Critical Systems and Thinking D265

Critical Thinking

The ability to think carefully about thinking and reasoning--to criticize your own reasoning.

Critical

Reflective, careful, or attentive to potential errors.

Critical Thinking

Being curious and thinking creatively; Being billing to go the next step and think about all of the possible positions and arguments before settling into a position.

Critical Thinking

Separating the thinking from the position; Removing personal opinion from the discussion and not making it personal against the other person.

Critical Thinking

Knowing oneself enough to avoid biases and errors of thought; being thoughtful and aware of personal biases and working against them to challenge thinking.

Critical Thinking

Understanding arguments ,reasons, and evidence; thinking carefully about thinking, about arguments, and positions.

Propositions

Statements that can be true or false.

Non-Proposition Sentences

Sentences that cannot be true or false; cannot disagree with them; cannot argue whether they're right or wrong; cannot question them.

Simple Propositions

Proposition with no internal logical structure, meaning whether they are true or false does not depend on whether a part of them are true or false. They simply are true or false on their own.

Complex Propositions

Propositions with an internal logical structure, meaning they are composed of simple propositions.

Common Anatomy of an Argument

One or more premises that are propositions that support or demonstrate at least one conclusion.

Premise

Propositions/statements that support or demonstrate the conclusion.

Conclusion

The point being made and offered for acceptance or rejection as the basis of an argument.

Bad Inferential Structure

The argument's premises do not demonstrate or support the conclusion. We can accept the premises as true without being compelled to accept the conclusion.

False Premise

The premises in an argument are false.

Argument

A set of statements where the premises attempt to provide a reason for thinking that the conclusion is true.

Conclusion Indicators

Therefore, Hence, We may conclude that, So, Thus, Implies that, It follows that, Entails that, As a result

Premise Indicators

Because, In that, As indicated by, Given that, Since, For, As

Inference

Argument

Argument

Any purportedly rational movement from evidence or premises to a conclusion.

Deductive Inferences

Arguments where the premises guarantee or necessitate the conclusion.

Inductive Inferences

Arguments where the premises make the conclusion probable, at best.

Abductive Inference

Arguments where the best available explanation is chosen as the correct explanation.

Truth

A property of propositions--not arguments.

Valid

A property of an argument structure. If both premises are true, the conclusion is true. Only applies to deductive arguments.

Sound

A valid argument with true premises. Only applies to deductive arguments.

Unsound

Argument is invalid or has at least one false premise. Only applies to deductive arguments.

Invalid

A property of an argument structure. If one or more premises is false, the conclusion is false. Only applies to deductive arguments.

Strong

In an inductive argument, the true premises make the conclusion probably true.

Cogent

All premises of an inductive argument are true.

Fallacy

A type of argument that is an example of bad reasoning.

Formal Fallacy

A fallacy that refers to the structure of things. This is an argument with a bad structure.

Informal Fallacy

A fallacy where the argument structure is valid, but the content is flawed. Valid form + invalid content.

Affirming the Consequent

Formal fallacy.

If X, then Y.

Y \= true.

Therefore, X \= true.

Denying the Atecedent

Formal fallacy.

If X, then Y.

X \= false.

Therefore, Y \= false.

Modus Ponens

Good deductive structure. Opposite of Affirming the Consequent.

If X, then Y.

X \= true.

Therefore, Y \= true.

Modus Tollens

Good deductive structure. Opposite of Denying the Antecedent.

If X, then Y.

Y \= false.

Therefore, X \= false.

Humiliation Tactics

The goal of the argument is to "win" and even humiliate rather than to connect and understand.

The Fallacy Fallacy

When someone uses the fact that a fallacy was committed to justify rejecting the conclusion of the fallacious argument.

Red Herring Fallacy

When the arguer changes the subject to something irrelevant to the original topic.

Begging the Question Fallacy

When an arguer assumes the truth of the conclusion in one or more of the premises.

Content Collapse

Everything on the internet, particularly social media, seems to be taking place in "my context, right now".

Bias

Being predisposed to arrive at a conclusion, even if evidence does not support it.

Principle of Charity

Interpreting someone's reasoning or argument in the best possible light.

Disarm your Conversant

Letting your opponent know that you understand their position and why someone might believe it.

Confirmation Bias

The natural tendency to seek out evidence supporting our beliefs and ignoring the evidence in the way of our beliefs.

Confirmation Bias

Ignoring the evidence that undermines what we already believe and putting extra weight on evidence that supports what we already believe.

Cognitive Bias

Quirks about the way we naturally categorize and make sense of the world around us. Includes aliefs and mental heuristics (representativeness, availability, and anchor and adjust heuristics)

Alief

Automatic belief-type attitudes that can explain how our instinctual responses can conflict with our reasoned-out beliefs.

Alief

Automatic or habitual belief-like attitudes--how we instinctively respond.

Belief

What you have determined or rationalized consciously.

Heuristic

Rule of thumb, a ready strategy, or a shortcut.

Satisficing

Satisfy + suffice. Choices that are "good enough" to satisfy our needs.

Bounded Rationality

Instead of being rational beings that always make optimal choices, we make the best choices we can, given the resources we have to work with.

Representativeness Heuristic

When faced with a new situation, we find the nearest prototype in our mind and use what we know about that prototype to help us understand the current situation.

Representativeness Heuristic

Judging a situation by means of situations in memories that bear similarities to it, even if those similarities aren't relevant.

Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic

We tend to "anchor" to the first piece of information we have about a new domain (even if it is not presented as fact) and then only "adjust" up or down from there.

Availability Heuristic

Events, memories, experiences, topics, and ideas that come to mind most easily are believed to be the truest. Related to an echo chamber.

Bubble

A curated and selected set of inputs that you see (your own mini-reality) online.

Representativeness Heuristic

A cognitive bias in which an individual categorizes a new situation based on the nearest prototype or experience in their mind.

Availability Heuristic

A cognitive bias in which an individual takes available information while not considering unknown information, resulting in a person jumping to conclusions.

Randomness and Representativeness

What two things make an appropriate sample?

Selection Bias

When the sample we generalize from is not representative of the total population in some important respect.

Self-Selection Bias

A form of selection bias. When individuals can opt themselves in to be included in a survey.

Selective Reporting

Reporting the same data in different ways to achieve different rhetorical goals.

Questions and Who is Taking the Survey

Two things that make or break a survey

Non-Response Bias

The people who are most likely to complete a survey are systematically different from those who don't.

Voluntary Response Bias

People who choose to respond to voluntary surveys are people who are different from the broader population.

Underrepresentation

Random sampling and response bias may accidentally exclude small minority groups.

Stratified Random Sampling

Splits the population into groups of interest and randomly selects people from each of the "stratas" so that each group in the overall sample is represented appropriately.

Cluster Sampling

Creates clusters that are naturally occurring and randomly select a few clusters to survey, instead of randomly selecting individuals.

Snowball Sampling

Used when respondent group is small and/or very specific. When current respondents are asked to help recruit people they know from the population of interest.

Census

Surveys an entire population. The US does one every 10 years.

Strong Inductive Generalization

A generalization based on an adequate number of relevant cases.

Is the generalization based on a sufficient number of germane samples?

Most relevant question to ask when seeking to identify an unwarranted statistical generalization.

How to Counteract: Confirmation Bias

Actively seek out the best justifications for alternative viewpoints and make sure that, when an alternative viewpoint is rejected, it is for good reasons.

How to Counteract: Representativeness Heuristic

Look for carefully conducted scientific studies or larger sets of data when available.

How to Counteract: Anchoring Bias

Ask, "Is this sample really representative of the population under study?", or, "Do I have enough credible evidence to generalize about this?"

System 1 Thinking

Thinking that is quick, automatic, and emotional.

System 1 Thinking

Fast Thinking

System 2 Thinking

Slow Thinking

System 2 Thinking

Thinking that is deliberate, effortful, and calculating.

Analysis Paralysis

No decision being made due to weighing too many factors.

Narrow Framing

A tendency to see investments without considering the overall portfolio.

Mental Accounting

The different values a person places on the same amount of money, based on subjective criteria, often with detrimental results.

Numerate

A good basic knowledge of arithmetic; able to understand and work with numbers.

Ad Hominem Fallacy

When someone attacks the arguer instead of the argument.

Guilt by Association

Type of Ad Hominem Fallacy, associating the arguer with someone of questionable character, therefore creating a reason to reject their argument.