In my quest for answers, I constantly seek the truth of things so I can understand them the best I can. I gather all the facts, and evaluate the information objectively to formuate a hypothesis, giving me the most likely truth and answer. It's what critical thinkers call "empirical reasoning".
Everyday, scientists, college students and police detectives use this kind of thought process to formulate a solution or solve a crime.
I ask you to read this scenario, and then I leave it to up to you to decide for yourself if critical thinking is something we all should be using a lot more of as we tip-toe through our daily lives, fearing that something we might say will offend someone.
Case in point: A law firm in Denver Colorado …show more content…
Upon a second interview, another five attorneys are eliminated leaving three to choose from. Of the three that are left, one attorney is white, one is black and one is hispanic.
The partners of the law firm have a meeting to discuss which of the three they should hire. In doing so, each partner agrees that the white candidate was the most qualified because he had gone to Harvard Law School, had the most trial experience and had the best record for winning court cases.
Both the black and hispanic attorneys had also gone to good colleges, and they both had trial experience with respectable records for winning court cases. However, in comparrison to the white attorney, they were less qualified and gave the firm less chance to win cases for clients looking for the best legal representation they could afford. It was the white lawyer who was the most qualified to fill that need.
You would think the law firm had found the right lawyer to hire, right? Think again. Despite the fact that the white lawyer was the most qualified person for the job, they had to pass on hiring him for no reason other than the fact that he was …show more content…
He is well-dressed, pretty savvy and has a way with words and a reputation for convincing juries that his clients are innocent. He knows the law about as well as the white applicants who were turned down for the job as prosecutor.
Now, because of affirmative action laws, you have a less qualified prosecutor trying to put your attacker in prison all because the state couldn't hire someone who had the best skills to defend you because the most qualified person was white.
It should come as no surprise when the prosecutor drops the ball by overlooking a clerical error on the warrant that was served to arrest your attacker. The defense attorney sees the error and notifies the judge, at which time the case is dismissed.
As the trial ends, your attacker smiles and winks at you as he walks out of the court room a free man. You sit in fear and wonder how this could've happened. The only reason you agreed to testify was based on the fact that prosecutor told you it would assure that your attacker didn't get away with
Everyday, scientists, college students and police detectives use this kind of thought process to formulate a solution or solve a crime.
I ask you to read this scenario, and then I leave it to up to you to decide for yourself if critical thinking is something we all should be using a lot more of as we tip-toe through our daily lives, fearing that something we might say will offend someone.
Case in point: A law firm in Denver Colorado …show more content…
Upon a second interview, another five attorneys are eliminated leaving three to choose from. Of the three that are left, one attorney is white, one is black and one is hispanic.
The partners of the law firm have a meeting to discuss which of the three they should hire. In doing so, each partner agrees that the white candidate was the most qualified because he had gone to Harvard Law School, had the most trial experience and had the best record for winning court cases.
Both the black and hispanic attorneys had also gone to good colleges, and they both had trial experience with respectable records for winning court cases. However, in comparrison to the white attorney, they were less qualified and gave the firm less chance to win cases for clients looking for the best legal representation they could afford. It was the white lawyer who was the most qualified to fill that need.
You would think the law firm had found the right lawyer to hire, right? Think again. Despite the fact that the white lawyer was the most qualified person for the job, they had to pass on hiring him for no reason other than the fact that he was …show more content…
He is well-dressed, pretty savvy and has a way with words and a reputation for convincing juries that his clients are innocent. He knows the law about as well as the white applicants who were turned down for the job as prosecutor.
Now, because of affirmative action laws, you have a less qualified prosecutor trying to put your attacker in prison all because the state couldn't hire someone who had the best skills to defend you because the most qualified person was white.
It should come as no surprise when the prosecutor drops the ball by overlooking a clerical error on the warrant that was served to arrest your attacker. The defense attorney sees the error and notifies the judge, at which time the case is dismissed.
As the trial ends, your attacker smiles and winks at you as he walks out of the court room a free man. You sit in fear and wonder how this could've happened. The only reason you agreed to testify was based on the fact that prosecutor told you it would assure that your attacker didn't get away with