Critical Thinking: February 2007

Themes from the Course

Each level of North Star broaches topics that broaden our students' experience and demand of them a willingness to think about things that may make them feel uncomfortable if they are not discussed at home or, generally speaking, in their culture.

Exercises based on themes from each level of North Star are available
in the Student Learning Centre and eventually will be stored on the University server for general access.

Critical Thinking Slideshow

This deals with the Six Types of Question, with exercises, and is available here on Scibd:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2871706/CRITICAL-THINKING

References

R. W. Paul, Critical Thinking (Santa Rosa, Calif.: Foundation for Critical Thinking, 1992

Inference

Inferences are evidence-based guesses. They are the conclusions a reader draws about what is left unsaid based on what is actually said. Inferences we draw while reading are much like inferences drawn in everyday life... If your friend says she does not want to talk, you might infer that she has a problem. If a letter makes your friend look depressed, you infer that the letter contains bad news. Drawing inferences while you read requires exactly the same willingness to look at the evidence and come to a conclusion that has not been expressed in words. See Link for exercises

Types of Argument

Many people distinguish between two basic kinds of argument: inductive and deductive. Induction is usually described as moving from the specific to the general, while deduction begins with the general and ends with the specific; arguments based on experience or observation are best expressed inductively, while arguments based on laws, rules, or other widely accepted principles are best expressed deductively. Consider the following example:

Adham: I've noticed previously that every time I kick a ball up, it comes back down, so I guess this next time when I kick it up, it will come back down, too.

Rizik: That's Newton's Law. Everything that goes up must come down. And so, if you kick the ball up, it must come down.

Adham is using inductive reasoning, arguing from observation, while Rizik is using deductive reasoning, arguing from the law of gravity. Rizik's argument is clearly from the general (the law of gravity) to the specific (this kick); Adham's argument may be less obviously from the specific (each individual instance in which he has observed balls being kicked up and coming back down) to the general (the prediction that a similar event will result in a similar outcome in the future) because he has stated it in terms only of the next similar event--the next time he kicks the ball.

Critical Thinking

Themes from the Course

Critical Thinking Slideshow

References

Burn your Books !

Blog Archive

Socratic Questioning

Vital Links

Inference

Exercises

Types of Argument

Thinking about Life

Six Types of Question