WGU CRITICAL THINKING -D265 |108 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Critical thinking primarily the ability to think carefully about thinking and reasoning—to criticize your own reasoning. "Criticize" here is not meant in the sense of being mean or talking down or making fun of. Instead, it is used in the sense of, for example, how a coach might take a critical stance toward a players' skills—he throws high every time, she does not lead with her foot, they ride too forward in the saddle, etc. "Critical" here means something more like "reflective," "careful," or "attentive to potential errors." Being curious and thinking creatively: not believing things are simple and settled, being willing to go the next step and think about all of the possible positions and arguments before settling into a position. Separating the thinker from the position: being able to discuss a position without attacking or judging the person holding the position, without getting caught up in our own attachment to the position or its antithesis, and without having our identities wrapped up in a particular viewpoint or opinion. Knowing oneself enough to avoid biases and errors of thought: being aware of the flawed patterns of reasoning we are disposed to engage in, being aware of cognitive biases and mental heuristics (rough rules that work well enough to survive but don't work in many cases) that we're prone as a species to have, all in the interest of counteracting these biases and flaws. Having intellectual honesty, humility, and charity: very important: being honest about what we know and how we know it, what evidence we have and what questions are not yet settled; being humble in recognizing the vast number of things we don't yet know or understand and in recognizing how very difficult it is to truly know anything at all and so recognizing that the standards are high and we, most of the time, don't meet them (and that's okay); and being charitable or having the disposition to attribute the best intentions and most sophisticated positions and arguments that we can imagine to our opponents in arguments. Understanding arguments, reasons, and evidence: thinking carefully about thinking, about arguments and positions. Propositions statements that can be true or false. Non-propositions Sentences that are not statements about matters of fact (or fiction). They do not make a claim that can be true or false. Exhort to urge strongly, Example: Let's go to get dinner! Let's go hiking on Tuesday! Command give an authoritative order. Example: Go to the store later to buy me some cheese. Don't do that. Plead/Request ask for something from someone, often on the verge of begging. Example Would you please stop that? Please read me a bedtime story! Question something asked, a statement that requires an answer Example: What is the capital of Florida? How much do the pineapples cost? Perform carry out, accomplish, or fulfill (an action, task, or function) Example: I hereby adjourn this meeting. I pronounce you husband and wife! Simple propositions have no internal logical structure, meaning whether they are true or false does not depend on whether a part of them is true or false. They are simply true or false on their own. Complex propositions have internal logical structure, meaning they are composed of simple propositions. Whether they are true or false depends on whether their parts are true or false. Premise is a proposition lending credence to the conclusion. It is supposed to be a group of statements that, if you accept they are true, make the case that you rationally must (or, weaker, should) accept the conclusion. Bad inferential structure: Every argument with the same structure as this argument is bad (invalid or weak). The premises do not, in fact, demonstrate or maybe even support the conclusion. In other words, we can accept the premises as true without being compelled to accept the conclusion. There is something wrong with this argument's general structure. False premise: This particular argument has a premise/assumption that is false. There is something wrong with this argument's particular content. Conclusion Indicators all have the general sense of "I have told you some things or I am about to tell you some things, now here is what I want you to believe." They feel conclusive. Here are some especially common ones: Therefore, so, it follows that, hence, thus, entails that, we may conclude that, implies that, wherefore, as a result Premise indicators have the general sense of "from this fact I am going to infer something else." Here are some common: Because, for, given that, in that, as, since, as indicated by Inference/Argument. is any purportedly rational movement from evidence or premises to a conclusion. Example: "I believe x, because of y, z, and w" or "Because a, b and c, we have to believe that d." bad argument premises is one where the premises fail to support the conclusion good argument's premises actually do support the conclusion. Deduction Arguments where the premises guarantee or necessitate the conclusion Induction Arguments where the premises make the conclusion probable Abduction Arguments where the best available explanation is chosen as the correct explanation Invalid Argument Structure is one where the premises do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion Ex: All crows are black. John is black. Therefore, John is a crow Valid Argument Structure is an argument structure where the premises guarantee the conclusion Ex: Only crows are black. John is black. So, John is a crow. The Fallacy Fallacy when someone uses the fact that a fallacy was committed to justify rejecting the conclusion of the fallacious argument. Soundness/Sound Argument is about both structure and truth: you must have a good structure and true premises to make a sound argument Ex: T+T=T Unsound Argument conversely, is an argument that either is invalid or has at least one false premise Ex: T+F=F Validity is a property of an argument structure. It means this structure is such that if the premises of any argument with this structure are true then the conclusion of the argument must be true. Sound Argument All True Premises + Valid Structure = How is truth connected to propositions? Truth is a property of propositions. That is, only proposition can be true or false. When reflecting on an argument what is the difference between a valid and invalid argument structure? Valid argument structure is when the conclusion is guaranteed by the premises. While Invalid argument structure is when the conclusion is not supported or guaranteed by the premises. Truth Propositions are true or false Strength In the inductive argument, true premises make the conclusion probably true. Cogency In a strong inductive argument, all premises are true. Cogency Argument All True Premises + Strong Inductive Support = In deductive reasoning, what is the difference between validity and soundness? Validity only concerns the structure of an argument, but soundness requires both validity and true premises. Formal Fallacy yields a defect in its form Affirming the Consequent Example: P1: IF X, then Y P2: Y C: Therefore, X Informal Fallacy yields a defect in the arguments content which may also yield defect in its form. Equivocation Example: P1: A feather is light (weight) P2: What is light (color) cannot be dark C: Therefore, a feather cannot be dark. Fallacy a defect in reason that can be intentional or unintentional. Modus Ponens If X, then Y. X. Therefore, Y. The Fallacy Fallacy when someone uses the fact that a fallacy was committed to justify rejecting the conclusion of the fallacious argument. Begging the Question/Circular Reasoning when a statement is used to prove itself. we want our premise to provide a reason for accepting the conclusion. But if the premise is the same claim as the conclusion, then it cannot possibly provide a reason for accepting the conclusion! Genetic Fallacy occurs when an arguer critiques the origin of a claim or argument rather than the claim or argument itself Ad Hominem Fallacy instead of responding to (or attacking) the argument a person has made, one attacks the person directly. In short, one attacks the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.