Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 35 views

    Critical Thinking Workshop 21

    Uploaded by

    Jose Luis Rodriguez
    This document discusses critical thinking and evaluating information sources. It provides definitions of critical thinking, questions to consider when evaluating sources, and criteria for evaluating arguments and information including accuracy, authority, relevance, and bias. The document recommends applying evaluation criteria consistently to both external sources and one's own work. It lists several references on critical thinking concepts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Critical Thinking Workshop 21

    Uploaded by

    Jose Luis Rodriguez
    35 views19 pages
    This document discusses critical thinking and evaluating information sources. It provides definitions of critical thinking, questions to consider when evaluating sources, and criteria for evaluating arguments and information including accuracy, authority, relevance, and bias. The document recommends applying evaluation criteria consistently to both external sources and one's own work. It lists several references on critical thinking concepts.

    Original Description:

    Better decisiones

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses critical thinking and evaluating information sources. It provides definitions of critical thinking, questions to consider when evaluating sources, and criteria for evaluating arguments and information including accuracy, authority, relevance, and bias. The document recommends applying evaluation criteria consistently to both external sources and one's own work. It lists several references on critical thinking concepts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    35 views19 pages

    Critical Thinking Workshop 21

    Uploaded by

    Jose Luis Rodriguez
    This document discusses critical thinking and evaluating information sources. It provides definitions of critical thinking, questions to consider when evaluating sources, and criteria for evaluating arguments and information including accuracy, authority, relevance, and bias. The document recommends applying evaluation criteria consistently to both external sources and one's own work. It lists several references on critical thinking concepts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 19

    Whats all the fuss about?

    Jim Skypeck, MA, MLIS


    Public Services Librarian, BU STH Library
    Linda Elder and Richard Paul of the Foundation for
    Critical Thinking provide this working definition:
    Critical thinking is the ability and disposition to
    improve ones thinking by systematically subjecting it
    to intellectual self-assessment. {Elder, L. with Paul R.
    (1996). At website: www.criticalthinking.org}
    How do you know what you know?
    Where did you learn certain facts?
    Parents?
    Teachers?
    Friends?
    Printed material?
    TV?
    Online?
    Have you ever evaluated this information to see if its true or
    accurate?
    If not, why not?
    I dont know enough.
    Theyre the experts so they must be right.
    Never gave it much thought actually.
    Accuracy: is the Objectivity: is there bias
    information true? Can and how explicit is it?
    you verify the Currency: how current is
    information elsewhere? the information and is it
    still valid?
    Authority: does the writer
    have the necessary Audience: for whom is
    the author writing?
    credentials to support General public? Other
    his/her findings or Academicians?
    theory?
    http://www.martinlutherking.org/
    http://www.whitehouse.net
    http://www.whitehouse.gov
    http://147.129.226.1/library/research/AIDSFACTS.h
    tm
    Arguments are The conclusion one draws
    composed of 3 parts: from these premises is:
    I am mortal.
    premise(s), reasoning,
    and conclusion.
    The reasoning is how I got
    For example, the from the premises to the
    following statements are conclusion: if all humans are
    premises: mortal and I am human, then
    I am human. I must be mortal!
    All humans are mortal.
    There are 4 primary principles to follow in evaluating
    arguments:
    1. Premises are either true or false.
    2. Reasoning that leads from premises to conclusion is valid or invalid.
    3. Correct premises plus valid reasoning equal a sound argument.
    4. Incorrect premises OR invalid reasoning render an argument unsound.
    Guilty people fail lie The Bible tells me that
    detector tests. Jesus loves me.
    Debbie failed her lie
    detector test. Everything the Bible tells
    Therefore, Debbie is me is true.
    guilty.
    Therefore, Jesus loves
    me.
    ALL RESEARCH:
    has a purpose.
    is intended to solve a problem or answer a question.
    starts with assumptions.
    is done from a specific point of view.
    is based on data, information, or evidence.
    is expressed and shaped by concepts and ideas.
    contains inferences from which we draw conclusions.
    has implications or consequences.

    (Richard Paul and Linda Elder, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking:
    Concepts and Tools. [Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking,
    2001], 3-4)
    Clarity: is the author clear or is Depth: do the authors answers
    further explanation necessary? address the complexities of the
    question?
    Accuracy: are the statements or
    claims true? How can we verify? Logic: do the authors arguments
    make sense? Do the conclusions
    Relevance: are views discussed follow from the information
    related to the issue or are they given?
    tangential? Breadth: does the author
    Precision: is the information provide opposing viewpoints?
    provided specific or are there Are other views considered?
    details missing?
    Richard Paul and Linda Elder, The
    Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking:
    Concepts and Tools. [Dillon Beach,
    CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking,
    2001], 9.)
    Significance: is this the most important problem to
    consider? Should this be the central focus?

    Fairness: Do I have a vested interest in this issue? Is the


    author representing the views of others in an unbiased
    manner or only highlighting their weaknesses?

    Richard Paul and Linda Elder, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts
    and Tools. [Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking, 2001], 9.)
    Peter Berger in his book, The Social Construction of Reality,
    discusses the concept of reification. In The Sacred Canopy, he
    addresses the idea of alienation.
    Reification is "...the apprehension of the products of human
    activity as if they were something else than human products -
    such as facts of nature, results of cosmic laws or manifestations
    of divine will. (Berger,TSCR, p.82)
    Alienation is being unaware of how much of our thinking is
    based on reification and how arbitrary it may be. We assume a
    common understanding of concepts which may or may not be
    accurate. Or, we may assume something is divine in origin when
    it is merely a human construct. (Berger, TSC, p. 85)
    Unwarranted Assumptions Relativism
    Assumptions taken for granted All views are right.
    rather than reasoned out. Double standard
    Mindless conformity Using different criteria for
    Adopting others views without arguments you agree with and
    consideration. those with which you disagree.
    Absolutism Hasty conclusion
    Premature judgments.
    No exceptions to rules
    Overgeneralization Mistaken authority
    Ascribing to all members Ascribing authority to
    what only fits some. someone who does not
    Arguing in a circle have it.
    Repeating same arguments Attacking the critic
    in different forms.
    Attacking the person
    rather than the idea or
    argument. These are also
    known as ad hominem
    attacks.
    1. Look at your sources and decide what you are trying to evaluate. Is it the
    arguments? The conclusion? How the research was conducted in the original
    study? All of these?
    2. Ask probing questions such as: What is the authors thesis? How clear or
    valid are his/her arguments?
    3. What information are you trying to gather from your sources? Information
    that supports what you already know or information that might challenge
    you?
    4. What criteria are you using to evaluate your sources? Are you applying
    these criteria uniformly or consistently?
    5. Make sure that you apply these evaluative criteria to your own work,
    insuring that you treat your own research as seriously as that of your
    sources.
    Berger, Peter. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory
    of Religion. New York: Doubleday, 1967.
    Berger, Peter. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the
    Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City: Doubleday & Company, 1966.
    McPeck, John E. Critical Thinking and the Trivial Pursuit Theory of
    Knowledge, in Re-thinking Reason: New perspectives in Critical
    Thinking, ed. Kerry S. Walters (Albany: SUNY Press, 1994).
    Paul, Richard W. Teaching Critical Thinking in the Strong Sense: A
    Focus on Self-Deception, World Views, and a Dialectical Mode of
    Analysis, in Re-thinking Reason: New perspectives in Critical Thinking,
    ed. Kerry S. Walters (Albany: SUNY Press, 1994).
    Paul, Richard and A.J.A. Binker Socratic Questioning in Critical
    Thinking: What Every Person Needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing
    World, ed. A.J.A. Binker and Richard W. Paul(Rohnert Park, CA:
    Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique, 1990)
    Paul, Richard and Linda Elder. Miniature Guide to Critical
    Thinking Concepts and Tools ( Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for
    Critical Thinking, 2004).
    Penaskovic, Richard. Critical Thinking and the Academic Study of
    Religion. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997.
    Petress, Ken. Critical Thinking: An Extended Definition.
    Education, 124(3), 2004, 461-466.
    Ruggerio, Vincent Ryan. Beyond Feelings: A Guide To Critical
    Thinking. 6th Edition. Mount View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co.,
    2001.
    http://www.criticalthinking.org.
    Slides will be added to the STH Library web site under E-
    ResourcesTutorials.

    Thank you for coming.

    Contact me at [email protected] or 617-353-5357 with questions.

    You might also like