Arguments against critical thinking

Critical thinking is disobedient, not correct Caravaggio, Doubting Thomas The critical thinking exerted by persons - as it actually happens - is not public, regulated discourse. It is the Selves' critical sense at work, intuitive, informal, authentic and unregulated.

Arguments against critical thinking

Claims, Reasons, Evidence Critical Arguments against critical thinking means being able to make good arguments. Arguments are claims backed by reasons that are supported by evidence. Argumentation is a social process of two or more people making arguments, responding to one another--not simply restating the same claims and reasons--and modifying or defending their positions accordingly.

Arguments against critical thinking

Claims are statements about what is true or good or about what should be done or believed. Claims are potentially arguable. The rest of the world can't really dispute whether I liked the book or not, but they can argue about the benefits of liberal arts.

Reasons are statements of support for claims, making those claims something more than mere assertions. Reasons are statements in an argument that pass two tests: Reasons are answers to the hypothetical challenge to your claim: Liberal arts is best [claim] because it teaches students independent thinking [reason]; That was Newman's best [claim] because it presented the most difficult role [reason]; Global warming is real [claim] because the most reputable science points in that direction [reason].

Everyone should stop wearing seat belts [claim] because it would save lives [reason]. If reasons do not make sense in the hypothetical challenge or the 'because' tests, there is probably something wrong with the logic of the argument. Passing those tests, however, does not insure that arguments are sound and compelling.

Evidence serves as support for the reasons offered and helps compel audiences to accept claims. Evidence comes in different sorts, and it tends to vary from one academic field or subject of argument to another.

Scientific arguments about global warming require different kinds of evidence than mealtime arguments about Paul Newman's movies.

Evidence answers challenges to the reasons given, and it comes in four main types: Specific instances include examples, case studies, and narratives.

Each can be an effective mode of building support for a reason or claim. In a public speech, they offer audiences a way to see an idea illustrated in a particular case.

Search form

To be effective, specific instances need to be representative of the broader trend or idea they are supporting. With an example as evidence, someone arguing against seat belt use might say "Last year my cousin crashed her car off a bridge and would have drowned if she were wearing her seatbelt" as evidence the answer to "Why do you believe that?

An opponent might challenge whether this example was a representative one: In public speeches, statistics have the advantage of seeming objective, authoritative, and factual, but critical audiences will want to know about the sources and methods for determining your statistical evidence.

Testimony, or appeals to authority, come in two main types, eyewitness and expert. Eyewitness or first-hand testimonies are reports from people who directly experience some phenomenon.

If a speaker is arguing about toxic waste dumps, a quotation from someone living next to a dump would fall into this category.

First-hand testimony can help give the audience a sense of being there. Experts may also rely on direct experience, but their testimony is also backed by more formal knowledge, methods, and training. Supplementing the neighbor's account with testimony from an environmental scientist, who specializes in toxic waste sites, is an appeal to expertise.A crucial part of critical thinking is to identify, construct, and evaluate arguments.

In everyday life, people often use "argument" to mean a quarrel between people. But in logic and critical thinking, an argument is a list of statements, one of which is the conclusion and the others are the premises or assumptions of the argument.

Critical thinking means being able to make good arguments. Arguments are claims backed by reasons that are supported by evidence. Argumentation is a social process of two or more people making arguments, responding to one another--not simply restating the same claims and reasons--and modifying or defending their positions accordingly.

Argument identification is only the first stage in critical thinking. It is a crucial stage, given that you can't evaluate an argument if you can't identify one, but it is only a prelude to the real business of critical thinking.

A crucial part of critical thinking is to identify, construct, and evaluate arguments.

Arguments against critical thinking

In everyday life, people often use "argument" to mean a quarrel between people. But in logic and critical thinking, an argument is a list of statements, one of which is the conclusion and the others are the premises or assumptions of the argument.

2 Responses to “Six Critical Thinking Textbooks Reviewed (Textbook Reviews Series, #1)” Tom Gordon May 8, I can recommend “Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation”, by Doug Walton, Cambridge University Press, People who have sought to teach critical thinking have assumed that it is a skill, like riding a bicycle, and that, like other skills, once you learn it, you can apply it in any situation.

- The Washington Post