about their abilities.

1-9
Barriers to Critical Thinking
Sociocentrism
Group centered thinking
• Group Bias: the tendency to see one’s own group (e.g., nation) as
being inherently better than all others.

• Conformism: refers to our tendency to follow the crowd, allowing

beliefs to be shaped by outside forces such as:
• Groups
• Authority

1-10
Barriers to Critical Thinking
Sociocentrism
Conformism examples:
Groups (Asch’s “line” experiment) Authority (Mailgram's “shock” experiment)

1-11
Barriers to Critical Thinking
Unwarranted Assumptions and Stereotypes
• Assumption: a belief without absolute proof.
• Unwarranted Assumption: a belief without “good reason.”
• Stereotype: assuming that all people within a group (e.g., sex, race) share
all the same qualities; assuming that a particular individual that belongs to
a group has certain qualities simply because they belong to that group.
• Hasty Generalization (type of stereotype): drawing conclusions about a
large group from a small sample.
Being aware of an unwarranted assumption does not justify it; but it is the first
step in eliminating it.

1-12
 Relativistic Thinking
Relativism is the view that truth is a matter of opinion
• Subjectivism: the view that truth is a matter of individual opinion;
what one thinks is true is true for that person.
• Moral Subjectivism: The view that what is morally right for person A is
what they think is morally right.
• Cultural Relativism: the view that what is true for person A is what
person A’s culture or society believes to be true.
• Cultural moral relativism: The view that what a culture thinks is morally
right to do, is morally right to do, in that culture.
• However, relativism is false.

1-13
Exercise 1.4 (shows why relativism is false)
Assume you are a cultural relativist:
• Case 1: You are studying culture A & B. B loves war, A is pacifistic. Culture
B conquers Culture A.
Notice that you can’t morally criticize B as a cultural relativist.
• Case 2: You are a member of B and B thinks that pacifism is immoral and
embraces enslaving other cultures and enslaves A.
Notice that—since you belong to B—you can’t criticize B’s moral values
(their accepting it makes it right). Also, you must think it immoral to be a
pacifist and yet must also think that the pacifism of those in A is moral
(since they approve of it). That is a contradiction.

1-14
Exercise 1.4 (shows why relativism is false)

Assume you are a cultural relativist:

• Case 3: The majority in B deems infant sacrifice morally obligatory; you belong
to a minority in B that disagrees. B invades A and forces them to participate in
their practices.
Notice that you must both accept and reject infant sacrifice (you belong to two
groups/cultures that have contradictory positions).
Notice that, with relativism, there can be no moral progress. Since there is no
“objective truth” there cannot be progress to it. If B were to abolish infant
sacrifice, they would not be doing something better, but simply changing what is
morally right in their culture.

1-15
More on Relativism

• Notice that the same exercise could be done with “(personal) moral
relativism.”

• Notice that relativism does not promote tolerance: it actually suggests

that if you live in an intolerant society, you are morally obligated to be
intolerant.

1-16
 More on Relativism
• The fact that it is hard to discover what is true—even if it is impossible to
discover what is true—does not mean that there is no truth or that truth is
determined by opinion/consensus.
• We probably won’t be able to discover whether or nor God exists; but whether he does
or not is not determined by opinion/consensus.
• Something is true if it accurately describes the way the world is; opinion and consensus
do not determine the way the world is, but something can accurately describe the world
even if we can’t prove that it does.
• What an inability to discover the truth entails is that we should be more
open-minded and intellectually humble. Given that we can’t prove our beliefs
true, we should be more open to critically evaluating them and hearing the
arguments of others.

1-17
Barriers to Critical Thinking
Wishful Thinking
• believing what you want to be true (without evidence or despite
evidence to the contrary).
• This error is quite common
• Belief in tabloid headlines
• healing crystals
• quack cures
• communication with the dead
• “it won’t happen to me” beliefs …. etc.

1-18
Characteristics of a Critical Thinker
• Strives for clarity and precision
• Sensitive to the discussed “thinking errors”
• Intellectually honest (admits ignorance and limits)
• Welcomes criticisms of beliefs; open to revising basic beliefs
• Bases beliefs on facts, not on preference or interest.
• Thinks independently (doesn’t let groups control their beliefs).
• Values having true beliefs, not comfortable ones.
• Intellectual perseverance; will strive for truth even when it is
hard to do.

1-19
Agenda

• Critical Thinking Standards

• Barriers to Critical Thinking

• Recognizing Arguments
Fact & Opinion
Fact & Opinion

Fact Opinion

Cairo is the capital of Egypt Cairo is the best city in Egypt

EUI is a university in Egypt I love studying at EUI

Definitions

• Statement: a sentence/utterance that can be viewed as either true or

false.
• Argument: group of statements, one or more of which is/are intended to
prove or support another statement.
• Premises: statements in an argument offered as evidence or reasons why
one should accept another statement.
• The Conclusion: the statement that the premises support/prove.

https://youtu.be/MPgJCMd9a6k?si=OSXa6u3MB59t4aei

2 - 24
 A statement

Statement 1
Premises Statement 2
Statement 3 An
……. Argument
Statement 4
Conclusion
Critical Thinking

https://youtu.be/Cum3k-Wglfw?si=cOzSYjcp5d65UUdZ
What is a statement?
• Examples:
• Red is a color. (physical statement)
• Abortion is morally wrong. (moral statement)
• The Matrix is a better movie than Titanic. (evaluative statement)
• Non-Examples:
• What time is it? (question)
• Close the window! (command)
• Oh, my goodness! (exclamation)
• Statement test: Does it make sense to put “it is true that” or “it is false
that” in front of it? If so, it is a statement. If not, it’s not.

2 - 27
Example of Statements
Tricky statements
• Rhetorical question: a sentence that has the grammatical form of a question but
is meant to be understood as a statement.
• Don’t you know smoking will kill you?
• (means: Smoking will kill you.)
• How am I supposed to do that?
• (means: I can’t do that.)

• Ought imperative: a sentence that has the form of a command but is a

statement about what ought to be done.
• “Do X!” really means “You should do X.”
• “Don’t blow dry your hair in the tub!” really means “You should not blow dry your hair in
the tub.”

2 - 29
Identifying Premises and Conclusions

Indicators provide clues that premises or conclusions are put

forward.
• Premise indicators: since, for, seeing that, in as much as, in view
of the fact that, because, as, given that
• Conclusion indicators: therefore, hence, so, it follows that,
wherefore, thus, consequently.
But they are only indicators, they are not flawless. Many times
they are absent; sometimes they are misleading.

2 - 30
Finding Conclusions Without Indicators

• Find the main issues; determine the author’s position.

• Look at the beginning and end; it’s usually there.

• See which statement “therefore” fits best in front of.

• Take care of the “because trick” (fill in the blank): The arguer
believes (conclusion) because (premise(s)).

2 - 31
What are not arguments
• Reports: statements made to convey information.
• “More people moved to the south this year.”
• “Oil prices dropped today, thus so did gas prices.”
• Notice that, even though there is a conclusion indicator, this is still a report.

2 - 32
 What are not arguments
Unsupported Assumptions: when someone puts forth what they believe but does not
intend for any of their statements to support another.
People aren’t afraid of dying; they are afraid of not living.
People like this course because of the professor.
What Is Not An Argument
Conditional (“if-then”) statements:
e.g.,: If it rains, the picnic will be cancelled.
Most common forms: If A then B; B if A.
• Antecedent: usually, the part that directly follows “if.”
• Consequent: Usually, the part that follows “then”
But conditionals don’t always have “if” or “then”
e.g., In the event of rain, the picnic will be cancelled.

2 - 34
Exercise
More On Conditional Statements
• Conditionals are not arguments, but they can look like them.
• Conditional: If I was taller I would play basketball.
• Argument: I am tall, so I would make a good basketball player.
• If Rhode Island was larger than Ohio, and Ohio was larger than Texas, then
Rhode Island would be larger than Texas.
• This is a conditional statement; “If the first two things are true, then the third is true.”

2 - 36
 More On Conditional Statements

• If Bob is taller than Chris then Bob is taller than Ann. If Bob is taller than Ann, then Bob is taller
then Lori. Thus, if Bob is taller than Chris then Bob is taller than Lori.
• This is an argument. The latter follows from the two former statements.
• Chain arguments: consist of conditional statements.
• If A then B. If B then C. Therefore, if A then C.
• e.g., If Allen moves I will be all alone. If I am all alone then I will be sad. So if Allen moves I will be sad.

2 - 37
What Is Not An Argument
• Illustrations: examples of a claim.
• Many wildflowers are edible. For example, daises and day lilies are delicious
in salads.
• Be careful. Some arguments can look like illustrations because they
use “counter examples.”
• Many people think that all Star Trek fans are zit faced nerds. But that is not
true. For example, Christian Slater is a Star Trek fan and he is not a zit faced
nerd.

2 - 38
Exercise
What Is Not An Argument
• Explanation: tries to show why something is the case (not argue that it is
the case).
• Usually offers up a causal explanation for something that is already accepted as true.
• Titanic sank because it struck an iceberg. (explanation)
• Capital Punishment is wrong because it is murder. (argument)
• Explanandum: what is explained (the event).
• Explanans: the explanation (the cause).
“Explanadum” because “Explanans.”
• “I ski because I think it is fun.” (explanation)
• “You should ski because it is fun.” (argument)

2 - 40
Exercise
Exercise
Exercise
Exercise
Exercise
Arguments vs. Explanation (how to tell the difference)

• The Common Knowledge Test

• If it points at something that is common knowledge, it is probably an
explanation.
• Most people don’t present arguments for things people already believe.
Example:
“The Amazon is the world’s largest tropical rainforest.”
“TV is very influential in society because most people watch it.”

2 - 49
Arguments vs. Explanation (how to tell the difference)

• The Past-Event Test

• If it points at a past event, it is probably an explanation.
• Usually people don’t argue “X occurred.”
Example:
“The US entered WWII because of Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor.”

2 - 50
Arguments vs. Explanation (how to tell the difference)

• The Author’s Intent Test:

Ask if the person making the statement is trying to “prove”
something or explain why something is true.

• You want a college degree because you want a better life.

2 - 51
Arguments vs. Explanation (how to tell the difference)
• The Principle of Charity Test:
• The Principle of Charity: interpret generously (give the author of the statement a
break). If what he said would be a bad argument, but it could be interpreted as
an example (or explanation) assume it is not an argument.
• The Test: If you have a choice between interpreting a statement as a “bad
argument” or an “unsatisfactory explanation,” do the latter. A bad argument is a
worse mistake.
• For example:
Jeremy won’t come to the frat party tonight because he has an important
exam tomorrow.

2 - 52
Arguments vs. Explanation (how to tell the difference)
For example:
Jeremy won’t come to the frat party tonight because he has an important
exam tomorrow.

1. This claim about Jeremy is not common knowledge, nor does it refer to a past
event. Thus, neither the common-knowledge test nor the past-event test is
applicable to this example.
2. The third test— the author’s intent test— also yields no clear answer; the speaker
might reasonably be interpreted as offering either an argument or an explanation. If
we interpret the passage as an argument, however, the reasoning is bound to strike us
as somewhat weak.
Our choice therefore is to interpret the passage either as a weak argument or as an
apparently satisfactory explanation.
In these circumstances, the principle of charity dictates that we interpret the passage as
an explanation.

2 - 53
This Week’s Readings

Critical Thinking: A Student's Introduction

5th Edition
Chapter 1 & Chapter 2
Questions??