Understanding Critical Thinking and Inductive Reasoning - Midterm Review

Looking for Confirming Evidence

Seeking information that supports current beliefs. Also known as "confirmation bias"

Preferring Available Evidence

Considering easily accessible information over the best-supported evidence. Also known as the "availability error"

Motivated Reasoning

Reasoning for the purpose of supporting a predetermined conclusion, not to uncover the truth.

Homophily

Tendency to trust statements from friends.

Mere Exposure Effect

Subconscious impact of repeated encounters with things on thinking.

Illusion-of-Truth Effect

A phenomenon in which you come to believe that a false claim is actually true simply because it is familiar.

False Consensus Effect

Overestimating how much others share our opinions.

Dunning-Kruger Effect

Phenomenon of ignorance about one's ignorance.

Resisting Contrary Evidence

When we deny evidence, or ignore it, or reinterpret it so it fits better with our prejudices.

Peer Pressure

Pressure to conform from peers.

Appeal to Popularity

The fallacy of arguing that a claim must be true merely because a substantial number of people believe it.

Appeal to Common Practice

When the pressure comes from what groups of people do or how they behave

Group Thinking

Generating narrow-mindedness, resistance to change, and stereotyping.

Self-interested Thinking

Accepting claims based on personal interests or saving face. Consequences include being vulnerable to propaganda and manipulation.

Consequences of Self-centered Thinking

Include preventing careful evaluation, limiting inquiry, blindness to facts, self-deception, rationalizations, evidence suppression, wishful thinking.

Evidence

Something increasing the likelihood of a statement being true.

Critical Thinking

Systematic evaluation or formulation of beliefs by rational standards. Focuses not on what causes a belief, but on whether it is WORTH BELIEVING, i.e. you have good evidence to believe it.

Enumerative Induction

An argument where we begin with observations about some group members and apply them to conclusions about the whole group.

Target Population

Whole collection of individuals in question.

Sample Members

Observed members of the target group.

Relevant Property

Property of interest in a group.

Sample Size

How many members of the target group one uses to make an inductive argument. Must be sufficiently large for a good inductive argument (at least 10% for purposes of this class)

Hasty Generalization

Error of drawing conclusions from a too small sample size.

Representative Sample

A portion of the target group, that resembles the target group in all relevant ways.

Analogical Induction

Using analogy to argue inductively for a conclusion.

Expert

Someone who is more knowledgeable in a particular subject area or field than most others are. They are more likely to be right because they have mastered particular skills or bodies of knowledge and they practice those skills or use that knowledge as their main occupation in life.

Background Information

A collection of well-supported beliefs that inform actions and choices, including basic facts, beliefs based on evidence, and common sense claims. The more a claim conflicts with this, the more reason we have to doubt the claim.

Fallacious Appeal to Authority

When someone without expertise in an area claims to be an expert based on fame, status, or expertise in another unrelated area.

Common Impairments of Personal Experience

Factors that can affect the reliability of personal experience, such as debilitated senses, environmental interference, and brain filling in gaps.

Statement

an assertion that something is or is not the case

Worthy Statements

Statements that are backed by GOOD REASONS

Argument

A group of statements in which some of them (the premises) are intended to support another of them (the conclusions).

Explanation

A statement or statements that tell us why or how something is the case.

"Post-Truth" Fog

Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal beliefs

Stereotyping

Classifying individuals into groups according to oversimplified or prejudiced attitudes or opinions

Implicit Bias

A negative attitude toward a group of people that operates unintentionally or unconsciously.

Inductive Reasoning

A type of argument intended to supply only probably support for its conclusion. It gives us most of what we know about the empirical workings of the world.

Self Selecting Sample

A type of sample where members of the group choose themselves. It is usually not representative and tells you little about the target population.

Eyewitness Testimony

A form of evidence that was previously considered to be very strong, but we now recognize can be wrong in many situations.

Personal Experience

Experience that arises from our senses, our memory, and our judgement involved in those faculties. It is something that is reasonable to accept as long as there is not good reason to doubt it.

Judging Experts

Method by which we evaluate experts, including the following:
1. Education and training from reputable institutions or programs in the relevant field
2. Experience in the field
3. A positive reputation among their peers
4. Professional accomplishments

True Experts

People who are familiar with the established facts and existing data in their field, understand how to properly evaluate or judge that information, and know how to apply it.

Good Reasons to Doubt an Expert

-The expert is guilty of simple factual or formal errors
-The expert's claims conflict with what you have good reason to believe
-The expert does not adequately support his or her assertions
-The expert's writing contains logical contradictions or inconsistent statements
-The expert does not treat opposing views fairly
-The expert is strongly biased, dogmatic, dismissive, or intolerant
-The expert relies on information you know is out of date
-The expert cherry-picks data to support his or her claims
-Most other experts in the same field disagree