Honors 2010 Midterm Review (ARQ & fallacies)

The three dimensions of critical thinking

1. form an argument

2. write an essay based on a reading assignment

3. participate in class

sponge thinking style

Absorbing information and not determining right from wrong

panning for gold thinking

Asking multiple questions designed to uncover the best available decisions or beliefs

weak sense critical thinking

the use of critical thinking to defend your current beliefs

strong-sense critical thinking

the use of the same skills to evaluate all claims and beliefs, especially your own

values

Unstated ideas that people see as worthwhile. They provide standards of conduct by which we measure the quality of human behavior.

argument

a conclusion and the reasons allegedly supporting it

system 1 thinking

makes snap decisions based on what little information is available

system 2 thinking

slower thinking that requires more effort

halo effect

recognizing one positive or negative quality or trait of a person, and then associating that quality or trait with everything about that person

availability heuristic

forming conclusions based on whatever information is immediately available to us

belief perseverance

the tendency to hold onto a belief or set of beliefs even when presented with evidence that contradicts those beliefs

confirmation bias

tendency to see only the evidence that confirms what we already believe as being good evidence

egocentrism

the central role we assign to our world, as opposed to the experiences and opinions of others

conclusion (thesis)

the intended message to the reader, its purpose is to shape your beliefs and/or your behavior

descriptive issues

issues that raise questions about the accuracy of descriptions of the past, present, or future

prescriptive issues

issues that raise questions about what we should do or what is right, wrong, good or bad

inference

this because of that, this refers to the conclusion, that refers to the support for the conclusion, etc.

reasons

explanations or rationales for why we should believe a particular conclusion

argument

consists of a conclusion and the reasons that allegedly support it

ambiguous

the existence of multiple possible meanings for a word or phrase

context

the writer’s or speaker’s background, traditional uses of the term within the particular controversy, and the words and statements preceding and following the possible ambiguity

loaded terms

terms that trigger strong emotional reactions

value assumption/value priorities

how the world should be/an implicit preference for one value over another in a particular context

descriptive assumptions

unstated belief about how the world was, is, or will become

romantic fallacy

this assumption is in the background, holding up reasoning of the form: that something should be true means that it will be true

fallacy

a reasoning “trick” that an author might use while trying to persuade you to accept a conclusion

ad hominem fallacy

an attack on the person, rather than directly addressing the person’s reasons

slippery slope fallacy

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

searching for the perfect solution fallacy

falsely assuming that because part of a problem remains after a solution is tried, the solution should not be adopted

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

appeal to questionable authority fallacy

supporting a conclusion by citing an authority who lacks special expertise on the issue at hand

appeals to emotions fallacy

the use of emotionally charged language to distract readers and listeners from relevant reasons and evidence; common emotions appealed to are fear, hope, patriotism, pity, and sympathy

straw person fallacy

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

either-or (or false dilemma) fallacy

assuming only two alternatives when there are more than two

explaining by naming fallacy

falsely assuming that because you have provided a name for some event or behavior, you have also adequately explained the event

the planning fallacy

the tendency for people or organizations to underestimate how long they will need to complete a task, despite numerous prior experiences of having underestimated how long something would take to finish

glittering generality fallacy

the use of vague, emotionally appealing virtue words that dispose us to approve something without closely examining the reasons

red herring fallacy

an irrelevant topic is presented to divert attention from the original issue and help win an argument by shifting attention away from the argument and to another issue

begging the question fallacy

an argument in which the conclusion is assumed in the reasoning

dichotomous thinking

only two possible answers to a problem, or incorrect or correct terms, either or fallacy

intuition

evidence based on a feeling (follow your heart, bad feeling/bad energy)

personal experience

evidence using personal experiences

hasty generalization

a person draws a conclusion about a large group based on experiences with only a few members of the group

impossible certainty

the idea that absolute certainty is an impossible standard to meet

faulty analogy

occurs when an analogy is proposed in which there are important relevant dissimilarities

publicly verifiable data analogy

data obtained under conditions such that other qualified people can make similar observations and see whether they get the same results.

scientific method

helps researchers evaluate objectively and reduces the risk of adopting or defending a false premise

research study

usually a systematic collection of observations by people trained to do scientific research.

appeal to expert

a fallacy that occurs when someone uses an expert’s opinion to support an argument without providing evidence or justification

case samples

specific, detailed, examples or scenarios used to support a claim or argument

denotative meaning

the literal or primary meaning of a word, as defined in a dictionary, without any cultural or emotional associations

connotative meaning

the secondary or implied meaning of a word

incomplete reasoning

a logical process that uses incomplete information to make an educated guess or prediction

casual thinking

a way of connecting event to determine a cause-and-effect relationship

recency effect

a cognitive bias that causes people to remember information that is presented most recently more clearly than information presented earlier

four primary values of a critical thinker

humility, autonomy, curiosity, and respect for good reasoning

abstract words

a cognitive skill that involves processing information that is not directly observable or experienced

cognitive biases

systematic patterns of thinking that can impact critical thinking by causing people to make irrational decisions

rational

the ability to think clearly and objectively about a situation, using facts and logic to make conclusions

reasoning

the ability to draw conclusions from premises