Where Do You Stand?

Where do you stand with regard to critical thinking?



FEET: What do I stand for as a foundation of critical thinking?

STOMACH: What upsets me about critical thinking?

HEART: What do I love about critical thinking?

HANDS: What do I feel about critical thinking?

EARS: What do I hear about critical thinking?

EYES: What do I see about critical thinking?

BRAIN: What do I think about critical thinking?

Welcome

Welcome to this blog at http://cthinkcenter.blogspot.com

From The Foundation for Critical Thinking

The Thinker's Guide to Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery and Manipulation

By Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder

"Most people deeply believe in -- but are unaware of -- the following premises:

1. It's true if I believe it
2. It's true if we believe it
3. It's true if I want to believe it
4. It's true if it serves my vested interest to believe it"

From http://www.criticalthinking.org/

44 Foul Ways to Win an Argument (which include the following):

• Appeal to Authority
• Appeal to Experience
• Appeal to Fear
• Appeal to Popular Passions
• Appeal to Tradition or Faith ("the tried & true")
• Assume a Posture of Righteousness
• Attack the person (and not the argument)
• Beg the Question
• Call For Perfection (demand impossible conditions)
• Create a False Dilemma (the great either/or)
• Question Your Opponent's Conclusions
• Create Misgivings: Where There's Smoke, There's Fire
• Create A Straw Man
• Deny or Defend Your Inconsistencies
• Demonize His Side Sanitize Yours
• Evade Questions, Gracefully
• Flatter Your Audience
• Hedge What You Say
• Ignore the Evidence
• Ignore the Main Point
• Attack Evidence (that undermines your case)
• Insist Loudly on a Minor Point
• Make Much of Any Inconsistencies in Your Opponent's Position
• Make Your Opponent Look Ridiculous
• Oversimplify the Issue

F A L L A C I E S

F A L L A C I E S

Fallacies of Distraction
Fallacies of Distraction involve the misuse of logical operators--or, not, if-then, and--which distract the reader away from realizing an apparent falsity within the text. Each of the following examples contains links to web pages that further elaborate their meaning.


False Dilemma (misuse of "or")
Argument from Ignorance (misuse of "not")
Slippery Slope (misuse of "if-then")
Complex Question (misuse of "and")

Appeals to Motives in Place of Support
The fallacies in this category are without reasons for belief and tend to appeal to the emotions or other psychological factors of their readers.

Appeal to Force
Appeal to Pity
Appeal to Consequences
Prejudicial Language
Appeal to Popularity

Changing the Subject
The fallacies in this category target the person making the argument rather than the issue being argued.

Attacking the Person
Appeal to Authority
Anonymous Authorities
Style over Substance.

Inductive Fallacies
The fallacies in this category are assumptions about a whole from properties of a part. Although statistical sampling is a means of reasoning the composition of a whole, no sample is a perfect representation of its whole.

Hasty Generalization
Unrepresentative Sample
False Analogy
Slothful Induction
Fallacy of Exclusion

Fallacies Involving Statistical Syllogisms
The fallacies in this category are assumptions about a part or even a whole that are made from statistical syllogisms, such as "most," as in "Most teachers know how to teach," or "generally," as in "Students are generally good learners." However, no syllogism is actually necessary to engage in this fallacy. For example, "People like to get haircuts."

Accident
Converse Accident.


Causal Fallacies
The fallacies in this category are assumptions about conclusions that are based on their causes. In other words, we can make a mistake in assumming that if cause A occurs, conclusion B will occur also--such as if students are handed textbooks, then they will read them.

Post Hoc
Joint Effect
Insignificant
Wrong Direction
Complex Cause

Missing the Point
The fallacies in this category are false assumptions that fail to prove that a conclusion is true.

Begging the Question
Irrelevant Conclusion
Straw Man

Fallacies of Ambiguity
The fallacies in this category involve using a word or phrase unclearly (ambiguously or vaguely).

Equivocation (Using the same term in two different ways)
Amphiboly (Two different interpretations)
Accent (what is actually said isn't what is actually meant)

Category Errors
The fallacies in this category occur when one thinks the sum of all the parts fits into a gestalt.

Composition (The whole does not necessarily have the properties of its parts)
Division (The parts do not necessarily have the properties of the whole)

Non-Sequitur
The fallacies in this category occur as a result of invalid arguments.

Affirming the Consequent
Denying the Antecedent
Inconsistency

Syllogistic Fallacies
The fallacies in this category occur as a result of invalid categorical syllogisms.

Fallacy of Four Terms: a syllogism has four terms
Undistributed Middle
Illicit Major
Illicit Minor
Fallacy of Exclusive Premises: a syllogism has two negative premises
Fallacy of Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a Negative Premise
Existential Fallacy: a particular conclusion is drawn from universal premises

Fallacies of Explanation
The fallacies in this category refer to errors in making explanations.

Subverted Support (The phenomenon being explained doesn't exist)
Non-support (Evidence for the phenomenon being explained is biased)
Untestability (The theory which explains cannot be tested)
Limited Scope (The theory which explains can only explain one thing)
Limited Depth (The theory which explains does not appeal to underlying causes)

Fallacies of Definition
The fallacies in this category refer to errors in defining words or concepts.

Too Broad (The definition includes items which should not be included)
Too Narrow (The definition does not include all the items which shouls be included)
Failure to Elucidate (The definition is more difficult to understand)
Circular Definition (The definition includes the term being defined as a part of the definition)
Conflicting Conditions (The definition is self-contradictory)
Fallacies of Faulty Reasoning
false analogy
compares two things that are not alike in significant respects or have critical points of difference
hasty generalization
draws a conclusion about a class based on too few or atypical examples
false cause
post hoc
mistakes temporal succession for causal sequence
single cause fallacies
occurs when an advocate attributes only one cause to a complex problem
slippery slope
assumes, without evidence, that a given event is the first in a series of steps that will lead inevitably to some outcome.

TFY C12 Web Links

ARGUMENTS AND INFERENCES
Tie together what you have learned about inferences and argument by reading this article taken from Philosophy Pages.
http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e01.htm

DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Explain how this document represents a deductive argument.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE
These exercises help you understand the differences between inductive and deductive reasoning. Prepared by San Jose University, Mission Critical.http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/7/part2/ind-ded.html

MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.Here is a biography of Martin Luther King, Jr.
http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/1964/king-bio.html

THOMAS JEFFERSON
Review the life and writings of Thomas Jefferson.
http://www.pbs.org/jefferson/

VALID AND INVALID
Learn more about valid and invalid deductive reasoning prepared by the Rhodes Writing Center.
http://www.rhodes.edu/writingcenter/group_b/deductive_reasoning.html

VENN DIAGRAMS
Past editions of this text have included Venn diagrams: a useful visual approach to logic.
http://www.wadsworth.com/cgi-wadsworth/course_products_wp.pl?fid=M42&product_isbn_issn=141301772X&chapter_number=12&altname=Web+Links&resource_id=5##

Observation -- Map

Students Fall 2008 Class Video