critical thinking/analysis

reasoning

has a signifcant and realistic purpose/goal/objective

what am i trying to accomplish? what is my central aim?

what is the the main purpose of this text?

is an attempt to figure something out, solve a problem, settle a question

what is the key question this text raises?

is the question directly relevant to the purpose?

is the question well stated?

does the expression of the question do justice to the complexity of hte matter at issue?

does the text address the question it raises?

questions

one system questions: require evidence and reasoning within a system, have correct answers (knowledge)

no system questions: call for stating a subjective preference, lead to an opinion, which cannot be assessed

mutli-system questions: require evidence and reasoning within multiple systems. these kinds of questions have better and worse answers, which we use judgment to assess

is based on assumptions

what is the main assumption underlying the author's thinking?

are these assumptions justifiable?

does the writer admit how the asumptions shape point of view and other aspects of research and text?

does the writer show sensitivity to what s/he is taking for granted?

does the writer use questionable assumptions without addressing problems which might be inherent in them?

is done from a point of view

what is the main point of view expressed in this text?

has the point of view been clearly stated?

what are some other points of view? what are their strengths and weaknesses

does the writer show a sensitivity to alternative relevant points of view or lines of reasoning?

does s/he consider and respond to objections from other relevant points of view?

is based on data, information, and evidence

what information do i need to settle this question?

is there data, evidence, experience, information, available to address the question?

is there sufficient information here to address the question?

is all unformation used clear, accurate, and relevant?

what is the most important information?

is there contrary/contradictory information?

is expressed through and shaped by concepts/ideas

what are the key concepts used?

are these concepts significant to the problem or question?

are the concepts defined precisely and carefully?

have alternate definitions been addressed?

are the concepts used with consistency of meaning?

are there alternative, significant concepts not being used here?

contains inferences, interpretations, and conclusions

what are the main inferences or conclusions in this text?

does the writer develop a line of reasining explainng well how s/he is arriving at main conclusions?

infer only what the evidence implies

how did i reach this conclusion? is there another way to interpret the information?

identify assumptions that lead to your inferences

check inferences for consistency with each other

leads somewhere or has implications and consequences

what are the implications and consequences that follow from your reasoning

if someone accepted my position, what would be the implications? what am i implying?

does the writer show sensitivity to the implications and consequences?

consider all possible consequences

make sure to find negative as well as positive implications

if we fail to take this reasoning seriously, what are the implications?

egocentric thinking

it's true because i believe it (egocentrism)

it's true because we believe it (sociocentrism): assumption that the dominant beliefs within my group are true even though i have never questioned their basis.

it's true because i want to believe it (wish fulfillment): i believe in accounts of behavior that put me (or my group) in a positive rather than a negative light, even though i have not seriously considered the evidence for the more negative account. i believe what feels good, or supports my other beliefs, and does not require me to change my thinking or does not require me to admit i have been wrong

it's true because i have always believed it (self-validation): i have a strong desire to maintain beliefs that i have long held, even though i have not seriously considered the extent to which those beliefs are justified, given the evidence

it's true because it is in my interest to believe it (selfishness): i hold fast to beliefs that justify my getting more power, money or personal advantage, even though these beliefs are not grounded in sound reasoning or evidence.

universal intellectual standards

clarity

clarity is a gateway standard. if a statement is unclear we cannot determine whether it is accurate or relevant. in fact, we cannot tell anything about it because we don't yet know what it is saying

could you elaborate further on that point? could you express that point in another way? could you give me an illustration? could you give me an example?

accuracy

a statement can be clear but not accurate

is that really true? how could we check/verify/test that?

precision

a statement can be both clear and accurate but not precise, as in jack is small (we don't know if he's 5'4" or 2'1")

could you give me more details? could you be more specific?

relevance

a statement can be clear, accurate, and precise, but not relevant to the question at issue. for example, students often think that the amount of effort they put into a course should be used in raising their grade. often, however, effort does not measure the quality of student learning or grasp of required materials, so the effort is irrelevant to the appropriate grade.

how is that connected to the question? how does that help us with the issue?

depth

a statement can be clear, accurate, precise, and relevant, but superficial. for example "just say no" is clear, accurate, precise, and relevant. but it lacks depth because it treats an extremely comples issue, drug use among young people, superficially.

how does your answer address the complexities in this question? how are you taking into account the problems in the question. are you delaing with the most significant factors? what factors make this a difficult problem? what are some of hte difficulities we need to deal with?

breadth

a line of reasoning may be clear, accurate, precise, relevant, and deep, but lack breadth by only recognizing one side of a question

do we need to consider another point of view? is there another way to look at this question? what would this look like from a conservative standpoint? what would this look like from the point of view of.... do we need to look at this in other ways?

logic

when we think, we bring a variety of thoughts together into some order. when the combination of thoughts are mutually supporting and make sense in combination, the thinking is logical. when the combination is not mutually supporting, is contractory in some sense, or does not "make sense" the combination is "not logical".

does this really make sense? does that follow from what you said? how does that follow? before you impled this and now you are saying that, i don't see how both can be true. does htis all make sense togehter? does your first paragraph/point fit with your last? does what you say follow from the evidence?

significance

is this the most important problem to conisder?

is this the central idea to focus on?

which of these facts are most important?

fairness

do i have any vested interest in this issue?

am i sympathetically representing the viewpoints of others?

essential intellectual traits

humility (not arrogance)

consciousness of the limits of one's knowledge, including a sensitivity to circumstances in which one's native egocentrism is likely to function self-deceptively, sensitivity to bias, prejudice, and limitations of one's viewpoint.

depenss on recognizing that one should not claim more than one actually knows.

lack of intellecutal pretentiousness, boastfulness, or conceit, combined with insight into the logical foundations or lack of such foundations, of one's beliefs.

courage (not cowardice)

consciousness of the need to face and fairly address ideas, beliefs, or viewpoints toward which we hve strong negative emotions and to which we have not given a serious hearing.

recognition that ideas ideas considered dangerous or absurd are sometimes rationally justified (in whole or part) and that conclusions and beliefs inculcated in us are sometimes false or misleading.

determining for ourselves and not passively and uncritically accepting what we have learned.

empathy (not closemindedness)

consciousness of the need to imaginately put oneself in the place of others in order to genuinely understand them, which requires the consciousness of our egocentric tendency to identify truth with our immediate perceptions of long-standing thought or belief.

the ability to reconstruct accurately the viewpoints and reasoning of others and to reason from premises, assumptions, and ideas other than our own.

the willingness to remember occasions when we awere wrong despite an intense conviction that we were right, and with the ability to imagine our being similarly deceivedin a case at hand

autonomy (not conformity)

rational control of one's beliefs, values, and inferences. thinking for oneself, gaining command over one's thought processes

a commitment to analyzing and evlauating beliefs on the basis of reason and evidence.

integrity (not hypocrisy)

true to one's own thinking, consistent in intellectual standards, holding oneself to the same rigorous standards of evidence and proof to which one holds antagonists.

practicing what you advocate, honestly admit one's discrepancies and inconsistencies

perseverence (not laziness)

consciousness of the need to use intellectual insights and truths in spite of difficulties, obstacles, and frustrations. firm adherence to rational principles despite irrational opposition of others.

sense of the need to struggle with confusion and unsettled questions over an extended period of time to achieve deepr undersatnding or insight

confidence in reason (not distrust of reason and evidence)

confidence that in the long run one's own higher interests and those of humankind at large will be best served by reason, by encouraging people to come to their own conclusions thorugh developing their own rational faculties.

faith that people can learn to think for themselves, form rational viewpoints, draw reasonable conclusions, think coherently and logically, persuade each other by reason, and become reasonable persons.

fairmindedness (ersus unfairness)

conscious of the need to treat all viewpoints alike, without reference to one's own feelings or vested interests, or those of peers, community, or nation.

adherence to intellectual standards without reference to one's own advantage or advantage of one's group