Critical Thinking Exam 2

chapters 6-12 B&K

what is a fallacy

a reasoning “trick” that someone 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

assuming 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 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 emotion

the use of emotionally charged language to distract readers and listeners from relevant reasons and evidence

straw person

distorting an opponent’s point of view so that is easy to attack thus attacking a point of view that does not truly exist

either-or

assuming only two alternatives when there are more than two

explaining by naming

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

planning fallacy

the tendency for people or organizations to underestimate how long they will need to complete a task despite numerous prior experiences of underestimating

glittering generality

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

red herring

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

begging the question

an argument in which the conclusion is assumed in the reasoning

narrative fallacy

assuming incorrectly that because we can tell a story that seems to explain the occurrence of a set of facts we now understand the links relating the facts to one another

impossible certainty fallacy

assuming that a research conclusion should be rejected if it is not absolutely certain

confusion of cause and effect

confusing the cause with the effect of an event or failing to recognize that the two events may be influencing each other

neglect of a common cause

failure to recognize that two events may be related because of the effects of a common third factor

post hoc

assuming that a particular event, B, is cause by another event, A, simply because B follows A in time.

what is evidence

explicit information shared by the communicator that is used to back up or justify the dependability of a factual claim. It should be reliable, relevant, and derived from credible sources.

what is the difference between facts and opinions

facts are supported by evidence and more dependable while opinions are personal beliefs that lack supporting evidence

what are the major types of evidence

1. personal experiences

2. case examples

3. testimonials

4. appeals to authorities or experts

5. personal observations

6. research studies

7. analogies

hasty generalization fallacy

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

weakness of personal experience as evidence

1. it is vivid but not representative

2. it often leads to hasty generalizations

3. it demonstrates possibilities, not probabilities

4. potential for bias

5. limited sample size

6. lack of generalizability

7. anecdotal

intuition

the ability to understand or know something immediately without the need for conscious reasoning

personal experience

refers to using one’s own lived experience to support a claim or argument

case example or case study as evidence

Detailed description of one or more persons to support a conclusion 

• Wide variations in style:

  • Some are narrative like

  • Some are data based

  • Others fall somewhere in between

• In sum, case studies may be a valid source of evidence in the helping professions 

  • Especially if supported by additional research

  • Obviously, case studies alone are potentially limited and biased

why should we be cautious about case examples

1. they are compelling but not representative

2. they demonstrate possibilities not probabilities

3. they are often emotionally charged and vivid which can distract from critical evaluation

   Narrative like in style

4. Vivid 

5. Sometimes personal

6. Sometimes emotional 

7. Seem credible, th s persuasive 

8. We prefer “stories” to statistics 

9. But on the plus side, may motivate others to conduct further research

testimonials as evidence

statements from individuals often celebrities endorsing a product, service, or idea based on their personal experience.

• In sum, testimonials may be a valid source of evidence 

  • IF presented under formal conditions, such as legal testimony 

  • BUT less so as treatment evidence, like that found at a professional websites, unless supported by less biased evidence 

  • AND rarely when presented as product endorsements by celebs or influencers on social media

problems with testimonials

1. selectivity: only positive experiences are shared

2. personal interest” the person may have something to gain

3. omitted information: lack of details about the basis for the judgment

4. human factor: enthusiastic people can make us want to believe them

appeal to authority as evidence

supporting a claim by siting an authority or expert who is believed to have special knowledge about the topic

weaknesses of appeal to authority

1. how much expertise does the authority have?

2. was the authority in a position to access relevant facts

3. is the authority free of distorting influences such as bias or personal interest

4. have other experts agreed with the authority’s conclusions

evaluating credibility of the internet sources

1. Investigate the author’s credentials and background. ​

2. Look for links to reputable sites. ​

3. Check for professional design and detailed reasoning. ​

4. Avoid vague, emotional, or one-sided claims.

scientific research as evidence

scientific research when done well is one of the most reliable forms of evidence because it emphasizes replication, control, and precision.

personal observation evidence

what someone has personally seen or experienced

why is personal experience unreliable

1. observations are filtered through values, biases, attitudes, and expectations

2. stressful or rapid situations can distort accuracy

3. observers may select and remember details that confirm their beliefs

what makes personal observations more reliable

1. observations are recent

2. multiple observers agree on what they saw

3. observations occur under optimal conditions

4. observers have no apparent biases or expectations

what are surveys and questionaries used for

measuring people’s behavior attitudes and beliefs

what questions should you ask about surveys and questionnaires

1. how were the questions worded?

2. was the sample large, diverse, and random

3. were participants honest in their responses

4. what was the context

scientific research as evidence

Research that systematically collects observations under controlled conditions to minimize bias and error.

What are the strengths of scientific research?

1. Publicly verifiable data. ​

2. Use of control to reduce errors. ​

3. Precision in language and measurement.

problems with research findings

1. Research varies greatly in quality. ​

2. Findings often contradict one another. ​

3. Research conclusions are interpretations, not proven facts. ​

4. Researchers may have biases or personal interests. ​

5. Research findings can change over time. ​

6. Research may lack real-world applicability due to artificial conditions.

reliable sampling

1. The sample is large enough to justify the conclusion. ​

2. The sample is diverse and representative of the population. ​

3. The sample is random, avoiding bias.

Issue

An issue is a question or controversy that serves as the stimulus for a discussion or argument. It is the central topic or problem that the communicator is addressing and attempting to resolve or explore. Issues can be descriptive, raising questions about the accuracy of descriptions of the past, present, or future, or prescriptive, raising questions about what should be done or what is right or wrong, good or bad. Identifying the issue is essential for understanding the reasoning and evaluating the argument.

Reasons

Reasons can include beliefs, evidence, or logic that help persuade the audience to accept the conclusion.

conclusion

A conclusion is the main point or message that the writer or speaker wants you to accept. What are they trying to prove?

8 Consideration for using research

1. evidence can vary in quality

2. fidnings did not agree

3. scientific findings do not prove

4. personal passion can override scientific passion

5. fidings can be distorted, misinterpreted or oversimplified

6. science is self critical and self concerning

7. highly controlled studies necessary to obtain clear answers

8. scientists careers are built on repuation

Tips to determine when to trust experts opinion

• Rely on system 2, not system 1 (unless expert intuition)

• Expert opinion supported by evidence

• Evidence is judged credible without COI

• Experts conclusions include appropriate qualifiers 

• Qualifiers include limited generalization 

• Sufficient quantity of evidence available 

• Other qualified experts concur

• Seek out additional in-depth analyses of issue

Analogy

resemblance as form of explanation or clarification. Helps understanding of complex topics

4 Characteristics of a critical thinker

• 1. autonomy : think for yourself

• 2. Curiosity: ask questions to learn more

• 3. Humility: know what you know and don’t know

• 4. Respect- For good reasons

Two more characteristics or, as they are usually called, thinking dispositions, are related to critical thinking

• 1. Open mindedness 

• 2. Reflective thinking 

Open mindedness

• 1. Actively open to new ideas, as opposed to passively (sitting and waiting for new ideas to come)

• 2. Willing to critically evaluate these ideas

•  3. Willing to modify your thinking in light of convincing evidence

Reflective Thinking

• 1. Willing to learn from your past experiences

• 2. Willing to question quality of evidence

Rival cause

Alternative explanation for outcome may be just as credible as favored explanation

• Are there other ways to intercept evidence

• What else might have led to difference 

• Think the opposite, can I see other causal factors 

• If this explanation is wrong, what else might explain it

• X is a cause of Y

• Y is a cause of X

• X and Y are associated with each other because of Z

• X and Y influence each other

fundamental attribution error

The fundamental attribution error is the tendency to overestimate the importance of personal characteristics (such as someone's personality or traits) and underestimate situational factors when explaining someone else's behavior. 1​ For example, if someone is late to a meeting, you might assume they are irresponsible (personal trait) rather than considering external factors like traffic or an emergency (situational factors). 2​ This bias can lead to unfair judgments and misunderstandings.

What are statistics

• Evidence presented as numbers 

• Graphs, tables, + figures 

• Stats don’t always prove what they appear to prove

2 strategies for determining if stats do not determine what the seem to

• 1. Act as if you don’t know authors stats

  • What quantitative evidence (or results) would be consistent with conclusion 

• 2. Act as if you don't know authors conclusion 

  • What conconclusion would be consistent with quantitative evidence (or results)

Kalinowski study

Will new approach for managing stuttering based on the in-the-ear fluency device help author with lifelong severe stuttering problem, who is also instructor and researcher in areas related to disorder. Is Kalinowski’s judgment of treatment effect unduly influenced by personal/financial investment in device? Key component of SpeechEasy device is frequency altered feedback (FAF): what so we know before 2003, that should have raised concerns about the possible long term effectiveness of the device? 

• Evidence from prior studies (e.g., Ingham et al., 1997; Armson & Stuart, 1998) indicated FAF- a component of SpeechEasy- is rarely effective during spontaneous speech and, if it is, the positive effect wears off over time. 

Value assumption

favoring one claim or belief over another

descriptive assumption

beliefs about the way the world was or will be

Significant omitted information

information that if you knew it would affect your view of author’s argument

Example: Anderer (2024) suggested Tiktok as as source of health information may be omitted significant information

value preferences

refers to the implicit prioritization of one value over another in a specific context.

Levels of evidence

• Level 1

  • Evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCT)

• Level 2 

  • Evidence from cohort studies 

  • Evidence from single subject designs 

• Level 3

  • Evidence from case studies, expert opinionk

Biklen 1992

Facilitated communication, FC involves simply touching or supporting individual's arm while person types or points, without guidance from the facilitator.

Shane and Kearns (1994)

They found that FC did not provide independent communication, as all messages in their study were authored by the facilitators rather than the individuals with disabilities. Results from controlled testing showed that the facilitated individual could not answer questions correctly when the facilitator was unaware of the correct response.

The methodology confirmed that the facilitator, not the individual, was guiding the communication.

Prior literature and other experimental results also supported these findings.

Stubblefield

• Noted scholar and expert areas of:

  • Social and racial justice

  • Ableism 

  • Empowerment 

  • Her background suggest values related to good intentions and a desire to help

    • Initially, DJ’s family thought so too, 

      • But then it went wrong

  • Value conflict emerged later:

    • Sex with DM violated clinician-client relationship

Confirmation bias

Confirmation bias is our tendency to seek evidence that supports our existing beliefs and ignore or dismiss contradictory evidence. It’s fundamental because it shapes how we process information and often leads to flawed thinking, even among helping professionals.

Why do we often stop searching for more information once we find confirming evidence?

Because searching for positive evidence feels natural and validating, while searching for disconfirming evidence takes deliberate effort and feels uncomfortable.

What are three ways people react to negative evidence that challenges their beliefs?

People tend to ignore it, downplay it, or distort it to fit their existing views.

According to Kathryn Schulz, how does it feel to be wrong before we realize we're wrong?

It feels like being right. There are no internal cues warning us of the error—this is called "error blindness."

What are the three social assumptions Schulz says we make when others disagree with us?

1) They are ignorant. 2) They are idiots. 3) They are evil.

What does the “Gorilla video” demonstrate about our observation skills?

It shows that focused attention can lead to inattentional blindness, where we miss unexpected but obvious events, like a gorilla walking through a basketball game.

How does inattentional blindness challenge helping professionals like SLPs and audiologists?

Even trained experts can miss obvious information when their attention is narrowly focused, potentially leading to diagnostic or treatment errors.

What does the “McGurk Effect” illustrate about our perception?

It shows that our visual and auditory expectations can conflict, resulting in a false perception. What we think we hear or see can be shaped—and fooled—by expectations.

What role do expectations play in shaping our perception and attention?

Expectations, based on past experiences, guide what we think we perceive, which can lead us to overlook or misinterpret unexpected information.

How can clinicians counteract confirmation bias and misperceptions?

By deliberately considering counterarguments, evaluating evidence quality objectively, and questioning their own interpretations—especially when clinical stakes are high.