Critical thinking portfolio

PURPOSE:
The purpose of this portfolio is to:
 identify relevant terms, concepts, and activities basic to critical thinking
theory and pedagogy,
 synthesize required items into a coherent product that is readily accessible on-
site,
 apply critical-thinking materials to professional contexts.

 Three, accurate definitions of critical thinking

1) R.I.B. definition – A process of careful judgment regarding some kind of

issue in order to arrive at a reasoned judgement.
2) Oxford Dictionary Definition – The objective analysis and evaluation of an
issue in order to form a judgment.
3) Personal definition – Objective consideration of all facts and evidence
regarding an issue that is then used to form a reasoned judgement on said
issue.
 Please write a single paragraph description for each term; 3-5 sentence
per paragraph
 Elements of reasoning:
o Purpose – To acquire new knowledge and understanding both about
the issue at hand and other related issues. To learn how to engage in
and respectfully, actively disagree with one another. Ultimately, the
goal is to come to the most logical position on an issue.
o Point of view – Point of view refers to the position an individual takes
regarding an issue. They can be considered an initial stance, or a more
refined viewpoint. Point of view is subject to change in light of new
evidence.
o Questions – Questions act as the guide to inquiry or reasoning. They
are also an essential element of argumentation and logical thought.
Framing of a question with regards to supporting or challenging an
issue is important.
o Concepts – Concepts are how elements of reason are expressed.
These may be ideas, arguments, questions etc. Some forms of
expression may be more relevant than others depending on the issue.
o Assumptions – An unstated, but necessary part of an argument. They
are any claim that is asserted without support. Any premise in an
argument that does not have support from a sub-argument. For
example, I often assume that when the sky becomes dark and cloudy,
there will be precipitation to follow soon afterwards.
o Implications and consequences – The consequences of reasoning
include new knowledge and civil discourse. Though two individuals
may disagree on an issue, a discussion led by reason means that
disagreement is ok, even encouraged in some instances.
o Conclusions – Conclusions are what is left after a reasoned
discussion. Ideally, if an individual has gone into the discussion with
an open mind, their conclusion or stance on the issue may different
from their perspective before the discussion occurred.
  Intellectual standards
o Clarity - is a gateway standard. If a statement is unclear, we cannot
determine whether it is accurate or relevant. In fact, we cannot tell
anything about it because we don't know what it is saying
o Accuracy - Ensures that all information is correct and free from error.
If the thinking is reliable, then it has Accuracy. It is also less likely to
be fallible.
o Precision – The step that succeeds accuracy. It demands that the
words and data used are exact. If no more details could be added, then
it has Precision.
o Depth - makes the argument thorough. It forces us to explore the
complexities. If an argument includes all the nuances necessary to
make the point, it has Depth
o Breadth - demands that additional viewpoints are taken into account.
Are all perspectives considered? When all sides of an argument are
discussed, then we find Breadth.
o Logic - means that an argument is reasonable, the thinking is
consistent, and the conclusions follow from the evidence. In notation,
if A is supported by B, then we reach the conclusion C. When
something makes sense step-by-step, then it is Logical.
o Fairness - means that the argument is balanced and free from bias. It
pushes us to be impartial and evenhanded toward other positions.
When an argument is objective, there is Fairness.

 Please write a single paragraph description of each term; 3-5 sentence

per paragraph
 Inquiry – The process of carefully examining an issue in order to come
to a reasoned judgement. Issues may range from ethical decisions,
policies, scientific debate, etc. Additionally, inquiry also involves
 active pursuit of knowledge or understanding. The knowledge then
leads to a reasoned judgement.
 Guidelines for inquiry (a description for each guiding question, page
37)
 What is the issue? – The moral, ethical, or political argument being made
 What kinds of claims or judgments are at issue? – The decision made
regarding the issue based on evidence
 What are the relevant reasons and arguments on various sides of the
issue? – The evidence or facts that support the respective sides claim
 What is the context of the issue? – All of the relevant facts, conditions,
considerations, and environment surrounding an issue
 How do we completely evaluate the various reasons and arguments to
reach a reasoned judgement? The criteria in which the facts of the issue
are argued against.

 Fallibilism (a single paragraph description) – The recognition that any

claim to knowledge could be mistaken. The purpose of fallibilism is to
instill humility and allows individuals to be open to consider viewpoints
that differ from their own. All knowledge to an extent is fallible, but
there is differences in the degree of certainty that the knowledge is
incorrect given a context. For example, some issues such as whether
blood circulates the body is well settled, but other issues such as how or
if the universe will come to an end are still up for debate.
 A reasoned judgment (and an example) - A judgement based on the
critical evaluation of relevant information and arguments. A reasoned
judgement is the product of an inquiry. It doesn’t necessarily mean there
is consensus regarding the issue at hand; often times there is respectful
disagreement on the conclusion. For example, given the mathematical
proofs present, I can come to the reasoned judgment that 2 + 2 is equal to
4.
 An issue (and an example) – An issue is a challenge, controversy, or
difference of view which can be the focus of an inquiry. The key factor is
a difference in point s of view. For example, climate change and abortion
represent 2 different issues in which there is a difference in point of view.
Issues however are not a simple matter of preference. What is the best ice
cream flavor? does not represent an issue because it is a matter of
personal preference.
 Please write a single paragraph description for each term; 3-5 sentence
per paragraph
o Key characteristics of an issue
 Focus – The focus of an issue involves the actual subject
matter. This is what is being discussed. For example, the focus
of the issue “Should we eat meat?” is mentioned in the
question.
 Phrased as a question – Issues take on the form of a question.
It is rare for these questions to have a simple “yes” or “no”
answer. Instead, the most justifiable position is often arrived at
after careful consideration of both sides of the issue.
 Precision – With respect to an issue, Precision refers to the fact
that issues usually encompass a specific subject matter. It can
also refer to the criteria in which an issue is evaluated upon.
Precision regarding an issue is important because it ensures that
the content of discussion is relevant to the issue at hand.
 Controversy – When referring to controversy surrounding an
issue, this usually refers to the debate aspect. Often, there is not
complete consensus regarding the issue at hand. Controversial
issues often have some kind of moral, ethical, or political
consequences.
 Neutrality – Neutrality surrounding an issue refers to going
into the debate with an open mind. It refers to having a
willingness to change one mind on the issue in light of new
evidence. In essence, this refers to an individual’s ability to
recognize that all ideas are fallible.
 Please write a single paragraph description for each term; 3-5 sentence
per paragraph
 Criteria (and an example) – Specifies the relevant considerations that
provide the basis for making a judgement. We make judgements based on
criteria all the time without always being consciously aware of it. Criteria
for making a reasoned judgement should be publicly available for all to
consider. For example, if I am thinking about buying a car, I would want
to consider criteria such as cost, fuel efficiency, safety rating and
maintenance costs before making my purchase. In this case, some of the
criteria may take precedence over others, like cost of the vehicle.
 Prima facie judgement (and an example) – A preliminary judgement
made with the knowledge that it is tentative and subject to change. These
changes occur in light of new evidence or facts. Prima facie judgements
are often used as a defense against fallacies. For example, if someone
were to say to me that only 10 people live in the city of Calgary, I can
confidently state that is incorrect based on a prima facie judgement.
 Valid deductive argument (and an example) – Arguments in which if
the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. The
relationship between the premises and the conclusion in a valid deductive
argument is called entailment. A claim X entails another claim Y when if
X is true, Y must be true as well. For example, the claim “Mitchell has a
brother named Tyler” entails that Tyler also has a brother.
 Sound argument (and an example) – A sound argument is a valid
deductive argument with true premises. In all deductive arguments, if the
premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. As an example I
could state the following:
All humans are mortal
Socrates is human
Therefore, Socrates is mortal
 Inductive argument (and an example) – In an inductive argument, the
premises provide support for, but do not entail the conclusion. This
includes arguments even with strong, true premises. For example, I could
say that many students on the dean’s list find jobs when they graduate.
Bill is on the dean’s list; therefore, it is likely that Bill will find a job
when he graduates. The language involved in inductive arguments
usually entails some kind of caveat (likely, most of the time, etc.)
 Strong, inductive argument (and an example) – In a strong inductive
argument, if the premises are true, then it is likely that the conclusions
are also true. If the premises are true, that does not necessarily entail that
the conclusion. Rather, they provide strong support for the conclusion.
For example, say a witness said that John committed a murder.
Therefore, John committed the murder. Having a witness is pretty strong
evidence, but it does not necessarily guarantee the conclusion.
 Cogent, inductive argument (and an example) – A strong inductive
argument with credible premises. It is analogous with a sound deductive
argument. If its premises support its conclusion, the conclusion is likely
to be more credible or true. As an example: Patrick was born in north
America, but Patrick wasn’t born in Mexico. It is therefore likely tht
Patrick was born in the U.S.A. because the population of the US is much
higher than in Canada.

 Analogical argument (and an example) – Otherwise known as

arguments by analogy, analogical arguments comprise of a comparison of
similarities between two or more cases. Analogical arguments can only
give probable conclusions, never certain ones. This is because analogies
can never perfectly overlap differing circumstances. For example: suppose
we have two cases A and B. Upon examination we discover that case A has
a set of of properties (p, q, u, r, s, and t). When we examine case B we
discover it has a set of properties (p, q, r, and s). We could then draw the
conclusion that case B also has property t based on the set of properties
shared (i.e., the analog) between the two cases.
 Reductio ad absurdum (and an example) - A form of argument that
attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would
lead to absurdity or contradiction. It is used to disprove a statement by
showing it would inevitably lead to a ridiculous conclusion. As an
example, saying “the earth cannot be flat, because if it was, there would
be people falling off the edge.” This represents a clear contradiction of
our natural senses; no one has ever fallen off the earth.
 Fallacy (and an example) – A common weak type of argument that still
has considerable persuasive power. A fallacy is often one example that
overgeneralizes a larger issue. Fallacies often take limited evidence, often
coming from personal experience. An example would be saying “people
have been trying to prove the existence of god since humankind has
roamed the earth. But no one has been able to do it, therefore god does
not exist.”
 Ad hominem fallacy (and an example) – Involve attacking the
proponent of an argument, rather than the argument itself. These
arguments are persuasive because it shifts the focus away from the issue
at hand and onto the proponent’s background and behavior. However, the
proponents background is largely irrelevant if they have presented
evidence and facts. As an example, say Jack and Jill are discussing
abortion. Jack takes the position that abortion is morally wrong and cites
that the fetus is a separate and unique individual from the mother and is
entitled to life. Jill takes the pro-choice position that a woman has
autonomy over their body and therefore should be allowed to abort a
pregnancy if they feel that is best. During their argument, Jill says to Jack
that he is not allowed to have an opinion on the matter because he is not a
woman.
 Straw person fallacy (and an example) – The strawperson fallacy
involves attacking a misdescribed argument or position. This occurs
when an individual attributes a proponent to a view that the other
individual does not hold, then refutes said view. Absurdly black and
white contrasts and making the opposing view sound completely
ludicrous are typical trademarks of the strawperson fallacy. As an
example, say someone were to argue in favor of government funded
healthcare and the other person responded by saying they sound like a
communist. Government funded healthcare is not a sole trait of
communist regimes and many democratic nations have government
funded healthcare.
 Red Herring Fallacy (and an example) – A red herring fallacy or
changing the focus is when an irrelevant issue is introduced which has
the effect of distracting from the original issue at hand. By changing the
focus, the reasons and arguments now apply to a different issue.
Therefore, the facts and arguments applied to the new issue carry no
relevance to the original issue. For example, if I were to tell someone that
I had a rough day and they responded with “think of all the starving
children in Africa, then your day won’t seem so bad.” The starving
children in Africa is an entirely separate issue from my bad day.
 Equivocation (and an example) – In an argument, this occurs when
there is a misleading use of a word in two different senses. It is a fallacy
because it involves changing the meaning of a term that is key to the
validity of an argument. For example;
A feather is light
What is light cannot be dark
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark
Light in this sense has two meanings: low in weight and lighter in color.
 Ideological fixity (and an example) – The unwavering and
unquestioning commitment to a political, social, or philosophical
position. It prevents the consideration of other viewpoints. This does not
mean that we should have a position or opinion on an issue. But rather it
is a failure to recognize that our ideas are fallible. For example, there are
many on both sides of the political aisle that hold a death grip on their
political views and refuse to see the potential points in the other sides
argument.
 Groupthink (and an example) – Occurs when pressure for group
consensus results in members of the group failing to express or critically
examine other viewpoints. Groupthink can often falsely reassure an
individual that their view is right without any other evidence. Just
because others hold the same view, it doesn’t make it any more valid.
There was a time that based on group think, slavery was an acceptable
practice. Or in Nazi Germany where it was group consensus that Jews
should be expelled or exterminated.
 Confirmation bias (and an example) – The tendency to seek out and
focus on information and evidence that will confirm your current point of
view. This also comes with a failure to seek out info that may counter
your views. Common examples include only sourcing your consumption
of media from one source that has a particular political and social
leaning.
 Anchoring bias (and an example) - A cognitive bias that causes us to
rely too heavily on the first piece of information we are given about a
topic. When we are setting plans or making estimates about something,
we interpret newer information from the reference point of our anchor,
instead of seeing it objectively. This can skew our judgment and prevent
us from updating our plans or predictions as much as we should. As an
example, I might initially see a 400$ bottle of Don Perignon champagne.
Upon stumbling (forgive the pun) on another bottle of champagne that
costs 50$, I may view the second bottle as cheap due to the cost of the 1st
bottle.
 Loaded language (and an example) – Rhetoric used to influence an
audience by using words and phrases that have strong connotations
associated with them. These then elicit a strong emotional response in the
individual. An example would include “We don’t wan to associate with
those people.” Those people are what elicits the strong emotional
response.
 Euphemism (and an example) – refers to the use of emotionally neutral
or positively charged words to substitute for highly charged negative
ones. Euphemisms are often used to bring down the emotional level and
encourage people to be less distressed about a distressing event. It can
even lead to a positive disposition towards the event. For example, the
term “Friendly fire” is an attempt to make unacceptable actions sound
innocuous.
 Factual judgment (and an example) – Otherwise known as judgements
of fact. Focus on describing or explaining some aspect of the way the
world is. The are simply judgements that describe or explain and are not
necessarily true or beyond dispute. Factual judgements are indeed fallible
and can be subject to revision. As an example, I could factually judge
that based on evidence there is more ways to rearrange a deck of cards
differently than there are stars in the known universe.
 Ethical judgment (and an example) – Deal with questions of what is
right or wrong, good or bad, morally praiseworthy or blameworthy.
Judged on criteria of fairness, equity, virtue, and rights. However, these
can be based upon subjective criteria. For example, slavery used to be
viewed as ethical but over time the perspective has (rightly) shifted
towards viewing slavery as morally reprehensible.
 Interpretive judgment (and an example) – Deal with questions of
meaning. These judgements involve making sense of data or
phenomenon within a particular framework. They often occur over
several areas such as human behavior, but they mostly deal within the
framework of the arts. As a human example, I have to interpret the words
that are thrown towards me by the people I interact with. The arts are
interpretive because I have to interpret meaning from things like tone,
color, sound, etc.
 Aesthetic judgment (and an example) – Deal with questions having to
do with the sensory, perceptual, or formal properties of objects and
experiences. These arise most often in the realm of the arts. Again, these
judgments are often based on more subjective criteria. For example, the
phrase “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” encapsulates this
subjectiveness perfectly because everyone has their own criteria for
beauty.