A judge making a decision in court is not expected to base his judgements on his subjective preferences or on his personal opinions.
Judgement based on sound reasoning go beyond facts alone or mere opinion alone.
Facts are typically used in reasoning, but good reasoning does more than state facts so a judgement that is well-reasoned
is not described as simply "opinion"; we demand that it be based on relevant and sound reasoning.
Here's a somewhat different way to put this same point. There are three different kinds of question.
1. Those with one right answer (factual questions fall into this category).
eg What is the boiling point of water?
eg. How far is it from Doha to Dubai?
2 Those with as many answers as there are different human preferences.
eg. Which would you prefer, a vacation in the mountains or one at the seashore.
eg. Who was the best football player of all time?
These kinds of question are mostly a matter of personal opinion, though some facts and data may be used as support.
3. Questions with answers that should be well-reasoned, with factual support.
eg How can we solve the problem of poverty in the world today?
eg. Do animals have the same rights as humans?
This is a matter of reasoned judgement - so we can rationally evaluate answers to the question
using universal intellectual standards such as clarity, depth, consistency and so forth.
When questions that require reasoned answers are treated as matters of opinion, then bad thinking happens.
If students come to assume that everyone's "opinion" is of equal value, we can expect to hear views such as these:
That's just your point of view. We do things differently where I come from!
That was then. Things are different now...
I know what's right, and I don't have to justify it!
Whose standards? Why shouldn't we have our own standards?
Don't I have a right to my own opinion?
What if I don't believe in being "rational?"
Sloppy thinkers fail to see the difference between simply asserting a view as true, and offering solid reasons and evidence in support of it.
We want to teach students to recognize good reasoning, to value it and respect it.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Think for yourself instead.
Socrates was an annoying old man who would ask awkward questions like;
"What exactly do you mean by that? " or
" What do you mean by Truth?" or
"Does what you say now agree with what you said before?"
Questioning is at the heart of critical thinking so many exercises can be based on these six types of Socratic questions: [See link]
For students and teachers alike. Help to develop your thinking skills with exercises and discussion.
Burn your Books !
Think for yourself instead.
Blog Archive
Socratic Questioning
Socrates was an annoying old man who would ask awkward questions like;
"What exactly do you mean by that? " or
" What do you mean by Truth?" or
"Does what you say now agree with what you said before?"
Questioning is at the heart of critical thinking so many exercises can be based on these six types of Socratic questions: [See link]
Vital Links
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
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.
Thinking about Life
The most difficult questions are the ones that are most important to us:
Who am I?
Where do I belong?
How should I live my life?
Our religion answers these questions, but we still have to think about them clearly and critically.
As Socrates said,
"The Unexamined Life is not worth living."
'
Who am I?
Where do I belong?
How should I live my life?
Our religion answers these questions, but we still have to think about them clearly and critically.
As Socrates said,
"The Unexamined Life is not worth living."
'
Six Types of Question
1 Questions for clarification
2 Questions that probe assumptions
3 Questions that probe reasons and evidence
4 Questions about Viewpoints and Perspectives
5 Questions that probe implications and consequences
6 Questions about the question
2 Questions that probe assumptions
3 Questions that probe reasons and evidence
4 Questions about Viewpoints and Perspectives
5 Questions that probe implications and consequences
6 Questions about the question