SSH 105 Critical Thinking (David Hunter)

What is Critical Thinking ?

Critical thinking is reasonable and reflective thinking aimed at deciding what to believe and what to do.

Why is Critical thinking reasonable?

Critical thinking requires that we have reasons for our beliefs and our decisions.

What does Critical thinking and Reason require?

Strategies and methods to make sure that we have good reasons, and that our reasons are good ones.

Critical thinking is reflective thinking! Why?

Because we have to reflect on the methods and strategies as we use them.

What is knowledge?

Knowledge is justified true belief

What is the 3 elements of Knowledge?

1. Justification

2. Truth

3. Belief

To know something you need to have all 3 elements!

you have to believe it, it has to be true and it has to have good evidence.

Example of false knowledge ?!? (Santa is fake news !!!!!) Something that is not TRUE

Kids believe that Santa is real because their parents told them, their friends, plus they have evidence that he is real because he leaves presents under the Christmas tree. Sadly, Santa is not a true person which would mean that kids knowledge of Santa is false.

Example of someone who believes and is right (but do not really know because evidence is not JUSTIFIED)

Someone looks at a clock and it says 3:50 so she believes that it is 3:50. It turns out that it was actually 3:50 so that person was right. Although she was right about the time, the clock has been broken for weeks and weeks meaning that her belief is not justified. So overall, she was right but it was not based on good evidence.

Example of someone who has lots of evidence of something and is true, but they cant bring themselves to believe it. (BELIEVE)

Someone that believes that vaccines are dangerous even though it has been proven to be safe through saving millions of people. People that deny the true evidence but don't believe it are in denial.

Three attitudes one might have to claims in some subject matter?

1. Realism

2. Relativism

3. Nihilism

What is realism?

If you are a realist about a subject matter that means you believe that there are facts that support the subject matter. Whatever they are independently of us.

A good example of being a realist is mathematics!!!

If you are in a restaurant and what to give the waiter a 15% tip on a $233 bill it would make absolute sense to use a realist approach. It is a fact that their is a certain number that would equal 15%. Its a fact that you can either get right or wrong. (CHEM, BIOLOGY are other good examples).

What this Nihilism?

Having a Nihilistic attitude towards a subject matter says that you believe there a no facts there at all. Its an empty subject matter and theres nothing to really get right or wrong.

Harry potter is a good example of Nihilism!

Harry potter is not a real person. So there is no facts what type of person they were. Theres no facts. Theres no facts about people but there is evidence for the story. (Astrology is another example of Nihilism)

What is Relativism?

A relativist In a subject matter believes there is facts, but also believes that those facts are made up or society has made them up. Theres something fiction like when you are a relativist. (Being a relativist you are mix of both Realism and Nihilism).

Morality

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Moral Relativism

The view that there is no absolute or universal moral law or truth, resulting in a morality determined by cultural factors or personal preference.

What is the argument for Moral relativism? (ARGUEMENT FROM DISAGREEMENT)

- The argument has two premises and a conclusion.

Premise 1 : There is considerable sincere disagreement about mortality

Premise 2: If there is considerable disagreement about mortality then moral relativism is true

Conclusion: Moral relativism is true

What is an argument?

A person is trying to persuade us to believe the conclusion by giving use reason or evidence. The reasons and evidence of the argument go into the premises to support the conclusion.

When given an argument you want to determine if it is any good! WHAT ARE THE TWO QUESTIONS TO ASK ?!?!

1. ARE THE PREMISES TRUE ?

2. DO THE PREMISES SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION?

What does it mean for an Argument to Valid?

If the premises are true then the conclusion would also have to be true.

example of invalid argument?!?!

THE argument from disagreement !!!

P1: There is considerable sincere disagreement about morality (TRUE)

P2: If there is considerable sincere disagreement about morality, then moral relativism is true (FALSE)

Conclusion: So moral relativism is true (FALSE because P2 is invalid)

Can and argument have a true conclusion ?!?!

YES! even when it is not logically valid and even when the argument has a false premise the conclusion can still be true.

What is the best way to view Critical thinking?

It is best to assume that realism is the proper attitude to take towards some subject matter, unless we have REALLY goof reason to think otherwise.

What is justification?

Justification is a belief that is justified if it is based or grounded in good reason

What are the 3 different kinds of reason ?

1. pragmatic

2. emotional

3. epistemic (aka evidence)

What is pragmatic reason ?

Pragmatic reason to believe something is a reason that's tied in with benefits that come from believing.

An example of having pragmatic thinking!

An athlete believing that she is one of the best is going to benefit her to perform better in her swimming race. Thats why coaches use this method!

What is Emotional Reasoning?

Sometimes believing things bring them emotionally closer to people and things. Having a closer connection to community is essential.

What is Epistemic reasoning?!?

A person believes something with epistemic reasoning cause there is evidence and that evidence confirms that your beliefs are true.

What is epistemic reasoning guide you to ?

THE TRUTH

Pragmatic and emotional reasons are not guides to truth

In critical thinking you need to always have____________________?

Evidence!

When Reasons conflict? (Direct)

this is when two bits of evidence conflict themselves. Meaning that one indicates that something is true and the other indicates that it is false.

When this occurs the the one piece is stronger than

the other, then the first OVERRIDES the second.

When Reasons conflict? (indirect)

Two bits of evidence are in indirect conflict when one indicates that the other is not acceptable.

If the first is stronger than the other, then the first UNDERMINE the second.

Simple example of Reason Conflict? (direct conflict)

My child looks ill and is acting ill

When i use a thermometer it says she does not have a fever

Therefore, from the evidence the thermometer gave us it can be deemed that my child is not sick even tho it seems to be sick.

Complex example of Reason of conflict! (indirect conflict)

My child looks and is acting sick

I used the thermometer is it deems that my child does not have a fever.

My wife then says that the thermometer maybe low batter

My wife's claim that the batteries are low is a reason to think that this bit of evidence can not be trusted

When you are unable to determine Reasons of conflict?

When this occurs you must wit-hold beliefs because you do not know which reason overrides which one.

How can critical thinking benefit us ?

Critical thinking can help us to avoid prejudice

Jumping to a conclusion is bad for your health

Help us make up our own mind !

Critical thinking can give us autonomy, a term from philosophers.

Being autonomies means to be in charge of oneself. (this does not mean disagreeing with other people.

Some Mistakes to avoid! (you need to know the name of all and be able to explain each one and example)

Personalizing reasons: it is a mistake to personalize reasons by treating them as if they belonged to someone. This is a mistake fr two reason

1. Epistemic reason are UNIVERSAL (if it reasons for one to believe it is also reason for everyone to believe)

2. Epistemic reasons are objective: wether a piece of evidence is sufficient or acceptable is an objective matter

Why is arithmetical calculation not a kind of critical thinking?

Arithmetical calculation is not a kind of critical thinking because one need not think about, or reflect upon, the methods one is using in performing the calculation. One simply uses the formula to get the right answer, and it is perfectly clear from the beginning what is to count as the right answer and what the best means is of finding it

Does critical thinking have to be 'critical' in the sense of being negative or skeptical? Explain, using an example.

No, critical thinking does not have to be 'critical' in the sense of being negative or skeptical. Rather, part of what makes critical thinking 'critical' is that it is governed by rules and methods. In this way, deciding the most productive way to spend one's afternoon may still involve critical thinking, though it need not involve being negative or skeptical.

Which of the following activities involves critical thinking? If an activity does not involve critical thinking, identify which element in critical thinking is missing.

a. Riding a bike For experienced riders, keeping one's balance and making the bike move forward probably does not require critical thinking. Of course, navigating safely by bike through city streets does require a good deal of critical thinking.

b. Watching the news on TV Well, just watching the TV does not involve critical thinking, but watching the news in order to learn about current events does require critical thinking, at least if one is going to do it well.

c. Doing laundry Well, simply putting clothes into the laundry machine probably does not require much critical thinking, because it does not require reasonable or reflective thinking. But deciding what colours of clothes to put into one load, and deciding what settings to use and how much soap to use definitely require critical thinking.

d. Ordering coffee at a local coffee shop Well, the simple act of saying "I'll have a double-latte" may not require reasonable or reflective thinking, but deciding what one can afford and whether to have one sort of drink or another might well require evaluating reasons, and so critical thinking.

Identify five activities you do on a daily basis that do not involve critical thinking. Identify two or three activities that you do on a daily basis that would be improved by thinking critically about them, and explain how thinking critically would improve it.

1) Brushing my teeth

2) Making orange juice in the morning

3) Taking the subway to school

4) Eating my lunch

5) Putting on my pajamas

1) Considering what to pack in my lunch is an activity that would be improved by critically thinking as healthier choices can positively impact one's energy and focus.

2) Choosing the best time to read for school is something that one could benefit from thinking critically about because reading is often best understood and remembered when it is done under certain conditions

Now that you know what critical thinking is, list five reasons why it is good to think critically.

1) Critical thinking increases our chances of gaining knowledge, and knowledge is valuable

2) Thinking critically is essential to making up one's own mind about what to believe or what to do, and autonomy is valuable

3) Critical thinking can help us identify areas where we may not have clearly thought through our own positions, such that we can revise our thinking on important issues

4) Critical thinking can help us to avoid errors in judgment by thoroughly examining certain questions

5) Critical thinking can give us a higher level of confidence in our beliefs and decisions by requiring careful thought about the matter at hand

List five possible obstacles to thinking critically. Describe one strategy for overcoming each obstacle

1) Self- interested thinking. Overcoming this obstacle involves questioning whether or not you are choosing an answer or a solution to a problem simply because it will benefit you.

2) Wishful thinking. One might overcome this obstacle by making sure to consider whether or not you are reaching a conclusion simply because it would be nice if it were the case.

3) Peer pressure. One ought to separate oneself from group opinions that one has not reached oneself in thinking critically about certain matters.

4) Stereotyping. Avoiding this obstacle might involve asking yourself whether or not you would think a certain way if not for hearing it from someone or somewhere else first.

5) Tradition. Thinking outside the confines of how things have always been done or thought about, and instead questioning one's regular routines and behaviors is one way of avoiding this obstacle.

We can start with an exercise. Make a chart with three columns. In the first column, list things that we, either individually or as humans in general, know for a fact. In the second column, list things that we can know, but currently do not know. In the third column, list things that we do not and probably cannot ever know about

Things we know for a fact • 2+2=4 • The sun is at the centre of our solar system • Water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius • All squares have four sides

Things we can know, but currently do not • Whether or not there is life on Mars • How to teleport from one place to another • How to cure cancer

Things we can never know • What the meaning of life is • Whether or not there is life after death (at least maybe we cannot know this until we die.)

The differences between the first and second column are that the first column includes something that makes sense just given the definition of numbers and addition, and things that we know based on the scientific investigations, experiments and measurements we have done so far. The second column contains examples of things that we cannot know just by reasoning through the very definition of the concepts involved or matters where we have not yet done enough scientific investigations.

Could one be a Realist and a Relativist about biology? Why or why not?

No, one could not be both a Realist and a Relativist about biology because it would be incoherent to assert (as a Realist) that biological facts are what they are independently of our beliefs about them, while also maintaining (as a Relativist) that biological facts are what they are because of our beliefs about them.

. Why does the existence of disagreement in some subject area not show that Relativism is true of that area?

The existence of disagreement in some subject area does not, by itself, show that Relativism is true of that area because there are many areas (such as advanced physics) where we want to be realists even though there is lots of disagreement.

Why is Realism the default attitude to take in a subject area?

Realism is the default attitude to take in a subject area because there is an absence of convincing reasons to be a Relativist or a Nihilist, so we ought to work under the assumption that Realism is the proper attitude to take. Realism is the default attitude if we are going to think critically about subject matter because there is no point looking for reasons to believe something if (as the Relativist holds) truth is whatever we believe it to be or if (as the Nihilist holds) there are no truths at all.

How are freedom of action and freedom of belief alike? How are they different?

Freedom of action and freedom of belief are alike in that we have, and value, both. Although this is true, freedom of action is limited in the sense that there are certain things I am not free to do, such as jump to the moon or grow ten inches. Additionally, freedom of action brings with it important responsibility, for example that I ought not to torture people for the fun of it. Likewise, freedom of belief brings responsibility too, for example I should only believe what I have good evidence to believe.

What is an example of an emotional reason to believe something?

Suppose that Joan believes that her dog did not bite her neighbor, and her reason for believing this is that she knows it would cause her too much pain if after investigating she discovered that it did bite her neighbor. This would be to believe something for an emotional reason.

What are emotional reasons not good enough for knowledge?

Emotional reasons are not good enough for knowledge because the truth of the claim we are emotionally attached to is not determined by our feelings towards that claim. Emotional reasons have nothing essentially to do with whether the belief is true, and truth is essential to knowledge. Emotions are not a reliable guide to the truth.

List two ways in which emotions can be obstacles to critical thinking

1) Emotions can make it difficult to collect the evidence we need for our belief to be justified.

2) Emotions may cause us to become too personally attached to our beliefs, such that we get defensive when someone questions our beliefs and become unable to see the situation objectively.

What is the difference between acceptable reasons and sufficient reasons? Give an example of reasons that are sufficient to believe something but not acceptable.

Whether some piece of evidence (or a reason) is acceptable depends on how likely it is to be true. In an ideal world, we would only rely on evidence that we knew for a fact was true. But whether some piece of evidence is sufficient depends on whether it provides enough evidence to be justified in believing something. Suppose that a witness is testifying at a trial that he saw Jones shoot the victim. This testimony would be enough reason to believe that Jones is the murderer: it would be sufficient for being justified in believing that Jones is the murderer. But if we also know that the witness is biased against Jones, then we might decide that his testimony is not acceptable: we ought not rely on it in deciding whether Jones is the murderer.

Could evidence be over-ridden without being undermined? Explain using an example.

Yes. Suppose that one meteorologist reports that it is going to rain this afternoon. But suppose that five other equally respectable meteorologists then report that the storm has moved south, and that it will not rain. The evidence from the other five thus overrides the evidence from the first meteorologist: we ought to trust their evidence over his. Still, the first meteorologist might still be a reliable source of evidence, if his weather reports are right most of the time. So the fact that he got it wrong this time would not show that he is not reliable, and so would not undermine him as a source of evidence. (Of course, if a source of evidence is regularly overridden, then this is some reason to think that it is not reliable.)

The traditional philosophical definition of knowledge says that knowledge is justified true belief. When presented with a definition that analyzes some idea or concept into several parts or elements, it is a good idea to investigate how those elements are related to one another. To do this, one asks whether it would be possible to have two of the elements without the third. That is, is it possible for someone to have a belief that is justified (i.e., based on epistemic reasons) even though the belief is not true? Try to construct stories to test whether these elements are independent?

a. If a broken clock reads 3:30 p.m., and someone passes by it at 4pm, and on the basis of seeing the clock, believes that it is 3:30 p.m., then that person's belief is justified, yet not true. As such, one would not call this person's belief knowledge, given that the belief is not, in fact, true.

b. If someone had read in a celebrity gossip magazine (famous for its inaccurate information) that some celebrity couple was ending their marriage, the information may be true, and the reader may believe it, but she probably would not be justified in believing it. In this way, we would not call this knowledge, even though it was true, and believed, because it was not justified.

c. Suppose that Jones heard from several reliable sources that all fast food chains in North America had dramatically decreased the amount of saturated fats in their meals. And suppose that this information was in fact true. Still, Jones might be such a skeptic that he refuses to believe it. This would be a case where someone has excellent evidence to believe something that is true, but just does not believe it.

a. What is the difference between a prejudicial belief and a false belief? Use an example to illustrate your answer.

A prejudicial belief is a belief formed before one has enough evidence (the person pre-judged the matter), whereas a false belief can merely be a mistake. For example, it would be prejudiced to believe that someone has a temper simply because her hair is red. But people 500 years ago who believed that the Sun orbits the Earth had lots of good evidence for this, they just got unlucky because their belief was false. This wasn't a prejudice.

Could a prejudicial belief be true? Explain, using an example.

Yes, a prejudicial belief could be true, because whether a belief is a prejudice has nothing to do with whether it is true or false.

For example, if I believed that Sam must be a Springtseen fan just because he grew up in New Jersey my belief would be prejudicial, yet it could be true that Sam is, in fact, a fan of the Boss.

Could believing something on the basis of emotions alone make one autonomous? Why or why not?

No, believing something on the basis of emotions alone could not make one autonomous. Autonomy involves exercising the power to determine one's self, and deciding on one's own what to believe, rather than letting some other influence formulate that belief.

For example, if Julie is upset about a low grade on her essay and comes to believe that the grade was unnecessarily low, she is not really deciding for herself how to feel about the mark. Perhaps if she had calmly read the comments after getting over her initial emotional response, she would come to realize the reasoning behind her grade and come to reach a justified belief about her grade. In this way, Julie would be acting autonomously in deciding how to feel in light of the facts, instead of simply letting her emotions decide how to regard a situation

List five character traits that you think are characteristic of an ideal critical thinker. Give an example of each one.

1) Awareness of your emotions and of when they are informing your beliefs. For example, making sure that you are not committed to disagreeing with someone because you have never gotten along with her in the past.

2) Willingness to hear the opinions of others even if they may be different from yours. For example, engaging in a conversation with someone who has a different political affiliation than you instead of refusing to talk to her about politics.

3) Openness to changing your opinion in the face of new, compelling evidence. For example, if I were to believe that a local politician was incapable of doing positive things for the community, I would have to be willing to change my belief if she began to make changes happen that the neighbourhood had been demanding for years.

4) Seeking multiple sources for information, so you do not base your beliefs on merely one piece of evidence or source. For example, not believing that product A is better than a competing product B after reading one testimony in favour of product A.

5) Always considering where your information is coming from, and whether or not that source is an appropriate one. For example, choosing not to believe your friend when he tells you that a certain country that he has not been to is not worth visiting.

Suppose that Jones is a universal relativist (i.e., a relativist about all subject matters) and that Smith is a universal realist (i.e., a realist about all subject © David A. Hunter, 2014 9 matters). Could they nonetheless agree on all the facts? What exactly would they disagree about?

Well, aside from their disagreement about whether relativism or realism is true, Jones and Smith might nonetheless agree about everything else. That is, they might agree on everything when it comes to the facts about history, morality, astronomy, geography, and so on. Their only disagreement would be about whether those facts are independent of us (as Smith claims) or not (as Jones claims.)

Consider the following proposed definition: to lie is to deliberately say something that is false and that one believes to be false in order to mislead another person. What are the elements of this proposed definition? Use the Test for Conceptual Independence to determine whether the elements are independent of one another

There are three elements in this definition: (i) saying something that is false; (ii) believing it to be false; (iii) saying it in order to mislead. Each of these is independent of the other two. For instance, one can say something true that one believes to be false intending to mislead; or say something false that one believes to be true without the intention to mislead; and so on.

. Some philosophers claim that it is wrong to lie to someone because it prevents them from making up their own mind. Construct a story about Jones (or your favorite character) to illustrate this point. Do you agree that this is part of what makes lying wrong?

Lying to someone can prevent them from making up their own minds. For example, if Jones told Mary that Anderson was a mean person, simply because Jones wanted Mary to favor himself, then it is possible that Mary would not truly be able to make up her own mind about the matter. She may see all of Anderson's actions in a tainted way, viewing what he does as mean, simply because she is expecting to see his meanness given what Jones has told her. In this way, her mind was not made up for herself, but rather, it was influenced by Jones' lie about Anderson's character. This is part of what making lying wrong, because it removes the autonomy from one's decision-making process, and prevents one from thinking critically.

Thomas Jefferson is supposed to have said that all knowledge begins with book knowledge; that is, with knowledge that we get from reading books or from trusting what other people say. Could this be right?

No, I don't think this could be right, because as we have seen, critical thinking is what leads to knowledge, and critical thinking must be an autonomous endeavor wherein one reads books or trusts what other people say in very specific situations—that is, when critical thought and decision making processes inform us that we ought to believe what someone else has written or said. In this way, knowledge begins with oneself, and developing the ability to discern what one ought and ought not to believe.

In the following texts, reasons are given for some belief or practice. Explain whether the reasons are epistemic ones.

a. Sally believes that it is wrong to eat meat. She once watched a documentary on the methods used to kill cows, and it made her so sad that she immediately became opposed to eating meat. Sally's reasons for being opposed to meat are not epistemic reasons because they are rooted in her emotional response to seeing cows killed.

b. The glass of milk is empty. I can see it with my own eyes that it is. The belief that the glass is empty is based on epistemic reasons because it is made after observing the facts about the matter for oneself, independent of any emotional or pragmatic influences.

c. The glass of milk is empty. I can't see it, but my mother just told me that it is. In this case, the belief that the glass is empty is based on epistemic reasons because the testimony is good evidence when it is from people we have good reason to think are reliable and unbiased.

d. We have to hold the party on Christmas Eve, because we have always held it then. The belief that the party must be held on Christmas Eve as it has been in the past is rooted in emotional reasons involving an attachment to tradition, rather than epistemic reasons.

e. John believes that the sofa will fit up the stairs. He first measured the sofa and then the stairs, and decided that it would go up easily if tilted on its side. John's belief that the sofa will fit up the stairs is based on epistemic reasons because measuring the sofa and the stairs informed his judgments about the truth of the matter.

f. Ashanti believes that Senator Doolittle's proposal is not cost effective. She finds that politicians are such hypocrites that she disagrees with everything they propose.

In each of the following, several epistemic reasons are given to believe something. Which is the strongest reason? What makes it stronger?

a. John, Susan and Terry all believe that the bank robber was a male. John was there during the robbery and saw the robber. Susan read about the robbery in the newspaper. Susan told Terry about the robbery.

John has the strongest reason for believing the robber was a male because he was there, able to witness the evidence for himself, instead of reading or hearing a second hand account, as Susan had.

b. John and Susan both believe that the acid caused the chemical reaction. John read in a textbook about the likely causes of such a reaction. Susan performed several experiments to rule out other possible causes.

Susan has the strongest reason to believe that acid caused the chemical reaction. This is because John read about several likely causes, whereas Susan performed experiments herself and arrived at the only possible answer through the process of elimination.

For each of the other questions in (C), change the shared belief but not the kind of evidence each character relied on so that the other person's reasons are stronger

a. if the belief had been that the robber was a male with a long criminal record, then Susan's belief would have been better justified than John's, since it is hard to tell just by looking whether someone has a criminal record, but this is the kind of information a newspaper report would get right.

b. John would have had the strongest reason if the belief they shared was that that three different liquid mixtures could have caused the chemical reaction. John would have read about several likely causes in a textbook, which is the kind of source that would have gotten this information right after performing many tests to ensure the proper answer, whereas Susan could have made any number of errors in performing tests that involved creating liquid mixtures before testing them out for chemical reactions.