Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 37

Thinking critically skills

• Do we believe all we see or hear?


• What do we do when we try to find out
whether something is true or not?
• How do we argue and persuade others?
• How much information is required?
• What level of doubt is acceptable under
the circumstances?
Assess

• Identify when we need more


information
• Select the right type and level of
information
Apply critical thinking to:

• What you hear, see and do


• Literature
• Your interpretation of situations
• What you write or say to others
The argument
• Overall argument: your position
• Contributing arguments: reasons
• Line of reasoning: set of reasons
structured to support your overall
argument
The line of reasoning
• presents your reasons and evidence in order
to make it clear how to interpret your
argument.
• Should lead forward with a clear direction,
with one piece of evidence leading to the
next.
• Helps avoid hopping back and forth randomly
• Helps avoid going in circles
The line of reasoning helps you
• when selecting the salient points: the points
relevant to the argument
• Stick to your substantive point: the core of
the argument
• Avoid marginal issues
• Avoid tautologies: unnecessary repetitions in
different words
Scepticism
• Brings in elements of polite doubt
• Holds open the possibility that the
information you have might be flawed or
incomplete
• Constructive doubt brings
in other possibilites
or perspectives
Rational thought:
Know your own reasons

• What are the reasons for


what we believe and do?
• Evaluate your own beliefs
and actions
• Are you able to present to others your
reasons for your beliefs and actions?
Critical analysis of others
• Identify their position, reasons and conclusions
• Analyse how they select and combine reasons to make
a line of reasoning
• Assess whether their reasons support their conclusion
• Assess whether their reasons are based on good
evidence
• How do they know…?
• Why do they believe…?
• Identify positive and negative aspects
• Is there another way of seeing this?
• There is always another angle…
The overall argument –
(The main message)
Example:
Begging should be prohibited in Norway

Contributing arguments:
• Beggars are a nuisance to businesses and
ordinary people
• Beggars are often involved in crime
• They make our streets look filthy
• Crime syndicates are behind, organising the
traficking
Is it an argument?
1. Position: point of view / main message that you want
others to accept
2. Reasons / contributing arguments / propositions
support the conclusion
3. Line of reasoning: set of reasons in logical order
leading to a conclusion
4. Conclusion: the position you want others to accept
5. Persuasion: The argument should convince your
audience
6. Signal words or phrases helps your audience follow
the direction of argument
Nonarguments
Descriptions

• Descriptions describe how something is done


or what something is.
• In academic writing: Factual, accurate, no
value judgment, no reasoning.
• Does not persuade to a point of view.
Non-arguments
Explanations
• May include statements and reasons, leading
to a conclusion.
• However: explanations do not try to persuade
to a point of view.
• Account for why or how something occurs
• Draw out the meaning of a theory or
argument or message
Non-arguments
Summaries

• Reduced versions of longer messages


or texts
• Repeats key points
• Reminds you of what has been said
Clarify
Make your position clear:
• In the introduction
• In the final sentences
• The conclusion
• The overall line of reasoning
• An overall summary of the argument
Internal consistency
Clear position for
• Consistent argument: all parts of the line of
reasoning contribute to the conclusion.
• Inconsistencies make your line of reasoning
hard to follow, and weaken persuasion.
Example:
Apples are good for your teeth. Acid corrodes.
There is acid in apples, so they are bad for teeth.
Including opposing arguments
A good line of reasoning will include alternative
points of view because you show that you have
considered other views. This is managed by:
• The line of reasoning makes your main
message clear
• Counterarguments introduced by key words:
alternatively…, it might be argued…
• Rebut by key words: however, nonetheless, on
the other hand
Logical order
• Group similar points together
• Present reasons that support your argument
first, to establish a good case
• Consider opposing reasons after you have
established your own case
Assumption
• Something taken for granted in the
presentation of an argument. You ask your
audience to accept as true rather than spend
time and energy on arguing. E.g. «Given
that..»
• You must assess what is a reasonable
assumption and what is not
• Assess this based on the context. Who is your
audience?
Flaws
• Assuming causal link and jump to conclusion.
«I saw Jon and Sarah sitting on a bench talking together
yesterday evening. They must therefore have had sex last night!»
• False analogy – comparison e.g. «the heart functions as
a pump». «The defendant was like a pressure cooker».
An analogy is false if the two items are not
comparable. E.g. Cloning of human cells is like creating
Frankenstein monsters
• Ad hominem – personal attacks.
• Ignoring the main opposing reasons
• Tautologies e.g. the car reversed backwards
• Waffle
Proof – the sources
Primary sources:
• The raw material or material originating from
the time and place of the event
• The original source: document, article, report,
book, photo, recording, author/researcher
Secondary sources
• Material produced at a later stage
about the event
• Hearsay
• Rumours
• Articles telling you about what others have
said e.g.
Daily mail «informing» the public about what the
Climate Research Institute or the IPCC has said
References
Good references enable you to check whether:
• The source material actually exists
• The source material has been presented in a
correct and accurate way
• The source contains what the author has
claimed
• The source contains additional information of
interest
Literature search
• Find out what has been written
• Collate list of sources potentially relevant
• Go down the list, selecting sources for initial
investigation for relevance
• Browse selected items to find the most useful
sources
• Select the most relevant sources
• Browse the abstracts –
containing summaries
of the main arguments and findings
Critical questions
1. How do we know this is true?
2. How reliable is the source?
3. Are the examples given really representative?
4. Does this match what I already know?
5. Does this contradict other evidence?
6. What motive might the author have for saying this?
7. What are we not being told?
8. Other explanations possible?
9. Do the reasons support the conclusion?
10. Is the line of reasoning well supported by evidence?
Reputable sources
• From authorities
• High credibility. Source can be believed with
high degree of certainty
• Source likely to give accurate information
• Based on research, first hand knowledge
• Recognised in the field or academic discipline
• Scientific Journal peer reviewed articles
Critical questions
• Recommended by a source you trust?
• A clear line of reasoning with supporting
evidence?
• Includes detailed list of references?
• Easy to find and check these references?
• Primary source?
• Does it use reputable sources or just popular
press and secondary sources?
Authenticity and validity
• Authentic: of undisputed origin. It can be
proved that it is what it claims to be

• Valid: the requirements agreed, or the


conventions are followed.
E.g. the correct research methods are followed.
Currency and reliability
Currency: still relevant in the present:
• Recently published
• Recently updated
• Seminal work – original and far-reaching
and influencing for a long time

Reliability – can be trusted


• Trustworthy source
• Recognised expert
• Author with no personal, vested interests in the outcome
• A reputable source

Replicability
• The results of the experiment have been re-tested by others.
(Common in natural science)
Select
• Sources regarded as leading authorities
• Refer to other sources in brief
• Your main source material should be those that
contribute most to your
own line of reasoning
• One or two seminal works
• Show that you are able to
discriminate between the most
relevant sources and more marginal sources
• Currency
Analytical writing
• Looks at the evidence given in detail, weighing the relative strengths and
weaknesses of the evidence
• Pointing these out
• Assess clarity, validity, reliability, currency, authenticity and possible flaws
• Select the most important points, avoiding too much detail, but balancing with
enough evidence
• Avoid tautologies, waffle and flaws
• Discuss controversial points
• Present logically – your own arguments first to make a case
• Group similar points
• Use signposts –special words -to signal that the point is a main message, a
reason, an explanation, a description, a summary, a counteargument, a
rebuttal
• Use definitions when there is more than one interpreation
Background information
• Brief overview giving a context. Often 10% of
the thesis.
• Identify two or three books, theories,
perpectives, previous research articles
providing the most relevant
bakground for your research
• How the pieces of research
are linked
Signal words
• Overall argument and Line of reasoning: first, to begin,
first and foremost, Initially, I will start
• Indicate new information: in addition, besides,
furthermore, moreover
• Adding similar reasons: similarly, likewise, equally, in
the same way
• Alternative argument: alternatively, it might be argued
that..
• Contradicting: weigh up evidence for both sides
contrasting all the evidence.:
• although, conversely, by contrast, on the other hand, in
fact…
Evaluation of essay
1. Writer’s position clear
2. The reasons for the writer’s position is clear
3. The writer’s position is clear and based on
evidence
4. Reasons are given logical as in line of reasoning
5. Argument well structured and easy to follow
6. Counterarguments discussed
7. Reasons are linked to each other and lead to the
conclusion
8. All texts are relevant to the assignment
9. The main reasons and key points stand out
Evaluation of critical writing
1. Good use of other’s research and good sources for
supporting evidence and strenghten argument?
2. Make a reasoned evaluation of opposing views?
3. References provided?
4. When introducing other people’s ideas, are these
appropriately referenced?
5. List of references at the end?
6. Has non-essential, descriptive writings been removed?
7. Flaws removed?
8. Consistent line of reasoning?
9. Are the writers’ beliefs distorting the argument?
10. Good, easy to understand and engaging writing?
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/features/narrative-
trust/421045.article
Main source:
• Cottrell, S. (2005) Critical thinking skills,
Palgrave study guides
Good luck!

Enjoy writing!