CRITICAL THINKING

— Kahoot.it!
— Kahoot.it!
— Kahoot.it!
— Kahoot.it!
— Kahoot.it!
— Kahoot.it!

We take some assumptions for granted and have certain

beliefs and views that we accept without much
questioning.
CRITICAL THINKING
Critical thinking is basically an activity;
— evaluating our basic assumptions,
— questioning whether they depend on sound arguments
— examining and testing them to check
— whether they are rationally justified,
— whether our arguments conform to the principles of sound
reasoning
— In critical thinking we are not only evaluating the beliefs of
others, but also our own beliefs.

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, pp. 215-6.

CRITICAL THINKING - Barriers to Critical Thinking

v Lack of relevant back v Wishful thinking

ground information v Selective perception
v Poor reading skills. v Selective memory
v Bias v Self-deception
v Prejudice v Fear of change
v Superstition v Peer pressure
v Egocentrism v Conformism
v Sociocentrism v Denial

Irwin Bassham & Wallace Nardone, Critical Thinking: A Student’s Introduction, McGrawHill, p.13
 Choose the line that matches the one below.

A.-
B. -
C.-

POOL

Irwin Bassham & Wallace Nardone, Critical Thinking: A Student’s Introduction, McGrawHill, p.15
Solomon Ash’s Experiment (1950s)
match a standard line with three comparison lines

such as these:
A.-
B. -
C.-

Irwin Bassham & Wallace Nardone, Critical Thinking: A Student’s Introduction, McGrawHill, p.15
REASONING

Reasoning: engaging in clear, connected thinking, making

appropriate connections between ideas. It is to recognize the
basis or ground for accepting other ideas.
— Whether we hold certain ideas without falling into contradiction.
— Whether they are consistent.

I want to stay at home, and I want to go out with my friends at

the same time.

I want to swim, and I do not want to get wet.

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p. 216.

I am completely against violence.Yet if you get in
my face, I am not afraid to punch you.
Bertrand Russell
1872-1970
I am sometimes shocked by the blasphemies of those who think
themselves pious-for instance, the nuns who never take a bath
without wearing a bathrobe all the time. When asked why, since
no man can see them, they reply: "Oh, but you forget the good
God." Apparently they conceive of the Deity as a Peeping Tom,
whose omnipotence enables Him to see through bathroom
walls, but who is foiled by bathrobes. This view strikes me as
curious.
An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish

Bertrand Russell, “An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish,” in Unpopular

Essays (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1950), pp. 86–87.
— A cow’s jumping over the moon.

— Something is causally impossible if and only if it

violates the law of nature.
— Something is logically impossible if and only if it
violates a law of logic.
— Law of noncontradiction.
 Argument and Evidence:
How Do I Decide What to Believe?

— Does the conclusion logically follow from the

other statements?

— Avoid the bottom-line syndrome

16
EVALUATING PHILOSOPHICAL CLAIMS
Evaluating philosophical claims is an attempt to find objective
reasons why we should or should not believe that the claim is
true.
Six criteria to evaluate claims:
1. Conceptual Clarity
2. Consistency
3. Coherence
4. Comprehensiveness
5. Compatibility with well-established facts/theories
6. Compelling arguments
Lawhead, p.37-38.
Conceptual Clarity

The terms and concepts that are expressed in a claim must be

clear.
‘The only thing in life that has value is pleasure.’

Lawhead, p.37-38.
CONSISTENCY

Logical inconsistency: two assertions that could not both be

true under any possible circumstances.
‘A is true and not A is true.’
Self-referential inconsistency: an assertion that implies that it
itself cannot be true, cannot be known to be true, or should not be
believed.
‘All opinions are false.’

Lawhead, p.38.
COHERENCE

An idea may not be explicitly contradictory, but parts of it can fail

to fit together very well.

Rene Descartes claims that humans are made up of a physical body

and a nonphysical mind and the two interact.

But it is not clear how physical and nonphysical entities interact.

Lawhead, p.38.
COMPREHENSIVENESS
A philosophy should make sense out of a wide range of
phenomena and should not ignore significant areas of human
experience.

A philosopher who claims that all knowledge is based on

sensory data but who fails to explain how we can have
mathematical knowledge.

Lawhead, p.38.
COmpATIBILITY

How well the hypothesis fit what we already

now.
ARGUMENT: MONTY PYTHON

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9PY_3E3h2c
ARGUMENT
Argument: is chain of reasoning wherein rationale
is put forward as justification.
An argument is a claim defended with reasons.

A good argument is one that provides good reason for

accepting its conclusion.

Arguments are composed of premises and a

conclusion.
argument

A premise is a statement in an argument that serves to provide

evidence for the truth of a claim.

A conclusion is the statement in an argument that the

premises are claimed to support or imply.

Lawhead, p.40.
STATEMENT
A statement is a sentence that can be viewed as
either true or false.

— Blue is a colour.
— Istanbul is in France.
— Abortion is morally wrong.
— Please send me your current catalogue.
— What time is it?
— Ayşe, you should quit smoking. Don’t you realise
how bad that is for your health?
Irwin Bassham & Wallace Nardone, Critical Thinking: A Student’s Introduction, McGrawHill, p.29-30.
argument

— Since light takes time to reach our eyes, all that we see C
really existed in the past.
C

— I think faith is a vice, because faith means believing a

proposition when there is no good reason for believing it. P

Irwin Bassham & Wallace Nardone, Critical Thinking: A Student’s Introduction, McGrawHill, p.36.
Identifying the conclusion

— Only things made of flesh and blood can think. Therefore,

computers can’t think.

— Unstated premise (enthymeme):

(1) Only things made of flesh and blood can think.
(2) Computers are not made of flesh and blood .
(3) Therefore, computers can’t think
ARGUMENT & NONARGUMENT

— Arguments are composed of premises and a conclusion.

TYPES OF NONARGUMENTATIVE DISCOURSE:

— Reports
— Unsupported assertions
— Conditional statements
— Illustrations
— Explanations

POOL
ARGUMENT & NONARGUMENT

— I drank water because I was thirsty.

— If the course is on a Thursday, the day after the course must

be a Friday.

— She must be at home. Her car’s in the garage.

— Government is legitimate. According to Hobbes, living

under government is better than living in a state of nature.
— Many of the world’s greatest philosophers were bachelors.
For instance, Descartes, Locke, Hume and Kant were all
unmarried.
DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
The arguments where the conclusion follows with logical
necessity from the premises are known as deductive
arguments.

Good reasoning requires both acceptable premises and a valid

logical form.

If the truth of the premises of a deductive argument can be

established, that leaves no room for doubt about the argument’s
conclusion. In such conditions the conclusion is said to be
proved.

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p. 220.

DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
— If we accept the initial premises, the conclusion must simply
follow.
(1):“Flowers smell nice, roses are flowers then roses smell
nice.”

To accept the premises and deny the conclusion would be to

fall into complete inconsistency.

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, pp. 218-9.

 DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
However, this is not true for every case.
(2):“Everything that smells nice are flowers and perfume smells nice
therefore perfumes are flowers.”
Does this sound right? What is the difference between the first and
second argument?
Why, in the first argument is the conclusion acceptable whereas in
the second argument it is not?

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, pp. 218-9.

REASONING AND ARGUING
In the first argument the premises are true.
“Flowers smell nice, roses are flowers then roses smell nice.”
In the second argument it is not true that “Everything that
smells nice are flowers.” there are other things that smell nice
not just flowers. There are flowers that do not smell at all.
Thus we can rely on arguments to the extent that their premises
are true.
The form of the argument is also important. So an argument
must have acceptable premises and a valid logical form.

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, pp. 218-9.

DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
Conditional Statement

Antecedent

If you study, then you will get good grades.

Consequent
DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
The two arguments that we mentioned are in the form of:

If p then q (p →q)
p p
therefore q ∴q

Any argument of this form is said to be logically valid, meaning,

if the premises of the argument are true, the conclusion must be
true.
This form of argument is known as modus ponens (‘affirming the
antecedent’)
Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p. 219.
DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
modus ponens (‘affirmative the antecedent’)
If p then q (p →q)
p p
therefore q ∴q

If Felix is a cat, then Felix is a mammal.

Felix is a cat.
Therefore, Felix is a mammal.

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p. 219.

 Monty Python Deductive Reasoning

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9PY_3E3h2c
 Monty Python Deductive Reasoning
(p ^ q) →q
p: witches burn
q: wood burns (p ^ q)

r: witches are made of wood. ∴q

p: wood does not sink (p ^ q) →q

q: A duck does nor sink (p ^ q)
r: A duck and a wood weighs the same. ∴ q

p →q
p: she weighs the same as duck
q →r
q: she is made of wood
r: she is a witch. ∴p →r
DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

Another type of argument that is logically valid is called modus

tollens (‘denying the consequent’). It’s structure is:
If p then q (p →q)
not q ~q
therefore not p ∴ ~p
modus
tollens
If Felix is a cat, then Felix is a mammal.
Felix is not a mammal.
Therefore, Felix is not a cat.
Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p. 220.
 DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
Hypothetical syllogism is also another type of argument that is
logically valid. It’s structure is:
If p then q (p →q)
If q then r (q →r)
Therefore, if p then r ∴ (p →r)

1. If P, then Q. 1. If I learn logic, then I will write better essays.

2. If Q, then R. 2. If I write better essays, then I will get better grades.
3. Therefore, if P,
3. Therefore, if I learn logic, then I will get better grades.
then R.
Exercise - 1

Either Moriarty was the murderer, or Stapleton was the

murderer. If Stapleton was the murderer, then traces of
phosphorous found on the body. No traces of phosphorous were
found on the body.

Whodunnit?

POOL

Irwin Bassham & Wallace Nardone, Critical Thinking: A Student’s Introduction, McGrawHill, p.54
 Exercise - 2
Seth, Maria, Antoine and JoBeth are college friends in the United
States who plan to spend a semester abroad.
They can study in China, Germany, Australia, Japan, England and
Canada.
• Seth is willing to go anywhere except Asia.
• Maria prefers not to go to a country South of Equator.
• Antoine wants to study in either Europe or Australia.
• JoBeth doesn’t care where they go, as long as it’s not England.

POOL
Irwin Bassham & Wallace Nardone, Critical Thinking: A Student’s Introduction, McGrawHill, p.54
INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
But there is another type of argument where the premises
provide evidence for the conclusion, but does not
guarantee it. We take a number of specific cases that we
experience and/or observe and generalise from them, this kind
of a reasoning is known as inductive reasoning.

Our basic expectations/assumptions about the world arise from

such reasoning.

“The sun will rise tomorrow.”

The sun has done so in the past, but this is not a foolproof that it
will rise tomorrow.

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p. 222.

Sherlock Holmes is known as the master of
deductive thinking. Is it the case?
INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
There are weaker arguments than “The sun will rise tomorrow.”
and it is highly likely that we might base our generalization on
examples that are not representative.

Inductive arguments tend to rely on what has happened in the

past to predict what will happen in the future. The underlying
assumption here is that the future will always be like the past.
But there is nothing to guarantee that this will be so.

No matter how strong the evidence, we can never have

complete certainty in inductive reasoning.

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, pp. 222-3.

INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
David Hume in his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding says
that:

All the objects of human reason or inquiry may naturally be

divided into two kinds, . . . Relations of Ideas and Matters of Facts.
On the first kind are the sciences of Geometry, Algebra, and
Arithmetic; and in short, every affirmation, which is either
intuitively or demonstratively certain. . . . That three times five is
equal to the half of thirty, expresses a relation between these
numbers. . . .

David Hume, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section 4, (1 & 2).

INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
Matters of fact, which are the second objects of human reason,
are not ascertained in the same manner; nor is our evidence of
their truth, however great, of a like nature with the foregoing.
The contrary of every matter of fact is still possible; because it
can never imply a contradiction, and is conceived by the mind
with the same facility and distinctness, as if ever so comfortable
to reality. That the sun will not rise to-morrow is no less intelligible
a proposition, and implies no more contradiction, than the
affirmation, that it will rise.
David Hume, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section 4, (1 & 2).
INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
Inductive arguments claim that their conclusions are likely or
probable given the premises offered.

— Every ruby so far discovered has been red. So, probably all rubies
are red.

— Five months ago I met a dentist from Ankara, and she was friendly.
— Four months ago I met a salesman from Ankara, and he was
friendly.
— Two months ago I met a teacher from Ankara, and she was
friendly.
— I guess most people from Ankara are friendly.
INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

— Because × =3 and y = 5, then x + y = 8.

— If it rains, the game will be postponed until next Saturday.

According to the Weather Services, there's a 90 percent chance of
rain. Therefore, probably the game will be postponed until next
Saturday.
FALLACIES
A fallacy is an argument that appears to be reasonable and thus
tends to persuade us, even though it is, in fact, a bad argument.

Fallacies can be divided into two: formal and informal fallacies.

Formal fallacies are the arguments that appear to have the form
of a valid argument, but in fact are deductively invalid.

Two known formal fallacies are:

‘affirming the consequent’

‘denying the antecedent’

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, pp. 224.

 FORMAL FALLACIES -‘affirming the consequent’

This argument looks like the valid modus ponens form “if p
then q; p; therefore q”. But it’s structure is

If p then q (p →q)
q q
therefore p ∴p
Example from RearWindow (Alfred Hitchcock, 1954):
If Jeffries's neighbour was a murderer, he would have a knife
and saw; he has a knife and saw; therefore he is a murderer.

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, pp. 224.

FORMAL FALLACIES - ‘affirming the consequent’
Jeffries's neighbour is a murderer (p)
Jeffries's neighbour has a knife and saw (q)

If p then q (p →q)
q q
therefore p ∴p

If Jeffries's neighbour was a murderer, he would have a knife

and saw; he has a knife and saw; therefore he is a murderer.

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, pp. 224.

FORMAL FALLACIES - ‘affirming the consequent’

1. If P, then Q. 1. If George Washington was assassinated, then he is dead.

2. Q. 2. George Washington is dead.
3. Therefore, P. 3. Therefore, George Washington was assassinated.
FORMAL FALLACIES - ‘denying the antecedent’

This fallacious argument looks like the valid modus tollens form
“if p then q; not q; therefore not p”. But it’s structure is:
If p then q (p →q)
not p ~p
therefore not q ∴ ~q
FORMAL FALLACIES - ‘denying the antecedent’

1. If P, then Q. 1. If Jones is a mother, then Jones is a parent.

2. Not-P. 2. Jones is not a mother.

3. Therefore,
3. Therefore, Jones is not a parent.
not-Q.
INFORMAL FALLACIES
Informal fallacies involve a problem other than the violation
of logical form.

We will evaluate three kinds of informal fallacies:

‘Informal fallacies of language’

‘Informal fallacies of relevance’

‘Informal fallacies of evidence’

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p. 224.

INFORMAL FALLACIES - ‘Informal fallacies of language’

‘Informal fallacies of language’ can arise from the lack

of clarity in way things are expressed.
The lack of clarity can be identified as:
1) vagueness

2) ambiguity and use/mention distinction

3) labelling and euphemism

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, pp. 224.

INFORMAL FALLACIES - ‘Informal fallacies of language’
1) Vagueness:

A vague term or claim is one whose meaning is not precisely

determined.

For example: “He is bald.”

What degree of baldness we are talking about is not always

clear.

When vague terms are used to persuade people, vagueness

undermines the argument.

Vagueness can mislead.

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, pp. 225.
Vagueness:

— Many
— Some
— Early (6 a.m.?)
— Hot
— Most
INFORMAL FALLACIES - ‘Informal fallacies of language’
2) Ambiguity:

Ambiguity refers to words that have more than one meaning.

For example: the word “bank” can mean “a river bank” or a

“financial institution.”

When a word is used ambiguously in an argument, and the

argument depends on that ambiguity, we have the informal
fallacy of equivocation.

Along with the failure to recognize ambiguity, lack of clarity

arises from the failure to observe the use/mention
distinction.
Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p. 226.
 Ambiguity
fallacy of equivocation
— All trees have barks. Every dog barks. Therefore every dog
is a tree.
— The sign says ‘fine for parking here.’
— The sign says parking is fine.
— Two wrongs don’t make a right, but three lefts make a
right.
use/mention

— Alice has five letters.

— “Alice” has five letters.
— Has Alice received 5 letters in the mail today?
— Or does her name have 5 letters in it?
INFORMAL FALLACIES - ‘Informal fallacies of language’
3) Euphemism:

Euphemism is the misusing the words.You label words

differently in order to maximize the effect.

By the use of euphemistic labels we replace words that might

come across as too harsh, painful or offensive and thus sanitise
what we want to talk about and promote.

It is used to hide, to protect and to cover up.

— Collateral damage Civilian death

— Challenge problem
— Terminate with extreme prejudice assassination
Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p. 228.
 Euphemism
To be Polite
— Big boned Overweight
— Economical with the truth Liar
Soften an expression

— Passed away Died

— Letting some go Firing Someone
Sarcasm

— Kick the bucket Die

— Blow chunks Vomit
INFORMAL FALLACIES - ‘Informal fallacies of relevance’
‘Informal fallacies of relevance’: the fallacy of using
premises in an argument that are irrelevant to the issue.

We will evaluate four kinds of informal fallacies of

relevance:

Ad hominem argument

Appeal to authority

Appeal to anger or pity

The fallacy of irrelevant conclusion (non sequitur)

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, pp. 229-31.

INFORMAL FALLACIES - ‘Informal fallacies of relevance’

Ad hominem argument: Instead of trying to disprove the truth

of what has been claimed, one attacks the person making the claim,
or the group to which they belong.

“I know that kind of people they are alll thieves.”

That face cream can't be good. Kim Kardashian is selling it.

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, pp. 229-30.

INFORMAL FALLACIES - ‘Informal fallacies of relevance’
Appeal to authority: to use improper appeals to authority to
support the conclusion.
— to appeal to an expert who is not an expert in the relevant
field.
— rely too heavily on authority and fail to take other
considerations into account.
If you accept the diagnosis of a stomachache on the expertise of a
dentist then you are committing an appeal to authority fallacy.
— After drinking eight beers, Jill claims she had a conversation with
Elvis's ghost. I've never known Jill to lie. So, I think we should
believe her.
— My hairdresser told me that there are lot's of mistakes in
Einstein's relativity theory. Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, pp. 229-30.
INFORMAL FALLACIES - ‘Informal fallacies of relevance’
Appeal to anger or pity: attempt to persuade people not
through reason but by arousing their anger in support of a
position or making them feel sorrow, sympathy, or anguish,
where such feelings are simply not relevant to the issue at stake.

“In a post 9/11 world . . .”

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, pp. 229-31.

Student to proffessor: I know I missed half your classes and failed all my
exams, but I had a really though semester. First my pet boa
constrictor died. Then my girlfriend told me She wants a sex-
change operation. With all I went through this semester, I don't think
I really deserved on F. Any chance you might change my grade to a C
or a D?Irwin Bassham & Wallace Nardone, Critical Thinking: A Student’s Introduction, McGrawHill,
INFORMAL FALLACIES - ‘Informal fallacies of relevance’
The fallacy of irrelevant conclusion (non sequitur):
arises when an argument purporting to establish a certain
conclusion in fact proves a different conclusion. The premises of
the argument and the hoped-for conclusion are then essentially
unrelated and the whole argument becomes logically irrelevant.

I read about a pitbull attack. Our neighbor owns a pitbull. My life is

in danger.

Thousands of tobacco farm workers will lose their jobs if

cigarette taxes are doubled. Therefore Smoking does not cause
cancer.

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, pp. 229-31.

INFORMAL FALLACIES - ‘Informal fallacies of evidence’

‘Informal fallacies of evidence’ involves inadequacies in

the evidence being put forward for the conclusion we are trying
to establish.

Common fallacies of evidences are:

Jumping to conclusions : accepting a conclusion as settled
before all the relevant evidence is established.

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p. 232.

INFORMAL FALLACIES - ‘Informal fallacies of evidence’
Begging the question: assuming as a premise the very
conclusion that the premise is supposed to prove. Like arguing
that something is true because it is true.
— Bungee-jumping is dangerous because it's unsafe.
— Paper is combustible because it burns.

Appeal to ignorance: supposing that if there is no evidence

against a certain claim, then this is a reason for believing that
the claim is true.
— There must be intelligent life on other planets. No one has proven
that there isn't.

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p. 232.

INFORMAL FALLACIES - ‘Informal fallacies of evidence’

The fallacy of false dichotomy: presenting a range of

alternatives on an issue that are merely assumed or are
misleadingly represented as exhaustive. As a result, the number
of possible alternative positions there might be on the issue are
unjustifiably restricted.

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p. 233-4.

INFORMAL FALLACIES - ‘Informal fallacies of evidence’
The fallacy of false analogy: if two things are similar in
some respects, they will be similar in other respects as well. If
properly used it might provide evidence for a claim but it does
not provide foo lproof evidence. The fallacy mainly arises if
there are significant differences between two things upon which
the analogy depends. Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p. 233-4.

Students should be allowed to look at their textbooks during

examinations. After all, surgeons have X-rays to guide them during
an operation, lawyers have briefs to guide them during a trial,
carpenters have blueprints to guide them when they are building a
house. Why, then, shouldn’t students be allowed to look at their
textbooks during an examination?'
https://www.thoughtco.com/false-analogy-fallacy-1690850
INFORMAL FALLACIES - ‘Informal fallacies of evidence’
Post hoc fallacy (‘post hoc, ergo propter hoc’ means ‘after
this, because of this): presuming that something that precedes
an event is the cause of that event, or that something which
comes after an event is caused by that event.
We may pray for the traffic lights to change, and they do
change, but this does not mean that our prayers brought about
the change.

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p. 234.

CLOSED THINKING
The fallacy of the irrefutable hypothesis or the fallacy
of invincible ignorance: involves a straightforward refusal
to consider evidence that is contrary to some cherished belief;
or we might interpret whatever evidence, even the most
hypothetical, that might be put forward to falsify a claim, in a
way that twists it into evidence for the claim.
This causes a closed, dogmatic, irrefutable system of thinking in
which everything we encounter seems to confirm our beliefs
and nothing can be put forward to call them into question.
Once such a thinking is established it is hard to change it.

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p. 235.

CLOSED THINKING
Karl Popper (1902-1994) thinks that such closed thinking can
also afflict perspectives that claim to be scientific. Such as;
— Some psychoanalytic theories that can provide a story to account for any
human behaviour, so it is not possible that any behaviour contradicts
these theories
For Popper, by closed thinking scientific theories gain
unfalsifiable certainty of religious faith. The problem with
these theories is their supposed ability to explain everything.
To people who hold these theories, this ability provides;
a) a sense of intellectual mastery,
b)the emotional sense of secure orientation in the world.
This is the attraction of closed thinking.
Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p. 238.
CLOSED THINKING
Fixed perspectives, unquestioned paradigms and closed thinking
imprison our understanding and also makes us intolerant to
alternative ways of thinking.
Critical evaluation shows;
1. The limits of the existing way of thinking
2. Inability of existing ways of thinking to deal with certain
facts and arguments
3. The possibility from escaping from the confines of existing
way of thinking
4. That there might be different ways of seeing things

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p. 239.

THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING CRITICAL
Two main roles of critical reflection are;
1. To weigh up beliefs and arguments, to ask
— whether there are good reasons for holding a belief or
position,
— whether reasons that are put forward to support them are
adequate or relevant,
— whether the arguments being presented conform to
principles of sound reasoning.
2. To question beliefs that have become closed and dogmatic.

Falzon; Philosophy Goes to the Movies, p. 240