Escuela de Idiomas Modernos

Departamento de Inglés
INGLÉS IV

M03 - Critical Thinking – Essentials

 What is Critical Thinking?
‗Critical thinking‘ is a descriptive phrase used widely both within Singapore and,
increasingly, in discussions of education throughout the world. Many educators at the tertiary
level would feel that helping students to develop and strengthen the capacity to think critically is
an important objective of their pedagogy, and yet would differ about the precise characterization
of what they try to inculcate. Most would agree, however, that critical thinking attempts to
prevent the unquestioning adoption of ideas without careful consideration. They would also agree
that its goal is critical evaluation, paying attention to both the positive and the negative aspects of
what is being evaluated.
To clarify the concept of critical thinking further, it might be useful to consider examples
of activities that crucially call for the exercise of critical thinking:
 A reviewer critically evaluating a research article submitted to a journal, to make a
recommendation on its publication.
 A mathematician checking the validity of a proposed proof for a theorem.
 A law professor critically evaluating the moral codes, political ideologies and group
interests underlying the laws of a country.
 A Department committee evaluating the quality of the teaching, research, and service of a
faculty member to make a recommendation on promotion and tenure.
 A museum curator evaluating the quality of a painting.
 The members of a jury scrutinizing the evidence and argumentation presented by the
lawyers to arrive at a verdict on the guilt of the accused.
 The members of a cabinet debating the desirability of a proposed policy.
 The director of a corporation considering an application for funding a research project.
 A social activist judging how to make a strategic intervention that will benefit society.
 A person attempting to understand how he or she is privileged or disadvantaged by social
institutions.
 An individual attempting to see the world in which she or he lives through the eyes of
others with radically different epistemological assumptions.
 A farmer making an informed decision on the use of genetically modified seeds.
 A reader evaluating the credibility of a newspaper report.
 A citizen making a decision on who to vote for.

1
 Escuela de Idiomas Modernos
Departamento de Inglés
INGLÉS IV

As can be seen from such examples, critical thinking refers to a collection of overlapping
mental activities of intuiting, clarifying, reflecting, connecting, inferring, judging, and so on. It
brings these activities together to evaluate the credibility, quality, impact, significance, usefulness
or desirability of an entity on the basis of an implicit or explicit value system and a set of criteria
of evaluation. The entity being evaluated can be a knowledge claim, a research article, a work of
art, a funding proposal, a social practice, an institution, a person, and so on, with the factors
relevant for the evaluation varying accordingly.
Needless to say, there is considerable overlap between the thinking processes involved in
creating something and evaluating something. In the context of academic inquiry, for instance,
both the writer of a scientific article and its reviewer need to pay attention to matters of
methodology, reasoning, and competing alternatives, drawing upon both creative and critical
faculties. It is nevertheless useful to make a distinction between the two modes of thinking in
terms of the shifts of emphasis stemming from their respective functions: the creator of research
finds worthwhile problems or questions and proposes solutions or answers, the critic evaluates
the answers.
What are the kinds of critical thinking abilities that are valuable for educated individuals?
As a first approximation, one may identify the following broad categories, no doubt with
considerable overlap:
 Discipline specific critical thinking, as manifested in the ability to evaluate the credibility
(and significance) of the research findings/claims of research articles/papers and books in the area
of one‘s specialization (e.g., a biology major critically evaluating a biology paper in Nature; a
cultural studies major critically evaluating Thomas Kuhn‘s contribution to our understanding of
the evolution of knowledge.) Depending upon the area of academic inquiry, this may subsume
thinking critically about research claims, frameworks, ideas, social and institutional practices,
value systems, implicit assumptions and ideologies, and so on.
 General purpose critical thinking, which involves four related domains, namely:
 The academic domain: the ability to evaluate the credibility and significance of the
claims in articles and books written for educated lay readers (e.g., a history major critically
evaluating an article in Economist or New Scientist).
 The professional domain: the ability to evaluate options in one‘s professional life
(e.g., the director of a company evaluating the proposal for a company policy).
 The public domain: the ability to evaluate ideas and policies, formulate informed
opinions and participate in public matters as responsible citizens (e.g., an engineer thinking
through the system of capital punishment).
 The private domain: the ability to evaluate options in one‘s private life (e.g., a
patient making an informed decision on whether to undergo surgery.)

2
 Escuela de Idiomas Modernos
Departamento de Inglés
INGLÉS IV

An articulation of the value system and criteria that underlie the different types of critical
thinking, the kinds of mental activities they draw upon, and the kinds of grounds they are based
on, can inform pedagogical choices and practices, and result in useful ideas for:
 the design of new undergraduate modules on discipline specific and/or general purpose
critical thinking, and
 the incorporation of critical thinking into existing content modules and research
methodology modules.

 Ingredients of Critical Thinking

Assuming that the term critical thinking refers to a collection of mental processes that go
into the critical evaluation of something, we may identify the following types of critical thinking
on the basis of what is being evaluated. For instance, we may wish to evaluate:
A. the truth or credibility of a statement,
B. the value or desirability of an action, practice, person, or object,
C. the effectiveness and efficiency of a policy, system, design, or object in fulfilling its
purpose, or
D. the beauty of a creation.
Critical thinking in ‗pure research‘ (i.e., curiosity driven research aimed at understanding)
is of type A, which requires us to think critically about knowledge claims (statements which are
alleged to be true.) Critical thinking in ‗applied research‘ (i.e., usefulness driven research aimed
at improving ourselves or the world around us) engages in critical thinking of types A-C. Critical
thinking in the domain of aesthetics (literature, music, dance, painting, etc.) primarily involves
type D critical thinking, but it may also involve types A and B, especially in literature. The
evaluation of an Honours Thesis calls for A, while the evaluation of the teaching of a faculty
member involves A- C, and that of play involves A, B and D.
From the point of a view of the reader of a textbook, journal paper, or PhD thesis, critical
thinking of type A boils down to the consideration of the following questions:
 What is/are the central claim(s) of the author?
 What is the justification that the author provides in support of the claim(s)?
 How sound is the justification?
 On the basis of the author‘s justification and other relevant considerations that the author
may not have mentioned, how credible is/are the claim(s)?

3
 Escuela de Idiomas Modernos
Departamento de Inglés
INGLÉS IV

Justification may be viewed as the demonstration that the claim in question follows as the
conclusion from the grounds acceptable to the writer (the one who defends the claim) and the
reader (the one who questions the claim). In some cases, the writer can justify a claim by pointing
to the grounds as evidence; in other cases, justification calls for a chain of reasoning that connects
the grounds to the conclusion. Thus, if you asked me to justify my belief that I have five fingers
on my hand, I can simply show you my hand, and say ―See for yourself.‖ Pointing to the relevant
evidence is sufficient in this case. However, if you asked me to justify my belief that my great
great grandmother (whose photographs I have not seen) had five fingers, I will have to say
something like the following:

You and I agree that:

i. Most human beings have ten fingers;
ii. great great grandmothers of human beings are human beings; and
iii. I am a human being.
From (ii) and (iii), it follows that my great great grandmother was a human being. From
this result and (i), it is reasonable to conclude that it is most likely that my great great
grandmother had five fingers.
Statements (i)-(iii) constitute the grounds for justifying my belief. Given these mutually
agreed upon premises, we can show that claim follows as a rational conclusion from the grounds.
On the basis of the above examples, we may say that a justification consists of grounds
and a conclusion based on the grounds, with reasoning to connect the two when necessary.
Certain kinds of justification also presuppose a shared value system and criteria. Consider the
following arguments:
 Gret Slibins is excellent at organizing his materials and communicating his ideas clearly
and interestingly, making even the most difficult concepts easy for students to understand.
Therefore he is an excellent teacher.
 Bret Glibins is excellent at designing tasks that help students learn on their own and
engage in critical thinking and inquiry. Therefore he is an excellent teacher.
Whether or not we accept the conclusions in these examples depends on our value system
with respect to teaching excellence, and the criteria for evaluating teaching excellence derived
from these values. If organizing and communicating ideas clearly and interestingly are the
primary criteria for teaching excellence, then the conclusion that Gret Slibins is an excellent
teacher is justified. But if helping students to acquire higher order thinking abilities is the mark of
an excellent teacher, then this conclusion is not justified. In contrast, under this criterion, the
conclusion that Bret Glibins is an excellent teacher is justified.

4
 Escuela de Idiomas Modernos
Departamento de Inglés
INGLÉS IV

Similar remarks apply to reasoning intended to support conclusions such as the following:
 Euthanasia is moral.
 Loss of chastity before marriage is immoral.
 Matrix is a better movie than An English Patient.
Criteria of evaluation are not restricted to decisions on excellence, morality, etc. They are
also relevant to decisions about credibility (truth). The criteria for the evaluation of credibility in
all forms of rational inquiry include absence of logical contradictions. In evidence-based inquiry
(whether scientific or humanistic), the criteria also include fit with experience. Scientific inquiry
includes additional criteria like correctness of predictions, generality, and simplicity. It is only in
the context of such criteria that we can judge the soundness of an argument.
Given the above remarks, the structure of justification can be outlined as follows:

Value system and criteria of evaluation

Given the above model of justification, we may say that the critical evaluation of the
soundness of justification of knowledge claims includes the evaluation of:
 the acceptability of the grounds,
 the legitimacy of the reasoning, and
 the appropriateness of the value system and criteria of evaluation.

 The Mindset of Critical Thinking

 Human Weaknesses
As human beings, most of us tend to exhibit five characteristic weaknesses in the
formation and retention of our beliefs, namely:
 Gullibility: uncritical readiness to believe what others (newspaper, TV, internet) tell us.
5
 Escuela de Idiomas Modernos
Departamento de Inglés
INGLÉS IV

 Conformity: uncritically believing what others in our group (our family, our community)
believe.
 Trust in authority: uncritical readiness to believe what an ‗authority‘ (teacher, textbook,
government) tells us.
 Emotional clouding: uncritical readiness to believe what we wish to believe and what we
are told by the people we like, while disbelieving what we do not wish to believe and what we are
told by people we dislike.
 Resistance to change: uncritical unwillingness to change our beliefs and actions,
especially in the case of beliefs and actions that we are used to or are rewarded for.
As an antidote to these weaknesses, critical thinking demands that we systematically
doubt and question what we believe, what we do, and what we are told to believe and do. It
requires us to think for ourselves and subscribe to beliefs and actions only after careful
consideration. When faced with choice of accepting a personal responsibility for our beliefs and
actions, there are at least three positions that are open to us:
A. It is good to acquire the ability to think critically. There is nothing that can be exempted from
doubting and questioning. We should not accept anything without careful consideration.
B. It is good to acquire the ability to think critically, but only in some domains. There are certain
things that the elders tell us which should not be doubted or questioned. We should accept them
uncritically on unconditional trust.
C. There is no need to think critically. Our heart will tell us what we should believe and what we
should do. We should trust our heart.
Which of these paths we take is a personal choice that each of us has to make. Should we
think for ourselves, or surrender our thinking capacity to those around us, tradition, antiquity,
authority, our emotions, and habits? If we choose the former, we take path A.

 Attitudes towards knowledge, learning and teaching

In the domain of knowledge, thinking for ourselves calls for a commitment to the
following principles on the part of students and teachers:
1. Attitude towards knowledge:
a. All humans, including me, are fallible. What we currently take to be knowledge may turn out to
be false.
b. It is therefore important to check what we believe to be true, and keep modifying our beliefs as
required by experience and reasoning.

6
 Escuela de Idiomas Modernos
Departamento de Inglés
INGLÉS IV

2. The student’s attitude towards learning:

a. Teachers and textbook writers are human, and therefore what they present as knowledge may turn
out to be false or not justified.
b. It is therefore important for me as a student to check what they present as knowledge, and accept
them only if I am satisfied that it is justified by experience and reasoning.
c. To do this, I need to ask for their justification for the conclusions they present as knowledge.
3. The teacher’s attitude towards teaching:
a. As a teacher, I will not tell you what to believe and what to do. I leave it to you to decide for
yourself.
b. But I can help you acquire the capacity to decide for yourself what to believe and what to do.
c. I can also help you understand the ‗received knowledge‘ – what the current academic community
currently takes to be knowledge – and the positions that are currently controversial.
d. My goal as a teacher is to help you become independent of me as quickly as possible. For this, I
need to help you become independent learners and independent inquirers.
In educational institutions that aim at helping students to think for themselves, teachers
and students need to be committed to (1)-(3).

 The Commitment to Collaborative Rational Inquiry

If we accept both (A) and (1)-(3), the next step is to undertake a collaborative search for
rational knowledge and rational-moral action. This calls for a commitment to a contract with
fellow members of the human species, crossing the barriers of self-interest as well as religious,
national, ethnic, and communal loyalties.
4. As fallible, rational, and moral human beings, we are committed to:
a. the search for rationally justified knowledge, and action that is rationally and morally justified;
b. settle disagreements in our views (on the truth of propositions and the moral goodness of actions)
on the basis of grounds and/or criteria that we agree on, combined with reasoning;
c. provisionally treat either as undecided or as equally legitimate those views that we disagree on
but have not been able to settle as in (4b);
d. resort to (4c) only as the last option;
e. accept a statement as true or reject it as false only on the basis of compelling reasons; and
f. change our views if and only if there are compelling reasons.

7
 Escuela de Idiomas Modernos
Departamento de Inglés
INGLÉS IV

The international academic community of the twenty-first century has already signed this
contract. It now remains for the world‘s nations, religions and other groups to sign a similar
contract in the domains of religious beliefs and practices, moral codes, and legal systems.

 Auto-critical thinking
It is important to distinguish the concept of critical thinking (evaluating the merit of
something) from the concept of being critical of (seeing the weaknesses of) something. It is easy
to be critical of the ideas or people that one is negatively disposed to, but much harder to be
critical of the ideas or people that one is largely positive about. To use an analogy, it is easy to
see the weaknesses of someone else‘s parents, but much harder to see the weaknesses of one‘s
own parents.
The true test of critical thinking is the ability to see the strengths of the people and ideas
that one is negatively disposed to, and the weaknesses of the people and ideas that one is
positively disposed to, including oneself. As a self-test, try the following:
1. List three people or their ideas, approaches, or theories which have had a significant influence in
shaping your current thinking or research.
2. Identify at least two important components in each of the above that you reject as false,
undesirable, or unjustified.
3. State your reasons for your rejection.
4. Identify at least two important beliefs, ideas or claims that you accepted as true, desirable or
justified in the past, but now reject as false, undesirable, or unjustified.
5. State your reasons for your rejection.
If you are able to come up with adequate responses to (2)-(5), you can congratulate
yourself as a critical thinker. If not, it would be reasonable to conclude that you have more ahead
of you on the way to becoming a critical thinker.

8
 Escuela de Idiomas Modernos
Departamento de Inglés
INGLÉS IV

Critical Thinking: Concepts

 Critical thinking...the awakening of the intellect to the study of itself.

Critical thinking is a rich concept that has been developing throughout the past 2500
years. The term "critical thinking" has its roots in the mid-late 20th century. We offer here
overlapping definitions, together which form a substantive, transdisciplinary conception of
critical thinking.
 Critical Thinking as Defined by the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking, 1987.
A statement by Michael Scriven & Richard Paul for the presented at the 8th Annual International
Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform, Summer 1987.
Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully
conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from,
or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to
belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend
subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence,
good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.
It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all
reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue; assumptions; concepts; empirical grounding;
reasoning leading to conclusions; implications and consequences; objections from alternative
viewpoints; and frame of reference. Critical thinking — in being responsive to variable subject
matter, issues, and purposes — is incorporated in a family of interwoven modes of thinking,
among them: scientific thinking, mathematical thinking, historical thinking, anthropological
thinking, economic thinking, moral thinking, and philosophical thinking.
Critical thinking can be seen as having two components: 1) a set of information and belief
generating and processing skills, and 2) the habit, based on intellectual commitment, of using
those skills to guide behavior. It is thus to be contrasted with: 1) the mere acquisition and
retention of information alone, because it involves a particular way in which information is
sought and treated; 2) the mere possession of a set of skills, because it involves the continual use
of them; and 3) the mere use of those skills ("as an exercise") without acceptance of their results.
Critical thinking varies according to the motivation underlying it. When grounded in
selfish motives, it is often manifested in the skillful manipulation of ideas in service of one‘s
own, or one's groups‘, vested interest. As such it is typically intellectually flawed, however
pragmatically successful it might be. When grounded in fairmindedness and intellectual integrity,
it is typically of a higher order intellectually, though subject to the charge of "idealism" by those
habituated to its selfish use.

9
 Escuela de Idiomas Modernos
Departamento de Inglés
INGLÉS IV

Critical thinking of any kind is never universal in any individual; everyone is subject to
episodes of undisciplined or irrational thought. Its quality is therefore typically a matter of degree
and dependent on, among other things, the quality and depth of experience in a given domain of
thinking or with respect to a particular class of questions. No one is a critical thinker through-
and-through, but only to such-and-such a degree, with such-and-such insights and blind spots,
subject to such-and-such tendencies towards self-delusion. For this reason, the development of
critical thinking skills and dispositions is a life-long endeavor.

 Another Brief Conceptualization of Critical Thinking (by Linda Elder, 2007)

Critical thinking is self-guided, self-disciplined thinking which attempts to reason at the
highest level of quality in a fair-minded way. People who think critically consistently attempt to
live rationally, reasonably, empathically. They are keenly aware of the inherently flawed nature
of human thinking when left unchecked. They strive to diminish the power of their egocentric
and sociocentric tendencies. They use the intellectual tools that critical thinking offers – concepts
and principles that enable them to analyze, assess, and improve thinking. They work diligently to
develop the intellectual virtues of intellectual integrity, intellectual humility, intellectual civility,
intellectual empathy, intellectual sense of justice and confidence in reason. They realize that no
matter how skilled they are as thinkers, they can always improve their reasoning abilities and
they will at times fall prey to mistakes in reasoning, human irrationality, prejudices, biases,
distortions, uncritically accepted social rules and taboos, self-interest, and vested interest. They
strive to improve the world in whatever ways they can and contribute to a more rational, civilized
society. At the same time, they recognize the complexities often inherent in doing so. They
avoid thinking simplistically about complicated issues and strive to appropriately consider the
rights and needs of relevant others. They recognize the complexities in developing as thinkers,
and commit themselves to life-long practice toward self-improvement. They embody the
Socratic principle: The unexamined life is not worth living, because they realize that many
unexamined lives together result in an uncritical, unjust, dangerous world.

 Why Critical Thinking? (Taken from Richard Paul and Linda Elder, The Miniature Guide to
Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools, Foundation for Critical Thinking Press, 2008).
 The Problem
Everyone thinks; it is our nature to do so. But much of our thinking, left to itself, is
biased, distorted, partial, uninformed or down-right prejudiced. Yet the quality of our life and that
of what we produce, make, or build depends precisely on the quality of our thought. Shoddy
thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Excellence in thought, however, must be
systematically cultivated.

10
 Escuela de Idiomas Modernos
Departamento de Inglés
INGLÉS IV

 A Definition
Critical thinking is that mode of thinking - about any subject, content, or problem - in
which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the
structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them.
 The Result
A well cultivated critical thinker: raises vital questions and problems, formulating them
clearly and precisely; gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret
it effectively comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant
criteria and standards; thinks openmindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing
and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and
communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems.

Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-

corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful
command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem solving abilities and a
commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.

 Critical Thinking Defined by Edward Glaser (Edward M. Glaser, An Experiment in the

Development of Critical Thinking, Teacher‘s College, Columbia University, 1941).
In a seminal study on critical thinking and education in 1941, Edward Glaser defines
critical thinking as follows ―The ability to think critically, as conceived in this volume, involves
three things: ( 1 ) an attitude of being disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and
subjects that come within the range of one's experiences, (2) knowledge of the methods of logical
inquiry and reasoning, and (3) some skill in applying those methods. Critical thinking calls for a
persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the evidence
that supports it and the further conclusions to which it tends. It also generally requires ability to
recognize problems, to find workable means for meeting those problems, to gather and marshal
pertinent information, to recognize unstated assumptions and values, to comprehend and use
language with accuracy, clarity, and discrimination, to interpret data, to appraise evidence and
evaluate arguments, to recognize the existence (or non-existence) of logical relationships between
propositions, to draw warranted conclusions and generalizations, to put to test the conclusions
and generalizations at which one arrives, to reconstruct one's patterns of beliefs on the basis of
wider experience, and to render accurate judgments about specific things and qualities in
everyday life.

11
 Escuela de Idiomas Modernos
Departamento de Inglés
INGLÉS IV

Sources:
Mohanan, K. P. (2003). What is critical thinking? Retrieved from
http://www.cdtl.nus.edu.sg/ctp/critical.htm
Mohanan, K. P. (2003). Ingredients of critical thinking. Retrieved from
http://www.cdtl.nus.edu.sg/ctp/ingredient.htm
Mohanan, K. P. (2003). The mindset of critical thinking. Retrieved from
http://www.cdtl.nus.edu.sg/ctp/mindset.htm
Foundation for Critical Thinking. 2013. Defining critical Thinking. Retrieved from
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766

Exercises
 Evaluating arguments:
Critically evaluate the arguments in the following passages. Identify the crucial flaw(s), if
any.
Passage 1
Even a cursory glance of the history of mathematics reveals a huge asymmetry between
men and women in the field. When compared to men, the number of women who have had an
impact on the development of ideas in mathematics is negligible. Hence, we must conclude that
when compared to men, women have a low aptitude for mathematics. To avoid wasting our
limited resources, therefore, it would be wise to give priority to male applicants in our selection
for majors in mathematics, computer science, physics, and engineering.
Passage 2
At the core of inquiry in the physical sciences is the search for laws: Galileo‘s laws,
Kepler‘s laws, Newton‘s laws, Ohm‘s law, Boyle‘s law, Maxwell‘s laws, and so on. Now, the
purpose of instituting laws is to prevent the occurrence of what law makers regard as undesirable.
We have traffic laws to prevent actions that lead to accidents, laws against murder to prevent
humans killing one another, property laws to protect property, and so on. It is arrogant and
foolish of scientists to pretend that they can control Nature by prescribing laws. No matter what
scientists tell Mother Nature to do or not to do, she will do as she pleases. We must conclude
therefore that the search for laws in scientific inquiry does not serve its purpose.
Passage 3
Central to the experimental method in science is the doctrine of control: scientific
experiments are expected to control for the independent variables that affect the dependent
variable. Research students in psychology learn about control groups, while those in medicine

12
 Escuela de Idiomas Modernos
Departamento de Inglés
INGLÉS IV

learn about the design of controlled double blind experiments. Is it surprising that this
methodology has led to the control and domination of the less powerful and less privileged? The
methodology of control legitimizes the domination of men over women, of whites over non-
whites, and of the West over the rest of the world. We can fight against systematic subjugation
and marginalization only by recognizing and exposing what lies at its roots: the doctrine of
control. As academics who have a responsibility to say no to all forms of tyranny and oppression,
we must refuse to extol the virtues of controlled experiments in the classrooms, and expose the
political agenda of control that hides behind the patriarchal mask of objectivity and rationality.
Passage 4
Philosopher Sandra Harding, quoting Francis Bacon, charges early science enthusiasts
with using rape and torture imagery: ―For you have but to follow and as it were hound nature in
her wanderings, and you will be able when you like to lead and drive her afterward to the same
place again… Neither ought a man to make a scruple of entering and penetrating into those holes
and corners when the inquisition of truth is the whole subject‖ (Harding The Science Question in
Feminism, p. 237)
Harding argues:
― …if we are to believe that mechanistic metaphors were a fundamental component of the
explanations the new science provided, why should we believe the gender metaphors were not? A
consistent analysis would lead to the conclusion that understanding nature as a woman indifferent
to or even welcoming rape was equally fundamental to the interpretations of these new
conceptions of nature and inquiry. Presumably these metaphors, too, had fruitful pragmatic,
methodological, and metaphysical consequences for science. In that case, why is it not as
illuminating and honest to refer to Newton‘s laws as ―Newton‘s rape manual‖ as it is to call them
―Newton‘s mechanics‖? (p.113)
―Both nature and inquiry appear conceptualized in ways modeled on rape and torture – on
men‘s most violent and misogynous relationships to women – and this modeling is advanced as a
reason to value science… As nature came to seem more like a machine, did not machine come to
seem more natural? As nature came to seem more like a woman whom it is appropriate to rape
and torture than like a nurturing mother, did rape and torture not seem a more natural relation of
men to women?‖ (p. 116)
 Evaluating assertions not accompanied by justification:
Critically evaluate the following statements within the context of rational inquiry. In each
case, specify whether you believe it or not, along with your reasons.
 Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon to defeat Pompey.
 Adolf Hitler invaded Poland to execute Jewish people living in that country.
 African people became slaves because the Catholic Church argued they did not have soul.
 Justifying claims:
13
 Escuela de Idiomas Modernos
Departamento de Inglés
INGLÉS IV

Describe how you would attempt to justify or refute each of the following claims:
 Mangoes are heavier than lemons.
 Uncooked apples are tastier than uncooked bitter gourd.
 Ripe mangoes are tastier than ripe lemons.
 Ripe mangoes are tastier than ripe apples.
 Prayer has a positive effect on healing.
 Buddhism is an atheistic religion.
 Marital infidelity is immoral.
 Justifying claims:
Identify the difficulties in evaluating each of the claims given below. In each case, try to
design ways of establishing that the claim is correct or incorrect.
 Julia Roberts is a better actress than Michelle Pfeiffer.
 Men are better drivers than women.
 If a large number of people practice meditation in a community, it would reduce the crime rate.
 Pimples are caused by immoral thoughts.
 The number 13 is unlucky.
 Child abuse is uncommon in Sri Lanka.
 Justifying claims:
How would you proceed to rationally inquire whether the following policies are fair?
o Denying admission in a university to:
 less intelligent candidates,
 candidates who have low scores in admission exams.
o Putting criminals in prison (discriminating against those who have different moral capacities and
moral values)
o Denying the right to vote to:
 children,
 uneducated people,
 criminals,
 mentally disturbed/ insane people,
 those who have an IQ below 90,
 women,
 non-catholics,
 non-citizens,
 blacks,
 maids.

14