C168 Critical Thinking Study

Front 4

Egocentrism

Back 4

The tendency to view everything in relationship to oneself and to regard one's own opinions, values, or interests as most important.

Front 5

Fair-mindedness

Back 5

The commitment to consider all relevant opinions equally without regard to one's own sentiments or selfish interests.

Front 6

Fallacies

Back 6

Flaws or errors in reasoning which, when found in the premise of an argument, invalidate its conclusion.

Front 7

Intellectual cowardice

Back 7

Fear of ideas or viewpoints that do not conform to one's own. Term used by Paul and Elder.

Front 8

Intellectual empathy

Back 8

The act of routinely inhabiting the perspectives of others in order to genuinely understand them. Term used by Paul and Elder.

Front 9

Intellectual humility

Back 9

Openness to the possibility that one's beliefs are mistaken and a willingness to reevaluate them in the face of new evidence or persuasive counterarguments. Term used by Paul and Elder.

Front 10

Intellectual perseverance

Back 10

The act of working one's way through intellectual complexities despite frustrations inherent in doing so. Term used by Paul and Elder.

Front 11

Second-order thinking

Back 11

Another term for critical thinking. It is first-order thinking (or ordinary thinking) that is consciously realized (i.e., analyzed, assessed, and improved). Term used by Paul and Elder.

Front 12

Sociocentrism

Back 12

The assumption that one's own social group is inherently superior to all others.

Front 13

Sophistry

Back 13

The ability to win an argument regardless of flaws in its reasoning.

Front 14

Stereotype

Back 14

A fixed or oversimplified conception of a person, group, or idea.

Front 15

Strong-sense critical thinking

Back 15

Thinking that uses critical thinking skills to evaluate all beliefs, especially one's own, and that pursues what is intellectually fair and just.

Front 16

Weak-sense critical thinking

Back 16

Thinking that does not consider counter viewpoints, that lacks fair-mindedness and that uses critical thinking skills simply to defend current beliefs.

Front 17

Accuracy

Back 17

Being near to the true value or meaning of something

Front 18

Assumptions

Back 18

Unstated or hidden beliefs that support our explicit reasoning

Front 19

Clarity

Back 19

Being unambiguous and easily understood

Front 20

Concepts

Back 20

General categories or ideas by which we interpret or classify information used in our thinking

Front 21

Implication

Back 21

What logically follows from reasoning

Front 22

Inference

Back 22

A logical process of drawing conclusions

Front 23

Point of view

Back 23

The particular perspective from which something is observed or thought through

Front 24

Precision

Back 24

Being precise or exact

Front 25

Purpose

Back 25

The goal or objective of reasoning

Front 26

Common factor method

Back 26

In analyzing causation, looking for a single shared factor

Front 27

Concomitant variation

Back 27

In analyzing causation, looking for a pattern of variation between a possible cause and a possible effect

Front 28

Process of elimination

Back 28

In analyzing causation, successively ruling out non-causal factors until one correct causal factor remains

Front 29

Question of fact

Back 29

A question with one correct answer

Front 30

Question of judgment

Back 30

A question with competing and debatable answers

Front 31

Question of preference

Back 31

A Question with many possible subjective answers

Front 32

Single difference method

Back 32

In analyzing causation, looking for a causal factor that is present in one situation but absent in another similar situation

Front 33

Socratic questioning

Back 33

A systematic, disciplined approach to asking questions aimed at assessing truth

Front 34

Activated Ignorance

Back 34

False information that is mistakenly believed to be true and acted upon.

Front 35

Activated Knowledge

Back 35

Truthful information that is employed to pursue more knowledge and/or is acted upon.

Front 36

Ad hominem fallacy

Back 36

Dismissing an argument by attacking the person who offers it rather than by refuting its reasoning.

Front 37

Appeal to authority fallacy

Back 37

To justify support for a position by citing an esteemed or well-known figure who supports it.

Front 38

Appeal to experience fallacy

Back 38

Claiming to speak with the "voice of experience" in support of an argument (even when that experience may not be relevant).

Front 39

Appeal to fear fallacy

Back 39

Citing a threat or possibility of a frightening outcome as the reason for supporting an argument.

Front 40

Appeal to popularity/ popular passions fallacy

Back 40

Citing majority sentiment or popular opinion as the reason for supporting a claim.

Front 41

Assumptions

Back 41

The unstated or hidden beliefs that support our explicit reasoning about something.

Front 42

Attacking evidence fallacy

Back 42

Seeking to falsely discredit the underlying evidence for an argument and thereby questioning its validity.

Front 43

Begging the question

Back 43

Asserting a conclusion that is assumed in the reasoning.

Front 44

Bias

Back 44

A partiality or prejudice that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation.

Front 45

Denying inconsistencies fallacy

Back 45

Refusing to admit contradictions or inconsistencies when making an argument or defending a position.

Front 46

Either-or fallacy

Back 46

Assuming only two alternatives when, in reality, there are more than two.

Front 47

Evading questions fallacy

Back 47

Avoiding direct and truthful answers to difficult questions through diversionary tactics, vagueness, or deliberately confusing or complex responses.

Front 48

Fallacy

Back 48

An error in reasoning.

Front 49

Faulty analogy

Back 49

Drawing an invalid comparison between things for the purpose of either supporting or refuting some position.

Front 50

Hard-cruel-world argument

Back 50

Justifying illegal or unethical practices by arguing that they are necessary to confront a greater evil or threat.

Front 51

Hasty generalization

Back 51

Inferring a general proposition about something based on too small a sample or an unrepresentative sample.

Front 52

Inert Information

Back 52

Memorized information that is not fully understood.

Front 53

Inference

Back 53

A logical process of drawing conclusions.

Front 54

Red herring fallacy

Back 54

Introducing an irrelevant point or topic to divert attention from the issue at hand.

Front 55

Search for perfect solution fallacy

Back 55

Asserting that a solution (or argument) is not worth adopting because it does not fix the problem completely.

Front 56

Slippery slope fallacy

Back 56

To suggest that a step or action, once taken, will lead inevitably to similar steps or actions with presumably undesirable consequences.

Front 57

Sociocentrism

Back 57

Seeing social conventions, beliefs and taboos of your society as the only correct way to live and think.

Front 58

Straw man fallacy

Back 58

Distorting or exaggerating an opponent's argument so that it might be more easily attacked.

Front 59

Thrown-in statistics fallacy

Back 59

The use of irrelevant, misleading, or questionable statistics to support an argument or defend a position.

Front 60

Treating abstracts as reality fallacy

Back 60

Citing abstract concepts (freedom, justice, science) to support an argument or to call for action.

Front 61

Two wrongs make a right fallacy

Back 61

Defending or justifying our wrong position or conduct by pointing to a similar wrong done by someone else.

Front 62

Analogy

Back 62

Inference that if 2 things are alike in one respect, they will be alike in other respects

Front 63

Empirical

Back 63

Based on or derived from practical experiment and direct observation

Front 64

Evidence

Back 64

Information that is provided to support the dependability of a factual claim

Front 65

Factual claims

Back 65

Beliefs about the way the world is, was, or will be whose credibility depends on the quality of evidence offered to support them

Front 66

Faulty analogy

Back 66

An analogy in which there are important relevant dissimilarities between 2 things being compared

Front 67

Intuition

Back 67

An instinctive "knowing" (e.g., a hunch or gut feeling) that does not derive from a rational intellectual process

Front 68

Neglect of a common cause

Back 68

The failure to recognize that 2 events may be related through the effects of a common third factor

Front 69

Qualitative

Back 69

evidence Evidence that describes an observation or phenomenon and communicates its meaning

Front 70

Quantitative

Back 70

evidence Evidence that quantifies an observation or phenomenon and is concerned with determining causation

Front 71

Research sampling

Back 71

The process of selecting events or people to study

Front 72

Rival cause

Back 72

A plausible alternative explanation for why a certain outcome happened

Front 73

Survey

Back 73

A research method or instrument for measuring people's attitudes or beliefs

Front 74

Absolute number

Back 74

The total or aggregate of something, expressed as a number without relationship to other numbers

Front 75

Line graph

Back 75

A graph that plots the relationship between 2 or more variables by using connected data points

Front 76

Mean

Back 76

The average derived by adding up all the values and dividing the sum by the total number of values

Front 77

Median

Back 77

The average represented by the middle value in a series of values

Front 78

Misinformation

Back 78

Incorrect or erroneous information

Front 79

Mode

Back 79

The value that appears most frequently in a series of values

Front 80

Random sample

Back 80

A study sample that is representative of the whole population

Front 81

Statistical distribution

Back 81

The frequency with which each value in a series of values occurs

Front 82

Statistical range

Back 82

The gap between the smallest and largest values in a series of values

Front 83

Statistics

Back 83

The science of collecting, organizing, and analyzing quantitative data

Front 84

Egocentric hypocrisy

Back 84

Ignoring inconsistencies between belief and behavior and between public standards and private actions

Front 85

Egocentric immediacy

Back 85

Overgeneralizing so that immediate events, whether favorable or unfavorable, influence thinking

Front 86

Egocentric memory

Back 86

Remembering only that evidence and information that supports our thinking

Front 87

Egocentric myopia

Back 87

Adopting an overly narrow point of view and thinking in absolutes

Front 88

Egocentric righteousness

Back 88

Feeling superior because of possessing the "Truth"

Front 89

Egocentrism

Back 89

The belief that one's own thinking or life is superior to others

Front 90

Sociocentrism

Back 90

The belief that one's own society or group is superior to others

Front 91

Universal ethical standards

Back 91

Principles for correct human behavior acknowledged by reasonable people

Front 92

What are the elements of reasoning

Back 92

the elements or parts of reasoning are those essential dimensions of reasoning that are present whenever and wherever reasoning occurs-independent of wither we are reasoning poorly

Front 94

Elements of reasoning

Back 94

purpose, questions, assumptions, implications, information, concepts, inferences, points of view

Front 96

Purpose

Back 96

the goals of reasoning

Front 97

Questions

Back 97

what directs reasoning, all reasoning involves answering at least one question (in dealing with more complicated tasks or problems, questions also direct researching dealing with more complicated tasks or problems, questioning also directs research. All research ranging from the heart sciences, like chemistry, physics or biology to other sciences like the social sciences, is driven by an answered questions.

Front 98

Assumptions

Back 98

beliefs that are taken for granted (taken to be true) in reasoning) it’s also a necessary starting point for our reasoning process. Even before we begin reasoning about a specific problem or a specific task, we have a certain belief that we think are true.

Front 99

Implications

Back 99

what follows from our reasoning or what follows from the inferences or conclusions that we draw. In other words, if we take one statement to be true, something usually follows or is implied by that statement.

Front 100

Information

Back 100

anything that we take to be true or anything that is factual. Information should be contrasted to assumptions. Assumptions do not have to be true however information must be true. Information’s can come in many forms. It can come in the form of facts that we encounter every day. It can be facts that we learn in college or it could come as statistical data that may be relevant when making certain decisions.

Front 101

Concepts

Back 101

concept is just another word for the ideas that we employ during our reasoning process. Concepts are what we used to classify or categorize information ideas

Front 102

Inferences

Back 102

the word inference is just another word for conclusion. The conclusion drawn from reasoning inferences are typically the product of our reasoning process.

Front 103

Points of view

Back 103

the place from which reasoning occurs (perspective) all reasoning takes place within some point of view. Our point of view will be the way in which we see an issue or how we will approach a topic. Our points of view are many times shaped by our life experiences.

Front 105

The standards of reasoning

Back 105

are the way in which we assess our reasoning to determine how well we are reasoning. By assessing they mean a way in which we can determine if our reasoning is good or not. When we assess our reasoning, we want to know how well we are reasoning. "we do not identify the elements of reasoning for the fun of it or just to satisfy some authority. Rather, we assess our reasoning using intellectual standards because we realize the negative consequences of failing to do so." one important thing to note is that the standards are gauge or way of assessing how well we are using the elements. The standards applying to the elements and not the other way around.

Front 107

Standards of reasoning

Back 107

clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logic, significance, fairness,

Front 109

Clarity

Back 109

reasoning that is clear in meaning and expression also means that our thinking is free from ambiguities. Nicely applies to the element of information.

Front 110

Accuracy

Back 110

representing the way things are, thus accuracy nicely applies to information. Reasoning that expresses how things actually are

Front 111

Precision

Back 111

our reasoning is precise if it detailed and specific.

Front 112

Relevance

Back 112

reasoning which is focused on the problem or issue at hand. It is reasoning which emphasizes only that aspect which matters to the solution of a problem or an issue.

Front 113

Depth

Back 113

reasoning that addresses the complexities and fine details of an issue problem, deep thinking and our reasoning is deep whenever it takes into the account the complexities and very fine details of an issue or a problem.

Front 114

Breadth

Back 114

reasoning that considers issues from all relevant viewpoints, always involves more as opposed to less breath nicely applies to points of view, information and also questions.

Front 115

Logic

Back 115

reasoning that is ordered, supported, makes sense in a cohort and combined way and is also free o f contradictions

Front 116

Significance

Back 116

reasoning that recognizes the order of importance of something our reasoning is significant if it is important and also relevant to the issue or problem at hand. Significance may also apply to questions.

Front 117

Fairness

Back 117

our reasoning is fair if it is justified and our thinking is justified if we have sufficient reason to believe a certain conclusion and this usually happens if we have considered all relevant points of view and if our assumptions are justified.

Front 118

Three elements of critical thinking

Back 118

analyze, evaluate, improve