| 1 |
Critical thinking is both a deliberate meta-cognitive (thinking about thinking) and cognitive (thinking) act whereby a person reflects on the quality of the reasoning process simultaneously while reasoning to a conclusion. The thinker has two equally important goals: (1) improving the way he reasons (2) coming to a correct solution. To accomplish these goals, the reasoner requires assisting structures: Element of thought (8): Purpose of Thinking (Why examine the issue?) Question at Issue (What is the issue at hand?) Point of View (What other perspectives need condiseration?) Evidence (What relevant data, experiences are needed for assesment?) Inferences (выводы) and Interpretations (What can be inferred from the evidence?) Concepts (What theories, definitions, axioms,laws,principles, or models underlies the issue?) Assumptions (допущения без доказательств) (What presuppositions, are being taken for granted?) Implications (подтекст) and Consequences (What might happen? What does happen?) |
| 2 |
Эти компоненты мышления побуждают задавать прицельные вопросы к задаче и качеству протекающего процесса мышления. Обучение анализу мышления требует практики в определении используемых структур. Континуум интеллектуальных стандартов для оценки качества мышления: Vague-Clear, Inaccurate-Accurate,Imprecise-Precise,Irrelevant-Relevant,Shallow-Deep,Narrow-Broad,Illogical-Logical,Trivial-Significant,Unfair-Fair |
| 3 |
Long-run objective of critical thinking practice. Critical thinkers routinely apply the intellectual standarts to the elements of reasoning in order to develop intellectial traits. The Standarts.Clarity Accuracy Precision Relevance Depth Breadth Logicalness Significance Fairness + Completness. MUST BE APPLIED TO The Elements. Purposes Questions Points of viwes Infromation Inferences Concepts Assumptions Implications AS WE LEARN TO DEVELOP Intellectual traits. I Humility I Autonomy I Integrity I Courage I Perseverance Confidence in Reason I Empathy Fairmindedness |
| 4 |
Форма высказывания. Вопросительная 0.Какова вероятность, что вопрос проективный? 1.Есть ли ловушка в формулировке («сужение выбора», «а-ля давно сосал?») 2.Кто интересуется? 3.Мотивы интереса? 4.Куда это информация пойдёт дальше? Утвердительная/Отрицательная 1.Описание или оценка? 2.(Описание) Истинно/ложно/правдоподобно? 3.(Оценка) К какой этической системе относится эта позиция? 4.Какую выгоду из этого можно извлечь? |
| 5 |
Critical thinking enables us to ensure that we have good reasons to believe or do that which people attempt to persuade us to do or to believe. Attempts to persuade may be argumentative or non-argumentative. Most of the latter count as rhetoric, which is any attempt to persuade that does not attempt to give good reasons for the belief, desire or action in question, but attempts to motivate that belief, desire or action solely through the power of the words used. The former, on the other hand, persuade us by giving reasons for us to accept a claim or take the action suggested. |
| 6 |
Not all arguments are good arguments. Good arguments are those that provide us with good reasons to act or to accept a claim.An argument consists of a set of propositions. The proposition expressed by a statement is its factual content, and should as far as possible be distinguished from the rhetorical force of the sentence. Propositions may implicated by an utterance without being explicitly stated: a proposition is implicated by an utterance when it would reasonably be taken to have been intended.Among the propositions that constitute an argument, one is its conclusion – the proposition argued for – and the rest are its premises – the reasons given to accept the conclusion. |
| 7 |
Once we have determined that a text or a speech contains an argument, we must work out which sentence is intended to express the argument’s conclusion and which are intended to express its premises. Words that serve as conclusion indicators and premise indicators offer a helpful (but not foolproof ) guide to doing so successfully. We should also pay close attention to the context of the text or speech and be careful to exclude any extraneous material from our argument reconstruction |
| 8 |
Arguments must be distinguished sharply from explanations: arguments attempt to provide reasons for believing a proposition whose truth is not assumed already to be accepted; explanations assume a certain proposition is already accepted as fact, and attempt to specify the cause. |
| 9 |
Quantifying sentences can also cause problems for the interpretation of arguments when they are used to express generalisations inaccurately. There are two types of generalisation: hard and soft. Hard generalisations are true only if they are true without exception. To avoid misinterpretation they should be expressed in sentences that use quantifiers such as all, every, no, none, always, never. Soft generalisations are only true of the majority of the class that is the subject of the generalisation. They should be expressed in sentences that use quantifiers such as most, almost all, in most cases, generally, typically, usually. |
| 10 |
Rhetorical ploys seek to persuade by non-argumentative means. Insofar as we aim to be rational, and to appeal to the rationality of others, we should avoid using rhetorical ploys and fallacies in our own attempts to persuade and should take care not to be persuaded by others’ rhetorical attempts to persuade us to do and believe things. The best way of doing so is to familiarise ourselves with various common rhetorical ploys. |
| 11 |
Many rhetorical ploys are appeals to specific feelings or desires; these include the appeals to novelty, popularity, compassion, pity, guilt, fear, cuteness, sexiness, hipness, coolness, wealth, power, ridicule and many others. Обычно позиция или некая вещь представляются в ассоциации с каким-либо объектом определенного чувства или желания, чтобы чувство или желание было направлено на них. |
| 12 |
The direct attack involves the bold assertion of a position or command; the hard sell is the direct attack repeated. The use of buzzwords is the use of words with high emotive or otherwise rhetorical charge to manipulate the passions of an audience. Scare quotes are used mockingly to make an opponent’s position or other phenomenon look ridiculous or dubious.Trading on an equivocation occurs when someone knowingly makes an ambiguous or vague statement that may be true when interpreted in a certain way, but when interpreted in another way may be false, but also more favourable to the position being advanced or to the product being advertised. Smokescreen occurs when one talks about some highly controversial, compelling or otherwise arresting issue or object, in an effort to divert the audience momentarily from the issue under discussion. A successful smokescreen causes the audience to overlook the fact that the issue has not been addressed. |
Комментарии