Sunday, April 7, 2013

Argument and Inference Links


This is a featured pageARGUMENTS AND INFERENCES

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Argument Glossary



from http://austhink.com/reason/tutorials

Glossary

An argument web is an argument which is both multi-reason and multi-layer.
A chain of reasoning is a multi-layer argument.  Usually the term is applied to arguments with more than two layers.
A claim is a proposition put forward by somebody as true.  A proposition is an idea which is either true or false.
Collectively exhaustive (CE): Within a group, considerations should cover all the relevant, serious arguments; they should leave no gaps. CE is the second aspect of the MECE rule.
A conclusion is a claim for which some evidence is presented, whether for or against. See also contention.
A contention is a claim for which some evidence is presented, whether for or against.  Logicians often use the word "conclusion" to refer to a contention. 
A consideration is just a reason or an objection. It is easier to say considerations rather than the wordier  reasons and objections. 
Co-premises: Two premises within a single reason or objection are co-premises in relation to each other.
A counter-argument to a reason is an objection to that reason's contention, and vice versa.
A debate is a dispute in which the first-level reasons and objections are themselves disputed.
A declarative sentence is one which states an idea which can be true or false.
A dispute is an argument in which there are both reasons and objections bearing upon a single contention.
The Golden Rule: Every simple argument has at least two co-premises.
A group of considerations is all reasons and objections bearing directly upon the main contention or any other reason or objection.
A hidden premise is a co-premise which is not actually stated when an argument is presented.
The Holding Hands Rule: every significant word, phrase or concept appearing in a premise of a simple argument but not in the contention must also appear in some other premise of that simple argument.
An inference objection is an objection to another simple argument, providing evidence not against any stated premise but against the relationship between the stated premises and their contention. 
An inference rebuttal is an objection to another objection which provides evidence against the inference from the stated premises of that other objection to the falsity of its contention.  
The main contention of a multi-layer argument is the one at the top level.  It is the only contention which is not also a premise in another simple argument. 
The MECE Rule: Considerations in a group should be mutually exclusive (no overlaps) and collectively exhaustive (no gaps).
A multi-layer argument is an argument in which there are reasons or objections bearing upon reasons or objections.
A multi-reason argument is an argument with more than one reason or objection for a single contention.
Mutually exclusive (ME): Within a group, considerations should be genuinely distinct from each other. ME is the first aspect of the MECE rule.
The No Danglers Rule: every significant word, phrase or concept appearing in one claim (contention or premise) of a simple argument must also appear in another claim.
An objection is a piece of evidence against some claim.  Technically, an objection is set of claims working together to provide evidence that another claim is false.
A premise is a claim which is part of a reason or an objection.
A premise objection is an objection to a stated premise of another simple argument.
A premise rebuttal is an objection to an objection which provides evidence that one of the stated premises of that objection is false.
The Pyramid Rule: More general or abstract considerations should appear higher in the argument tree, and considerations at the same level of the tree should be at roughly the same level of generality or abstraction. 
The Rabbit Rule: every significant word, phrase or concept appearing in the contention of a simple argument must also appear in one of the premises.
A reason is a piece of evidence in support of some claim.  Technically, a reason is a set of claims working together to provide evidence that another claim is true.
A rebuttal is an objection to an objection.  A rebuttal provides evidence that an objection is not a good objection, i.e., not good evidence against its contention.
A rejoinder is an objection to a reason.  A rejoinder provides evidence that a reason is not a good reason, i.e., not good evidence for its contention.
A simple argument is just a contention with a single piece of reason for it, or a contention with a single objection to it. 
Stranded co-premises: Two premises are stranded from each other when they in fact belong together as part of one reason but are diagrammed as belonging to separate reasons.
Strange bedfellows: Two premises are strange bedfellows if they are diagrammed as co-premises in one reason when in fact they belong to completely different reasons.
 
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Thursday, April 4, 2013

Argument -- 50 Argument Topics


Argument -- 50 Argument Topics

1. Is global climate change man-made?
2. Is the death penalty effective?
3. Is our election process fair?
4. Do colleges put too much stock in standardized test scores?
5. Is torture ever acceptable?
6. Should men get paternity leave from work?
7. Is a lottery a good idea?
8. Do we have a fair taxation system?
9. Do curfews keep teens out of trouble?
10. Is cheating out of control?
11. Are we too dependent on computers?
12. Are parents clueless about child predators on the Internet?
13. Should animals be used for research?
14. Should cigarette smoking be banned?
15. Are cell phones dangerous?
16. Are law enforcement cameras an invasion of privacy?
17. Are test scores a good indication of a school’s competency?
18. Do we have a throw-away society?
19. Is child behavior better or worse than it was years ago?
20. Should companies market to children?
21. Should the government have a say in our diets?
22. Does access to condoms prevent teen pregnancy?
23. Does access to condoms irresponsible, dangerous, or bad behavior?
24. Are actors and professional athletes paid too much?
25. Are CEO’s paid too much?
26. Do violent video games cause behavior problems?
27. Should creationism be taught in public schools?
28. Are beauty pageants exploitive?
29. Should English be the official language in the United States?
30. Should the racing industry be forced to use biofuels?
31. When should parents let teens make their own decisions?
33. Should the military be allowed to recruit at high schools?
34. Should the alcoholic drinking age be increased or decreased?
35. Does age matter in relationships?
36. What age is appropriate for dating?
37. Should gay couples be able to marry?
38. Are there benefits to attending a single-sex school?
39. Does boredom lead to trouble?
40. Does participation in sports keep teens out of trouble?
41. Is competition good?
42. Does religion cause war?
43. Should the government provide health care?
44. Should girls ask boys out?
45. Is fashion important?
46. Are girls too mean to each other?
47. Is homework harmful or helpful?
48. Should students be allowed to grade their teachers?
49. Is the cost of college too high?
50. Is college admission too competitive?
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

HOW TO THINK CRITICALLY


HOW TO THINK CRITICALLY

Different viewpoints give different perspectives
"Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man.""Principles of Social Reconstruction" by Bertrand Russell (1916)
"You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and you believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."Morpheus to Neo in "The Matrix" (1999)

from http://www.rogerdarlington.me.uk/thinking.html
  • Firstly, recognise that thinking critically does not mean simple criticism. It means not simply accepting information at face value in a non-critical or non-evaluating way.
  • The essence of critical thinking centres not on answering questions but on questioning answers, so it involves questioning, probing, analysing, evaluating. In his novel "Sophie's World", the Norwegian writer Jostein Gaarder notes that: "The most subversive people are those who ask questions".
  • Remember that prominence does not equate to importance. A newspaper may have made its lead story the rumour of a break-up between Britney Spears and her latest boyfriend, but that does not necessarily make it the most important news item that day. Conversely, in 1914 that tiny story about the assassination of an obscure nobleman in some backwater called Sarajevo proved to have rather more repercussions than most readers first appreciated. Try an experiment: one day, buy five or six national newspapers, compare their coverage of the same stories on the same day, and note the different prominence - and the different slant - given to the same stories.
  • To understand a news item, try to give some context to the current event. For instance, if it is reported that a group of Sunnis today attacked a meeting of Shiites in Iraq, three things are needed to make full sense of the report. First, explanation: what is the difference between Sunnis and Shiites and what proportion of the population do they constitute? Second, history: what is the origin of the division of Sunnis and Shiites in the country and how has the power relationship altered in past years? Third, anticipation: what does the attack mean for future developments such as the formation of a government or the conduct of an election?
  • Check the source. Who wrote the article or scripted the programme? How knowledgeable is the source? Does the source have a particular interest or 'angle' or prejudice? Is the source known to you by reputation or previous work? In the case of a web site in particular, it may be difficult to establish the source.
  • Use different sources. If there is a dispute over the ecological impact of oil exploration, check out the views of the 'green' pressure group and the oil company and other, more independent, sources such as scientists and commentators. If there is a government statement on health expenditure, check out the views of health authorities, doctors and nurses, and independent commentators.
  • Always prefer prime sources. A personal, eyewitness account is to be preferred to the statement from the politician who was told by a journalist who read it on a news wire which obtained it from a company spokesman who was briefed by a senior manager on the basis of an eyewitness report from a colleague. A newspaper quote from a report may be accurate but, when you obtain and study the report itself, you might find that the quote was selective or unrepresentative of the work as a whole. These days it is often easy to track down the original report on the web by searching on the name of the originating organisation.
  • Check the date. Generally speaking, the more recent the material, the more accurate it is likely to be and the more useful it is. This is especially the case in changing situations. For instance, something about Russia written after the fall of communism may well have been able to use sources not available in previous decades. In a war situation, even a few days or hours may make a significant difference to the information and perspective available. On the web, material is frequently undated and one needs to be aware that it could be outdated.
  • Check the publisher or promoter or funder. Many newspapers, magazines and television stations have a definite political orientation and can be expected to push a particular 'line' or interpretation. A Government source may be regarded as particularly authoritative or dangerously partial, depending on the circumstances. A report on the effect of smoking on cancer rates might be regarded with some caution if the underlying research is found to be funded by tobacco companies.
  • Seek out assumptions. Most statements or assertions are based on certain assumptions. Sometimes these assumptions are explicit but are not easy to find. For instance, a political opinion poll may well assume that voters in all constituencies and supporters of all political parties are equally likely to vote. This assumption may well be in the small print of the report if one looks hard enough. Sometimes assumptions may be implicit and therefore harder to discern. For instance, a political opinion poll may assume that everyone polled is telling the truth about their likely voting intentions. This sort of assumption is unlikely to be spelled out anywhere in a report.
  • Question assumptions. For instance, are voters in all constituencies and supporters of all political parties equally likely to vote? Maybe voters in affluent constituencies or supporters of political parties in opposition are more likely to vote. Or does everyone polled tell the truth about their likely voting intentions? Maybe supporters of racist parties are reluctant to be honest about their true voting intentions.
  • Be especially sceptical about surveys and polls. Who is funding the project; how the questions are chosen, worded and posed; how those questioned are selected and the context in which the questions are put to them; how the statistical analysis is carried out and the statistics are interpreted; how the findings are presented and reported (or misreported) - all these factors can have a massive influence.
  • Be exceptionally critical of information in circular e-mails. If this information looks shocking or surprising, it's because it is often untrue or only a version of the truth, although most of those forwarding the material do so in good faith believing that the material is accurate and even that they are helping friends (as with warnings of dangers). You can check the accuracy and provenance of many such e-mails on sites like Snopes [click here] or Hoax-Slayer [click here] - just type into the search box the title or a key phrase.
  • Look out for exceptions. There is a popular saying that: "It's the exception that proves the rule." In fact, in scientific terms, it is the exception that disproves the rule. So, for instance, for many centuries it was assumed that there could not be a black swan and therefore that 'All swans are white'. However, in the 17th century, the discovery of black swans in Australia forced a change in that thinking. The identification of exceptions or black swans requires us to rethink the current orthodoxy. According to the 'black swan theory' promulgated by the author Nassim Nicholas Taleb, almost all high impact changes in history come from exceptional and therefore unexpected events [for further explanation click here].
  • Look out for trends. There are many different ways of measuring most variables whether it is economic growth, crime rates, or hospital waiting lists so the absolute figures may not be that helpful. However, if a consistent method of measurement is used (that is, over time one is comparing like with like), then trends may well be apparent, so that one can see a rise or a fall or a cycle.
  • Make temporal comparisons. If a company announces that it has increased revenues by 10% in the last two years, look at the rate of growth in revenues in the two previous years. This will indicate whether recent performance is impressive or merely continuation of a trend. If a company announces a 5% growth in the last quarter compared to the previous quarter, look at performance in the previous equivalent quarter because many products and services have fluctuating demand over a 12-month cycle (for instance, we use more energy in the winter and take more holidays in the summer).
  • Make geographical comparisons. If the government claims that it is now spending 10% of Gross Domestic Product on the health service, compare that with the percentage expenditure in other industrialised countries. If you live in a European Union country, there are often comparative statistics or policies in the other 25 Member States. If you live in the USA, there are often comparative statistics or policies in the other 49 states.
  • Always look for evidence. The Scottish philosopher David Hume noted that "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence". Many Americans believe that the attack on the World Trade Center was engineered by Saddam Hussein, while many Arabs believe that it was planned by the Israeli secret service. They can't both be right, but they could both be wrong. What is the evidence? It has been widely reported that millions of Americans believe that they have been abducted by aliens and, in many cases, subjected to sexual experiments. They may be right, but again what is the evidence? Are there witnesses or photographs? Are there body marks on the 'victims' or do they have souvenirs from the spaceships? It is tempting to seize on evidence that confirms one's original view or the prevailing orthodoxy and to dismiss evidence that challenges it, but one needs to be open-minded about all the evidence and equally rigorous about establishing its authenticity.
  • Be ready to change your mind if the evidence changes. The famous British economist John Maynard Keynes once said: "When the facts change, I change my mind – what do you do, sir?". Before the Allied invasion of Kuwait, the US Congress heard testimony about Iraqi troops removing newly-born babies from incubators in a Kuwaiti hospital. Following the invasion, this story was challenged and never substantiated. Before the US invasion of Iraq, many people thought that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction based on the then available evidence and the interpretation of it by the intelligence services. Following the invasion and extensive searches, the evidence changed, but many were reluctant to change their minds.
  • Always consider alternative explanations. Those who believe that they have been abducted by aliens might have dreamt or fantasised it. The report of a body found in the park could mean a murder or a suicide or a heart attack or old age. The fall in crime levels could be the result of more police, better detection procedures, social changes or simply new methods of reporting.
  • Beware of making assumptions. Someone once said that: "Never assume, as assume makes an ass out of u and me". So, just because a particular source is usually accurate doesn't necessarily make it accurate this time. Just because the facts can be explained by one particular scenario doesn't mean than another scenario isn't possible and maybe even more likely.
  • Don't jump to conclusions. As Harold Acton pointed out: "Some people take no mental exercise apart from jumping to conclusions". Although the currently available facts may suggest a particular conclusion, other conclusions may be possible. Further facts may support an alternative conclusion and even invalidate the original conclusion. Even when this is not the case, it is always helpful to have further, supporting evidence to support the original conclusion.
  • Remember Occam's Razor [the maxim is named after William of Occam, the philosopher who was probably born at Ockham in Surrey]. When two or more explanations are possible on the basis of the same facts, always prefer the simplest possible explanation, unless there are very good reasons for favouring a more complex - and therefore more unlikely - one. For example, the pyramids in Egypt could have been designed and constructed by the Egyptians living at the time of the pharoahs or they could have been built according to plans brought to earth by aliens. Both explanations would explain the observable phenomena, but Occam's Razor suggests that we should adopt the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions since there is simply no need to make extra assumptions unless there is good evidence to support them. Or, as the scientist Albert Einstein put it: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler".
  • Look for cause and effect. Correlation does not necessarily mean causation - that is, because two variables often occur together does not necessarily mean that one variable actually causes the other. To take a trivial and obvious example, when I get up from bed, the sun comes up - but there is obviously no causality. Yet some tribes used to believe that particular rituals were essential to ensure the rising of the sun. On the other hand, when I go to bed, I feel refreshed - and there clearly is a relationship. More sleep generally means more vitality and this positive correlation underlines that there is a causal connection here. Sometimes relationships are not obvious: in the movie "The Truman Show", when the Jim Carey character gets up from bed, the 'sun' does come up in a causal manner because the Ed Harris character ensures that it does.
  • Don't rest on authority. The scientist Albert Einstein once remarked: "Foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth". There is a popular saying that: "Great minds think alike" - but in fact the greatest minds (such as that of Einstein) frequently think very differently from their contemporaries and peers. Remember that another popular saying is: "Fools seldom differ". In the early 1990s, I gave a presentation to a group of Russians using slides in Russian. At one point, I realised that I had been speaking to the wrong slide for the last five minutes. When I asked my audience why no one had told me this, I was advised that in Communist Russia no one challenged the teacher! Just because the management or the government states something does not necessarily mean that it is true. This is especially the case where there is a vested interest, so asbestos and cigarette manufacturers both claimed authoritatively for many years that their products were not damaging to health. Study the evidence and make an independent judgement based on the balance of the available evidence.
  • Closely related to this, don't necessarily rest on the received wisdom. Galileo was excommunicated for challenging the Church's view that the sun, the planets and the stars revolved around the earth - but he was right. Today even the most fundamental rule of modern physics - Einstein's insistence that the speed of light is a constant - is being challenged (by a scientist called João Magueijo). Many management styles and political policies are the received wisdom for a time, but frequently deserve to be challenged. The important thing is to marshal the evidence and subject it to review and analysis.
  • Be challenging of the seemingly seductive comment "It works". There are two problems here: agreeing a definition of what 'works' means and establishing a cause and effect relationship between action and outcome. If I perform a traditional Indian rain dance in my back garden, it may rain in an hour, a day or a month. Over what period are we going to assume the dance may have had an influence? Then, can we reasonably infer a causality here? It may be that my neighbour was performing a different, more effective rain dance in her garden; it may be that the rain clouds had been seeded by a specially charted aircraft to ensure good weather for a sports event tomorrow; it may be that I am in India in the monsoon season and it usually rains at this time of day at this time of year anyway.
  • Be challenging of the seemingly convincing comment "There is no alternative". There is always an alternative - even if it is simply doing nothing and waiting to see what happens. In fact, usually there is more than one alternative - in which case technically you do not have alternatives but choices (because the word 'alternative' comes from the Latin word 'alter' which means the other). The other choices might be more expensive or less effective but they should be considered before deciding on the 'best' choice which should be presented in that manner and not as the only choice.
  • Beware of groupthink. You can be seduced by this at any time, but especially if you are a member of a close-knit group of people where there is a strong sense of loyalty to the group, deference to an authority figure within the group, and a demonised view of those outside the group. Many believe that a version of groupthink among the advisers to President George W Bush led to the deeply flawed decision to invade Iraq in 2003. The Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) identified groupthink as a major factor in its official report on why the IMF did not forsee the coming international financial crisis of 2007-2008. Remember the story of the little boy who was the only one brave enought to point out that the emperor had no clothes? It is amazing how very senior and very intelligent people can collectively delude themselves about something - for instance, that a particular policy is working when so much evidence shows that it is not (the war on drugs?).
  • Beware of anecdotes. People sometimes talk of "anecdotal evidence", but really this is an oxymoron. An anecdote is notevidence - at best, it is one person's experience and, at worst, it is simply unsubstantiated rumour. One of your friends may have had a poor holiday in India which might be interesting but is unlikely to be conclusive of what others might expect. India is a massive country, it has millions of visitors a year, your friend's experience might have been years ago or be more to do with the travel company than the country. Check the information on India on independent travel guides and surveys before making a more informed and balanced judgement.
  • On the other hand, trust your instincts. If something doesn't 'feel' right, even if it is in a newspaper or a television programme, check it out. Strange though it may seem, the media can make mistakes and corrections rarely achieve the prominence of the original story.
  • Be aware that, when observing a situation, the observer can sometimes change the situation. A classic example of this has come to be known as 'the Hawthorne effect', named after the location of a factory in the USA where some studies were conducted in the 1920s. The researchers were trying to establish what change in working conditions would lead to an increase in productivity. To the astonishment of the researchers, they found that every change in conditions - and even a return to the original conditions - resulted in an increase in production. They concluded that this was because the workers were being motivated by the interest shown in them by the researchers. A similar situation occurs in experiments to test the efficacy of drugs or medical treatments and, in this case, it is known as 'the placebo response'. A placebo is a 'pill' made of sugar or a 'tonic' containing nothing medicinal which is used with a control group of patients to compare with another group taking the drug or treatment that is beng tested. What researchers have found is that frequently a placebo has a positive effect because the person taking it believes it to be efficacious.
  • Look for 'meaningful' statements. Often politicians and businessmen make statements which are virtually meaningless, such as"I think that, if we tried harder, we could possibly do somewhat better" or "Some improvements in performance might be expected in the fullness of time". Much more meaningful sentences - and ones therefore to be preferred - would be something like "We will reduce recorded crimes of violence by 10% before the next General Election" or "If we increase our capital expenditure by 5% annually for the next three years, we should achieve a 25% increase in revenues by the end of the decade".
  • Deconstruct the elements of a work. In the case of a paper or speech, look at the arguments, the evidence, the structure, and the presentation. In the case of a novel, consider the plot, the characterisation and the language. In the case of a film, think about the script, the acting, the direction, the cinematography and the music.
  • Consider a SWOT analysis. SWOT analysis is a strategic planning method used to evaluate the Strengths, Weaknesses,Opportunities and Threats involved in a project or situation. It can be a relatively quick and comprehensive - and sometimes fun - way to assess something. It encourages you to see different 'sides' of an organisation or a situation.
  • Go for SMART objectives. These are objectives which are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Timed. It's amazing how often even governments and corporations - as well as individuals - pursue ends that do not meet these basic requirements.
  • Have at least a basic understanding of statistics. A figure without a context is often meaningless. For instance, it might be reported that this weekend there were 10 deaths on Britain's roads. What does this mean? To obtain some context, it would be useful to know the number of deaths for each weekend in the last month, year or decade and more helpfully calculate the average figure for each of those periods. Sometimes, however, the average can be a misleading measure. For example, if there was a major motorway smash-up last weekend or a petrol shortage last month or a particularly severe winter this year, the average for a particular period may be distorted or skewed by an exceptional figure or two. In these circumstances, it is good to know the difference between mean, median and mode. The mean is the arithmetic average of a range of figures; the median is the middle figure in a range of data arranged by value; and the mode is the figure which occurs most frequently in a set of data. Sometimes the median or mode may be a better indicator than the mean by reducing the impact of 'extreme' instances.
  • Consider the distribution of data points. Sometimes the average of a set of data points is unhelpful whether one uses mean, median or mode. For instance, if you are going to work in another country for a couple of months, knowledge of the average rainfull or sunshine for the year is useless to you; you need to know how the amount of rain and sunshine varies from month to month throughout a typical year. Often the distribution of data reveals an illuminating pattern. For instance, in the human population, many physical characteristics like height and weight and some mental attributes like intelligence when plotted on a graph show a bell-shaped distribution which is known as a normal or binomial distibution [for further explanation click here]. A different kind of pattern is often found in the world of engineering and business where roughly 20% of one variable explains around 80% of another variable - for instance, 80% of downtime in a production process might be caused by 20% of the types of incident, so it makes sense for management to concentrate on those 20% and not spread time over all types of incident. This distribution is often called the Pareto curve or the Pareto principle because it is named after an Italian economist [for further explanation click here].
  • 'Translate' statistics. So, convert a percentage into an absolute figure. A claim to have increased customers by 100% might simply mean an increase from two to four. Conversely, a 2.5% increase in a nation's economic growth could - in the case, for instance, of the UK or the USA - mean the availability of billions of more pounds or dollars. Similarly, convert absolute numbers into percentages. A politician might claim that expenditure on the health service has increased by £500M which seems like a massive figure to someone earning £500 a week but, when expressed as a percentage of total expenditure on health, is seen to be proportionately a mere blip in expenditure patterns. Again conversely, it could be that paying a relatively small cash sum monthly into a pension scheme results in a 25% increase in payments in 20 years time. Another useful way to 'translate' data - especially when there is a lot of it - is to turn it into a visual representation of the information. There are many ways to do this but the most common are the bar chart, the pie chart, and the graph.
  • Make appropriate use of statistics particularly where subjective judgements are likely to dominate. A classic example is the notion of risk where most people have incredibly subjective perceptions. Obviously crossing a road is risky, because you might be hit by a car. But staying at home is risky too - you might fall down the stairs or electrocute yourself with the toaster or be attacked by an abusive husband. Obviously, travelling by aircraft is risky because occasionally there are crashes and the number involved is usually so large that it is reported in the media. However, driving a car is probably riskier and riding a motorbike even riskier but, since these accidents and deaths are happening everywhere all the time, you don't hear about most of them.Everything in life has an element of risk - what is necessary is to quantify that risk in terms which make it comparable with other risks and then take rational decisions based on reasonable probabilities of particular outcomes. This may seem a complicated manner of deciding whether to take the train or fly, but it is a technique which can be used in many other situations where emotions can blind sensible decisions, such as deciding whether to use hormone replacement therapy or where to allocate scarce resources in health care.
  • Be especially cautious of statistics where probability is concerned. Most people with no training in statistical techniques find it very difficult to make an accurate assessment of probability. For instance, consider the tossing of a coin where the result might be heads (H) or tails (T). Which of these three outcomes is the most likely: HHHHH, TTTTT, HTHTH? The answer is that each of these three options has the same probability because a coin has no memory and each toss of the coin has a 50-50 chance of resulting in a head or a tail. Another example would be assessing how many people you would need in a room before it was likely that two of them shared the same birthday. In this scenario, 'likely' means with over 50% probability. In fact, the answer is only 23 - because we are talking about any birthday matching, not one specific birthday. See how one can so easily be misled by probability?
  • Think about what is not there. When invited to respond to material, most people confine their comments or their thinking to what they can see or hear. Sometimes what is not there is just as important. You might want to ask: Why are certain arguments missing? Why have certain sources not been used? Is this the full picture? A political manifesto will inevitably mention achievements but not failures and will often criticise another party's policy or performance but fail to offer a constructive alternative. A company's annual report will put the most favourable possible 'gloss' on activities and may not mention at all financial difficulties or threats from competitors. In a job application, a missing period of time could mean a sabbatical travelling around the world or it could mean a sentence in prison.
  • Learn to think 'out of the box'. Albert Einstein once said that: "Problems cannot be solved by thinking within the framework in which they were created". For instance, you are asked to decide whether a new product should be trialed in Manchester, Birmingham or London. But maybe it should be trialed in all three or in three different locations. Maybe it shouldn't be trialed at all, but launched straightaway, because a competitor is about to launch a similar product. Maybe it shouldn't be trialed at all because it is still an inferior product that needs more development. Maybe the whole discussion is irrelevant because the company is about to be taken over by another company which already has such a product in the marketplace.
  • If you dare, go beyond thinking 'out of the box' to thinking the 'unthinkable'. What does this mean? It means considering variations to the most basic of parameters and entertaining the most radical of possibilities. In the last example - trialing a new product - thinking the unthinkable might mean leaving the company, forming your own and marketing a rival product or it might involve a recognition that you are disillusioned with such products altogether and want to make a career change. Albert Einstein once said that: "If at first an idea doesn't seem crazy, then there is no hope for it". As Yosserian in Joseph Heller's iconic novel "Catch-22" concludes: "Of course it's insane … That's why it's the only sane thing to do".
  • Try thinking like your competitor. If you are in a competitive situation - even if it is just a discussion or debate, but much more so if it is a business or a sport (or a war!) - put yourself in the mind of your competitor. If you were him or her, what would you do? If he were to think 'out of the box' or even to think the 'unthinkable', what might he do? How would you respond to that? Should you make such a move first? Even if this process of thought does not lead you to adopt a new strategy, it is a useful discipline that will change the way you look at the situation and how prepared you will be mentally for the unexpected or unlikely.
  • Test your thinking on others. Brainstorm your ideas before starting a piece of work. Show drafts of work in progress to colleagues or friends. Welcome corrections, suggestions and constructive criticism. Entertain challenge. Embrace change. Encourage diversity.
  • Practice critical thinking. Alfred Mander asserted in his book "Logic For The Millions": "Thinking is skilled work. It is not true that we are naturally endowed with the ability to think clearly and logically - without learning how or without practising". The British philosopher Bertrand Russell bemoaned that: "Many people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do", while the British writer George Bernard Shaw quipped: "Most people don't take the time to think. I made an international reputation for myself by deciding to think twice a week".
  • Keep practicising critical thinking. The British politician Barbara Castle once said: "Think, think, think. It will hurt like hell at first, but you'll get used to it".
  • Don't worry if thinking critically initially confuses you. Life isn't simple and the world is not black and white. As the Greek philosopher Socrates put it: "Confusion is the beginning of wisdom".
  • Finally, remember that 'thinking critically' ends in 'why?' The word 'why?' is the most powerful tool in your mental toolbox. Keep asking 'why?' Why is this person writing this story in this particular newspaper? Why is this politician making this statement now? Why has the author of this paper quoted this source and not that one? Why has she used a percentage instead of an absolute figure? Why am I asking all these questions?!?
FURTHER READING
  • "The Demon-Haunted World: Science As A Candle In The Dark" by Carl Sagan (Random House, 1995) [for review click here]
  • "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, And Other Confusions Of Our Time" by Michael Shermer (W.H. Freeman, 1997) [for review click here]
  • "Don't Get Fooled Again: The Skeptic's Guide To Life" by Richard Wilson (Icon Books, 2008) [for review click here]
  • "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre (Fourth Estate, 2008) [for review click here]
Links:
Why people believe weird things click here
The Skeptic's Dictionary click here
An Encyclopedia of Errors of Reasoning click here
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE WEIRD THINGS


WHY PEOPLE BELIEVEWEIRD THINGS
I have long been troubled at many people's cavalier approach to the notion of truth, which is why I wrote my short essay on "The reason for truth" [click here], and the reluctance of people to think for themselves, which is why I crafted some tips on "How to think critically" [click here]. As I thought more about these things, I wondered why so many people believe so many weird things.
What do I mean by weird things? I mean beliefs that lack reason and rationality and are supported by very little or no evidence.
So, while I have deep respect for people with religious views, especially when this leads to ethical and moral behaviour, I am profoundly sceptical of all metaphysical and paranormal concepts and ideas such as God, the Devil, angels, ghosts, spirits, Heaven, Hell, grace, sin, miracles and the efficacy of prayer. Equally I am unconvinced of the existence of physical notions for which there is little or no evidence such as UFOs, aliens, alien architecture and alien abductions. I reject very strongly the theories of young earth creationism and intelligent design.
I am opposed intellectually to all non-rational modes of thought and therefore I am profoundly sceptical of the validity of aura, shakra, reiki, clairvoyance, telepathy, psychokinesis, spirituality, astrology, cosmic ordering, crystals, feng shui, labyrinths, dowsing, horoscopes, prophecies, numerology, faith healing, complementary medicine, homeopathy, miracle cures, and conspiracy theories. I reject very strongly the idea of Holocaust denial.
In short: there is no evidence for any of these things, so I do not believe in them.
So why do people believe weird things? It is too easy - and insulting - to dismiss people who believe such things as silly or stupid or delusional. People who hold odd beliefs are often intelligent and thoughtful. Indeed intelligent people can be specially prone to believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-rational reasons. People who believe strange things usually hold these views with great sincerity and passion. They should be respected and one should make a genuine effort to understand why they hold that belief. As the 17th century Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza put it: "I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them".
There are many, many reasons why people believe weird things. Here are 36 reasons:
  1. What people believe is influenced enormously by their personal upbringing and their societal culture. We all understand this about relatively small and 'closed' communities, so we appreciate that the people who live in an Amish community in the United States will have very different beliefs from those in an isolated tribe of the Amazon in Brazil. But the same is true for much larger and more open communities. Belief in young earth creationism and alien abduction is much more common throughout the USA than in Europe; belief in the efficacy of Chinese medicine is much more extensive in China than in Japan; a belief that 9/11 was brought about by the Jews is much more accepted in Arab countries than in Israel. The fact that a particular belief is held by most or many of one's fellow citizens does not make it necessarily wrong, but equally it does not necessarily make it right. In every case, we need to assess the available evidence and, where necessary, seek further evidence from reputable sources and/or controlled tests.
  2. People seek the company of those with similar views. This human tendency to seek out and spend time with those most similar to us is known in social science as 'homophily'. It means that those with weird views are likely to be friends with those who share and therefore reinforce those views.
  3. People see patterns even where there are none. The technical term for this is pareidolia. A long time ago, man linked various stars in the night sky to make up constellations but there is no connection between these stars and it would have been possible to construct many different 'pictures'. Some people see a man's face on the surface of the moon or an image of Christ in a piece of toast but, in truth, this is just a personal construct that has no independent validity. Pattern-seeking is understandable because pattern recognition is the basis of all aesthetic enjoyment, whether it is music, poetry or science.
  4. People see causality even where there is none. This is called the narrative fallacy. Centuries ago, tribal peoples thought that their rain dances caused rain - but, of course, we now know better. Yet, even today, we can delude ourselves into thinking that if we treat a dice in a particular way - for instance, rubbing or kissing it - we can influence the number it will show. At the extreme, some people claim that there is no such thing as coincidence - everything in the universe is somehow interconnected by some sort of 'energy' or 'force'.
  5. People seek meaning even where there is none. Scientific and secular systems of thought have proved unsatisfying to many. They ask what is the meaning of life and the universe and are uncomfortable with the suggestion that there is none, so they invent a meaning which is usually religious and usually involves a supreme being who provides some sort of meaning even if they cannot understand it. What was the meaning of the Holocaust?
  6. People seek purpose even where there is none. In an uncertain and confusing world, so may people desperately look for some kind of purpose behind events. In the Middle Ages, people could not understand why the Black Death reduced the population of Europe by up to a half, but today we accept that there was no purpose behind this. Today some people wonder why literally millions are dying of AIDS and construct bizarre purposes such as God's retribution for moral laxity. At the extreme - although a surprising number of people think this way - one will hear people insist: "There's no such thing as coincidence. Everything happens for a reason". What these people see as more than coincidence is often simply probability. For instance, two people in a room of 30 find that they have the same birthday - is this synchronicity or probability? In fact, the odds of two people sharing a birthday is more than evens once one has a group larger than 23 [for an explanation click here].
  7. People seek wonder. We all want a little magic in our lives which might seem otherwise boring and mundane. The world would be a more wonderful place if there were really fairies and angels and some inexplicable interconnectness in the whole of humankind or the universe.
  8. People often seek simple answers to questions. Life is complicated and simple answers often seem more attractive and compelling even if they are not valid and lack evidence. As the British writer, broadcaster and medical doctor Ben Goldacre puts it: "I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that". He even sells a T-shirt bearing the slogan [click here].
  9. People sometimes invoke more complicated explanations than is necessary or justified. Just because we are not sure how the Egyptians built the pyramids does not mean that we have to invent a theory that they were constructed by visitors from outer space. The unexplained is not the same as the inexplicable.
  10. People seek instant gratification. Many people do not just want answers to be simple, but they want them to be quick. This is why 'miracle cures' and 'get rich quick' schemes can be so compelling to people even when rationally they understand that the likelihood of success must be highly doubtful.
  11. People seek reinforcement of existing beliefs. This is called the error of confirmation. Many people do not like to admit (even to themselves) that they were wrong about an earlier belief or that, although they were not wrong in the light of the information available at the time, the information has now changed and therefore rationally so should their view.
  12. People are prone to generalisations. People often rush to make judgements by taking one or two instances of something and generalising or projecting it to the overall situation. So one or two bad teachers can lead to an assumption that the entire school system is failing. The worst type of generalisation is to confuse anecdote with evidence - the belief that 'this was my experience and so it must be everyone else's'.
  13. People can fail to consider the available evidence. Often people will simply not weigh the evidence because it requires time or thought and it is simpler just to go with instinct or prejudice or a pre-existing political or religious or cultural mind set.
  14. People can be selective about the evidence they choose. As people tend to seek reinforcement of existing views, they tend to select the evidence that reinforces that view and reject the evidence that challenges or undermines the original view.
  15. People can miss the silence evidence. For example, three cancer patients pray for recovery and do indeed recover which appears to confirm the power of prayer. However, the silent evidence is those cases - probably much more numerous - where cancer sufferers prayed for recovery but then died.
  16. People can reconfigure their belief to 'fit' the evidence or lack of it. The classic case of this is belief in conspiracy theories. So, when London's Metropolitan Police conduct a thorough study of the circumstances of Princess Diana's death and find no evidence whatsover to support the claim that she was killed by the British secret service, for some conspiracy theorists this does not undermine their belief but in fact reinforces it by demonstrating just how extensive the 'cover up' has gone.
  17. People can reject the notion of evidence. Some people do not simply fail to consider the evidence at all or select the evidence which suits their view; they simply refuse to consider the validity of evidence as the basis for decision-making. One hears expressions like "I don't need any evidence, because my heart tells me what is true" or "Whatever the experts tell us, I know ..."
  18. People can reject the idea of tests. Some people are really averse to the idea of testing a belief or proposition. They will say things like "You can never believe these tests" or "I don't need to look at the tests because it works for me".
  19. People can fail to see the bigger picture. People can be so focused on some detail that they miss the wider picture completely. Don't believe me? Try the colour changing card trick click here.
  20. People can be misled by bold statements. L. Ron Hubbard opens his book "Dianetics: The Modern Science Of Mental Health" with the statement: "The creation of Dianetics is a milestone for man comparable to his discovery of fire and superior to his invention of the wheel and the arch" - but this does not make scientologists' beliefs true [for more information click here]. Advocates of the 'the secret' or 'the law of attraction' believe that "Without exception, every human being has the ability to transform any weakness or suffering into strength, power, perfect peace, health, and abundance" - but this does make the so-called law true [for more information click here].
  21. People can be misled by 'scientific' statements. Just because scientific-like terminology is used to propagate a belief does not make that belief scientifically valid. Lots of alternative medications and health products are promoted with language which is frequently scientifically meaningless but designed to impress and/or confuse the consumer. Lots of paranormal ideas are put forward with references to 'quantum theory', which is very difficult even for a scientist to understand, or to 'energy', which is used in a generalised and ultimately meaningless manner.
  22. People can be misled by problems of perception. People are rarely more convinced of something than when they insist that they saw something with their own eyes. Yet every psychologist and every lawyer knows that the fact that one saw something is not of itself robust evidence. People are regularly seeing alien spaceships but there is usually a much more straightforward explanation for what the person saw. Some people see ghosts or spirits or angels but there is never clear photographic evidence of such sightings. It is not that people lie; they are simply misled. Even near-death out of body experiences can be explained by our knowledge of how the mind and the body work.
  23. People can be misled by trickery. Magicians do it for entertainment and conmen do it for exploitation. A very simple example is the floating cork trick [click here]. Other cases are more notorious or elaborate so, for example, Uri Geller cannnot bend spoons with his mind [for explanations click here] and aliens have not created crop circles [for explanations click here].
  24. People can be misled by an authority figure. At a societal level, parents can convince themselves that the MMR vaccination could cause autism in their child because one scientist suggested that this could be the case, even though his one study was deeply flawed and virtually every other study found no evidence for such causality. At a group level, soldiers can be led to believe that cruel treatment - even torture - of prisoners is acceptable because a superior has ordered them to behave in this way or simply created an ethos in which such treatment is regarded as 'normal'.
  25. People can be misled by an authority text. If one puts absolute faith in a particular text such as the Bible, taking as literal truth stories written at a very different time for a very different purpose, then one can easily be led to ignore or deny evidence and believe really weird things such as young earth creationism or a virgin birth or a resurrection from the dead.
  26. People can invoke a divine intervention. When something strange happens and we find it hard to explain - especially if it involves good fortune - some people are tempted to ascribe it to the intervention of their god or guardian angel or spirit protector or the result of prayer to such a being. For instance, an airliner crashes and everyone is killed except a little baby. The religious would often be inclined to assert that God was watching over that baby and spared her, but this does not explain why God did not intervene to spare the other 300 passengers. The religious would retort that mere humans cannot understand the mind of God and yet they insist that we are created in his image. If in his infinite wisdom and power he chooses not to make plain to us what specific actions - good behaviour, charitable donations, particular prayers - will invoke his intervention, then we have no logical basis for ascribing one event to him and not another. Every double blind scientific test of the efficacy of prayer has shown no relationship between prayer and outcomes; yet those who pray devoutly are much more inclined to remember the few times that their prayers have been 'answered' than the numerous times that they have not.
  27. People can fail to understand the science. Sometimes people think that paranormal behaviour is at work because they do not appreciate that something which seems to be impossible in normal circumstances is perfectly possible if one understands the relevant science. A great example is firewalking. Most people think that firewalking is impossible without some kind of special power. Some people claim to have this special power although the nature of it varies considerably from claimant to claimant. In fact, anyone can firewalk provided one moves at the correct pace and does not try to walk much beyond around 10 feet. Conversely even someone who claims to have some kind of special power will be unable to firewalk beyond say 15 feet. Don't believe me? Try this video click here.
  28. People can have selective memories. This is difficult for many people to accept, but the evidence is all around us from court cases, where different witnesses to the same event have different recollections, to conversations with family or friends about a shared experience, where memories can be very different even to the point of having a different recollection of the order of events. So a compulsive gambler who has a 'lucky' talisman is more likely to remember the times he wins than the times he loses and somone who believes in horoscopes or Tarot cards is more likely to remember the 'accurate' predictions than all the failed ones.
  29. People can have false memories. In one experiment, British subjects were asked to recall where they were when television footage of the first Bali terrorist bombing was broadcast. A significant proportion of the subjects recalled the broadcast even though there was never any footage of this bombing. It is well known that in therapy subjects can be induced to recall incidents of sexual abuse which never happened. We can create memories from all sorts of sources such as photographs or conversations.
  30. People may be given to suggestibility. It is well known that some people are more suggestible than others. Children obviously can be easily persuaded to believe in Father Christmas or the tooth fairy. But some adults are more suggestible than others which is why some people can be hypnotised more easily than others. Suggestions are not necessarily verbal, spoken, or read. A smile, a glare, a wink, a nod, a suit, a scientist's white coat, can all be suggestive devices. It should be noted that suggestibility is not the same as gullibility.
  31. People can suffer from group think. In certain circumstances - which are in fact more common than we care to admit - members of a group can be encouraged or induced to think alike to the point of abandoning independent judgement. There was probably a large element of group think in the highest levels of the US and UK governments when it was decided that Saddam Hussein's Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. There was probably a similar process of group think at work in the global finance sector in the mid 2000s when so many clever financiers convinced themselves that their lending policies were sound and the markets were working well. It can be difficult to be that little boy who points out that the emperor has no clothes.
  32. People believe things because such beliefs have been around for a long time. Longevity does not equal validity. You will hear people assert that most civilisations have believed in an after life so there must be something in the belief but, for millennia, everyone believed that the earth was flat and this is not true. You will hear people assert that various alternative remedies have been used for centuries so they must work. Blood letting was used for centuries but it did no good and often did harm.
  33. People like to feel special or empowered. The idea that one might have a special power - to read minds, to see the future, to send messages mentally, to locate water, to see God or angels or ghosts - is exciting and can give one real status in one's own eyes and those of others. It is perhaps not too surprising that people who claim to have such powers are reluctant to concede that they do not exist or have a more rational explanation.
  34. People can have weird experiences. We have all had the experience of words or pictures or tunes coming into our head and at first we cannot work out why this should have happened and then we recall that we read a particular article or saw a particular film or heard some particular music. We have all had the kind of experience often described as 'déjà vu' but there are various possible scientific explanations which do not require us to resort to paranormal theories. Even 'out of body' experiences can be explained medically and even induced in people. So weird things do happen to us - but they do not have to have weird explanations.
  35. People believe things because it 'works' for them. Typically people will argue that they do not care what the scientists or doctors say, a particular alternative or complementary or homeopathic medicine works for them. It probably does work - but how? They do not know and do not care. In truth, the treatment probably works no better than a placebo and in just the same manner as a placebo. We can only be sure if we carry out double blind tests with the treatment and a placebo but creators, providers and users of such treatments or products are not interested in such experimentation because it might not confirm their belief.
  36. People may want to believe so much. In the end, people believe what they want to believe even in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary because that belief gives them comfort. So people may see no evidence for a god or an after life but find the idea that there might be one really comforting; people may be doubtful about how a homeopathic medicine is supposed to work but find that taking it makes them feel better; people may choose to ignore the compelling evidence that human activity has contributed substantially to global warming because that enables them to pursue a particular life style with less guilt or concern. Even in the face of specific evidence relating to their specific circumstances, people will often choose not to acknowledge that their belief is misplaced - to see an example of how those who claim dowsing powers cannot accept evidence click here.
So how on earth do we know what to believe? Let us take a simple case to make the illustration clear: the theory that the sun rises each morning because the earth rotates around the sun rather than any other explanation such as a ritualistic act of worship each evening to the god of the sun. Here are some useful tests:
  1. A theory requires real evidence. Real evidence is not simple belief or anecdote, but objective facts preferably based on scientific study. In this case, the evidence would be repeated observations that the sun did in fact rise each morning whatever one did or did not do.
  2. All the evidence should be consistent with the theory. Just one case of the sun not rising in the morning - on the assumption that this was not simply an observational error - would lead one to question fundamentally the theory.
  3. The theory should make clear and precise predictions. If the theory can tell us not just that the sun will rise each morning, but exactly when it will rise in different locations around the globe and at different times of the calendar year, this is much more impressive than generalised predictions which are difficult to test or interpret.
  4. These predictions should come true. If the sun does indeed rise at exactly the time predicted by the theory in all sorts of different places and at all sorts of different times, this is extremely convincing evidence in support of the theory that no other professed explanation is likely to emulate.
  5. The theory should be capable of being falsified. If the sun rises at the 'wrong' time as predicted by the theory, then the theory has been falsified.
Of course, life is not always as simple as this and the testing of beliefs is not always as straightforward as this, but this line of thinking should be our guide in assessing the validity or truthfulness of a belief. Above all, we should be sceptical and practice critical thinking [for advice on how to do this click here].
FURTHER READING
  • "The Demon-Haunted World: Science As A Candle In The Dark" by Carl Sagan (Random House, 1995) [for review click here]
  • "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, And Other Confusions Of Our Time" by Michael Shermer (W.H. Freeman, 1997) [for review click here]
  • "Don't Get Fooled Again: The Skeptic's Guide To Life" by Richard Wilson (Icon Books, 2008) [for review click here]
  • "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre (Fourth Estate, 2008) [for review click here]
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Monday, April 1, 2013

Critical Thinking Rubric -- AACU


Critical Thinking Rubric -- AACU

Definition

Critical thinking is a habit of mind characterized by the comprehensive exploration of issues, ideas, artifacts, and events before accepting or formulating an opinion or conclusion.



Capstone
4
Milestones
3 2
Benchmark
1
Explanation of issues
Issue/ problem to be considered critically is stated clearly and described comprehensively; delivering all relevant information necessary for full understanding.
Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated, described, and clarified so that understanding is not seriously impeded by omissions.
Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated but description leaves some terms undefined, ambiguities unexplored, boundaries undetermined, and/or backgrounds unknown.
Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated without clarification or description.
Evidence
Selecting and using information to investigate a point of view or conclusion
Information is taken from source(s) with enough interpretation/evaluation to develop a comprehensive analysis or synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are questioned thoroughly.
Information is taken from source(s) with enough interpretation/evaluation to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis.
Viewpoints of experts are subject to questioning.
Information is taken from source(s) with some interpretation/evaluation, but not enough to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis.
Viewpoints of experts are taken as mostly fact, with little questioning.
Information is taken from source(s) without any interpretation/ evaluation.
Viewpoints of experts are taken as fact, without question.
influence of context and assumptions
Thoroughly (systematically and methodically) analyzes own and others' assumptions and carefully evaluates the relevance of contexts when presenting a position.
Identifies own and others' assumptions and several relevant contexts when presenting a position.
Questions some assumptions. Identifies several relevant contexts when presenting a position. May be more aware of others' assumptions than one's own (or vice versa).
Shows an emerging awareness of present assumptions (sometimes labels assertions as assumptions).
Begins to identify some contexts when presenting a position.
Student's position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis)
Specific position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) is imaginative, taking into account the complexities of an issue.
Limits of position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) are acknowledged. Others' points of view are synthesized within position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis).
Specific position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) takes into account the complexities of an issue.
Others' points of view are acknowledged within position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis).
Specific position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) acknowledges different sides of an issue.
Specific position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) is stated, but is simplistic and obvious.
Conclusions and related outcomes (implications and consequences)
Conclusions and related outcomes (consequences and implications) are logical and reflect student’s informed evaluation and ability to place evidence and perspectives discussed in priority order.
Conclusion is logically tied to a range of information, including opposing viewpoints; related outcomes (consequences and implications) are identified clearly.
Conclusion is logically tied to information (because information is chosen to fit the desired conclusion); some related outcomes (consequences and implications) are identified clearly.
Conclusion is inconsistently tied to some of the information discussed; related outcomes (consequences and implications) are oversimplified
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

TFY IM C6 Opinions


CHAPTER 6: OPINIONS
TEACHING OVERVIEW
This chapter challenges the popular belief that any opinion is just as good as any other and
that all deserve respectful attention. It treats opinion variety and opinion psychology; its
exercises can be read aloud. By the end of the chapter, students should come to view
opinions—their own and others—with more detachment and base them on clearer
standards. Whether opinions are a subcategory of beliefs or the opposite is a question the
class might consider. One could say beliefs contain stronger feelings as well as
commitments.
The chapter section on polls and opinion will no doubt become amplified in class
discussion; many may challenge my viewpoint on this subject. For each section, let their
interest and your time limits be your guide in assigning class time for discussion.
The section “Opinions as Claims in Arguments” is worth class time and attention;
it is a significant stage of the progression that teaches argument awareness throughout the
text. After reading this paragraph, studying the diagram of the table, and completing the
discussion questions on the pro and con arguments, students should understand the
nature of a basic argument in terms of claims and support and be ready to write an
argument along the lines of this definition.
Students have three options to choose from under the composition writing
application. If you want to assign the first option, “A short argument supporting an
opinion,” then students may benefit from some practice in class. I would recommend
working with them at the blackboard for 15 minutes to an hour. I ask the class to give me a
claim, any claim, and then together we outline beneath that statement whatever support
could be offered, either in the form of evidence or further claims. Sometimes I write a pro
claim on one side of the board and a con claim on the same topic on the other side, draw a
line down the middle, then have students stand together on one side or the other and
write down their supportive reasons. This can result in some laughter and lively
encounter. (I remember their debate over the superiority of the Harley-Davidson versus
the Honda motorcycle.) The second option, “A short expository essay about an opinion,”
is designed to give students an opportunity to write an objective analysis of one of their
own opinions. The third option for analyzing three opinions is worth class review time
and will elicit a lot of interest and involvement. A variant of this assignment is to assign a
paper analyzing claims and support in a newspaper letter to an editor. I sometimes
photocopy several letters to the editor and distribute them for this exercise in class. You
will probably be surprised, as I was, to find both how challenging this assignment can be
for students and how rewarding.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)