Characteristics of a Critical Thinker; Review; Evaluation

Characteristics of a Critical Thinker 2, Review, Evaluation

-- 12 -- Inductive Reasoning and Inductive Fallacies, Visuals, Reading Beyond Words

-- 12--

TFY C10: Inductive Reasoning: How Do I Reason from Evidence?

TPCT Ch. 8: Inductive Reasoning

TPCT Ch. 10: Judging Scientific Theories

Inductive Reasoning
Inductive and Deductive Reasoning Video

TFY C10 Induction;

Chapter Ten Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning is a method used to discover new information or supply missing information. When we reason inductively, we observe, test, and investigate in a systematic manner known as the empirical or scientific method. Exercises and discussion in this chapter show you how induction uses sensory observation, enumeration, analogical reasoning, pattern discovery, causal reasoning, reasoning from hypotheses and through statistics and probability. A short writing application asks you to research some facts and form hypotheses about them. Concluding readings by science writer Ferris Jabr and novelist Kurt Vonnegut show us how empirical studies can be reported.

TPCT Ch. 8: Inductive Reasoning

TPCT Ch. 10: Judging Scientific Theories

TPCT Ch. 8: Inductive Reasoning - Summary:

Numerative Induction

• An inductive argument is intended to provide only probable support for its conclusion, being considered strong if it succeeds in providing such support and weak if it does not.


• Inductive arguments come in several forms, including enumerative, analogical, and causal. In enumerative induction, we argue from premises about some members of a group to a generalization about the entire group. The entire group is called the target group; the observed members of the group, the sample; and the group characteristics we’re interested in, the relevant property.


• An enumerative induction can fail to be strong by having a sample that’s too small or not representative. When we draw a conclusion about a target group based on an inadequate sample size, we’re said to commit the error of hasty generalization.


• Opinion polls are enumerative inductive arguments, or the basis of enumerative inductive arguments, and must be judged by the same general criteria used to judge any other enumerative induction.

Analogical Induction

• In analogical induction, or argument by analogy, we reason that since two or more things are similar in several respects, they must be similar in some further respect. We evaluate arguments by analogy according to several criteria: (1) the number of relevant similarities between things being compared, (2) the number of relevant dissimilarities, (3) the number of instances (or cases) of similarities or dissimilarities, and (4) the diversity among the cases.

Causal Arguments

• A causal argument is an inductive argument whose conclusion contains a causal claim. There are several inductive patterns of reasoning used to assess causal connections. These include the Method of Agreement, the Method of Difference, the Method of Agreement and Difference, and the Method of Concomitant Variation.


• Errors in cause-and-effect reasoning are common. They include misidentifying relevant factors in a causal process, overlooking relevant factors, confusing cause with coincidence, confusing cause with temporal order, and mixing up cause and effect.


• Crucial to an understanding of cause-and-effect relationships are the notions of necessary and sufficient conditions. A necessary condition for the occurrence of an event is one without which the event cannot occur. A sufficient condition for the occurrence of an event is one that guarantees that the event occurs.

 Inductive and Deductive Reasoning Video

Overview:

Inductive reasoning, also known as induction or inductive logic, is a type of reasoning that involves moving from a set of specific facts to a general conclusion. It uses premises from objects that have been examined to establish a conclusion about an object that has not been examined

It can also be seen as a form of theory-building, in which specific facts are used to create a theory that explains relationships between the facts and allows prediction of future knowledge. The premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; i.e. they do not ensure its truth.

Induction is used to ascribe properties or relations to types based on an observation instance (i.e., on a number of observations or experiences); or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns.

Induction is employed, for example, in using specific propositions such as:

This ice is cold. (Or: All ice I have ever touched has been cold.)

This billiard ball moves when struck with a cue. (Or: Of one hundred billiard balls struck with a cue, all of them moved.)

...to infer general propositions such as:

All ice is cold.

All billiard balls move when struck with a cue.

Another example would be:

3+5=8 and eight is an even number. Therefore, an odd number added to another odd number will result in an even number.

Note that mathematical induction is not a form of inductive reasoning. While mathematical induction may be inspired by the non-base cases, the formulation of a base case firmly establishes it as a form of deductive reasoning.

Many philosophers[who?] believe that the ability to use inductive reasoning is essential for understanding and that it accumulates from observation and ideas which are the fabric of insight. Many philosophical[says who?] topics such as morality and faith are explained using inductive reasoning.

TPCT C10 Chapter Summary

Science and Not Science

• Science seeks knowledge and understanding of reality, and it does so through the formulation, testing, and evaluation of theories. Science is a way of searching for truth.


• Science is not a worldview, and we can’t identify it with a particular ideology. Science is also not scientism—it is not the only way to acquire knowledge. It is, however, a highly reliable way of acquiring knowledge of empirical facts.

The Scientific Method

• The scientific method cannot be identified with any particular set of experimental or observational procedures. But it does involve several general steps: (1) identifying the problem, (2) devising a hypothesis, (3) deriving a test implication, (4) performing the test, and (5) accepting or rejecting the hypothesis.


• No hypothesis can be conclusively confirmed or confuted. But this fact does not mean that all hypotheses are equally acceptable.

Testing Scientific Theories

• Following the steps of the scientific method, scientists test hypotheses in many fields, including medical science. One example is the testing of the hypothesis that taking high doses of vitamin C can cure cancer.


• To minimize errors in testing, scientists use control groups, make studies double-blind, include placebos in testing, and seek replication of their work.

Judging Scientific Theories

• Theory-testing is part of a broader effort to evaluate a theory against its competitors. This kind of evaluation always involves, implicitly or explicitly, the criteria of adequacy.


• The criteria are testability, fruitfulness, scope, simplicity, and conservatism.


• The criteria of adequacy played a major role in settling the historic debate about planetary motion, and they are used today to effectively judge the relative merits of the theories of evolution and creationism.

Science and Weird Theories

• Inference to the best explanation can be used to assess weird theories as well as more commonplace explanations in science and everyday life.


• Scientifically evaluating offbeat theories can often be worthwhile in determining their truth or falsity and (sometimes) in discovering new phenomena.

Making Weird Mistakes

• When people try to evaluate extraordinary theories, they often make certain typical mistakes. They may believe that because they can’t think of a natural explanation, a paranormal explanation must be correct. They may mistake what seems for what is, forgetting that we shouldn’t accept the evidence provided by personal experience if we have good reason to doubt it. And they may not fully understand the concepts of logical and physical possibility.

• The distinction between logical and physical possibility is crucial. Some things that are logically possible may not be physically possible, and things that are physically possible may not be actual.

Judging Weird Theories

• In both science and everyday life, the TEST formula enables us to fairly appraise the worth of all sorts of weird theories, including those about crop circles and communication with the dead, the two cases examined in this chapter.

-- 14 -- Review - ePortfolio/PPt 2

-- 14 -- 

This chapter was all about deductive reasoning and the logic behind it. The chapter also compared deductive

reasoning with inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning usually starts with a general principle and then applies it to a specific instance. While inductive reasoning usually starts with a more specific instance and then pulls it into a more general principle.

Everyday Examples of Deductive Reasoning

The logic behind the deduction is a science of good reasoning, both inductive and deductive. I learned in this

chapter there are some key terms I must understand in order to understand the basics of logic. The terms I need to understand are: argument, reasoning, syllogism, premise (major and minor), conclusion, validity, and

soundness.

From previous chapters, and this one, I learned that an argument can be both inductive and deductive and can be valid even if the premises are not true. I previously also learned that reasoning is drawn from facts, which will lead you to conclusions, judgments, or inferences about whatever topic you are discussing or reading about.

Conclusion, validity and soundness are also some terms that I have already known the meaning behind. Your conclusion is a way to summarize your main point or what you are trying to get across or get action on. Validity and soundness both have to do with the truth behind your argument, reasoning, and premise. Premise was also a

word that was previously discussed in another chapter, but in this chapter we learned that a major premise is

more of a generalization, while a minor premise is more specific. The new key term to me in this chapter is

syllogism. I have learned that this term clarifies the claims or premises, helps you to discover and expose hidden premises, and helps to find out if one thought follows another thought logically.

“TFY” Chapter 12 – Deductive Reasoning Exercise

Discovery Exercise – Page 348 – What is Deductive Reasoning?
Using at least two dictionaries, look up the terms deduction, deductive logic, and reasoning. Then write out in your own words a definition of deductive reasoning.

Deduction:
1. Noun – the act or process of deducting; subtraction (dictionary.com)
2. Noun – that which is deducted; that which is subtracted or removed (wiktionary.com)

Deductive logic:
1. Noun – a process of reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessary from the premises presented, so that the conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true. (dictionary.com)
2. Noun – a process of reasoning that moves from the general to the specific, in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the premises presented, so that the conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true. (wiktionary.com)

Deductive reasoning:
1. Noun – reasoning from the general to the particular (or from cause to effect) (dictionary.com)
2. Noun – inference in which the conclusion is just as certain as the premises (wiktionary.com)

My definition of deductive reasoning: reasoning that goes from a more general topic into the details of that topic.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- x00 -- Syllabus Sp 2012

Lincoln University

COURSE SYLLABUS

Course Title:	Critical Thinking		Instructor:	Dr. Sylvia Y. S. Rippel
Course No.:	English 75		Email:	sysr@lincolnuca.edu
Units:	3 (45 lecture hours)		Course email:	profsylvia@gmail.com
Semester:	Spring 2012		Office hours:	T, Th 11:45-12:30 & Arranged
Class Day:	Tuesdays		Location:	Room 307
Class Time	9:00-10:15, 10:30-11:45		Office phone:	510-628-8036

Instructional Materials and References

REQUIRED TEXTS	Mayfield, M. (2010). Thinking for yourself. (8th Ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning: Wadsworth. (TFY) ISBN: 978-1-4282-3144-3 Daiek, D., &; Anter, N. (2004) Critical reading for college and beyond. New York: McGraw-Hill. (CRCB) ISBN: 0072473762
RECOMMENDED TEXT:	Harris, Robert. A. Creative Problem Solving. Los Angeles: Pyrczak Publishing, 2002. (CPS)  ISBN: 1-884585-43-4
COMPANION SITES	Thinking for Yourself Site Critical Reading for College and Beyond Companion site: Note: Course and student blogs and wiki sites to be presented in class

COURSE DESCRIPTION

Critical thinking (E75) considers the cognitive skills and communicative strategies for defining, applying, analyzing, synthesizing and evaluating information. The course includes structural and operational approaches to task/mission analysis, decision-making, change forecasting, adaptation, and evaluation. Systems approach to analysis and solution of complex problems. Conceptual issues in problem definition, goal determination and measurement of effectiveness.  

OBJECTIVES

Skills emphasized include ability to examine objectively various sides of issues as demonstrated in oral written text and course-assigned exercises. Students will demonstrate increased ability to effectively use the procedures involved in systematic problem solving based on text and class selected examples. Additional skills targeted include increased ability to develop and apply academic and professional communication skills, including improved ability to interact appropriately with challenging materials at an increased level of communicative competence as measured in exercises, quizzes, midterm and .final exams. 

METHODOLOGY

The course sessions will include lectures , A/V-augmented presentations (text-based and other topically related slides and relevant audio/video/web resources), written and oral classroom exercises applying course concepts, small group and classroom discussions, student presentations of individual and group assignments based on course units, with emphasis on engaging students in learning by doing.

STUDENT RESPONSIBILITIES

Students are expected to attend class punctually and fully (arriving on time and leaving the classroom only at the scheduled break and end times).  Students are expected to participate in individual and group work in a productive manner, to complete assignments according to schedule and at a level appropriate to university rubrics, and to take personal responsibility for meeting the objectives of the course. 

TOPICAL OUTLINE

Topics covered include observation skills, appropriate language skills and encoding strategies, differentiating among fact, inference, judgment, recognizing fallacies of reasoning and evaluation, understanding viewpoint, analyzing character, logic, and emotion in persuasion.

For each of the units (as well as additional assignments given in class), students will do the following:

·         Read assigned materials with care and understanding,

·         Reflect on the assignments in writing (a brief paragraph or two), discussing your thoughts on the primary content; include points of personal interest.

·         Review main points of the reading and create a personalized three-level primary question and answer outline on a minimum of three or four selected items from the assigned readings.  The outline should develop the main topics in question form with a clear and concise answer followed by significant details with definitions and examples, including your own ideas and evaluations.

·         Email your assignments to me at profsylvia@gmail.com, with your outline and reflections attached or in the body of your email.  Be sure to keep a copy of the email for yourself and add it to your ePortfolios/PowerPoint presentations for midterm and final submission and sharing.

Assignments are due on the dates indicated on the schedule below.

SCHEDULE

Session	Date	Topic	TFY Text Assignment	CRCB Text Assignment
1	17-Jan	Introduction Where Do You Stand?
2	24-Jan	Observation	TFY C1, Observation	CRCB C1, Reading
3	31-Jan	Language and Thought	TFY C2, Word Precision	CRCB C2, Vocabulary
4	7-Feb	Facts	TFY C3, Facts	CRCB C3, Memory
5	14-Feb	Inferences	TFY C4, Inferences	CRCB C4, Time
6	21-Feb	Assumptions	TFY C5, Assumptions	CRCB C5, Main Ideas
7	28-Feb	Opinions Evaluations	TFY C6, Opinions TFY C7, Evaluations	CRCB C6, Details CRCB C7, Inference
8	6-Mar	Midterm
	13-Mar	Spring Recess
9	20-Mar	Points of View	TFY C8, Viewpoints	CRCB C8, Texts
10	27-Mar	Argument	TFY C9, Argument	CRCB C9, PSR Strategies
11	3-Apr	Fallacies	TFY C10, Fallacies	CRCB C10, Marking
12	10-Apr	Induction	TFY C11, Inductive Reasoning	CRCB C11, Advanced Strategies
13	17-Apr	Deduction	TFY C12, Deductive Reasoning	CRCB C12, Arguments
14	24-Apr	Deduction	TFY C13,  Deductive Reasoning  Presentations for Review Prior to Final	CRCB C13, Reading beyond the Words CRCB C14, Evaluating Internet Resources
15	1-May	Final

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA & METHOD OF EVALUATING STUDENTS

Students will demonstrate their level of achievement through appropriate and accurate application of critical thinking theory, including problem-solving, analysis, and decision-making criteria in approaching and solving text, classroom, and real-world exercises, individually and as group participants.

Grading Guidelines

Items	Points
Class Participation	10
Quizzes/Midterm	20
Projects/ePortfolio	10
Daily Assignments and Attendance	25
Presentation of Assignments	10
Final Exam	25
Total	100

100-95	A
94-90	A-
89-87	B+
86-84	B-
83-80	C+
79-77	C+
76-74	C
73-70	C-
69-67	D+
66-64	D
63-60	D-
59 or <	F

PLEASE NOTE:

Revisions to the schedule will be announced in class as needed. Class attendance is required. Class participation is encouraged for enhanced learning through applied content, group interactions, and individual and small group presentations.  Plagiarized content is strictly prohibited:  Researched materials must be documented using a consistent style for both in-text and end-text citations of sources using the published standards of the most recent subject-appropriate style guide, such as APA (social sciences) or MLA (humanities), for example. Missed exams and assignments require certified excuses (signed documentation by an appropriate medical or other official representative). With documentation, a makeup exam may be scheduled.  Electronics are not allowed during exams. Cell phones should not be active during class sessions.

Revised December 2011

Internet Argument Analysis: Believing and Doubting Assignment

1. Select one of the following topics. Research it on the Internet. (You may prefer to use the following websites as a starting point, or just select from the list of topics. You may choose to narrow the list down to five or six topics.)

• Circumcision
• Euthanasia
• Homeopathy
• Human cloning
• Population explosion aka Overpopulation
• Race
• Race and intelligence
• Schizophrenia
• Vegetarianism

• Global warming

• Copyright, Free software, viral license, Software piracy
• Feminism
• Gun politics
• Terrorism

• Creationism
• Fundamentalism
• New Age
• Scientology

• Homosexuality
• Monogamy
• Pornography

2. Then, locate at least two sites that support the topic, and argue in its favor.

3. Locate at least two sites that argue against it.

4. Summarize the information into two paragraphs; one paragraph listing the support and the other listing the reasons that argue against it. Which one was more convincing to you, and why?

Adapted from: Bean, John (1998). Engaging Ideas