Critical Thinking Test #1

Chapter 1: Intro To Critical Chapter 2: Deductive Reasoning Chapter 3: Inductive Reasoning Chapter 4: Scienece

statement for claim

an assertion that something is or is not the case

sentence

can be used to express one or more statements

EX. "roses are red, violets are blue"

statement for claim

an assertion that something is or is not the case

sentence

can be used to express one or more statements

EX. "roses are red, violets are blue"

Argument

a group of statements in which some of them (the premises) are intended to support another of them (the conclusion)

conclusion

the statement which the speaker/author wants the audience to accept

premises

give reasons for the audience to accept the conclusion

explanation

A statement or statements intended to tell why or how something is the case.

EX. the titanic sank, because it hit an iceberg

premise indicator words

because, since, in view of the fact, given that, for the reason that, due to the fact that

conclusion indicator words

therefore, thus, so, consequently, it follows that, we can conclude that, ergo, hence

What is critical thinking?

reflective thinking involved in the evaluation of evidence relevant to a claim so that a well-reasoned conclusion can be drawn from evidence

what is the old mind?

1. unconscious, automatic, fast

2. doesn't require much effort

3. associative and pragmatic

4. related to individual differences in intelligence

what is the new mind?

1. highly correlated with language

2. high effort, slow, sequential

3. dependent on working memory

4. abstract and hypothetical

5. subject to intentional control

6. facilitates language

tribalism bias

- "us vs them"

- tend to think that members of the group they belong to are superior

EX. hockey teams

familiarity bias

tend to believe things that are frequently said

fluency bias

tendency to believe statements which are easy to understand and assimilate

EX. more likely to brush off someone with accent

optimism bias

tend to overestimate rate of success

Anchoring effect

tend to overemphasize the first piece of information we learn

collective action problems

obstacles to cooperation due to tribalism

Myside bias

tend to be highly biased in favour of our tribe

EX. favouring sport teams

Superiority bias

the tendency to overrate oneself

confirmation bias

a tendency to search for information that supports our preconceptions and to ignore or distort contradictory evidence

Detecting bias

belief that we are free bias

Dunning-Kruger effect

The tendency for unskilled individuals to overestimate their own ability and the tendency for experts to underestimate their own ability.

science

seeks to acquire knowledge and understanding

- is empirical

technology

uses knowledge to do things in the world and used to make products

- ----- pursues knowledge vs ------- makes things

ideologies

worldviews affirming how the world is or how it works

EX. religions, political views

scientism

view that science is the only reliable way of acquiring knowledge

What is the scientific method?

1. identify the problem or pose question

2. devise a hypothesis to explain

3. devise a test implication to explain

4. perform test

5. accept or reject hypothesis

replication

repeating a research study to ensure that the initial results were not caused by hidden mistakes

philosophy of science

concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science

scientific realism

the position that the goal of science is to bring our understanding of the nature world closer to the truth

scientific instrumentalism

The school of thought that says the goal of science is to put forward theories that are useful in helping us predict and control the world around us

casual claim

a statement about the case of something

what is a correlation

a relationship in which two things are frequently or constantly found together

confusing casualty

1. misidentifying relevant factors

2. mishandling multiple factors

3. being misled by coincidence

misidentifying relevant factors

Lack of background knowledge might lead you to dismiss or ignore relevant factors or to assume that irrelevant factors must play a role

mishandling multiple factors

Too many relevant factors

being misled by coincidence

ordinary events can be paired in unusual ways

Appeal to Ignorance

arguing that a lack of evidence proves something

Circular Reasoning/Begging the Question

involves repeating the claim as a way to provide evidence, resulting in no evidence at all

unwarranted assumptions

a claim that something is true, despite the fact there is no evidence or good reason to believe it

hasty generalization fallacy

occurs when we draw a general conclusion about an entire group based on an unrepresentative sample

types of nonscientific inductive reasoning

personal experience, anecdotal evidence, common sense beliefs, statements of authority

personal experience

can involve our direct, informal observations of the world and our ideas of how things work

impaired by:

1. impairment

2. expectation

3. memory

anecdotal evidence

- brief stories or examples often used to illustrate or support a claim

- help to understand concepts by giving "real world examples"

- often sample size of 1

common sense beliefs

- informal beliefs and theories about what the world is like and how it works

- can be biased by cultural and social influence

statements of authority

- learn by referring to claims by experts

- since we can't have expertise in all things, we rely on experts to help us unnderstand and explain things

types of scientific inductive arguments

1. enumerative induction

2. inductive generalization

enumerative induction

an inductive argument pattern in which we reason from premises about individual members of a group to conclusions about the group as a whole

EX. X percent/most/many of the observed members of group A have property P. Therefore, X percent or all members of group A probably have property P

inductive generalization

knowledge is gained from samples to form conclusions about the whole

1. statistical syllogism

2. analogical induction

statistical syllogism

generalization to a specific member of a group from information about the whole to a conclusion about an individual member

EX. 94% (proportion of the group with the characteristic) of professional basketball players (group the individual belongs to) are over 6' (characteristic being attributed).

Paul (individual being examined) plays for the raptors, so Paul is over 6'.

analogical induction

An argument making use of analogy, reasoning that because two or more things are similar in several respects, they must be similar in some further respect.

Target group

the whole collection of individuals under study

sample

A relatively small proportion of people who are chosen in a survey so as to be representative of the population/target group

relevant property/property in question

the property or characteristics that is of interest in the target group

Web of Belief

- beliefs at the centre are tightly held and hard to change

- the opposite applies to beliefs on the edge

How to evaluate enumerative induction?

1. individual being examined

2. group the individual is said to belong

3. characteristic being attributed

4. proportion of that group with the characteristic

How is a sample representative?

sample resembles the target group in all ways that matter, including

1. having all the same characteristics

2. having the characteristics in the same proportions as the target group

opinion polls

- an assessment of public opinion obtained by questioning a representative sample.

- sophisticated example of enumerative induction.

What is random sampling?

everyone in the population has an equal chance of being studied

What is the margin of error?

- the variation between the values derived from a sample and

- refers to the variation between the values derived from a sample and the true values of the whole target group

What is confidence level?

the probability that the sample will accurately represent the target group within the margin of error.

How do you evaluate in a logical induction?

1. relevant similarities

2. relevant dissimilarities

3. number of instances compared

4. truth of premises

relevant similarities

The more -----------------, the more probable the conclusion

relevant dissimilarities

The more ----------------------- there are between the things being compared, the less probable the conclusion

number of instances compared

larger sample strengthens the argument

modus tollens (denying the consequent)

If P then Q

Not Q

Therefore not P

disjunction

- "one or the other"

if p or q

not p.

therefore, q

denying the antecedent

- argument is not truth-preserving as the conclusion denies the premises

- the premises are true but the conclusion is false

If P then Q

Not P

Therefore, not Q

affirming the consequent

- just repeating shit

If P then Q

Q

Therefore P

what is the burden of proof (BOP)

- typically on side that makes positive claim

- refers to the weight/evidence/argument required by one side in a debate

positive claim

to say something is the case

negative claim

to say something is not the case

fallacy

a reasoning error, typically associated with deductive reasoning that leads to an invalid aaargument

what is deductive reasoning

intend to provide logically conclusive support for their conclusions

What is inductive reasoning?

intend to provide probable - not conclusive - support for their claims

What makes an argument valid?

- are "truth-preserving"

- if the premises is successful in providing logical reasoning that supports the conclusion

What makes an argument invalid?

if the premises fail providing logical reasoning that supports the conclusion

What makes an argument sound?

- a deductively valid argument with true premises

What makes an argument unsound?

when the argument is valid but the premises are false

What makes an argument strong?

- are not "truth-preserving"

- if the premises is successful in providing probable, but not conclusive - support for the conclusion

What makes an argument weak?

- if the premises is not successful in providing probable, but not conclusive - support for the conclusion

What makes an argument cogent?

strong inductive argument with true premises

What makes an argument not cogent?

strong inductive argument with false premises

Deduction indicator words

certainly,

definitely,

absolutely,

conclusively,

it logically follows that,

it is logical to conclude that,

this logically implies that,

this entails that

induction indicator words

probably,

likely,

it is plausible to suppose that,

it is reasonable to assume that,

one would expect that,

it is a good bet that,

chances are that,

odds are that

what are conditional arguments

- form of deductive reasoning

- includes conditional statements

- has 6 main patterns, 4 valid, 2 invalid

Valid Conditional Argument patterns

1. modus ponens (affirming the antecedent)

2. modus tollens (denying the consequent)

3. hypothetical syllogism

4. disjunction

invalid Conditional Argument patterns

1. denying the antecedent

2. affirming the consequent

modus ponens (affirming the antecedent)

If p, then q.

p.

Therefore, q.

(Valid)

hypothetical syllogism

if p then q

if q then r

therefore if p then r