Super edgy steven universe theory generator

Page i

Twelfth Edition

Critical Thinking

Brooke Noel Moore Richard Parker California State University, Chico

with help in Chapter 12 from Nina Rosenstand and Anita Silvers

Page ii

CRITICAL THINKING, TWELFTH EDITION

Published by McGraw-Hill Education, 2 Penn Plaza, New York, NY 10121. Copyright © 2017 by McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Previous editions © 2015, 2012, and 2009. No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education, including, but not limited to, in any network or other electronic storage or transmission, or broadcast for distance learning.

Some ancillaries, including electronic and print components, may not be available to customers outside the United States.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 DOW 21 20 19 18 17 16

ISBN 978-1-259-69087-7 MHID 1-259-69087-3

Chief Product Officer, SVP Products & Markets: G. Scott Virkler Vice President, General Manager, Products & Markets: Michael Ryan Managing Director: David Patterson Brand Manager: Penina Braffman and Jamie Laferrera Director, Product Development: Meghan Campbell Product Developer: Anthony McHugh Marketing Manager: Meredith Leo Director, Content Design & Delivery: Terri Schiesl Program Manager: Jennifer Shekleton Content Project Managers: Jane Mohr, Sandra Schnee, and Samantha Donisi-Hamm Buyer: Laura M. Fuller Design: Studio Montage, St. Louis, MO Content Licensing Specialist: Jacob Sullivan Cover Image: © diephosi/Getty Images RF Compositor: Aptara®, Inc. Printer: R. R. Donnelley

All credits appearing on page or at the end of the book are considered to be an extension of the copyright page.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Moore, Brooke Noel, author. | Parker, Richard (Richard B.), author. Title: Critical thinking / Brooke Noel Moore, Richard Parker, California

State University, Chico; with help in chapter 12 from Nina Rosenstand and

Anita Silvers. Description: Twelfth Edition. | Dubuque, IA : McGraw-Hill Education, 2016. Identifiers: LCCN 2016021518 | ISBN 9781259690877 (alk. paper) | ISBN

1259690873 (alk. paper)

Subjects: LCSH: Critical thinking. Classification: LCC B105.T54 M66 2016 | DDC 160—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016021518

The Internet addresses listed in the text were accurate at the time of publication. The inclusion of a website does not indicate an endorsement by the authors or McGraw-Hill Education, and McGraw-Hill Education does not guarantee the accuracy of the information presented at these sites.

mheducation.com/highered

https://lccn.loc.gov/2016021518
http://mheducation.com/highered
Page iii

Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chapter 11 Chapter 12

Brief Contents

Don’t Believe Everything You Think 1 Two Kinds of Reasoning 32 Clear Thinking, Critical Thinking, and Clear Writing 64 Credibility 93 Rhetoric, the Art of Persuasion 132 Relevance (Red Herring) Fallacies 173 Induction Fallacies 195 Formal Fallacies and Fallacies of Language 220 Deductive Arguments I: Categorical Logic 242 Deductive Arguments II: Truth-Functional Logic 284 Inductive Reasoning 338 Moral, Legal, and Aesthetic Reasoning 390

Page v

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Contents Preface xiv

Acknowledgments xx

About the Authors xxiv

Don’t Believe Everything You Think 1

Beliefs and Claims 4

Objective Claims and Subjective Claims 4

Fact and Opinion 5

Relativism 6

Moral Subjectivism 6

Issues 6

Arguments 7

Cognitive Biases 14

Truth and Knowledge 20

What Critical Thinking Can and Can’t Do 20

A Word About the Exercises 21

Recap 21

Additional Exercises 23

Two Kinds of Reasoning 32

Arguments: General Features 32

Conclusions Used as Premises 33

Unstated Premises and Conclusions 33

Two Kinds of Arguments 34

Deductive Arguments 34

Inductive Arguments 36

Chapter 3

Page vi

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt 37

Telling the Difference Between Deductive and Inductive Arguments 37

Deduction, Induction, and Unstated Premises 38

Balance of Considerations 40

Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE) 41

What Are Not Premises, Conclusions, or Arguments 41

Pictures 42

If . . . then . . . Sentences 42

Lists of Facts 42

“A because B” 43

Ethos, Pathos, and Logos 43

Techniques for Understanding Arguments 48

Clarifying an Argument’s Structure 49

Distinguishing Arguments from Window Dressing 51

Evaluating Arguments 52

Recap 52

Additional Exercises 53

Clear Thinking, Critical Thinking, and Clear

Writing 64

Vagueness 65

Ambiguity 67

Semantic Ambiguity 68

Grouping Ambiguity 68

Syntactic Ambiguity 68

Generality 70

Defining Terms 75

Purposes of Definitions 75

Kinds of Definitions 76

Tips on Definitions 77

Writing Argumentative Essays 79

Good Writing Practices 80

Essay Types to Avoid 81

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Page vii

Page viii

Persuasive Writing 82

Writing in a Diverse Society 82

Recap 83

Additional Exercises 84

Credibility 93

The Claim and Its Source 95

Assessing the Content of the Claim 96

Does the Claim Conflict with Our Personal Observations? 96

Does the Claim Conflict with Our Background Information? 99

The Credibility of Sources 102

Interested Parties 102

Physical and Other Characteristics 103

Expertise 105

Credibility and the News Media 109

Consolidation of Media Ownership 109

Government Management of the News 109

Bias Within the Media 111

Talk Radio 113

Advocacy Television 113

The Internet, Generally 114

Blogs 117

Advertising 118

Three Kinds of Ads 118

Recap 121

Additional Exercises 122

Rhetoric, the Art of Persuasion 132

Rhetorical Force 133

Rhetorical Devices I 134

Euphemisms and Dysphemisms 134

Weaselers 134

Downplayers 135

Chapter 6

Page ix

Rhetorical Devices II 137

Stereotypes 137

Innuendo 138

Loaded Questions 139

Rhetorical Devices III 141

Ridicule/Sarcasm 141

Hyperbole 141

Rhetorical Devices IV 142

Rhetorical Definitions and Rhetorical Explanations 142

Rhetorical Analogies and Misleading Comparisons 143

Proof Surrogates and Repetition 147

Proof Surrogates 147

Repetition 148

Persuasion Through Visual Imagery 150

The Extreme Rhetoric of Demagoguery 152

Recap 155

Additional Exercises 156

Relevance (Red Herring) Fallacies 173

Argumentum Ad Hominem 174

Poisoning the Well 175

Guilt by Association 175

Genetic Fallacy 175

Straw Man 176

False Dilemma (Ignoring Other Alternatives) 177

The Perfectionist Fallacy 178

The Line-Drawing Fallacy 178

Misplacing the Burden of Proof 179

Begging the Question (Assuming What You are Trying to Prove) 181

Appeal To Emotion 182

Argument from Outrage 182

Scare Tactics 182

Appeal to Pity 184

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Page x

Other Appeals to Emotion 184

Irrelevant Conclusion 186

Recap 188

Exercises 188

Induction Fallacies 195

Generalizations 195

Generalizing from Too Few Cases (Hasty Generalization) 196

Generalizing from Exceptional Cases 198

Accident 199

Weak Analogy 200

Mistaken Appeal to Authority 202

Mistaken Appeal to Popularity (Mistaken Appeal to Common Belief) 202

Mistaken Appeal to Common Practice 203

Bandwagon Fallacy 203

Fallacies Related to Cause and Effect 205

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc 205

Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc 209

Slippery Slope 211

Untestable Explanation 212

Line-Drawing Again 212

Recap 213

Exercises 213

Formal Fallacies and Fallacies of Language 220

Three Formal Fallacies: Affirming the Consequent, Denying the Antecedent,

and Undistributed Middle 220

Affirming the Consequent 220

Denying the Antecedent 221

The Undistributed Middle 222

The Fallacies of Equivocation and Amphiboly 224

The Fallacies of Composition and Division 225

Confusing Explanations with Excuses 227

Chapter 9

Page xi

Confusing Contraries and Contradictories 229

Consistency and Inconsistency 230

Miscalculating Probabilities 231

Incorrectly Combining the Probability of Independent Events 231

Gambler’s Fallacy 232

Overlooking Prior Probabilities 233

Faulty Inductive Conversion 233

Recap 235

Additional Exercises 236

Deductive Arguments I: Categorical Logic 242

Categorical Claims 244

Venn Diagrams 245

Translation into Standard Form (Introduction) 246

Translating Claims in Which the Word “Only” or the Phrase “The

Only” Occurs 246

Translating Claims About Times and Places 247

Translating Claims About Specific Individuals 249

Translating Claims that Use Mass Nouns 250

The Square of Opposition 252

Existential Assumption and the Square of Opposition 252

Inferences Across the Square 253

Three Categorical Relations 254

Conversion 254

Obversion 254

Contraposition 255

Categorical Syllogisms 262

The Venn Diagram Method of Testing for Validity 264

Existential Assumption in Categorical Syllogisms 267

Categorical Syllogisms with Unstated Premises 267

Real-Life Syllogisms 268

The Rules Method of Testing for Validity 272

Recap 274

Chapter 10

Chapter 11

Page xii

Additional Exercises 274

Deductive Arguments II: Truth-Functional Logic

284

Truth Tables and Logical Symbols 285

Claim Variables 285

Truth Tables 285

Symbolizing Compound Claims 291

“If” and “Only If” 292

Necessary and Sufficient Conditions 294

“Unless” 295

“Either . . . Or” 295

Truth-Functional Argument Patterns (Brief Version) 298

Three Common Valid Argument Patterns 298

Three Mistakes: Invalid Argument Forms 302

Truth-Functional Arguments (Full Version) 305

The Truth-Table Method 305

The Short Truth-Table Method 308

Deductions 313

Group I Rules: Elementary Valid Argument Patterns 314

Group II Rules: Truth-Functional Equivalences 319

Conditional Proof 327

Recap 330

Additional Exercises 330

Inductive Reasoning 338

Argument from Analogy 338

Evaluation of Arguments from Analogy 339

Three Arguments from Analogy 341

Other Uses of Analogy 342

Generalizing from a Sample 347

Evaluation of Arguments That Generalize from a Sample 348

Three Arguments That Generalize from a Sample 349

Chapter 12

Page xiii

Scientific Generalizing from a Sample 350

The Statistical Syllogism 351

Causal Statements And Their Support 359

Forming Causal Hypotheses 359

Weighing Evidence 361

Confirming Causal Hypotheses 372

Calculating Statistical Probabilities 377

Joint Occurrence of Independent Events 377

Alternative Occurrences 377

Expectation Value 378

Calculating Conditional Probabilities 379

Causation in the Law 380

Recap 381

Additional Exercises 382

Moral, Legal, and Aesthetic Reasoning 390

Value Judgments 391

Moral Versus Nonmoral 392

Two Principles of Moral Reasoning 392

Moral Principles 394

Deriving Specific Moral Value Judgments 394

Major Perspectives in Moral Reasoning 397

Consequentialism 397

Duty Theory/Deontologism 398

Moral Relativism 400

Religious Relativism 402

Religious Absolutism 402

Virtue Ethics 402

Moral Deliberation 405

Legal Reasoning 410

Justifying Laws: Four Perspectives 411

Aesthetic Reasoning 414

Eight Aesthetic Principles 414

Using Aesthetic Principles to Judge Aesthetic Value 417

Evaluating Aesthetic Criticism: Relevance and Truth 419

Why Reason Aesthetically? 420

Recap 422

Additional Exercises 423

Appendix: Exercises from Previous Editions 426

Glossary 450

Answers, Suggestions, and Tips for Triangle Exercises 459

Credits 482

Index 483

Page xiv

Page xv

Page xvi

■ ■

■

■

Critical Thinking . . . Skills for the course. Skills for life.

More Engaging

Moore & Parker are known for fresh and lively writing. They rely on their own classroom experience and on feedback from instructors in getting the correct balance between explication and example.

Examples and exercises are drawn from today’s headlines. Students learn to apply critical thinking skills to situations in a wide variety of areas: advertising, politics, the media, popular culture. I love the sense of humor of the authors, the very clear and elegant way they

make critical thinking come alive with visuals, exercises and stories. —Gary John, Richland College

[Before reading this chapter] most students don’t realize the extent of product

placement and other similar attempts at subtle manipulation. —Christian Blum, Bryant & Stratton, Buffalo

More Relevant

Moore & Parker spark student interest in skills that will serve them throughout their lives, making the study of critical thinking a meaningful endeavor.

Boxes show students how critical thinking skills are relevant to their day-to-day lives. Striking visuals in every chapter show students how images affect our judgment and shape our thinking.

The variety [in the exercises] was outstanding. [They] will provide ample opportunity for the students to put into practice the various

logical principles being discussed. —Ray Darr, Southern Illinois University

Page xvii

■

More Student Success

Moore & Parker provide a path to student success, making students active participants in their own learning while teaching skills they can apply in all their courses.

Learning objectives link to chapter sections and in turn to print and online activities, so that students can immediately assess their mastery of the learning objective.

■

■

Exercises are dispersed throughout most chapters, so that they link tightly with the concepts as they are presented. Students have access to over 2,000 exercises that provide practice in applying their skills.

Hands-on, practical, and one might say, even “patient” with the students’ learning as it emphatically repeats concepts and slowly progresses them step by

step through the process. —Patricia Baldwin, Pitt Community College

There are a lot of exercises, which provides nice flexibility. The . . . mix of

relatively easy and more challenging pieces . . . is useful in providing some flexibility for

working in class. —Dennis Weiss, York College of Pennsylvania

Page xviii

H

■

■ ■

■

Changes to the 12th Edition

aving arrived at an even dozen editions, we still have our original goal constantly in mind: helping teach students to think and reason critically and make better decisions and making life a bit easier for instructors of critical

thinking courses. We invite both students and instructors to get in touch with us with any ideas they have that might help us pursue these goals.

As usual, this edition updates names and events in examples and exercises in the hope that they will be familiar to the current crop of students. As we’ve mentioned before, what to many of us instructors are recent events are obscure history to many new freshmen. Other changes are as follows.

CHAPTER-SPECIFIC CHANGES

Chapter 1 begins with a fuller accounting of what we take critical thinking to be. It also goes into a bit more depth regarding cognitive biases that affect our thinking. Chapter 2 contains a revised section on inference to the best explanation (IBE). Chapter 3 is somewhat leaner, but still makes a wealth of points about the important concepts of vagueness and generality and it contains a revised account of several types of definitions. Chapter 4 gets the usual updating here and there plus a new section on credibility in social media.

■

■ ■

■

■

■

■

■

Page xix

Chapter 5 gets updating, new photos, and a subsection on significant mention under the innuendo heading. Chapter 6 is left largely unchanged aside from some new examples and photos. Chapter 7 is also much the same as the previous version, although “fallacious” appeals have been changed to “mistaken” appeals; why use a word students have trouble spelling when there is one they don’t? Chapter 8 was new in the previous edition. It gets updated this time around, including a replacement of the section entitled “Overlooking False Positives” with an easier to understand “Faulty Inductive Conversion” section. Chapter 9 gets a bit of reformatting to make examples stand out more easily. Also, existential assumption gets its own subsection so it will be more difficult to miss.

Chapter 10 now makes the electrical circuit box a bit less distracting and adds a couple of new exercises to aid in learning to symbolize claims. But the biggest change from the previous edition is the reinsertion of a section that gives a briefer version of truth-functional arguments. This allows an instructor (like Moore) to deal quickly with this subject or (like Parker) to deal with it in much more detail by going on to the longer treatment that completes the chapter. Chapter 11 has the sections on analogies and generalizations fine-tuned, while the section on causal hypotheses remains in its previous pristine form. Chapter 12 has been left alone aside from a bit of updating of examples.

■ Vladimir Putin asks Hillary Clinton if she can get him a copy of Moore/Parker.

Page xx

W Acknowledgments

e, Moore and Parker, feel about this textbook the way people usually feel about their children. It has been a wonderful thing to watch it grow up through these (now) dozen editions, although it has caused us the occasional

pain in the backside along the way. Those pains—often in the form of criticism in reviews and correspondence from adopters—have usually been growing pains, however, and they have contributed to the improvement of the book. We are pretty pleased with the book, as proud parents are wont to be, but we realize that there are always things—smaller and smaller things, we hope—that can be changed for the better. We hope this edition incorporates changes of just that sort. Many of them are listed below.

The online accompaniment to the text continues to expand and, we trust, become more and more useful to adopters and their students. The preceding pages briefly describe LearnSmart and Connect, the principal components of the online material. These programs promise help for the student and an easier and more productive time for the instructor. We hope you find they live up to this promise.

Having escaped from the mysterious clutches of Mark Georgiev, former KGB operative and our editor a couple of editions ago, we have been blessed by guidance this time around from the gentle hands of Penina Braffman, Brand Manager; Anthony McHugh, Product Developer; Jane Mohr, Content Project Manager; as well as Erin Guendelsberger, Reshmi Rajeesh, and the ansrsource team, Development Editors, who encourage us even when we don’t quite toe the McGraw-Hill line.

The guidance of the following reviewers of current and previous editions and others who have written to us has been invaluable:

Keith Abney, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo James Anderson, San Diego State University Benjamin Arah, Bowie State University Sheldon Bachus Patricia Baldwin, Pitt Community College Monique Bindra Tim Black, California State University, Northridge Charles Blatz, University of Toledo

Page xxi

Christian Blum, Bryant & Stratton, Buffalo K. D. Borcoman, Coastline College/CSUDH Keith Brown, California State University, East Bay Rosalie Brown Lee Carter, Glendale Community College Jennifer Caseldine-Bracht, Indiana University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne Lynne Chandler-Garcia, Pikes Peak Community College David Connelly Anne D’Arcy, California State University, Chico Michelle Darnelle, Fayetteville State University Ray Darr, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville William J. Devlin, Bridgewater State University Paul Dickey, Metropolitan Community College Sandra Dwyer, Georgia State University Jeffrey Easlick, Saginaw Valley State University Aaron Edlin, University of California, Berkeley Dorothy Edlin Noel Edlin Ellery Eells, University of Wisconsin–Madison Ben Eggleston, University of Kansas Geoffrey B. Frasz, Community College of Southern Nevada Josh Fulcher Rory Goggins Geoffrey Gorham, University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire Joseph Graves, North Carolina A&T University Dabney Gray, Stillman College Patricia Hammer, Delta College Anthony Hanson, De Anza College Rebecca Hendricks Judith M. Hill, Saginaw Valley State University Steven Hoeltzel, James Madison University Steven R. Huizenga, Central Ohio Technical College J. F. Humphrey, North Carolina A&T University Amro Jayousi Gary John, Richland College Sunghyun Jung Allyn Kahn, Champlain College David Kelsey, Coastline Community College David Keyt, University of Washington

Page xxii

Paulina Kohan William Krieger, California State University–Pomona Michael LaBossiere, Florida A&M University Sunita Lanka, Hartnell College Bill Lawson Marisha Lecea, Western Michigan University Marion Ledwig, University of Nevada–Las Vegas Vern Lee, University of Phoenix Terrance MacMullon, Eastern Washington University Andrew Magrath, Kent State University Alistair Moles, Sierra College Ralph J. Moore, Jr. Jeffry Norby, Northcentral Technical College Eric Parkinson, Syracuse University Steven Patterson, Marygrove College Carmel Phelan, College of Southern Nevada Jamie L. Phillips, Clarion University Domenick Pinto, Sacred Heart University Ayaz Pirani, Hartnell College Ed Pluth, California State University, Chico Scott Rappold, Our Lady of Holy Cross College N. Mark Rauls, College of Southern Nevada Victor Reppert, Glendale Community College Matthew E. Roberts, Patrick Henry College Greg Sadler, Fayetteville State University Matt Schulte, Montgomery College Richard Scott, Glendale Community College Laurel Severino, Santa Fe Community College Mehul Shah, Bergen Community College Robert Shanab, University of Nevada at Las Vegas Steven Silveria Robert Skipper, St. Mary’s University Aeon J. Skoble, Bridgewater State University Taggart Smith, Purdue University–Calumet Richard Sneed, University of Central Oklahoma Alan Soble, Drexel University Chris Soutter James Stump, Bethel College Lou Suarez

Susan Vineberg, Wayne State University Michael Ventimiglia, Sacred Heart University Helmut Wautischer, Sonoma State University Dennis Weiss, York College of Pennsylvania Linda L. Williams, Kent State University Amy Goodman Wilson, Webster University Christine Wolf Wayne Yuen, Ohlone College Marie G. Zaccaria, Georgia Perimeter College

Over the years, our Chico State colleague Anne Morrissey has given us more usable material than anybody else. She’s also given us more unusable material, but never mind. We’ve also had fine suggestions and examples from Curtis Peldo of Chico State and Butte College; Dan Barnett, also of Butte College, has helped in many ways over the years.

We thank colleagues at Chico State, who are ever ready with a suggestion, idea, or constructive criticism; in particular, Marcel Daguerre, Randy Larsen, Becky White, Wai-hung Wong, Zanja Yudell, and Greg Tropea, whose death in 2010 left us saddened beyond words. Greg was a dear friend whose deep wisdom and quiet insight contributed significantly to our thinking over the course of many years. We are also grateful to Bangs Tapscott, Linda Kaye Bomstad, Ann Bykerk-Kauffman, Sue Patterson, and Jeffrey Ridenour for contributions both archival and recent.

Last, and especially, we give thanks to two people who put up with us with patience, encouragement, and grace, Leah Blum and Marianne Moore.

Page xxiii

N A Note to Our Colleagues

o surprise, reading a book (or taking a course) in critical thinking won’t make anyone a genius. It won’t tell you who to vote for or whether to believe in God or whether to contribute to the Humane Society, But it can, we hope, help

students tell whether a given reason for doing or not doing one of those things is a good reason. It can help them spot irrelevancies in a discussion, emotional appeals, empty rhetoric, and bogus argument. Other courses can do these things too, of course. But speaking generally, other courses are probably not focused so intensely on those things.

There are differences about how best to go about teaching critical thinking. One of us, Parker likes to emphasize formal logic. Moore, not quite so much. One thing Moore and Parker both agree on, and possibly so do many instructors, is that drill and practice are essential to improving students’ critical thinking ability. And one thing we have found is that technology can be helpful in this regard. The personalized digital reading experience of this text (called SmartBook) questions students as they read, and the credit they get depends on the proportion of the questions they answer correctly. (We instructors can also see how long they spent on a reading assignment.) Additionally, Connect, McGraw-Hill’s assignment and assessment platform through which SmartBook is accessed, gives us the means to put a whole lot of exercises online. And these two things enable us to do even more drilling in class.

If you don’t use Connect or LearnSmart, this text contains hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of exercises of the sort (we think) that can be applied directly to the world at large. And they are all answered in the Instructor’s Manual. The explanatory material found in the text is (we hope) both concise and fairly readable for even first-year university students.

If you use this text or the online peripherals, we would appreciate hearing from you. We both can be contacted through McGraw-Hill Education, or via the philosophy department at Chico State.

Page xxiv

B About the Authors

rooke Moore and Richard Parker have taught philosophy at California State University, Chico, for almost as long as they can remember. Moore has been that university’s Outstanding Professor, and both he and Parker have received

top academic honors on their campus. Moore has seen several terms as department chair, and Parker has served as chair of the academic senate and dean of undergraduate education.

Moore has a bachelor’s degree in music from Antioch College and a PhD in philosophy from the University of Cincinnati; Parker did his undergraduate degree at the University of Arkansas and his PhD at the University of Washington, both in philosophy.

Moore has finally given up being the world’s most serious amateur volleyball player. He and Marianne share their house and life with Sparky, as cute a pup as you’ll ever see. He has never sold an automobile.

Parker gets around in a 1962 MG or on a Harley softail. He plays golf for fun, shoots pool for money, and plays guitar for a semiprofessional flamenco troupe. He lives with Djobi, a hundred-pound Doberman.

Moore and Parker have remained steadfast friends through it all. They are never mistaken for one another.

Page xxv

To: Sherry and Bill; and Sydney, Darby, Alexander and Levi Peyton Elizabeth, and Griffin From Richard From Brooke

Page xxvi

This is not entirely a work of nonfiction.         

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6.

A

Page 1

1 Don’t Believe Everything You Think

Students will learn to . . .

Define critical thinking Explain the role of beliefs and claims in critical thinking Identify issues in real-world situations Recognize an argument Define and identify the common cognitive biases that affect critical thinking Understand the terms “truth” and “knowledge” as used in this book

little before noon on December 14, 2015, a man wearing a black stocking cap, black gloves, and a green sweat shirt with a four-leaf clover and the words “Get Lucky” printed on the front entered the Sterling State Bank in

Rochester, Minnesota.* He demanded cash and gave the teller a note saying he was armed. Police officers arrived and followed the man’s tracks in the snow to the parking lot of a Comfort Inn nearby, but by then the man had driven off in a car.

The next day, a reporter from KIMT-TV had set up in front of the bank to

Page 2

update the story, and right then and there the same man tried to rob the same bank again. When the teller saw the man he yelled out, “That’s the robber!” and the reporter called the police. This time when the police followed the suspect’s footprints they spotted his vehicle and apprehended him.

Now, educators will disagree about what exactly critical thinking is, but there will be no disputing that, whatever it is, “Get Lucky” wasn’t doing it. First of all, robbing banks isn’t necessarily the best way to make a living. But if you insist on robbing a bank, then probably you don’t want to leave footprints to your car, and probably you don’t want to try to rob the bank when a TV crew is filming it. Among other things, critical thinking involves considering the possible outcomes of an action.

Among what other things? Speaking generally, if we just think or do stuff, that’s not thinking critically. Critical thinking kicks in when we evaluate beliefs and actions—when we critique them. On the one hand, there is good, old- fashioned thinking. That’s what we do when we form opinions, make judgments, arrive at decisions, develop plans, come to conclusions, offer hypotheses, and the like. On the other hand, there is critical thinking. That’s what we do when we rationally evaluate the first kind of thinking. Critical thinking is thinking that critiques. It involves critiquing opinions, judgments, decisions, plans, conclusions, and reasoning in general. We engage in it when we consider whether our thinking (or someone else’s) abides by the criteria of good sense and logic.

If you are taking other courses, chances are your instructor will think critically about the work you turn in. He or she will offer critical commentary on what you submit. If you want to think critically, you have to do this yourself to your own work. Try to leave your instructor with nothing to say except, “Good job!”

It can be the same in the workplace or in the military. You might perhaps be asked to solve a problem or troubleshoot a situation or come up with a recommendation, or any number of other things that involve arriving at conclusions. Your colleagues or friends or supervisors may give you feedback or commentary. They are thinking critically about your reasoning.

Of course, if you are so brilliant that you never err in your thinking, then you may not need feedback from others. Unfortunately, there is evidence that people who think they are experts are more likely to believe they know things they don’t really know.* Anyway, almost everyone makes mistakes. We overlook important considerations, ignore viewpoints that conflict with our own, or in other ways don’t think as clearly as we might. Most of us benefit from a little critical commentary, and this includes commentary that comes from ourselves. The chances of reaching defensible conclusions improve if we don’t simply conclude willy-nilly, but reflect on our

Page 3

reasoning and try to make certain it is sound. Being able to think critically can be useful in another way. Others try to influence

what we think and do. There is much to be said for being able to critically evaluate a sales pitch, whether it comes from a stranger or a friend, or is about kitchen gadgets or for whom to vote for president. Critical thinking helps us recognize a scam when we see it.

Some educators equate critical thinking with problem solving or innovative thinking (“thinking outside the box”). This is fine, though at a certain point proposed solutions and possible innovations have to be tested. That’s where critical thinking comes in.

This is a book in critical thinking because it offers guidance about critiquing thinking. The book and the course you are using it in, if you are, explain the minimum criteria of good reasoning—the requirements a piece of reasoning must meet if it is worth paying attention to, no matter what the context. Along the way we will explore the most common and important obstacles to good reasoning, as well as some of the most common mistakes people make when coming to conclusions. Other courses you take offer refinements. In them you will learn what considerations are important from the perspective of individual disciplines. But in no course anywhere, at least in no course that involves arriving at conclusions, will thinking that violates the standards set forth in this book be accepted.

If it does nothing else, what you read here and learn in your critical thinking course should help you avoid at least a few of the more egregious common errors people make when they reason. If you would have otherwise made these mistakes, you will have become smarter. Not smarter in some particular subject, mind you, but smarter in general. The things you learn from this book (and from the course you may be reading it for) apply to nearly any subject people can talk or think or write about.

To a certain extent, questions we should ask when critiquing our own—or someone else’s—thinking depend on what is at issue. Deciding whom to vote for, whether to buy a house, whether a mathematical proof is sound, which toothpaste to buy, or what kind of dog to get involve different considerations. In all cases, however, we should want to avoid making or accepting weak and invalid arguments. We should also avoid being distracted by irrelevancies or ruled by emotion, succumbing to fallacies or bias, and being influenced by dubious authority or half-baked speculation. These are not the only criteria by which reasoning might be evaluated, but they are central and important, and they provide the main focus of this book.