| Analysis | The area of critical thinking that focuses on the examination and evaluation of arguments, decision-making, and problem-solving.
|
 |
|
|
| Argument | An argument has two major parts*the conclusion and the premises. An argument consists of a set of propositions, at least one of which (called a premise) is offered as evidence for accepting another proposition (called the conclusion or thesis).
|
|
|
|
| Attitudes and dispositions of a critical thinker | The key attitudes and dispositions of a clear thinker--such as being receptive, flexible, open-minded, a careful listener, attentive to detail, observant, questioning, willing to persevere. Personal traits include being willing to take risks, and able to look at problems from different vantage points.
|
|
|
|
| Beyond a reasonable doubt | The standard of proof in criminal trials--that the evidence offers sufficient support for the conclusion so an alternative explanation is highly unlikely or impossible. This is a higher standard than that of civil trials, which rests on the preponderance of the evidence.
|
|
|
|
| Bias | Bias functions as a kind of blinder or filter, slanting our thinking one way or another. It must be set aside if we want to think clearly, formulate strong arguments and act out of a sense of justice. Prejudice and bias have to do with attitudes and states of mind--oppression involves action.
|
|
|
|
| Conclusion | A proposition that is said to follow one or more reasons (called premises-the evidence on which the conclusion is based). A conclusion along with the supporting premises constitute an argument.
|
|
|
|
| Deadly Triad | The status quo + habit + stereotypical thinking. This triad is formed by the mindset of the dominant culture, the habitual ways of doing things, and belief systems that lock attitudes and stereotypical ways of thinking into place. Think of this deadly triad as conceptual snow goggles.
|
|
|
|
| Deductive reasoning | With deductive arguments logicians seek to determine if the conclusion will certainly be true if we assume the premises are all true. With deductive arguments, it is claimed or implied that the premises completely support the conclusion.
|
|
|
|
| Fallacies | Flawed arguments that may be persuasive but are badly reasoned because of irrelevant premises, unwarranted assumptions, ambiguous uses of language, or formal errors.
|
|
|
|
| Forms of argument | Logicians divide arguments into two categories: deductive and inductive.
|
|
|
|
| Frame of reference | A particular vantage point (point of view) that could be used to examine a given issue. The frame of reference influences the ways issues are presented and potentially "stacks the deck." This framework is shaped by our prior knowledge, assumptions, values, language or notation, among others.
|
|
|
|
| Habit | Habits and routine may act as blinders or restrictions on perceiving the world and evaluating what is seen and, so should be scrutinized as a potential obstacle to clear thinking.
|
|
|
|
| Hate crimes | Hate crimes are one of the most odious expressions of prejudice. The American Psychological Association says of hate crime that not only is it an attack on one's physical self, but it is also an attack on one's very identity.
|
|
|
|
| Higher order thinking skills | Higher order skills--alias comprehension skills--include application, synthesis, drawing inferences, comparison/contrast, justification, analysis, evaluation, moral reasoning, and using inductive and deductive reasoning.
|
|
|
|
| Inductive reasoning | Arguments in which the conclusion can never be said to follow the premises with certainty, only probability. At best the premises of an inductive argument give partial support for the conclusion--never sufficient support.
|
|
|
|
| Invalid argument | An argument in which the premises do not provide sufficient support for the conclusion to follow with certainty. If we assume the premises to be true in an invalid argument, the conclusion is not necessarily true (the conclusion might be false). The terms "valid" and "invalid" only apply to deductive arguments--not to inductive ones.
|
|
|
|
| Limited Access to information | Restrictions or limitations that create obstacles for thinking and decision-making. Sometimes we lack information or we only get one perspective. Others may control access to information. Sometimes we are limited by time and physical conditions. Or it may be that the information provided has been censored or edited, as with news coverage.
|
|
|
|
| Loaded language | Loaded language creates an inherent bias in the very terms used. Biased and loaded language should always be routed out. Look for it and assess its impact. We need to be on the watch for the ways language is used to deceive, to mislead, or to otherwise block us from seeing an issue and evaluating the evidence.
|
|
|
|
| Lower order thinking skills | Lower order thinking skills--alias basic skills--include memorizing, summarizing, labeling, observing, and sorting into assigned categories.
|
|
|
|
| One-sided thinking | With one-sided thinking, we fail to acknowledge (or realize) that our narrow angle or presentation of events and/or evidence creates a bias. This bias slants the inquiry and may result in a limited grasp on the situation. No one sees with eyes cut off from emotions, experiences, ways of thinking and feeling about the world. Our angle of approach and our worldview shapes what we see and how we think.
|
|
|
|
| Perspective/diverse perspective | Perspective is the point of view or frame of reference one takes in approaching an issue or situation. In assessing arguments it helps to be aware of whose interests prevail, whose history has priority, whose frame of reference determines the norm, and who sets the criteria for decision-making.
|
|
|
|
| Prejudice | When someone is partial to one thing or another, they exhibit a prejudice. Prejudice can be positive or negative. Prejudice comes in many forms and may be directed toward one or many individuals or groups. It can be so internalized that it functions seamlessly and invisibly.
|
|
|
|
| Premise | A proposition that is offered as reasons for supporting a conclusion (or a thesis/hypothesis). There must be at least one premise in any given argument and only one conclusion.
|
|
|
|
| Preponderance of the evidence | The standard of proof in civil trials--where only a simple majority of the evidence is needed to support the conclusion. The conclusion is well supported by the evidence, but does not follow with certainty. Many arguments rest on probability or rely upon unproven assumptions.
|
|
|
|
| Proposition | An assertion that is true or false. The form of a proposition is that of something being predicated of some subject. A proposition has a truth-value--i.e., it is either true or false. E.g., "All ducks [subject] are birds [predicate]." Declarations and rhetorical questions may operate as propositions; so they can be written to clarify what's being asserted. Propositions can function together as a body of evidence offered in support of a particular claim.
|
|
|
|
| Racism | Prejudice aimed at members of a racial or ethnic group. It can be manifested in subtle ways, but often treats the other as inferior, or alien. Racism is an obstacle to clear thinking.
|
|
|
|
| Social context | Social context is that slice of time, location, culture, politics and community that helps shape our identity and places us on a historical spectrum.
|
|
|
|
| Societal Assumptions | Attitudes and beliefs that prefigure public opinion or views expressed or held by one society or another. Societal assumptions can also block clear thinking. We operate with a set of attitudes about adults, teenagers, children, people with disabilities, religious groups, and members of racial and ethnic groups--these assumptions have to be scrutinized as part of evaluating claims or actions.
|
|
|
|
| Sound arguments | Sound arguments are arguments that valid and they have true premises. Once we have determined that an argument is valid, we then ask: Are the premises in fact true--is the evidence cited really the case?
|
|
|
|
| Speculation | Speculation is a form of guesswork. We normally use the term speculation to apply to either (1) hypotheses that have little, if any, evidence to back them up or (2) unsupported claims. When people speculate, they are stating a claim without sufficient evidence to be certain they are right.
|
|
|
|
| Stereotypes | Stereotypes are generalizations made on the basis of little or no evidence--the results are concepts or images. All such assumptions impede clear thinking and put up barriers in our relationships. They can be positive or negative. They are a potential obstacle to clear thinking, as stereotype can reinforce conventional ways of thinking or reinforce myths.
|
|
|
|
| Strong argument | An argument in which the premises provide sufficient support for the conclusion. This means the evidence cited is sufficient to support the thesis. This standard means that the conclusion should follow from the premises, so if each premise were presumed to be true, the conclusion would be true as well.
|
|
|
|
| Survival issues | One of the obstacles to critical thinking. These include an abusive environment, substance abuse, poverty, hunger, eating disorders, depression, rage, and a stress-inducing lifestyle.
|
|
|
|
| Thesis | The position being argued. In any argument, the thesis can be considered the conclusion of the argument and is based on the evidence offered in support (also referred to as the premises).
|
|
|
|
| Unsound Argument | An argument that has one or both of these characteristics: (1) the argument is not valid (2) the argument does not have true premises. When there's a false premise, the argument cannot be considered sound, even if the argument is well structured. An unsound argument could be invalid, have false premises, or both. An unsound argument might have all true premises and a true conclusion but the premises do not fully support the conclusion.
|
|
|
|
| Valid Argument | An argument in which the premises provide sufficient support for the conclusion to follow with certainty. In a valid argument, if you assume the premises to be true, the conclusion could not be false--it would have to be true. In everyday discourse, people often equate 'valid' with true. But in logic the term 'valid' is only used to refer to a particular kind of argument--one in which the conclusion could not be false if the premises were assumed to be true.
|