PRINSIP BERPIKIR

ILMIAH :
Logika & Kesalahan Berpikir

1
 INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE OF CRITICAL THINKING

Time + Quality of Study

Logical Sequence:
• Situation Setting
(practical problems)
• research questions
Scentific Research • hypothesis (central
Trajectory argument)
• conceptual framework
(argument structure)

www.presentationgo.com

2
 TUJUAN PERKULIAHAN
Mengingatkan kembali
pentingnya “critical
thinking” dalam bidang
ilmiah & profesi


Mengingatkan kembali
elemen2 “critical
thinking” dan
“argument”

Mengenali “fallacy”
dalam berpikir ilmiah

MANFAAT CRITICAL THINKING

ACADEMICS PROFESSIONALS
• Langsung ke sasaran “straight • Clinical Judgment lebih
forward” “acceptable”
• Tidak berbelit-belit, mudah • Komunikasi professional,
diikuti sesuai kebutuhan pasien
• menghemat waktu, tidak • Evidence based
menyita energi
• lebih dipercaya /
minimal bias

www.presentationgo.com

Herkutanto, Critical Thinking 3

Program Doktor Fakultas Kedokteran
Universitas Indonesia

BAHASAN

1 Enam Moda (mode) / cara berpikir

2 What is Critical Thinking

3 Critical Thinking elements

4 Argumen dan Konstruksi Reasoning

5 Alur Pikir: Induktif vs Deduktif

6 Kesalahan Dalam Berpikir

(Fallacies)

1 ENAM CARA BERPIKIR

Herkutanto, Critical Thinking 4

 6 TOPI BERPIKIR

Edward de Bono, Six Thinking Hats, Little, Brown&Co,1999

• Netral - Obyektif
• speculative – positive
• Investigasi informasi
• menimbulkan semangat
• Data collecting
• focus on benefit – optimistic
• Is it a fact or is it a believe?
• constructive - generative
(unchecked fact)

• emosional - intuitif • creativity – new ideas

• tidak harus logis / konsisten • develop alternatives
• This is how I feel about this • invention
matter
• The hat of survival
• overview of thinking
• Cautious and Careful
• control of thinking - conductor
• Point out errors in thinking
• summary - conclusion
• CRITICAL THINKING
• broad minded

Herkutanto, Critical Thinking 5

 TEKNIK PENGGUNAAN 6 TOPI BERPIKIR
Single Use
• Menggunakan satu
cara (mode) berpikir
tertentu secara terus
menerus
• Monoton – dapat
membosankan bila
terlalu lama
digunakan
2 CRITICAL THINKING
Herkutanto, Critical Thinking
Sequential
Use
• Menggunakan beberapa
cara (mode) berpikir
secara silih berganti
• Lebih menarik bila
digunakan secara tepat
6
 Critical
Thinker
A critical thinker does not say: A critical thinker says:
“My thinking, as that of everyone else,
“My thinking is just fine. If everyone
can always be improved. Self-deception and
thought like me, this would be a pretty
folly exist at every level of human life. It is
good world.”
foolish ever to take thinking for granted. To
think well, we must regularly analyze, assess,
and reconstruct
thinking — ever mindful as to how we
can
improve it.”

“ berpikir kritis adalah

proses intelektual dengan melakukan refleksi

yang dipusatkan pada pengambilan putusan
tentang apa yang harus dipercayai / dikerjakan

Albert Einstein

7
 “ The art of thinking about your
thinking while you are thinking :
• more clear,
• more accurate, or
• more defensible.

Albert Einstein

LEARNING HOW TO DISENGAGE

YOUR EGOCENTRIC TENDENCIES
• your ego’s influence on your
thinking
Learning how to identify
• problem
s in
egocentr
ic
thinking

Learning how to combat Be more socio-centric

egocentric thinking

Learning how to

• socio-centric thinking
recognize • inappropriate emotions in your
thinking

8
 3 ELEMENTS OF
CRITICAL THINKING

Universal Intellectual Standards

CLARITY 01
07
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, nibh est. A magna
LOGIC 07 01 maecenas, quam magna nec quis, lorem nunc.
Suspendisse viverra sodales mauris, cras phare.

02
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, nibh est. A magna
maecenas, quam magna nec quis, lorem nunc.
Suspendisse viverra sodales mauris, cras phare.
ACCURACY

06
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, nibh est. A magna
BREADTH 06 02 maecenas, quam magna nec quis, lorem nunc.
Suspendisse viverra sodales mauris, cras phare.

03
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, nibh est. A magna
maecenas, quam magna nec quis, lorem nunc.
Suspendisse viverra sodales mauris, cras
PRECISION

05
phare. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, nibh est. A magna
DEPTH 05 03 maecenas, quam magna nec quis, lorem nunc.
Suspendisse viverra sodales mauris, cras

04
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, nibh est. A magna phare.

RELEVANCE
04
maecenas, quam magna nec quis, lorem nunc.
Suspendisse viverra sodales mauris, cras
phare.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, nibh est. A magna
maecenas, quam magna nec quis, lorem nunc.
Suspendisse viverra sodales mauris, cras
phare.

www.presentationgo.com

9
10
 Inference vs. Assumption

01 inference
• a step of the mind,is

• an intellectual act by which one concludes that

something is true

EXAMPLE
If you come at me with a knife in your hand, I
probably would infer that you mean to do me harm
02
Inferences can be
03 accurate or inaccurate, logical or illogical, justified
or unjustified. (tepat – masuk akal – dapat diterima

www.presentationgo.com

Inference vs. Assumption

• we take for granted or

assumption is something
presuppose.
• we previously learned and
do not question.

is part of our system of beliefs. (bagian dari • We assume our beliefs to be true and use
keyakinan) them to interpret the world
about us.
• If our belief is a sound one, our
assumption is sound.

Beliefs and assumptions can be • “Saya mendengar pintu di-cakar2. Saya

unjustified or justified membuka pintu agar kucing dapat masuk”(=
Inferensi )
• Inferensi tersebut didasarkan pada assumsi (prior
belief) bahwa hanya kucing yang menimbulkan
suara (cakaran) itu, dan bahwa kucing hanya
mencakar-cakar bila ingin masuk.

11
Different assumptions, different inferences
Observer One
• Situation: A man is
lying in the gutter.
• Inference: That man’s
in
a bum.
Observer Two
• Situation: A man is
lying in the gutter.
• Inference: That man is
need of help.

• Assumption: Only •
Assumption: Anyone
lying in the gutter is in
need
bums lie in gutters. of help.
Situation – Inference – Assumption
Evidence – Claim –
Reason Premise (minor) –
Conclusion – Premise (major)

Different assumptions, different inferences

Pandangan 1 Pandangan 2
• Situation: jalanan • Situation: jalanan
nampak basah. nampak basah.
• Inference: tadi malam • Inference: petugas
hujan turun. menyiram jalanan.
• Assumption: bila hujan • Assumption: bila petugas
turun maka jalanan basah menyiram jalanan, maka
jalanan basah
Evidence – Claim – Reason
Premise (minor) – Conclusion – Premise (major)

12
 PENGGUNAAN PRAKTIS ASUMSI

80% 60%

AKADEMIK PROFESI
Definisi operasional Pilihan trajectory patofisiologi
Literatur Rujukan penyakit pasien
Scientific guess

www.presentationgo.com

4 ARGUMEN & KONSTRUKSI

REASONING

13
 ARGUMENT

A form of thinking in which

certain statements (reasons)
are offer in support of another
statement (conclusion)

Premises + Conclusion

ARGUMENTS ARE INFERENCES

~ HIPOTHESIS

www.presentationgo.com
John Chaffee, Thinking Critically, 4th ed., Boston, 1994

KONSTRUKSI “SIMPLE REASONING”

WARRANTY

CLAIM REASONS
Evidences
QUANTIFICATION
Situation – Inference –
Assumption
Evidence
– Claim –
Reason

14
rogram Doktor Fakultas Kedokteran
Universitas Indonesia

CLAIM

1 Statement

2 Pernyataan

3 Penegasan tentang sesuatu

REASON

Alasan mengapa klaim yang

1 diungkapkan itu adalah benar

Harus ada hubungan kausal

2 dengan klaim

3 Membutuhkan Bukti
(evidences)

Herkutanto, Critical Thinking 15

WARRANTY

Menjamin bahwa hubungan

sebab – akibat tadi adalah valid,
1 sah (warrant = jaminan)

2 Merupakan “norma” yang “authoritative”

(referensi)
• Justifikasi Pakar / Peer
• Widely Acceptable

3 Merupakan Asumsi yang

Valid

QUANTIFICATION

Memberikan batasan sampai sejauh

1 mana hubungan sebab – akibat tadi
adalah valid, sah, dapat diterima

2 Ukuran Kuantitas

3 Dosis (dose-response)

16
 EVIDENCES

Suatu argument bisa saja valid, sah

dan masuk akal tetapi belum tentu
1 terjadi didunia nyata

2 Perlu didemonstrasikan bahwa

hal itu memang nyata terjadi

3 Merupakan hasil penelitian

(argumen itu ada buktinya)

RABIT RULE
The Rabbit Rule: every significant word, phrase or concept
appearing in the contention of a simple argument must also
appear in one of the premises.

Tidak boleh seperti tukang sulap yang mengeluarkan kelinci dari topinya

17
HOLDING HAND RULE
The Holding Hands Rule: every significant word, phrase or concept
appearing in a premise of a simple argument but not in the contention must
also appear in some other premise of that simple argument

18
 WARRANTY

CLAIM REASONS

WARRANTY

CLAIM REASONS

19
 KONSTRUKSI
“SIMPLE LEGAL REASONING”
Barang siapa dengan
sengaja menghilangkan
nyawa orang lain akan
dihukum

A dihukum 10 Th A menusuk B
Karena hingga mati dg.
membunuh B Senjata Tajam

Menghilangkan nyawa orang • B mati

lain dengan sengaja dipidana • A di TKP
max. 15 th penjara •Senjata

20
 KONSTRUKSI
“SIMPLE MEDICOLEGAL REASONING”
Tusukan Benda Tajam
Pada Dada Kiri
Menyebabkan Robekan
Jantung dan
Menimbulkan Perdarahan
Korban B Korban B alami
Meninggal akibat perdarahan dalam
kekerasan tajam rongga Dada kiri
• Luka pd dada
•kiri
Kekerasan tajam
Perdarahan lebih dari 20%
• perdarahan
akan menimbulkan
kematian

ARGUMENTS IN HEALTHCARE
🞕 Argument A1 = A further argument against
If it is believed that the patient has had a myocardial infarct giving aspirin may then be
Then we should administer aspirin introduced:
Since this will result in reduced platelet adhesion 🞕 Argument
Which will prevent blood clotting. A3
One might also construct a conflicting argument justifying If it is believed that the
an alternative action for realising the same goal: patient has a history of
🞕 Argument A2 = gastritis
So that administering
If it is believed that the patient has had a myocardial infarct Then we
aspirin
should administer chlopidogrel
Will risk gastric
Since this will result in reduced platelet adhesion Which
bleeding.
will prevent blood clotting.

21
 KONSTRUKSI
“SIMPLE MEDICAL REASONING”
Aspirin will result in
reduced platelet adhesion

we should administer aspirin will prevent

aspirin to myocardial blood clotting
infarct patient

Administration of x mg

• clinical signs
aspirin will result in reduced

•Lab findings
platelet adhesion

KONSTRUKSI
“SIMPLE MEDICAL REASONING”
clopidogrel will result in
reduced platelet adhesion

we should administer
clopidogrel to patient clopidogrel will
with myocardial prevent blood clotting
infarct

Administration of x mg

• clinical signs
clopidogrel will result in

•Lab findings
reduced platelet adhesion
22
 KONSTRUKSI
“SIMPLE MEDICAL REASONING”
administering aspirin
Will risk gastric bleeding

we should NOT
administer aspirin to patient has a history of
the patient with gastritis
myocardial infarct
Administration of x mg • clinical signs
aspirin will risk gastric bleeding •Lab findings

MEDICAL ARGUMENT

claim

contention

rebuttal

23
COMPLEX MEDICAL ARGUMENT

KONSTRUKSI “COMPLEX REASONING”

Reason 1a
Reason 1 Reason1b
CLAIM Reason 2 Reason 2

Reason 3 Reason 3a
Reason 3b
Reason 3c

24
 APLIKASI ARGUMEN

HARUS ADA PADA DISUSUN SEJAK AWAL

SINCE NEW
PRESENT

ENTRY
DISSERTASI Argumen meliputi alasan pendukung (reason) dan
alasan penyangkal (objection - rebuttal) serta
Argumen menjadi pola sentral bersifat dinamis sepanjang penelitian
berpikir

HYPOTHESIS ARGUMENT EVIDENCES

HARUS
DIBUKTIKAN

Argumen dapat divisualisasikan

ARGUMEN SEDERHANA - BUILDING
BLOCKS
Penelitian Laboratorium / lapangan
KOMPLEKS
Protokol / reproducible
Jenjang pendidikan yang makin tinggi menuntut
argumen yang semakin kompleks

www.presentationgo.com

5 ALUR PIKIR: Induktif

vs Deduktif

25
Deductive & Inductive Arguments
• Deductive Arguments
– Kesimpulan adalah implikasi dari premis
– Semua mhs FKUI menyukai musik jazz. Peserta S-3 adalah mhs
FK. Maka, semua mhs S-3 menyukai musik jazz.
• Inductive Arguments
– Kesimpulan adalah proyeksi dari premis
– Kita telah mewawancarai semua mhs FK UI program studi S1,
S2, S3, dan Spesialis. Seluruh mhs yg diwawancarai menyukai
musik jazz. Maka, semua mhs S-3 menyukai musik jazz.

INDUKTIF vs. DEDUKTIF

INDUKTIF
• Dasar: repetisi
• Sesuatu diangap benar
apabila terjadi ber-ulang2
• Bisa keliru (menganggap
benar), bila ada variabel
lain (yang tidak terdeteksi)
DEDUKTIF
• Dasar: koherensi
• Sesuatu diangap benar
bila premis2nya sahih
• Bila didebat dengan
pragmatisme (kenyataan)
jadi tidak nyambung
• Perlu evidence spy
nyambung

26
DEDUCTIVE

ARGUMEN INDUCTIVE
SENTRAL

William M.K.Trochim(2006)
www.socialresearchmethods.net

6 FALACIES
IN MEDICAL
SETTING

27
CRITICAL THINKING and FALLACIES
• Critical thinking also looks at common flaws in
arguments, which are also called fallacies.
• a fallacy is a technical flaw which makes an
argument unsound or invalid
• Arguments which contain fallacies are
described as fallacious. They often appear valid
and convincing; sometimes only close
inspection reveals the logical flaw.

FALLACIES
• Unsound arguments that are often persuasive
because they can appear to be logical, because
they usually appeal to our emotions and
prejudices, and because they often support
conclusions that we want to believe are accurate

John Chaffee, Thinking Critically, 4th ed., Boston, 1994

28
 Common Logical Fallacies
seven common types of fallacies:
• Strawman
• Ad hominem
• Red herring
• Appeal to ignorance
• Appeal to tradition
• Post hoc ergo propter hoc (false cause)
• False appeal to authority

Serge Dubé, Paul Gallina, MEDICOLEGAL OPINION : Critical Thinking and Reasoning, 2008

Strawman Fallacy
The arguer distorts an opponent's argument for the
purpose of more easily attacking it.
The strawman fallacy is committed when someone attacks a position
that is different (usually a weaker reconstruction) from, but similar to
the original argument. By refuting the different version, the original
argument is refuted.

Many people think that the health care system does not need more
money. If people would just stop worrying about every little ache and
pain and putting so much stress on the health care system with trivial
problems, we wouldn’t need more money. People need to get busy
and get a life. There isn’t enough money to provide every diagnostic
test for every patient.

29
Ad Hominem Fallacy
The arguer's post appeals to feelings or prejudices as opposed to logic. It also
occurs when an arguer moves a discussion to a personal level through
character assassination or personal attacks.
In an ad hominem fallacy, the source of the
argument is attacked, rather than the argument
itself.

I’m fed up with Dr. Quack’s medical theories about

fibromyalgia. I used to think that he had some valid ideas,
but he’s just another crackpot who hasn’t done his
homework. He talks a lot about patient care, but he’s just
in it for the money.

Red Herring Fallacy

the arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener by
changing the subject to some totally different issue.
Sticking to the topic of each individual folder will minimize
the impact of this fallacy.
MENGUBAH TOPIK PEMBICARAAN ...!

I’m tired of those people who say that we need to

put more money into emergency rooms. The
real problem is, what are they going to do about the
waiting lists for cancer treatment?

30
The Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy
This fallacy assumes in some mysterious way that
the absence of evidence that something is false
supports the claim that it is true.

I believe that post-traumatic multiple sclerosis exists

and I read current medical journals. No papers that I
read disprove it. Therefore, it must be true.

Often in difficult medical diagnoses, the absence of any

contrary evidence is used to support the original diagnoses.
This may or may not be legitimate. D/ per exclutionam

Fallacy of appeal to tradition/history

This fallacy assumes that because a

view or position has been held for many
years it is correct.

Since this treatment has been the traditional

approach for stomach ulcers, it must be right.

31
 Post hoc ergo propter hoc –
False Cause fallacy
The False Cause fallacy occurs whenever the link
between premises and conclusion depends on
some imagined causal connection that probably
does not exist.
Ms. Leblanc had a MVA and two days later experienced
severe back pain for the first time. I conclude the MVA
caused the back pain
Post hoc = hubungan kronologis
ergo = karena
Propter hoc = hubungan kausalitas

TAKE HOME MESSAGES

Credibility
Intelectually Acceptable
.

Sound Judgment
Clear and Precise

Fallacy Free
Bullet Proof Argument

Herkutanto, Critical Thinking 32

  
Tetapkan, apa klaim anda ..... Carilah “warrant” dan
Rumuskan, apa yang menjadi “quantification” yang digunakan
TUGAS alasan (reason) atas klaim yang
anda tetapkan ...
dalam argumen tersebut

Buatlah Argumen
Sentral Penelitian
Anda

Referensi Anjuran
• Eileen Gambril, Critical Thinking in
Clinical Practice – Improving the quality
of judgments and decisions, 2nd ed, John
Wiley& Sons, New Jersey, 2005
• Phillips C, (editor). Logic in Medicine.
London: BMJ Publishing Group; 1995.

33
 Selesai

Tugas : Narasikan dengan Bahasa anda

tentang pemahaman bahasan dibawah ini

34