Critical Thinking PHI1025F
Introducing Arguments
The value of thinking critically, how to identify arguments, and what biases,
philosophical positions and rhetorical devices get in the way of our thinking critically.
Critical thinking: The systematic evaluation or formulation of beliefs, or statements, by
rational standards (Vaughn, 2018)
Its systematic as it involves distinct procedures/methods. It entails evaluation & formulation
as it assesses existing beliefs and devise new ones. It operates according to reasonable
standards as beliefs are judged according to reasons/ing supporting them.
1. Inclined to find fault or to judge with severity.
2. Characterized by careful, exact evaluation and judgment Critical thinking in this sense
means carefully evaluating your thoughts and ideas and the thoughts of others.
WHY?
1. To make better decisions 3. Find the truth
2. To make it clear why you believe 4. Do better at uni
what you believe 5. Convince others
Arguments:
A group of statements in which some of them (premises) are intended to support another of
them (conclusions). It’s an attempt to provide reasons (should provide grounds for thinking
claim is true) for thinking the claim is true.
1. an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation
2. a process of reasoning; series of reasons
Second sense of argument, assessing the reasons someone gives their claim.
1. Claim (Conclusion) : Assertion that something is/isn’t the case, e.g. so, thus,
therefore etc.
2. Reasons (Premises) : Backs up conclusion , e.g. for, since, given that, because etc.
Logic ( the study of inference & rules that govern it) can be used rhetorically to persuade
someone.
, Critical Thinking PHI1025F
Reasons: provide evidence, support/justify Indicator words: Words that frequently
other claims accompany arguments and signal that a
premise/conclusion is present.
Explanations: Statement/s intended to tell
why/how something is the case, clarify Conclusion: the statement that the
other claims. premises are intended to support.
Inference: Process of reasoning from Deductive: conclusion must be true
premise/s to a conclusion based on those
Inductive: likely to be true
premises
Psychological Barriers: Bias and loose of language:
o Personal Bias; accept arguments
that match with beliefs, hold beliefs
with self-interest, overestimate our
abilities. o Cultural Bias; causes;
1. Popularity of belief/behavior
Vested interest: Personal interest in which
2. Fear of social exclusion
participation in an arrangement/situation
3. In-group superiority
due to an expectation of gain (money)
o Subjectivism or relativism and
Saving Face: avoiding humiliation or Value judgements
embarrassment in order to maintain o Language & Knowledge;
reputation/dignity. o Random Sentences
o Vagueness and Empty rhetoric
o Ambiguity
o Emotive Language and Spin
Philosophical Barriers: relativism-> if a group believes it then its true
The rule of truth → Something ought to be believed if only there’s sufficient evidence that is
(likely) true.
Strength and Cogency
Strength corresponds with validity: • Can come in degrees.
• Strong argument = if premise true Cogency (logical) corresponds with
then conclusion true soundness.
Introducing Arguments
The value of thinking critically, how to identify arguments, and what biases,
philosophical positions and rhetorical devices get in the way of our thinking critically.
Critical thinking: The systematic evaluation or formulation of beliefs, or statements, by
rational standards (Vaughn, 2018)
Its systematic as it involves distinct procedures/methods. It entails evaluation & formulation
as it assesses existing beliefs and devise new ones. It operates according to reasonable
standards as beliefs are judged according to reasons/ing supporting them.
1. Inclined to find fault or to judge with severity.
2. Characterized by careful, exact evaluation and judgment Critical thinking in this sense
means carefully evaluating your thoughts and ideas and the thoughts of others.
WHY?
1. To make better decisions 3. Find the truth
2. To make it clear why you believe 4. Do better at uni
what you believe 5. Convince others
Arguments:
A group of statements in which some of them (premises) are intended to support another of
them (conclusions). It’s an attempt to provide reasons (should provide grounds for thinking
claim is true) for thinking the claim is true.
1. an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation
2. a process of reasoning; series of reasons
Second sense of argument, assessing the reasons someone gives their claim.
1. Claim (Conclusion) : Assertion that something is/isn’t the case, e.g. so, thus,
therefore etc.
2. Reasons (Premises) : Backs up conclusion , e.g. for, since, given that, because etc.
Logic ( the study of inference & rules that govern it) can be used rhetorically to persuade
someone.
, Critical Thinking PHI1025F
Reasons: provide evidence, support/justify Indicator words: Words that frequently
other claims accompany arguments and signal that a
premise/conclusion is present.
Explanations: Statement/s intended to tell
why/how something is the case, clarify Conclusion: the statement that the
other claims. premises are intended to support.
Inference: Process of reasoning from Deductive: conclusion must be true
premise/s to a conclusion based on those
Inductive: likely to be true
premises
Psychological Barriers: Bias and loose of language:
o Personal Bias; accept arguments
that match with beliefs, hold beliefs
with self-interest, overestimate our
abilities. o Cultural Bias; causes;
1. Popularity of belief/behavior
Vested interest: Personal interest in which
2. Fear of social exclusion
participation in an arrangement/situation
3. In-group superiority
due to an expectation of gain (money)
o Subjectivism or relativism and
Saving Face: avoiding humiliation or Value judgements
embarrassment in order to maintain o Language & Knowledge;
reputation/dignity. o Random Sentences
o Vagueness and Empty rhetoric
o Ambiguity
o Emotive Language and Spin
Philosophical Barriers: relativism-> if a group believes it then its true
The rule of truth → Something ought to be believed if only there’s sufficient evidence that is
(likely) true.
Strength and Cogency
Strength corresponds with validity: • Can come in degrees.
• Strong argument = if premise true Cogency (logical) corresponds with
then conclusion true soundness.
