Skeptical Reading and Critical Thinking

Skeptical Reading and Critical Thinking

Arguments

Problematic Arguments

Errors in Reasoning from Evidence

Unfair Arguments

Deductive

Inductive

Analogy

P1) Include absolute term (all, every, always)

P2) Apply the rule to specific case

C1) Make a conclusion

Syllogism:

A = B

B = C

Hence, A = C

1) Form a general rule from observing cases

2) At least one premise in relative terms

3) Form a conclusion

*State what happened in sample cases

*A sample that best reflect larger groups

1) What is true for one thing, is true for another similar thing.

Ex;

*X and Y are similar as they share certain properties

*X have certain properties( i.e. abstract thoughts)

*Y too have abstract thoughts

1) Inferring causation from correlation

*Relationship is not “cause-effect”

2) Misinterpreting null results

*Too inconclusive to be used in an argument

3) Misinterpreting significant results

*If findings could not be replicated, then it might not be true for actual population

4) Not questioning construct validity

*Need to scrutinize the measures and manipulation used to define their variables.

5) Not questioning generalizations

1) Ad Hominem arguments

*To disbelieve a position because the person advocating the position has a

poor reputation

2) Ignoring Contradictory Evidence

*Favor one position (i.e. Favouring world is flat argument while ignoring the evidence of world is round)

3) Straw Man Arguments

*Providing a weak opposing position (straw man) then proceed to attack it

1) Appeal to emotions

2) Appeal to faith

3) Appeal to authority

Ex:

Elephants have cells in their bodies, and all cells have DNA. Therefore, elephants have DNA.

Common Mistakes

*Untrue premises

*Overstating phenomenon

*Stating a theory making a certain claim (due to misinterpretation)​​​​

Ex:

Some people have been sexually abused

Questions preventing inaccuracy

*Are individual scores accurate @ unbiased?

*Are the sample representative and unbiased?

*Are conclusion drawn from sample accurate and unbiased?

*Could the author's explanation be replaced with a better one?

Problems

*Could lead to interesting insights BUT

*Being like something is different from being identical to something.

*May lead to false conclusion