Critical Thinking

Open-mindedness
- Importance of avoiding narrow viewpoints and provincial attitudes.
Knowledgeable
- The aim is to invoke truth and certainty whenever possible.
Mentally active
- Actively confronting problems as opposed to passively reacting to them.
Curiosity
- Encouragement to ask probing questions that delve beyond the surface of issues.
Independent thought
- Acknowledgement that disagreement is a natural and healthy facet of discussion.
Skillful discussant
- Engagement in topical discussions with genuine authenticity.
Insightful
- Ability to demonstrate novel ways to think about various subjects and challenging problems.
Self-awareness / Humility and Creativity
- Recognition of one's own limitations and the capacity to think outside the box.

Appeal to authority
- Acknowledgment that ordinary individuals must often rely on the knowledge of experts.
Submission
- Situations where one may perceive the mindset that “everyone is right.”
Relativism
- Instances where clashing authoritative views lead to the belief that no singular viewpoint is superior.
Critical thinking
- Encompasses insightful reasoning, evaluation, reflection, and independent thought.

An argument in philosophy is defined as consisting of an assertion or statement followed by several statements known as premises.
Key components of arguments:
- Assertion: Main statement being posited.
- Premises: Supporting statements designed to lead to a conclusion.
Key words indicating premises:
- Since, given that, because, thus, therefore, it follows that, as a result, moreover, consequently, strongly suggests, furthermore, demonstrates.

Truthfulness
- Are the statements being made true?
Logical flow
- Is there a coherent connection between statements?
Support for conclusion
- Do the premises adequately support the conclusion? (Validity)
Logical fallacies
- Are any logical fallacies present in the argument?

A valid argument consists of premises that logically lead to a conclusion.
Notably, a valid argument does not require the premises to be true.
Example of a valid argument:
- P1: All birds are white.
- P2: Cardinals are birds.
- C: Therefore, Cardinals are white.

For an argument to be sound:
- It must possess both truthful premises and a valid structure.
Example of a sound argument:
- P1: All men are mortal.
- P2: John is a man.
- C: Therefore, John is mortal.

A logical fallacy is defined as an error in reasoning or a weak form of reasoning.
Examples of classic logical fallacies include:
- Strawman
- Slippery Slope
- Red Herring
- False dichotomy
- False equivalence
- Hasty generalization
- Post hoc ergo propter hoc
- Bandwagon
- Appeal to authority
- Misidentification of cause
- Ad Hominem
- Begging the Question
- Circular Reasoning

This fallacy involves constructing a weak representation of the opposing viewpoint to easily refute it.
Example: A political candidate advocating for universal healthcare is opposed by another candidate who equates this idea to communism, branding it as un-American.
Conclusion: The argument suggests that governmental involvement in healthcare is inherently extreme and unpatriotic.

Argues that one action/event will inevitably lead to a series of increasingly undesirable actions/events.
Example: “If we legalize marijuana, it will lead to the legalization of cocaine, culminating in chaos.”
Conclusion: Legalizing marijuana will result in spiraling consequences involving all substances.

This tactic sidesteps the main argument by introducing irrelevant information.
Example: In a climate change debate, a speaker diverts attention to national security instead of addressing environmental concerns.
Conclusion: The main issue of climate change is overshadowed.

This fallacy presents only two extreme alternatives, ignoring other possibilities.
Example: “You are either with us or against us.”
Conclusion: This framing excludes critical thought about alternatives in decision-making.

Asserts that one event is the cause of another simply based on their sequential occurrence.
Examples:
- “Sally visited while I was gone, and now my wallet is missing; therefore, she must have taken it.”
- “The unemployment rate fell after President X took office; thus, he caused the improvement.”
- “I did a rain dance, and then it rained; therefore, my dance caused the rain.”

This approach capitalizes on emotional appeals, making one feel alienated if they don’t conform.
Example: “You haven’t tried product X yet? Everyone has discovered its wonders!”
Conclusion: Those not following the trend feel inferior or guilty for their choice.

Draws broad conclusions from a lack of sufficient evidence.
Examples:
- “People who listen to rock music are misguided based on a few individuals I’ve encountered.”
- “The recent terrorist attack was by a Muslim; hence, all Muslims are terrorists.”
Conclusion: Such generalizations stem from limited interactions but lead to sweeping assertions.

Involves incorrectly identifying causal relationships between events.
Example: “Derek is shy, hence he must have self-esteem issues.”
Conclusion: Such conclusions are drawn without sufficient evidence to support the causal claim.

This fallacy refers to attacking the individual rather than their argument, dismissing their ideas based on personal attributes.
Examples:
- “We can ignore Politician X because he has a criminal past.”
- “You are too young to contribute meaningfully to this debate.”
- “Look at that face; who would vote for that?”

Involves avoiding a question by restating the original argument without addressing the underlying issue.
Examples:
- “I don’t need to explain because it’s obvious.”
- “The Bible is true because the Bible isn’t false.”
- “She is always right because she’s our leader.”
Conclusion: Such reasoning fails to engage with the original argument logically or critically and remains confined within its own premise.