Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Critical Thinking 1
Critical Thinking 2
Critical Thinking 3
Critical Thinking 4
Critical Thinking 5
Critical Thinking 6
Critical Thinking 7
Critical Thinking 8
Critical Thinking 9
Critical Thinking 10
Critical Thinking 11
Critical Thinking 12
Critical Thinking 13
Critical Thinking 14
Conclusion
The present paper has provided a basic introductory guide to critical thinking, logic and
reason. To illustrate the need, role, and function of critical thinking, real world examples
and examples from pseudoscience / parapsychology have been used. These areas provide
fertile grounds for poor thinking, poor logic and the absence of reason. The paper has made
a case for the need for critical thinking, has outlined what its major components are, and
shown how to practise it in a legitimate and appropriate manner. By learning and
developing the skills outlined here, the reader will be better equipped at generating their
own arguments and evaluating those of others. For the student, clear thinking leads to clear
writing and this should help improve their performance across numerous areas of study. Of
course, critical thinking and reasoning does not guarantee that your views will be true, but
you do greatly increase your odds in favour of truth relative to self-delusion and error.
Browne, M. N., & Keeley, S. M. (2003) Asking the right questions. A guide to critical thinking (7th Edition), New Jersey.
Pearson Prentice Hall.
Carroll, R. T. (2005) Becoming a critical thinker. A guide for the new millennium (2nd Ed). Boston. Pearson Custom
Publishing.
Carroll, R. T. (2003) The skeptics dictionary. A collection of strange beliefs, amusing deceptions and dangerous delusions.
New Jersey. John Wiley & Sons,
Shermer, M. (2002) Why people believe weird things. New York. Henry Holt & Company.
Thouless., R. H. (1968) Straight and crooked thinking. London, Pan Books.
Critical Thinking 15
Characterise the argument being made appropriately (the type of argument, level of
argument, nature and form of argument, scope of argument). Make sure all that follows
is in line with this characterisation.
(ii)
Ask yourself clearly what am I being asked to accept (what are the claims / argument
being made)?
(iii)
Identify the premise(s) on which the argument is based (what assumptions do these
make? Are these valid)?
(iv)
Make sure you fully understand the argument in the manner in which it is being proposed.
If not, seek out further information until your grasp is sufficient to evaluate the claim.
(v)
Identify both the claimed and the unclaimed logically links between the premises (are
these sound and supported? Do these make sense and logically follow)? Ask yourself,
what are the logical consequences of the premises and are these fulfilled in the argument
being presented?
(vi)
Identify and examine any predictions that follow from the argument (both the predictions
made explicit within the argument and others you have independently spotted) - are
these supported?
(vii)
(viii)
Identify necessary and sufficient conditions and links between claims and statements
within the argument.
(ix)
Think about the methods used to generate the evidence - are these methods valid /
reliable? Can they support the claim?
(x)
Consider the nature, form and quality of the evidence. What is the evidence being
recruited to support the argument? What is the evidence that goes against it? What is
the quality of both sets of evidence? Are these sources of evidence equally reliable and
trustworthy?
(xi)
Has any evidence been omitted from the argument being made? If so, what are the
implications for the argument?
(xii)
What are the reasonable conclusions that can be drawn? Are these the conclusions that
actually are drawn? If not, how do they differ?
(xiii)
Examine the conclusion is it in line with the type of claim / argument being made, is it in
line with the nature & form of the methods and data (i.e., correlation does not establish
causality).
(xiv)
(xv)
Think of counter-examples are there any and what do these tell us about the arguments
being made (is the argument correct, incorrect or simply need refining and revising)?
(xvi)
What evidence would be needed to invalidate the argument and / or support it further?
What tests have been done that speak to this?
Critical Thinking 16