Critical Thinking Portfolio

Mylanda Miller
001192846

Definitions of Critical Thinking

- Personal: Critical thinking is the process in which all information is considered,
evaluated, and learned about that is unbiased and truthful in order to make a judgment on
an issue.
- Google: the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment.
- The Foundation of Critical Thinking: 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.

Elements of Reasoning:
- Purpose:
- The purpose is the heart of the inquiry process. The definition of purpose is the
reasoning or objective for which actions and decisions are made. When we are
talking about purpose this is describing the initial cause for action. Actions come
from a purpose. For example, the purpose of me completing this assignment is to
achieve a good mark, which allows me to pass the class, which I need to graduate.
My purpose or goal is to graduate from university, which leads to my actions of
doing this assignment. Purpose is the underlying condition of how people begin
actions.

- Point of view
- The point of view is an attitude in which an issue is being looked at. A point of
view is the category of opinions that follow from a certain standpoint. For
example, when discussing school decisions, there are points of views from
students, faculty, parents, community, and administration. These points of views
may vary from the position in which a person is in. Point of views can be unique
in these groups, but we can sometimes categorize these positions. Parents
weighing in can have multiple perspectives to offer. Point of views can be
political, individual, collective, religious, age based, or class based. Point of views
are not inherently biased. Points of views can also be used in a way to understand
someone else's actions, situation, and intentions.

- Questions
- Questioning is the process of expanding on an issue, by asking questions we are
able to cover a depth of content in order to further our knowledge about the issue.
 Questions relate to the other elements of reasoning as there are questions that
relate to the purpose of an action, the concepts that it covers, an individual's point
of view. Questions serve us the function of deepening our inquiries and streaming
an issue into multiple facets. An issue is in the form of a question, for example:
What is the most effective way to keep students safe at schools?

- Concepts
- A concept is a general idea of a topic. A concept is the idea that defines research,
arguments, and aspects of life. Concepts are the fundamental ideas that can be
used to extrapolate ideas or to concisely define our work. In teaching, concepts
are the fundamental ideas of a course, unit, or lesson. In math, a concept could
broadly be number sense, or more specific multiplication. Concepts are relatable
to everyday life and completely guides our thinking. Critical thinking concepts
become more useful when we are able to identify them and are aware of them.

- Assumptions
- Assumptions are the starting block in which critical thinking occurs. In situations
of reasoning, assumptions are going to be present internally, and they may differ
from person to person. In reasoning, assumptions should be brought out to
identify the way in which we initiate our thinking. There is room for error if our
assumptions are wrong or biased. The goal in reasoning is to make fair and
justifiable assumptions that we can extrapolate on.

- Implications and consequences

- The idea of implications and consequences is what follows from an argument,
reasoning, and critical evaluation. These are the actions, beliefs, and values that
follow the critical thinking process. For example implications for having a pro-life
stance on abortion implies that you are against euthinasia for the sick and for
seniors.

- Conclusions
- Conclusions are your reasoned judgement that follow your inquiry, argument, or
reasoning. It is the conclusion, or the final part of the processes. The conclusion is
evaluated from all the evidence, POV’s, and concepts and is decided. Drawing
conclusions happens throughout the whole process and leads us to more
questioning. Conclusions can be false by drawing conclusions without proper
facts.
Intellectual Standards:
- Clarity
- Clarity defines the cleanliness of your argument. If your argument is up to a
proper standard, then there is little room for misunderstanding. The validity of the
argument is easy to follow. Clarity is important in two different streams. First
clarity in the mind, making sense to yourself, and second, being able to clearly
express to others the reasoning. Language used is a part of clarity, this extends by
knowing your audience and how you can articulate your reasoning to be clear to
the audience.
- Accuracy
- Accuracy is closely related to truthfulness. This concept is structured around
having truthful and precise to a certain degree. Though it is not a complete
synonym for truth, as there is some room for unknowns. Accuracy can be
compromised by pre-existing views, denial, generalizing, and personal
experiences. Accuracy highlights the importance of having a degree of truth and
fairness. Like other parts of an argument, accuracy can be tested through research,
hypothesis testing, and questioning. By attaining a certain level of accuracy in our
assumptions, we can make more fair judgements.
- Precision
- Precision is about being as specific and detailed as necessary. Precision allows us
to have concise arguments with relevant langues, examples, and thinking. Precise
reasoning melds with clarity as achieving a certain level of precision allows
creates and demonstrates a mastery understanding of the topic. By being precise
there leaves less room for error in interpretation, confusion, and irrelevant
information. Precision is about having all relevant information, neither too
detailed nor too vague.
- Depth
- Depth refers to the category in which the amount of information or research is
sufficient in answering the inquiry question. The importance of having breadth for
a concept is that the information behind the reasoning is not too narrow, and
potentially does not encompass all necessary information to be accurate. Depth is
making sure to account for a proper amount of information that is relevant to the
topic to have a clear understanding.
- Breadth
- Breadth is related to depth, but it accounts for the amount of information from
different perspectives and having adequate accounts and information from them.
The importance of breadth is the level of sufficiency of points of views and
considering this information.
 - Logic
- Logic is the correct process in which to make a reasonable conclusion. This idea
is that there are elements of reasoning that are intuitive and truthful. These
elements of logic follow principles of validity that are required to hold truth.
These elements merge into language, in use of and vs. or statements, they
consider our assumptions and validate truth or falsity of a matter.
- Fairness
- Fairness equates to the reasonability of a decision or process of reasoning. By
this, fairness is the demonstrable act that is without prejudice, favouritism, or
discrimination. Having a fair quality is having equal opportunity in an unbiased
way. For example, two men are participating in a race, it would be unfair for one
man to run a shorter distance than the second. If the race was fair in quality, the
race for both parties should equidistance.
Inquiry
- Inquiry focuses on an issue usually one which constitutes different points of views.
Inquiring is the process in which there is a dedicated and thorough examination of the
issue. For example, doing an inquiry formulated on the issue of classroom sizes, we can
try to best answer the inquiry question, ​what size of classroom is most effective for
learning? T ​ hrough inquiry we can research budgetary concerns, teacher statements,
student success rates, and types of classrooms. From this research the supposed end to an
inquiry is a reasoned judgement. This is a decision that considers all factors and can be
accepted by reasonable persons. Reasoned judgments can also be used in asserting our
ideologies. To have a justification for a belief is stronger than not having reason. Inquiry
relies on unbiased, ambiguous perspectives, and proper language. The spirit of inquiry
has different qualities of autonomy, fairness, curiosity, and open-mindedness that allows
an individual to properly inquire.

Guidelines for inquiry:

- What is the issue?
- An issue is a topic in which we inquire about. The most challenging part of an
issue is focusing on the issue at hand. On a topic of global warming, there are
many issues that can be drawn from the single topic. From this we can have many
issues: What is the best way to prevent greenhouse gasses? How can we best
protect our wildlife? What individual actions can I make to best serve the global
warming crisis? Depending on which issue is at task, the issue relies on a very
different spectrum of answers.
- What kinds of claims or judgments are at issue?
- There are three categories of judgements about an issue. The first is factual
judgements are statements which hold true about our world. We can state that
when we cut down a tree that it is going to fall down towards the Earth.
 Evaluative judgements have three separate categories of their own. These types of
judgements are evaluative such as an assessment. The first is ethical judgements
which have a right or wrong basis. Second, instrumental judgements regard
usefulness and the last is aesthetic judgements about what makes something
aesthetically good. The final category is interpretive judgements. These
judgements are about focusing on meaning.
- What are the relevant reasons and arguments on various sides of the issue?
- We look into this question to be more informed about the issue in which we are
focusing on. The issue is a whole and has multiple parties involved. For example,
debating what changes should be made to a communities downtown space, there
should be opinions expressed by relevant parties. The community members, the
residents, architectural opinions, local business owners, etc.. The importance is to
have a well rounded perspective on the issue.
- What is the context of the issue?
- Context of the issue relates to the instigation of the issue. When we are dealing
with context, the issue is being looked at at some point of time. There are worldly
factors that play part in the perspectives of the population. Media can contribute
to the context as well, giving a public view of components of an issue. For
example, looking at an issue of politics during election season creates a different
context for citizens versus during a government's term period. Many people of the
population are more concerned about policies, platforms, and are more overall
invested because they are in the context of an upcoming election.
- How do we comparatively evaluate the various reasons and arguments to reach a
reasoned judgment?
- This can be done by reliable research, testimonies, and focusing on the concepts
of the issue. Realistically, a reasoned judgement has room for error, or normally
has some type of backlash in the public sphere. From this, we can hope for a good
reasoned judgement by careful evaluation of the points of views and research. By
finding a decision that conforms to the facts, and a consensus are good indicators
of a reasoned judgement. If not, a majority holds the decision as the next best
option.

Fallibilism (a single paragraph description)

- The idea about fablisim is philosophical as there is a degree of humanity about what we
may consider to be certain truth. Science is constantly evolving and some theories,
though commonly accepted, can be disproven through another thread of research.
Therefore, fallibilism is that there are some ‘truths’ that can at any moment be disproven.
A reasoned judgment (and an example)
- A reasoned judgement is the conclusion of an inquiry. A reasoned judgement is the final
step of an inquiry, it is the result of the research, perspectives, assumptions, and purpose.
The reasoned judgement answers the inquiry question, directly deducing a logical and
fair conclusion. For this reason a reasoned judgement is supported by evidence and
logical to the rational person. An example of a reasoned judgement to the issue question
posed for a municipal council, “In what way can we best support our homeless people?”
may be a statement, “To best support our homeless people in our community, we are
looking to fund housing for those who seek it, with the ability to offer a minimum of 1
meal a day only with the support of volunteers in our community.”

An issue (and an example)

- The textbook describes an issue as a matter that is unsettled, in dispute, or up for debate.
To be more precise, an issue is composed of a critical question, content, context, a
reasoned judgement and a purpose. Issues are not defined as having right and wrong
answers. Unlike the back of a math textbook, we see that issues are to a varying degree.
The issue is formed as a question and has terminology that indicates an extent, such as,
“What is the best way to incorporate Blackfoot knowledge in our Southern Alberta
classrooms?” Part of an issue is that there can be many different answers, but not one true
solution. There is also room for a form of interpretation. For all of Blackfoot territory,
this issue can be answered in a multitude of ways. The issue is defined here as the
integration of indigenous culture in classrooms. I chose this example to also highlight that
these issues are not necessarily negative aspects of society, but instead they are a topic
which needs discussion and can be debated.

Key characteristics of an issue

● Focus
- Focus is essential for an issue so that the issue is not overwhelming in scenarios.
If the issue is too large, there is reason for the issue to be examined incorrectly to
a certain degree. Considering the previous example of homelessness, there is a
very different scenario for Lethbridge specifically to handle this issue compared
to Canada’s homelessness issue. The focus of an issue should be concise enough
to have a reasonable and relevant reasoned judgement.
● Phrased as a question
- The reason for the issue to be phrased as a question is for the purpose of having
what is at stake be related as a question. This plays along with precision because
if we simply said that the issue was ‘corruption’, then the conversation can be
brought to the government, people, rich vs. poor, etc.. When forming the issue as
a question we can articulate much more clearly in what we are trying to debate.
 ● Precision
- Precision is like focus as it defines the standard to which a question should be
constructed to have restriction on which an issue should be debated. It differs
because precision defines the product of the inquiry. Having a precise issue
allows the debate to be framed in the intended context. If the issue, “Should class
sizes be decreased?” is posed, there is room for interpretation. The issue could be
drawn in direction of qualified teachers, what about special needs classrooms,
student learning environments, and budgetary concerns. Issues should be
precisely phrased to define the result of the inquiry.

● Controversy
- Controversy is a characteristic of an issue as there is no commonly accepted
answer to the question. Because an issue is not a recollection of fact, nor a
problem to be googled, there is a level of controversy that issues deal with. Issues
are largely regarded as having at least two sides to the problem. On the topic of
abortions, there are two clear side of the issue, “Should abortions be legal?” those
two obviously being pro-life and pro-choice. Controversy allowed issues to be
thoroughly debated among many perspectives, opinions, and research.
● Neutrality
- When formulating an issue, the way in which the question is phrased can unfairly
demonstrate a preference to a particular side of the issue. Using strong, definitive,
and criminalizing vocabulary encourages a certain level of bias in the issue. Issues
should be presented neutrally in order to ensure a non biased argument, and a
proper reasoned judgment.

Criteria (and an example)

- Criteria defined by the textbook as “criteria specify the relevant considerations that
provide the basis for making a judgement.” So when regarding an issue, there are certain
criteria that accompany the issue. When discussing plans for a new school, the issue may
be, “How can we best design a school in which we promote learning?” The criteria in
which we consider are relevant to the final judgement. Criteria in this case would be the
consideration of land location, budget, architecture, and school needs.

Prima facie judgement (and an example)

- A prima facie judgement is the initial judgement in which is open to revision when new
evidence is provided. These judgements arise from the first glance at an issue. For
example, when making headlines, journalists will often use strong vocabulary to initiate a
response out of a person, and to convince them into an opinion. This example, “Woman
kills her two children!” from a headline doesn’t indicate any evidence of the reality of the
 situation. In this case, the initial judgement is that the mother is evil and malicious.
Further reading the story could indicate that the mother accidentally caused a vehicle
accident in which she and her children passed. In this example we can see hoe prima
facie judgements can be wrong, but there are also examples where in which our
judgements are right.

Valid deductive argument (and an example)

- A valid deductive argument is that argument where all of the premises are true this
implies that the conclusion must also be true. This is a formal argument style in logical
reasoning. An example of this type of deductive argument is as follows. The first premise
is true: If I am taller than Jason, then I am taller than Sam. Premise two is: I am taller
than Jason. The conclusion is that I am taller than Sam.

Sound argument (and an example)

- A sound argument is a valid argument in which all of the premises are true. So to make
an argument sound, it is in fact the case that all the premises are true. To clarify the
difference, following the example above, if premise two is NOT true, then the conclusion
is false. If this were the circumstance then the argument is still a valid deductive
argument, but it is not sound. So a sound argument can be the same as the above, but the
premises must be true.

Inductive argument (and an example)

- Inductive arguments are common as they have no real truth behind the conclusion. There
is only speculation and reason behind their claim. I can reasonably say that it will snow
on January 3rd 2021 in Lethbridge, but I cannot guarantee that it is true. Inductive
arguments have a level of probability that our conclusion follows from. Unlike a
deductive argument, these types of arguments are usually true to an extent, rather than
logically validated.

Strong, inductive argument (and an example)

- A strong inductive argument is an argument in which the premises give us a solid
reasoning for our conclusion to be true. An example is as follows: Premise 1: All of my
grown siblings have been taller than 5’5”. Premise 2: My parents are both taller than
5’5”. Conclusion: My baby brother is going to be taller than 5’5”. I can inductively make
this claim, though I do not know it to be truthful. It is a strong argument because of the
science of genetics and evidence of previous children.

Cogent, inductive argument (and an example)

- A cogent inductive argument is the inductive argument comparison to a sound deductive
argument. This inductive argument has credible premises, and the premises are
 supportive of the argument. An example of this type of argument is as follows: Premise
1: If the tenants paid their rent on time then the landlord would let them stay. Premise 2:
The tenants kept their rental house clean. So if there is truth to these premises, evidence
to support these claims, like banking statements, photos of the home, then there is a likely
conclusion that will follow. The conclusion then should be that the tenants were able to
continue to live in the house.

Analogical argument (and an example)

- There are two types of analogical arguments. The first is precedent analogies, these types
of arguments follow individual rules that there are standard conclusions to a given issue
topic. An example of this case would be disciplining students for graffitiing the school
with 3 week suspensions. This type of argument ensures fairness as there is a precedent to
the types evidence, conclusion, and reasoning behind your arguments are consistent and
fair. Causal analogies are the second type of argument and it is when a phenomenon bears
similarities to another and a prediction can be made about the outcome. A common
example is a historical analogy. For example the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment created
distrust of government doctors and the black community. In this case when the AIDs
endemic arose, people of color did not seek out treatment for the fear of being
manipulated.

Reductio ad absurdum (and an example)

- This type of argument strategy is an effective effort to try and disprove or reject an
opponsitions claim as it could lead to a ridiculous outcome. An example of this type of
argument would be as follows: If we were under a government lockdown from the effects
of Covid19, then the government would have to compensatie our wages for not working,
and if the government did that then they would end up controlling all of us and our
democratic government would turn into a dictatorship.

Fallacy (and an example)

- A fallacy is when in an argument the premises are persuading but hold no evidential
worth. This is a common problem in many people's arguments. An example of this would
be when there is an issue and there is not enough evidence to support the claim. Fallacies
arise when people are expressing their personal opinions. For example, I could argue that
Pizza Hut is the best pizza joint in town, even though I haven’t experienced other pizza
places, considered their service, or cost.

Ad hominem fallacy (and an example)

- This type of fallacy is when an opinion is rejected because there is a lack of confidence or
distaste in the opponent. This is a way to discredit the person and the other side of the
argument. The best example of this is American elections. Voters are often choosing one
 candidate over another based on assumptions about the candidates as people. This fallacy
is the boy-who-cried-wolf argument, just because the boy has a history of lying does not
mean that currents claims are untruthful.

Straw person fallacy (and an example)

- This type of fallacy is when a position is attacked from a misinterpreted view. This is
done by putting a viewpoint that is usually too ridiculous that extends from their beliefs.
By doing this, the accuser attacks the ridiculous opinion in which the opponent does not
hold. An example of this would be arguing that a Catholic worhships pedophilia because
of the history of abuse in some churches.

Red Herring Fallacy (and an example)

- The red herring fallacy is when the argument is distracted by another irrelevant point.
This is committed when the main topic of discussion is reverted to non-essential criteria
during the argument. An example of a red herring is when person 1 starts losing an
argument about the effectiveness of a Covid-19 vaccine against person 2. Person 1 directs
the conversation to doctors being unable to find a cure for cancer. This is irrelevant to the
issue as it does not correspond to the relevant concepts about the issue. A different topic
and issue.

Fallacy of Argument by Specter (and an example)

- This argument is when a person tries to justify their position by deducing incorrectly the
proponents position to a ridiculous, or undesirable outcome. This is used to undermine
the opposition's stance and to heighten their own. This is problematic when there is little
to no evidence supporting the claim. An example of this would be legalizing marijuana
and deducing that all people are going to become addicted and the economy would
collapse because of a lazy workforce.

Equivocation (and an example)

- Equivocation is when there is a misunderstanding in the vocabulary used in an argument.
When a word has two different meanings there can be different interpretations of the
argument. When the change of meaning occurs for the word and the meaning in which
the validity of the argument is reliant on the shifted meaning. An example of this would
be: Premise 1: A bat is a winged creature. Premise 2: I hit a baseball with a bat.
Conclusion: I hit a baseball with a winged creature.

Ideological fixity (and an example)

- Ideological fixity is when a person has unwavering opinions and viewpoints on political,
social, and philosophical positions. This leaves a lack of open mindedness in arguments
and addressing and accepting different points of views. An example of this is a person is
 completely pro-life and reject the health consequences when abortion is not an availible
life saving medical procedure.

Groupthink (and an example)

- Groupthink is when there is an influence of opinion and perspective when encompassed
in a group. This type of mob mentality decreases alternate viewpoints being brought up in
an argument. This can be from social pressure. An example of this would be a friend not
being comfortable with drinking, but does so because of the environment, people, and
availability.

Confirmation bias (and an example)

- Confirmation bias is when a person seeks out only information that pertains to their
opinion or side of an argument. Ignoring other perspectives and evidence which may
dispute or disprove their claim. A real life example of this would be a person who holds
an anti vaccination opinion and continues to use unreliable information to support their
claims. These sources could be Facebook or any social media, or discredited scientific
articles. Ignoring other sources of information will improperly inform the individual
about a topic. Another example would be looking purely into tabloids for the latest
information on celebrities.

Anchoring bias (and an example)

- An anchoring bias is used to describe when a person uses the first or most accepted piece
of evidence in an issue to view new information or other perspectives. This creates a lens
in which we view the argument and then there is difficulty in making adjustments or
change in perspective. An example of this would be having the perspective that to be
successful, one must achieve a bachelor's degree. But this creates a lens in which the
world is seen. A person holding this view see’s a tradesperson as unsuccessful, a
highschool graduated mother, and a majority of the population being unsuccessful. This
also creates the notion that people with degrees must be successful, which many may not
be.

Loaded language (and an example)

- Loaded language describes the way in which we phrase an issue, or a perspective.
Language can be used to our advantage to motivate feelings towards accepting a position.
By precisely using language, people are more likely to be convinced of a position.
Loaded language is usually of the negative connotation. The difference between, “She
was arrogant and demanding,” versus, “She is strong willed and stern,” create a different
image of the woman.
Euphemism (and an example)
- Euphemisms are the antonym of loaded language. This strategy is using softer language
to deter negative feelings about a rather harsh, stressful, or unacceptable event. This is
another way in which language can be used to manipulate and color stories in a
favourable way. An example of using euphemisms in real life is when informing family
members of a death, they will use soft language such as, “passed away” versus the same,
but more direct term “died.”

Factual judgment (and an example)

- Factual judgements describe or explain an aspect of the world. Descriptive judgements
are factual judgements, in which it describes a state of affairs that is usually deduced
from observation. Descriptive judgments come from evidence, such as measuring how
tall a sunflower has grown by taking the difference in height between two dates.
Explanatory judgments are also a form of factual judgements. This type of judgement
comes from reasoning about how the event occurred. Continuing with our sunflower
example, we can reasonably use the explanations that watering, good soil, and sunlight
played part of the sunflower growing.

Ethical judgment (and an example)

- Ethical judgements relate to what a standard that we think is considered right or wrong.
Moreover, we use these judgements to say if someone is to blame or to be praised. It is
used to signify the level of good or bad. These are ethical dilemmas and people usually
have very different perspectives on these judgements. An example would be hunting.
Some groups see hunting as murder, unnecessary, and cruel. Others see it as a hobby and
a source of independence for gathering food. Hunting can be evaluated as ethically
acceptable or unacceptable.

Interpretive judgment (and an example)

- Interpretive judgement deals with the meaning of a question. This involves analyzing
data to understand more about the situation. To make a proper interpretive judgement, a
person must be inclusive with the data, all data has been considered, there is
correspondence between accounts of the data (multiple sources have produced the same
outcome), and a level of coherence. If all of these properties are satisfied, there is a more
likely validated interpretive judgement. Examples of this would change regarding the
context of the issue, namely arts would be interpreted differently than a scientific inquiry.
In science, data recording the movement of a pod of whales, a scientist could interpret
where they are headed and why.
Aesthetic judgment (and an example)
- Aesthetic judgements deal with sensory properties of an object. These types of
judgements normally arise in the world of arts, as there is validity to the perception of an
object. An example of an aesthetic judgement would be the role of a food critic. They
make judgments based on taste, quality, and atmosphere, all of the which are specific to
the evaluative qualities of the practice. We would not use these qualifiers to grade a
written essay.