Chapter 2 - Impediments to Critical Thinking PDF

Chapter 2: Impediments to Critical Thinking Category 1 Impediments: How We Think 1.​ Self-Interested Thinking​ ○​ Definition: Accepting claims solely because they align with personal desires, goals, or convenience. ○​ Mechanism: Driven by cognitive biases like confir...

Chapter 2: Impediments to Critical Thinking Category 1 Impediments: How We Think 1.​ Self-Interested Thinking​ ○​ Definition: Accepting claims solely because they align with personal desires, goals, or convenience. ○​ Mechanism: Driven by cognitive biases like confirmation bias (focusing on evidence that supports pre-existing beliefs) and motivated reasoning (rationalizing conclusions to fit emotions). ○​ Overcoming: 1.​ Actively seek disconfirming evidence. 2.​ Reflect on whether your interests are clouding judgment. ○​ Examples: 1.​ Climate Change Denial: A fossil fuel executive dismissing scientific evidence to protect profits. 2.​ Academic Overconfidence: A student skipping study sessions because they believe they "already know everything," despite poor past performance. 3.​ Health Choices: A smoker ignoring lung cancer statistics to justify their habit. 2.​ Peer Insight:​ ○​ Self-interested thinking often pairs with the sunk-cost fallacy (e.g., continuing a failing project because of prior investment). 3.​ Group Thinking​ ○​ Definition: Conforming to group opinions to avoid conflict, often leading to irrational decisions. ○​ Key Fallacies: 1.​ Appeal to Popularity: "Millions buy this product, so it must work!" 2.​ Appeal to Tradition: "We’ve always used coal energy; why switch now?" 3.​ Stereotyping: "All teenagers are irresponsible drivers." ○​ Examples: 1.​ Historical: The Salem Witch Trials (1692), where fear and group pressure led to false accusations. 2.​ Corporate: The Challenger Space Shuttle disaster (1986), where engineers ignored safety concerns to meet launch deadlines.  3.​ Social Media: Viral misinformation (e.g., "5G causes COVID") amplified by echo chambers. 4.​ Peer Insight:​ ○​ Groupthink thrives in hierarchical structures where dissent is punished. Modern algorithms exacerbate this by filtering opposing views. Category 2 Impediments: What We Think 1.​ Relativism​ ○​ Subjective Relativism: "Truth depends on individual belief." 1.​ Objections: 1.​ Self-defeating: If "all truth is relative," then relativism itself cannot be universally true. 2.​ Implies infallibility: If your belief is your truth, you can never be wrong. 2.​ Examples: 1.​ Moral debates: "Cheating is wrong for you, but acceptable for me." 2.​ Health myths: "I believe crystals heal cancer, so it’s true for me." 3.​ Historical revisionism: "The Holocaust didn’t happen for me." ○​ Social Relativism: "Truth depends on cultural/societal norms." 1.​ Objections: 1.​ Contradicts universal principles (e.g., human rights). 2.​ Justifies harmful practices (e.g., slavery in ancient societies). 2.​ Examples: 1.​ Cultural relativism: Defending female genital mutilation as a "cultural tradition." 2.​ Dietary norms: Eating dogs in some cultures vs. viewing them as pets in others. 3.​ Legal systems: Stoning as punishment in some societies vs. global human rights laws. 2.​ Peer Insight:​ ○​ Relativism challenges cross-cultural dialogue but can be countered by distinguishing between descriptive (what is) and normative (what ought to be) claims.  3.​ Philosophical Skepticism​ ○​ Definition: Doubting the possibility of knowledge, often by questioning the reliability of perception or evidence. ○​ Key Arguments: 1.​ Descartes’ Evil Genius: A hypothetical being deceives all sensory input. 2.​ The Matrix Hypothesis: Reality is a simulation. ○​ Objections: 1.​ Pragmatic Response: Absolute certainty is unnecessary; probabilistic reasoning suffices for practical knowledge. 2.​ Scientific Method: Skepticism drives inquiry but assumes observable reality. ○​ Examples: 1.​ Radical Skepticism: "Can we really prove the Earth is round?" 2.​ Historical Doubt: Denying well-documented events (e.g., moon landing) due to potential biases. 3.​ Conspiracy Theories: "Governments hide alien existence." 4.​ Peer Insight:​ ○​ Moderate skepticism is healthy (e.g., peer review in science), but radical skepticism paralyzes decision-making. Propositional Knowledge ​ Three Pillars: ○​ Belief: Mental acceptance of a claim (e.g., believing water boils at 100°C). ○​ Truth: Correspondence with reality (e.g., water does boil at 100°C at sea level). ○​ Justification: Evidence or rationale (e.g., scientific experiments). ​ Gettier Problems: Cases where justified true belief isn’t knowledge. ○​ Example: A broken clock shows the correct time twice a day. You glance at it at the right moment, forming a true, justified belief—but it’s still luck, not knowledge. Peer Insight: ​ Knowledge requires reliability (e.g., a working clock) to avoid Gettier-style luck. Course Assumptions 1.​ Objective Truth: Propositions are true/false independently of beliefs (e.g., "The Earth orbits the Sun"). 2.​ Attainable Knowledge: Justified true beliefs are possible (e.g., medical diagnoses based on tests). Study Strategies ​ Apply Concepts: Analyze news articles for fallacies (e.g., political speeches using appeal to tradition). ​ Debate Relativism: Is morality universal or culturally constructed? Use examples like genocide or free speech. ​ Challenge Skepticism: How much evidence is "enough" to know something? Discuss vaccine efficacy data. Peer Tip: ​ Use the SEEC Method (State, Explain, Example, Conclude) to structure arguments. Example: ○​ State: Self-interested thinking hinders objectivity. ○​ Explain: It prioritizes personal gain over evidence. ○​ Example: Tobacco companies hiding cancer research. ○​ Conclude: Critical thinking requires confronting biases. Key Takeaways: ​ Category 1 impediments stem from cognitive shortcuts; Category 2 from flawed epistemic views. ​ Examples bridge theory to real-world contexts (e.g., corporate scandals, historical events). ​ Critical thinking demands vigilance against both internal biases and external misinformation. 1. Types of Reasoning Deductive Reasoning ​ Definition: Moves from general premises to a specific conclusion. ​ Key Features: ○​ Validity: The conclusion necessarily follows if premises are true. ○​ Soundness: Requires validity and true premises.  ​ Example: ○​ Premise 1: All humans are mortal. ○​ Premise 2: Socrates is a human. ○​ Conclusion: Socrates is mortal. ​ Critical Thinking Focus: ○​ Check logical structure (validity). ○​ Verify the truth of premises (soundness). Inductive Reasoning ​ Definition: Moves from specific observations to a general conclusion. ​ Key Features: ○​ Strength: Conclusion is probable given the premises. ○​ Cogency: Requires strength and true premises. ​ Example: ○​ Observation: Every crow observed in Ontario is black. ○​ Conclusion: All crows in Ontario are black. ​ Critical Thinking Focus: ○​ Assess likelihood of conclusion (strength). ○​ Avoid hasty generalizations (e.g., "I met one rude French person → all French people are rude"). 2. Connecting Reasoning to Barriers ​ Deductive Reasoning vs. Relativism: ○​ Relativism undermines objective truth, making premise validation impossible. ○​ Example: A relativist rejecting "All humans need water" due to subjective truth claims. ​ Inductive Reasoning vs. Group Thinking: ○​ Groupthink leads to hasty generalizations (e.g., "Everyone invests in crypto → It’s safe"). ○​ Solution: Use inductive reasoning cautiously (e.g., analyze diverse data). ​ Skepticism & Soundness: ○​ Radical skepticism questions all premises, but sound deductive arguments require accepting some truths (e.g., "Water boils at 100°C at sea level"). Peer Insights & Examples ​ Deductive Fallacy: ○​ "All birds fly. Penguins are birds → Penguins fly."  ○​ Flaw: False premise (not all birds fly). ​ Inductive Strength: ○​ "10/10 patients recovered after taking Drug X → Drug X is effective." ○​ Weakness: Small sample size; no control group. ​ Relativism in Media: ○​ "My truth" narratives in debates (e.g., flat-Earthers dismissing scientific consensus).