Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Eleventh Edition) Notes
The Benefit and Manner of Asking the Right Questions
The Noisy, Confused World We Live In: * We do not live in an imaginary world where we have complete independence or where persuaders explain the disadvantages of their points of view. * In the real world, we are bombarded by experts and advertisers who claim to know what we should eat, buy, and believe. * Persuaders often tell half-truths: socialists may hide the dangers of big government; conservatives may ignore inequality; clothing companies may exploit workers; drug companies often fund the very research that supports their products. * The Tea Example: A 5-minute Internet search for "should we use more tea" yielded claims that tea treats itching, swelling, cuts, athlete’s foot, toothaches, bad breath, tired eyes, skin rashes, and hair shine.
The Failure of Experts: * Experts often disagree and may be wrong. David Freedman’s 2010 book, Wrong: Why Experts Keep Failing Us, highlights contradictions: * Sun Exposure: The U.S. CDC suggests avoiding the sun to prevent skin cancer, but the WHO says uv light is a minor contributor to disease and too little exposure may cause more disease than too much. * Pet Ownership: The American Heart Association links pets to better health, but a study in Finland links pet ownership to poor health. * Cell Phones: The International Epidemiology Institute found no link to harmful radiation, while a South Carolina hospital expert claims there is a link to cancer.
Three Dimensions of Critical Thinking: 1. Awareness of a set of interrelated critical questions. 2. Ability to ask and answer these critical questions in an appropriate manner. 3. Desire to actively use the critical questions.
The Sponge and Panning for Gold: * The Sponge Approach: Absorbs information passively. It is quick and easy but provides no method for deciding what to believe. * Panning for Gold: Requires the reader to ask "why" and interact with the material. It focuses on distinguishing "gold" (dependable opinions) from "gravel." * Mental Checklist for Panning for Gold: Did I ask "why"? Did I take notes on potential problems? Did I evaluate the claims? Did I form my own conclusion?
Weak-Sense and Strong-Sense Critical Thinking: * Weak-Sense: Using critical thinking to defend current beliefs and annihilate opposing views. * Strong-Sense: Applying critical questions to all claims, especially one’s own. It protects against self-deception and requires open-mindedness.
The Primary Values of a Critical Thinker: 1. Autonomy: Forming one’s own conclusions by listening to a wide array of possibilities. 2. Curiosity: Actively seeking insights from others to move forward from partial knowledge. 3. Humility: Recognizing that everyone makes mistakes (echoing Socrates: "he knew that he did not know"). 4. Respect for Good Reasoning: Valuing strong reasoning regardless of the speaker's background.
Strategies for Productive Dialogue: * Ask, "Did I hear you say…?" to clarify understanding. * Ask what evidence would cause the person to change their mind. * Suggest a "time-out" to find better evidence. * Maintain a calm, curious demeanor; avoid being a "warrior." * Jon Stewart’s quote: "I disagree with you, but I am pretty sure you’re not Hitler."
Speed Bumps Interfering with Your Critical Thinking
Thinking Too Quickly: * System 1 (Fast Thinking): Automatic, immediate, and controlled by emotions. Jonathan Haidt describes this as a "raging elephant" with a tiny human rider (rationality) trying to control it. * System 2 (Slow Thinking): Rational, methodical evaluation. This is the focus of critical thinking.
Stereotypes: * Substitutes for slow thinking that allege members of a group have specific traits (e.g., "Young people are frivolous," "Welfare recipients are lazy"). * They cut us off from careful consideration and load issues before reasoning begins.
Mental Habits (Cognitive Biases): * Halo Effect: Recognizing one positive trait (e.g., a celebrity’s singing voice) and assuming everything else about them is good. * Belief Perseverance: The tendency for personal beliefs to stick. It leads to Confirmation Bias—seeing only evidence that confirms what we already believe. * Availability Heuristic: Relying on immediately available information (recency effect). * Terrorism vs. Starvation: People fear terrorism more, yet roughly people die daily from starvation and unsafe water. * Malaria vs. Violence: Deaths from malaria are approximately higher than deaths from physical violence. * Answering the Wrong Question: Substituting a difficult question for an easier one (e.g., Keith Richards answering a question about a feud with "Mick and I are professionals"). * Egocentrism: Thinking our world is the center of the universe. Includes the Curse of Knowledge—forgetting what it is like not to know something.
Wishful Thinking: * Truthiness: Preferring concepts one wishes to be true over those known to be true. * Magical Thinking: Relying on magic to explain what science hasn’t, often when feeling powerless. * Belief in a Just World: Erroneous belief that the world is inherently fair (e.g., assuming no one would build a house with dangerous radon gas because it wouldn't be just).
What Are the Issue and the Conclusion?
Definitions: * Issue: The question or controversy responsible for the discussion. It is the stimulus. * Conclusion: The message the speaker or writer wishes you to accept.
Kinds of Issues: * Descriptive Issues: Questions about the accuracy of descriptions of the past, present, or future (e.g., "Does musical training improve math ability?"). * Prescriptive Issues: Questions about what we should do, what is right/wrong, or good/bad (e.g., "Should intelligent design be taught in schools?").
Clues to Finding the Conclusion: 1. Ask what the issue is. 2. Check for indicator words: consequently, therefore, thus, it follows that, shows that, the truth of the matter is. 3. Look in likely locations: the beginning and the end. 4. Identify what a conclusion is not: examples, statistics, definitions, background info, or evidence. 5. Check the context and the author’s background.
Writing Tip: Narrow your issue before writing. Many authors "bite off more than they can chew" by trying to address too many issues in a short paper.
What Are the Reasons?
Definition: Reasons are beliefs, evidence, metaphors, and analogies offered to support a conclusion.
Argument Structure: A conclusion and the reasons that support it (Argument = Conclusion + Reasons).
Indicator Words for Reasons: as a result of, because, is supported by, for the reason that, because of the fact that, studies show.
Types of Evidence: Facts, research findings, real-life examples, statistics, expert appeals, testimonials, analogies.
The Principle of Charity: Treating any idea that seems used to support a conclusion as a reason, even if it seems weak initially.
What Words or Phrases Are Ambiguous?
Definition of Ambiguity: A term is ambiguous when its meaning is so uncertain in the context of the argument that you need clarification to judge the reasoning.
Locating Key Terms: * Check for abstract words: The more abstract a word (e.g., equality, pornography), the more interpretations it has. * Use reverse role-playing: How would someone who disagrees define this term?
Testing for Ambiguity: Substitute alternative meanings. If the meaning changes the degree to which the reason supports the conclusion, the ambiguity is significant.
Loaded Language: Terms that trigger strong emotions (connotative meaning), bypassing the rational mind (e.g., tax relief vs. tax cut, welfare vs. assistance to the poor).
What Are the Value and Descriptive Assumptions?
Definition of Assumption: A belief, usually unstated, taken for granted that supports the explicit reasoning.
Value Assumptions: * An implicit preference for one value over another in a context (e.g., Public Safety > Individual Responsibility). * Common Conflicts: Loyalty vs. Honesty, Competition vs. Cooperation, Order vs. Freedom of Speech.
Descriptive Assumptions: * Unstated beliefs about how the world was, is, or will be (e.g., assuming a car model’s quality remains consistent from year to year). * Definitional Assumptions: Taking for granted one meaning of a term. * Romantic Fallacy: Assuming because something should be true, it will be true (the world is just).
Are There Any Fallacies in the Reasoning?
Key Fallacies: 1. Ad Hominem: Attacking the person rather than the argument. 2. Slippery Slope: Assuming a step will lead to a chain of undesirable events without evidence. 3. Searching for Perfect Solution: Rejecting a solution because it doesn't solve the problem entirely. 4. Appeal to Popularity (Ad Populum): Assuming because something is popular, it is good. 5. Appeal to Questionable Authority: Citing an authority with no special expertise. 6. Appeal to Emotion: Using charged language (fear, hope, patriotism) to distract from reasons. 7. Straw Person: Distorting an opponent’s view to make it easy to attack. 8. Either-Or (False Dilemma): Assuming only two choices exist when there are more. 9. Explaining by Naming: Falsely assuming that naming a behavior explains it (e.g., "midlife crisis"). 10. Planning Fallacy: Underestimating task completion time despite past experience. 11. Glittering Generality: Using vague virtue words (e.g., American Dream, truth, vision). 12. Red Herring: Introducing an irrelevant topic to shift attention. 13. Begging the Question: An argument where the conclusion is assumed in the reasoning.
Evaluating Evidence
Hasty Generalization: Drawing a conclusion about a large group based on a few members.
Testimonials: Susceptible to selectivity, personal interest, and omitted information.
Appeals to Authority: Must check for expertise, access to facts, and freedom from bias.
Personal Observation: Filtered through values and expectations; improved by multiple observers in optimal conditions.
Scientific Research: * Pros: Publicly verifiable data, control, and precision. * Cons: Quality varies, findings contradict (Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science: of medical interventions are proven wrong/exaggerated), artificiality, and financial bias. * Impossible Certainty Fallacy: Rejecting a conclusion because it is not absolutely certain.
Sampling: Must be large, diverse, and random to avoid biased results.
Analogy: Based on resemblance. A Faulty Analogy occurs when there are relevant dissimilarities between the two things compared.
Are There Rival Causes?
Definition: A plausible alternative explanation for an outcome.
Contributory Causes: Most events have multiple causes (e.g., the Sandy Hook massacre motives: anger at mother, video games, pharmaceutical drugs).
Causal Oversimplification: Explaining an event by relying on insufficient factors.
Correlation vs. Causation: Association does not prove cause. * Confusion of Cause and Effect: Not knowing which came first (Phoenix or the flame?). * Neglect of a Common Cause: A third factor (Z) causes both X and Y.
Post Hoc Fallacy: Assuming A caused B simply because B followed A in time.
Fundamental Attribution Error: Overestimating personal factors and underestimating situational factors in others.
Deceptive Statistics
Unknowable Stats: Statistics about hidden behaviors (cheating, illegal drug use) are often estimates/guesses.
Confusing Averages: * Mean: Total divided by number of values. Highly sensitive to extreme values. * Median: The middle value. * Mode: The most frequent value.
Conclusion/Evidence Mismatch: Proving one thing (electronic gadgets are of thefts) but concluding another (the subway is dangerous for smart phones).
Omitting Information: Presenting percentages without absolute numbers or vice versa.
Omitted Information and Multiple Conclusions
Omitted Information: Reasoning is always incomplete due to time/space limits, limited attention, or intentional deception.
Critical Question: "What are the potential long-term negative effects of the action?"
Dichotomous Thinking: Black-and-white thinking. Avoid by using if-clauses to state conditions (e.g., "If the tax cut targets the poor, then…").
Multiple Conclusions: Very rarely is there only one conclusion. Recognizing alternatives liberates personal choice.