What is critical thinking?

- A mental process to analyse and evaluate information using intellectual standards to form
judgements and make decisions.

Skills that involved in critical thinking

- Evaluating evidence
- Identifying other people’s positions
- Weighing up opposing arguments
- Being able to read between the lines
- Recognising techniques
- Reflecting on issues in a structured way
- Drawing conclusions
- Synthesising information
- Presenting a form of view in a structured, clear and well-reasoned way

Standards in Critical Thinking

- Egocentric
- Sociocentric
- Clarity
Definition: Understandable, the meaning can be grasped; to free from confusion or
ambiguity, to remove obscurities.
Points: - Laziness and carelessness cause the lack of clarity
- Precision
Definition: exact to the necessary level of detail, specific. A statement can be both clear and
accurate, but not precise.
Points: “Is abortion wrong?” is vague.
“Should abortion be illegal” and “Is having an abortion even moral?” are more
specific questions
- Accuracy
Definition: free from errors, mistakes or distortions; true, correct
Points: - information collected must be true
- Information collected must be free from distortions and errors
- If there are errors and distortions, fallacies may occur when arguments are
formulated based on the information collected.
- Relevance
Definition: refers to ideas and information which are relevant to the context of a problem,
Issues or argument.
- Consistency
Definition: a property of sets of claims
Points: logical inconsistencies: involves saying or believing inconsistent things
(things that cannot both or all be true)
practical inconsistencies: involves saying one thing and doing another.
- Logical Correctness
Definition: one is engaging in correct reasoning from what we believe in a given instance to
the conclusion that follows from those beliefs
Points: To think logically is to reason correctly
- Completeness
Definition: deep and thorough thinking
Points: - Critical thinkers should have holistic thoughts that are thorough
- The thought process should not be shallow or superficial
- Shallow and superficial thoughts will lead to prejudice when making judgements or
drawing conclusions.
- Fairness
Points: - Critical thinking demands that our thinking be open-minded, impartial, and free of
distorting biases and preconceptions.
- Not identifying truth with self-interest
- One must not dismiss something just because it’s new or it’s contrary to something
One already believes.

Five major barriers of critical thinking

1) Egocentrism
Definition: The tendency to see reality as centred on oneself
Forms of egocentrism: - Self-interested thinking centering on Me, Myself and I
- Anything is fine as long as it benefits me
- Superiority bias is the tendency to overrate oneself – to see oneself
As better in someone respect than one actually is.
- Critical thinking requires one to be honest about his/her abilities
- Overconfidence is an obstacle to genuine personal and intellectual
growth.
2) Sociocentrism (distorts critical thinking) (Group bias)
Definition: The tendency to see one’s culture or group as being better than others
Points: Conformism is a way to distorts critical thinking

3) Unwarranted assumptions
Definition: Taking something for granted without “good reason”
4) Relativistic thinking
Definition: Relativism is the view that there is no objective or factual truth but the truth is
only opinions which differ from person to person or society to society
Forms of relativism: Subjectivism = truth is a matter of individual opinion.
Moral subjectivism: The view that what is morally right and good for an
Individual, A, is what A thinks is morally right and
good.
Problems of relativism: - Relativism makes it impossible to criticise others’ / our own cultural
practices, i.e., cannibalism / racism
- It rules out the idea of moral progress, i.e., meaning of equality
5) Wishful Thinking
Definition: Believing something not because you have good evidence for it, but because you
wish it were true.
Arguments 1

What is an argument?

- Quarrel or a disagreement
- Breakdown in communication
- Difficult relationship

What is an argument in critical thinking?

- Means providing a reason to support a claim

- Identifying, evaluating and giving reasons

An argument consists of two components:

- Premises (Statements in an argument offered as evidence or reasons)

- Conclusions (Statements that premises support to prove)
Argument 2

What are non-arguments?

- distinguishing what is really relevant from other forms of information.

Points:

- argument is not a disagreement

- we can disagree with someone else’s position without giving a reason
- In CT, there is a distinction between a position, an agreement, a disagreement and an
argument.

Non-argument: Descriptions

- Descriptions give an account of how something is done, or what something is like.

- In reports and academic writing, description should be factual, accurate and free of value
judgements.

Non-arguments: Explanations

- Can appear to have the structure of an argument

- May include statements and reasons, leading to a final conclusion, and be introduced by
signal words similar to those used for arguments

Explanations are used to:

- account for why or how something occurs

- draw out the meaning of a theory, argument or other message
Non-arguments: Summaries

- Summaries are reduced versions of longer messages or texts.

Arguments are usually provided with other materials such as:

- Introductions
- Descriptions
- Explanations
- background information
- summaries
- other extraneous materials

In evaluating any argument, one should always ask two key questions.

- Are the premises true?

- Do the premises support the conclusion?

Two of the major types of argument forms:

1) Deductive (Deductive reasoning)

- PROVES their conclusion with logical premises
- A deductive argument is an argument that is intended to be completely true and certain.
- If your premises are true, your reasoning will lead you to a logically certain conclusion.
2) Inductive (Inductive reasoning)
- show that their conclusion is LIKELY through the premises
- Inductive arguments, on the other hand, simply claim that their conclusions are likely or
probable, given the premises offered.

Differences between deductive and inductive Arguments

deductive / inductive

If the premises are true the conclusion is necessarily / probably true.

The premises provide conclusive / good evidence for the conclusion.

It is impossible / unlikely for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false.

It is logically inconsistent / consistent to assert the premises but deny the conclusion.

Determining the types of Arguments

Test 1: Indicator Word Test

- Deductive: certainly, definitely, absolutely, logical, conclusively, must be the case

- Inductive: probably, likely, chances are, plausible, reasonable to assume

Test 2: The Strict Necessity Test

- either an argument’s conclusion follows with strict logical necessity from its premises or it
does not.
- If it does, the argument should always be treated as deductive.
- If it doesn’t, the argument should be treated as inductive.
- Joyce is a mother. Therefore, Joyce is a female. (Conclusion follows with strict necessity
from the premise – Deductive argument).

- Bobby is 70 years old. Therefore, Bobby cannot be a breakdancer. (Premise is true but
possible that conclusion might not be true – Inductive argument)

Test 3: Common Pattern Test

- Argument has a pattern which is characteristically deductive or inductive

E.g. the pattern of a deductive pattern is as follows (Three-line arguments):

- If A, then B.

- A.

- Therefore B.

- If Garfield is a cat, then it must be an animal.

- Garfield is a cat.

- Therefore, Garfield is an animal.

Test 4: Principle of Charity Test

- Give the benefit of the doubt to make it the most favourable to the arguer.
- When interpreting an unclear argument or passage, always give the speaker or writer the
benefit of the doubt.
- Never attribute to an arguer a weaker argument when the evidence reasonably permits us
to attribute to them a stronger one.
- Never interpret a passage as a bad argument when the evidence reasonably permits us to
interpret it as not an argument at all.
Logical Fallacies 1: Fallacies of Relevance

What is fallacy?

- In general, a fallacy is committed when an argument contains a mistake in its reasoning.

- The mistake will weaken your argument and undermine it completely.
- In other words, a fallacy occurs when the premises offered do not provide a valid ground for
others to accept the conclusion.
- In critical thinking, a fallacy is always a flawed or defective argument.

Two categories of fallacies:

- Fallacies of relevance: Mistakes in reasoning that occur because the premises are logically
irrelevant to the conclusion.
- Fallacies of insufficient evidence: Mistakes in reasoning that occur because the premises,
though logically relevant to the conclusion, fail to provide sufficient evidence to support the
conclusion.

Types of Fallacies:

- Personal attack (Ad Hominem)

- Attacking the motive

- Appeal to pity

- Scare tactics

- Bandwagon argument

- Look who’s talking (Tu quoque)

- Two wrongs make a right

- Equivocation

- Begging the question

- Straw man

- Red herring
The concept of relevance
- A statement is relevant to another when it provides at least some evidence or reason for
thinking that the second statement is true or false.
- A statement can be either:
1) Positive relevance
- A statement is positively relevant to another statement if it counts in favor of that
statement.
- Labradors are dogs. Dogs are domestic animals, So Labradors are domestic animals.
- Most XMUM students live on-campus. Annie is an XMUM student. So Annie probably lives
on-campus.
- Chris is a woman. Therefore, Chris enjoys knitting.
- Each of the premises is positively relevant to the conclusion because each provides some
reasons for thinking that the conclusion is true.
2) Negative relevance
- A statement is negatively relevant to another if it counts against that statement.
- Tom is a father. Therefore, Tom is a female.
- Jack is just a baby. Thus, he is probably attending high school right now.
- Each premise, if true, provides some reason for thinking that the conclusion is false.
3) Logical relevance
- A statement is logically irrelevant to another statement if it counts neither for nor against
that statement.
- I am hungry. Therefore, I should wash my hair now.
- Jane is a teacher. So, she should not be allowed to drive.

Logical Fallacies 2: Fallacies of insufficient evidence

- Fallacies of insufficient evidence are fallacies in which the premises, though relevant to the
conclusion, fail to provide sufficient evidence for the conclusion.
1) Inappropriate appeal to authority
- Citing an authority or a witness that is untrustworthy
2) Appeal to Ignorance
- Claiming that something is untrue because no one has proven it false, or vice versa
3) False alternatives
- Posing a false either/or choice
4) Questionable Cause
- Claiming without sufficient evidence that one thing is the cause of something else.
5) Hasty Generalisation
- Drawing a general conclusion from a sample that is biased or too small.
6) Slippery Slope
- Claiming without adequate evidence that a seemingly harmless action will lead to a very bad
outcome.
7) Inconsistency
- Asserting inconsistent or contradictory claims.